Talk:Right-wing populism

"Fascism", again? Discussion on whether or not this article respects WP:NPOV (currently not)

I would like to understand why in many pages on right-wing ideologies there are one or more references to fascism; for those who know the true meaning of fascism (the Italians, having experienced it), this is very strange. In particular, in the definition section there's a quote comparing right-wing populism with fascism; to me this doesn't seem like a good move, but I leave the word to other users. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Fascism is a right-wing populist ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: in reality, it's much more complicated than what you wrote. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No. It is not. Simonm223 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: right-wing populism isn't necessarily fascist.

Fascism is an authoritarian and totalitarian ideology that seeks to establish a dictatorial government with absolute control over all aspects of society. It often promotes extreme nationalism, racial supremacy, and the suppression of political opposition through violence and censorship.

Right-wing populism tends to be more moderate than fascism and typically focuses on anti-globalization, anti-immigration, and economic protectionism. It's more about appealing to the sentiments of the populace and challenging traditional political elites without necessarily seeking a totalitarian regime. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a whales and dolphins situation. Fascism is right-wing populism but not all right-wing populists are necessarily fascists. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Populism in general attempts to rally dissatisfied or marginalized people against the status quo and the perceived elite which they blame for it. The suppression of opposition tends to become an issue only after a populist movement comes to power. These movements do not necessarily aim at creating a totalitarian state, but they use similar tactics to obtain support. Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick: "These movements do not necessarily aim at creating a totalitarian state, but they use similar tactics to obtain support." Exactly, unfortunately some users are slightly confused about the difference between right-wing populism and fascism (sometimes more than "slightly confused"; I'm not referring to Simonm223). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@JacktheBrownyou have not made a case here to remove that material. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I encourage you to create a more intelligent response than "No it isn't", as this is unhelpful and narrow-minded. Please provide sources to back up your claim, and at the very least explain a tad more. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@ModernManifestDestiny: regarding "I encourage you to create a more intelligent response than "No it isn't", as this is unhelpful and narrow-minded.", you're completely right, but since they didn't do it with me I highly doubt they will do it with you. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh well. Leftists will be leftists. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fascism is not a right-wing ideology. It's a third column ideology. 188.2.26.183 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect, see Fascism#Position_on_the_political_spectrum. Third position typically refers to the debate between capitalism and communism, not right and left. — Czello ^(music) 13:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, this is unnecessary slandering of the right, the tone used in this article is ridiculously negative instead of impartial, and the comparison to fascism is akin to comparing progressivism/wokeism to Juche or the Khmer Rouge, which in all fairness might be a fair comparison, but I digress. That being said, Wikipedia is inherently biased toward the left, like most mainstream media is, so there's not much we can do. Ztimes3 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it seems better to ignore most of the paragraphs posted on this thread. It mostly seems to be headless back and forth "yes it is" "no it isn't".

Regardless, I feel it should be known that I removed the Vice News citation, as Vice is a left-wing source and is deemed unreliable/biased by most sensible people. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Being left wing is not grounds for removal of a source. WP:VICE indicates that there is not a consensus within Wikipedia regarding the reliability of Vice. Simonm223 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Also your deletion did not just remove the Vice reference but also a reference to the academic source the Oxford Handbook. Please do not replace good citations with CN tags.Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It's very clear there is not consensus to remove the Vice source. Would you care to discuss why you don't believe it to be reliable in this context? Please remember that bias is not a legitimate reason for removing an othewise reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an article that directly relates to politics that that very source goes directly against and calls "fascism", at the very minimum it is a poor source due to its heavy relation (and therefore inevitable bias).

Also apologies for removing the Oxford source, that was not my intention. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Vice article associating right-wing populism with fascism, alone, is not an indication of contextual unreliability. What do you mean by "its heavy relation"? Because, as I mentioned before, bias is not a basis for treating a source as unreliable on its own. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Vice really the sorry of source we should be using for these sort of claims? I'm sure something closer to a scholarly source could be found. Springee (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

^Exactly my point indeed ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, right wing populism is a HEAVILY researched topic, news article sources still remain at best poor sources, I'm sure there are scholarly sources about this. Consider citing something backed by real research and professionals, not just an obviously leftist newspaper. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point, it's like using Fox News as a source on an article about progressivism. We shouldn't be using leftist media to define a word so commonly used as slander against their political opponents. Ztimes3 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

How is the Oxford Handbook considered "leftist media"? DN (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Mate we were talking about Vice, please read the discussion. Ztimes3 (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Your analogy is wrong because it assumes the source of Fox News' unreliability is political bias. It is not. It's unreliable because of willingly publishing inaccurate news and eschewing corrections regarding inaccuracies. Vice has no such reputation. Simonm223 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not about political bias, this is about a news source reporting on something they oppose--they are naturally going to be negative about it. And I don't believe Fox News is a good example and here's why: Fox News is an unreliable partisan news source, known for endorsing fake news etc etc, A better example would be the reputable right-leaning news source 'The Daily Wire'.

