The result was delete. Black Kite 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This 'article' is a complete mish-mash based on someone's personal judgment, with zero sources and no indication that the main contributor(s) would try to meet at least minimal criteria of quality and verifiability. As it stands, the article should best be deleted.
Some 'funny' examples:
- Forza Italia (right-wing and berlusconist party of Italy)
- Civic Democratic Party (oligarchic Czech right-wing nationalist-eurosceptic libertarian populism)
- Socialist-Revolutionary Party (socialist, non-marxist, anarcho-socialist, agrarian populism)
- Russia's Choice (oligarchic yeltsinist pan-slavist russian nationalist populism)
- Democratic Choice of Russia
- Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (ultranationalistic conservative semi-fascist totalitarian democrat populism)
- Our Home is Russia (statist yeltsinist russian nationalist populism)
- United Russia (a putinist version of Our Home is Russia)
- Democratic Party of Russia (liberal populism, popular democrat)
- People's Democratic Party/Social Democratic Party (Portugal) (originally reformist, social progressive social democratic popular democrat populism, now social conservative, social liberal humanistic version of christian democratic popular democrat populism)
- Democratic Social Centre/People's Party (Portugal) (conservative centrist-christian democratic classical liberalist inspired by the European Centre parties, turned into socialy conservative more christian democratic eurosceptic populism with the leadership of Manuel Monteiro, and into ultraconservative, neoconservative and semi-christian democratic, conservative classical liberalist/libertarian conservative populism since the leadership of Paulo Portas)
- Common Course (Anti-EU communist left-wing nationalist populism)
- Progress Party (Norway) (libertarian conservative, anti-tax/regulation)
--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I started adding sources to the article, so it wouldn't seem to be someones personal oppinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lususromulus (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the characterisations of the parties (added because of the various shades of populists that may exist)to more correct ones. And no one wrote "socialist conservative" (though this isn't impossile, study on Ferdinand Lassale's influence in socialist prussianism,ut I'm getting off the point), but the Janata Party had conservative, socialist and hindu nationalist fractions and that shoulde cleared to explain on its particular Popular Front for democracy form of populism. Oh, and yes, a politician may be populist in any party (like Jennings Bryan in the Democrats and Dubia in the Republicans but some parties are either populist since inception (Reform Party USA) or were turned into populist parties (Portuguese People's Party). And "finding populist parties is a hard work, because we have to distinguish the connotations (both positive and negative) of populism and look for real trademarks of the populist ideology/political philosophy" doesn't mean this list is OR, ut that this is oppen to discussion and any list of populist parties is not as certain as a list of Conservative or Socialist parties, so it is a warning to readers of the article into the still ongoing discussion on what is populism. And the hole List of populist parties#dificulties with identification section warns about this arguable condition, but the list should stay, at least with the least arguable exemples and maybe examples of texts who support the claim with other oneswho dispute it. Who thinks a less arguable discussion on what makesa party populist should be added to the Populism article as a subsection? And you are right aout PP, ut if you study the PP throughly you will see that ideological mishmash, ut the cites are more destined to prove claims of populism in each party and some specific nuances then the hole ideologic corpus of the parties (which would make it unecessarily huge). I limited the CDS-PP description to just eurosceptic populism with Monteiro (which is in the citacion 4) and to right-wing populism with Paulo Portas (refered in the respective citations). Lususromulus (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]