The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of populist parties

[edit]
List of populist parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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:

--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]

Your recent changes to the article show once again what's wrong with this article and your editing style here. Without giving any sources whatsoever, you introduce oxymorons like “People's Power Party (India) (semi-socialist mildly conservative and nationalist democratic populism)”. For another, even more nonsensical classification “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″ you've indeed added a source, which however says nothing of this 'ideological salad' it is supposed to 'prove'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, “[t]here are OR problems with some of the article” is not a right thing to say. The article is total OR with nonsensical classifications like 'socialist conservative' or 'classical liberal social liberal' introduced everywhere. This word salad has absolutely no encyclopedic value. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:02, 26 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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More