Allow me to now redraw the scenario; If TDW wrote a story on "Socialism in America" (unrelated example), it would be skewed to a negative perspective, because TDW is a conservative news source, therefore TDW would be unreliable exclusively on the subject of Socialism in America, this does not mean that TDW itself is unreliable, just unfit to be used as a source for something they would be bias towards. This reasoning is interchangeable between any bias news source (and there is no such thing as an unbiased source).

Now apply this reasoning to our current situation. Vice News, a left-wing news paper, should not be used as a reliable source for Right-Wing populism, because their opinion will be skewed negatively towards it, because they oppose it. Specifically in this scenario that negative opinion is calling Trump a fascist.

Keep in mind, you are correct, Vice is a reliable source, however for this topic I would say no Vice is not an appropriate source. MMD † (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That's simply not how Wikipedia works. That might fly at Conservapedia. But here we don't do an ideological test for sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Also please review WP:DAILYWIRE - they are considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Curiosity: how many "right-wing" sources are considered unreliable, and how many "left-wing" ones? JacktheBrown (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are free to litigate the reliability of right-wing sources at WP:RSP noticeboard. Theofunny (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Also please review WP:DAILYWIRE - they are considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP."

That is why I say "This reasoning is interchangeable between any bias news source (and there is no such thing as an unbiased source).", I was aware you were going to disagree with me on if TDW is reliable or not, so I put in the fact that TDW is just an example, feel free to switch it out with another example. Regardless, please don't pull us off topic. MMD † (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not see how mentioning Conservapedia is relevant here, lets stay on topic. How is this an ideological test? Explain please. That just seemed like the logical answer, "if they don't like it they shouldn't be quoted on it", yes? MMD † (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In your example you're suggesting that the Daily Wire should be reliable but not for socialism because it has a vested interest in anti-communism. This isn't why Daily Wire is seen as unreliable. It's seen as unreliable because of "the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified." If it was not a publication that shared stories taken out of context or that did proper fact checking then its conservativism would be irrelevant even to topics of socialism. You have not demonstrated that Vice has problems with things like fact-checking or error correction, the things that WP:RS actually cares about. You just keep complaining you think it's too left-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

So, no, it is not compliant with Wikipedia policy to say "if they don't like it they shouldn't be quoted on it." It is, in fact, inimical to WP:NPOV to assert such a statement. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, I am not talking about the sources actual reliability overall, but their bias relating to the subject. I am aware you believe The Daily Wire is unreliable, but it was an example and you need to stop getting stuck on it, I'm not going to have a conversation about something completely unrelated. I am simply saying that if a source opposes something, it should not be quoted on said subject (no matter how reliable or unreliable said source is), because no matter how nonpartisan they are their opinion will still be skewed to their side.

I would think this would make this more related to WP:NPOV, considering Vice is likely to be bias in this department.

Not to mention that calling Trump a fascist is an extremely bold statement and should be backed by an academic, more official source. MMD † (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

No. You don't understand WP:NPOV. You're just wrong. Furthermore please point to where this article calls Trump a fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Please elaborate, saying "you are wrong" is not enough on its own (for obvious reasons), at the very least you should explain why you think I'm wrong and what you think is right.

The entire article is calling all right-wing populists fascist, its absolutely riddled with leftist commentary such as that. MMD † (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My bad, The Daily Wire is indeed a better example. Actually, another right-wing source that might work better for this analogy is the Boston Herald, which is conservative (and even endorsed Trump) but is ranked high on factuality. Ztimes3 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be the best option, considering Simon disagrees Daily Wire is reliable anyways. MMD † (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The Boston Herald is literally a tabloid. Please can you stop wasting people's time? Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Well. Considering apparently we are all complete idiots compared to you, perhaps you would like to actually contribute with a suggestion? Instead of just whining? MMD † (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is to WP:DROPTHESTICK over the presence of references to right-wing populism as having ties to fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Noted, and ignored. I will persist, I am not just going to give up because you want me to. I still await either an alternate example. This seems fruitless, if you cannot comprehend my example, which was made to be simple and easy to understand, how are we to discuss the actual articles issues? You only seem capable of saying counterproductive things such as "you are just wrong" and "that might fly on Conservapedia". I feel like I'm trying to have a debate with a particularly aggressive answering machine. MMD † (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Clearly this needs opening again, Robby.is.on, considering you still consider it within your rights to revert my edit. Allow me to restate and summarize. Vice is a bias source, WP:VICE does not verify it as a source, as there is "no consensus", which simply means it has not been reviewed. This in itself should be enough, as comparing the entirety of right wing populism to fascism is a very heavy accusation and really should be backed by an academic unbiased source. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

please read WP:YESBIAS -simply put bias, alone, is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

considering you still consider it within your rights to revert my edit. The revert didn't involve a source from Vice. The content you removed was sourced to the Oxford Handbook of Populism. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: then let's discuss it. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, fascism is best described a sub-set of right-wing populism. An academic description of that relationship is absolutely apropos. The two excluded quotes are both precisely that - academic accounts of the relationship between fascism and right-wing populism. Your removal appears to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: it's not that I don't like this dubious description, it's that it's out of place to refer to fascism on this page (but if Trump is portrayed by some academics as a fascist, then it's not surprising...). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this is what I, and Dimadick both told you. The relationship between right wing populism and fascism is significant and well-commented upon within academia. This has nothing to do with "orangemanbad" POVs or anything like that. It's simply the case that the reputable academic consensus treats fascism and right-wing populism as interrelated.

If anything, the very lively academic discussion of Trump has demonstrated that these interconnections are both real and quite nuanced with the majority academic position being that, while it's somewhat irrelevant to ask "is Trump a fascist", it is very much the case that Trumpism shares ideological traits with fascism and acts as a big tent into which fascists can enter mainstream politics. For example remember that Nick Fuentes was able to get time with Trump. This is all something of an argumentative cul-de-sac. This article is not about Donald Trump but is rather about a broad category of political ideology that includes fascism and Trumpism within it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations about that are in great majority sociologists and political acientists that are openly left wing.

It's funny how the article basically claims that the populist right wing are racists that don't want any immigrants, when I have almost never heard this claim from any european politician. Reducing an immigration that has been increasing a lot in volume is not racist.

Prefering to regularise refugees over competent migrants is a choice, and mostly unfair by these migrants that do everything by the book. 79.117.76.165 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

IP are you a new participant or did you forget to log in? Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

IP has referred to important issues; illegal immigration is completely wrong. Please give them more respect. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

IP is saying precisely your argument - I was wondering if you'd forgotten to log in. The IP's personal opinion about whether anti-immigrant rhetoric is de-facto racist is entirely irrelevant to this conversation and they show no understanding of WP:NPOV - the assumed politics of sociologists and political scientists is not at all relevant to their use as sources. You are, of course, welcome to present novel reliable sources that provide a dissenting view for us to review. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The rest of the IP's statement is firmly within WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Users of this encyclopaedia know my opinion on this topic, which isn't the same as the IP (I've never hidden myself behind an IP); IP has referred to very important issues, although they could have expressed themselves better, without attacking. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

While the two ideologies may not be the same, sources tend to group them together as ideologies to the right of traditional political parties. The main difference is that populists claim adherence to democratic institutions, but there are numerous similarities such as charismatic leadership, scapegoating, conspiracism, and nativism. TFD (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "While the two ideologies may not be the same, sources tend to group them together as ideologies to the right of traditional political parties." This is because most of the reliable sources in this encyclopedia are notoriously, although fortunately not seriously, left-wing. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

To most supporters of fascism and the extreme right, left-wing means anyone who does not support their views. However, their views are indefensible, so few if anyone supports them in reliable sources. Beliefs such as Germany losing WWI because they were stabbed in the back are unsupported by evidence and therefore cannot pass peer review for publication. TFD (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: it's also undeniable that all supporters of the extreme left label as "fascists" all those who don't completely agree with them: centre, right, and extreme right (for example, supporters of the extreme left like to label us Italians as "fascists" because, given that the most populated neighbourhoods of some world-famous northern Italian cities (Milan in primis) have become centres of crime by illegal immigrants, we believe that, as our government is already starting to do, there should be very strict controls on them). JacktheBrown (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This is very off topic. Please remember that this page is about right-wing populism, not editor's personal opinions regarding left-wing definitions of fascism and definitely not a forum for personal opinions regarding the cause of crime in Milan. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The off topic wasn't started by me: "Beliefs such as Germany losing WWI because they were stabbed in the back...". JacktheBrown (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This was describing an example of why many on the far right erroneously believe academia to be captured by the left. Your Milan comment, meanwhile, had nothing to do with this article nor to your complaint about source bias. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Continuing the off-topic discussion after previously requesting that we move back to the main topic is contradictory. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, lets stick to the topic. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

What people on the extreme left believe is irrelevant. We use the consensus of reliable sources.

Some right-wing populist movements, such as Meloni's, have fascist origins. As they have moved away from more radical stances, they are less likely to be called neo-fascist. But other right-wing populist parties, such as Reform UK, have no connection with historical fascism. Within the emergence of right-wing parties with no connection with historical fascism in the 1980s, the classification of neo-fascist has tended to be replaced with extreme right or far right in reference to their relative position in the political spectrum to the right of traditional right-wing parties. TFD (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The root of the movement is irrelevant, if most of the movement isn't fascist don't slander it. Wikipedias biggest weakness is it's use of leftist publications while barring the use of right publications showing they have absolutely no consistent rules as to the bias of those writing articles. If you use Vice you should allow the use of Fox News as a source otherwise it's compltely unfair, neither are academic sources in any case so everything they write should be taken with an obvious pinch of salt and subject to doubt as an accurate source. 2A00:23C6:95E3:A900:598D:EB62:742D:235F (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about what you think is fair. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Then why have any rules? You also didn't address any of my actual arguments. 2A00:23C6:95E3:A900:CDEC:53C4:C62D:81B2 (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

How are you even able to comment? You page shows that you have been blocked for BLP violations and vandalism! Theofunny (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a random IP and I do not vandalize! The only contributions I have made are those listed in April 12 2025, nice try detracting from the topic though. 2A00:23C6:95E3:A900:7D99:DCC4:DCCD:96BE (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Nice try to mislead though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A2A00%3A23C6%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F32&type=block Theofunny (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant to this discussion and is your personal opinion. I being centre-left to centre-right would also not consider Meloni a fascist but I don't understand how Italian politics is relevant here. Theofunny (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I second this. MMD † (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is discussed on Talk:Fascism/FAQ; while of course that applies to Fascism, the same sourcing and arguments in the numerous discussions there all apply here. See also the large citation bundle at Fascism itself. Fascism is one of the most impactful, iconic and heavily-studied right-wing movements of the 20th century; it is natural that it would get major coverage on articles about the political right. For cites specifically useful for this article, see eg. --Aquillion (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  I propose that editors here to simply complain about the connection between fascism and Right-wing populism start observing WP:NOTFORUM and consider their victim cards punched. DN (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would say it is a relevant discussion, actually. start observing WP:NOTFORUM and consider their victim cards punched. I would advise you to assume good faith, but I am more critical of your use of WP:NOTFORUM as there are relevant concerns expressed in this discussion and you are just spitting out WP's like their some sort of magic spell or special attack. I would have to refer you to WP:UPPERCASE and WP:RAP (just so I am not a hypocrite, RAP: "rules are principles"). Ztimes3 (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  We're all very tired of fielding the same questions regarding source reliability and the legendary left-wing bias of Wikipedia a dozen times a week. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 I should remind you that Wikipedia is a volunteer position, feel free to simply not participate. MMD † (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I second that. Ztimes3 (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I should remind you the left-wing bias of Wikipedia is not "legendary" as you claim, it is very real, not to mention the claim being backed by Larry Sanger, who knows a lot more about Wikipedia than you do. MMD † (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly, and I would add that it's certainly a poor attitude to label all criticisms, especially when they're numerous ("a dozen times a week"), as not worthy of attention. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  So basically, you have issues with Wikipedia at large. This is also the textbook use of WP:CHERRY and Wikipedia's alleged bias completely out of the scope of this discussion and Larry Sanger never discusses the "left-wing bias of Wikipedia" in the article that you cited. I do not have access to the paper in your "very real" claim but I am not sure if that mentions leftism too. Theofunny (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Mind you I was not the one who started this discussion. I believe my first source is behind a paywall or at least a login, but that does not discredit it. Even if the second article doesn't explicitly mention it, it is common knowledge that Sanger is against Wikipedia because of it's leftist bias. MMD † (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also I do not see why you choose to use excessive quotes, I am aware of what I said, it just looks a lot like scare-quoting. MMD † (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  The leftist bias of Wikipedia discussion might be more suited in the talk of Ideological bias on Wikipedia - Wikipedia. Theofunny (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I just checked that Larry Sanger is a noted right wing critic of Wikipedia who left it its early days (2002), has been involved with Wikipedia competitors and has criticized Wikipedia for its "liberal bias" such as labelling Trump's false statements as false, calling homeopathy "pseudoscience", considering Daily Mail and Fox News unreliable, and for articles like Intelligent Design. Again, it's your personal view that he is very knowledgeable and more reliable than Sinomm23, and it doesn't prove anything in this discussion. I can atleast assure you that I am not a part of the "criminal bodies, as well as by corporations and governments" that he says has taken over Wikipedia. Theofunny (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia, he is going to know more about Wikipedia than Simonm23. That is just basic analysis of experience. MMD † (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  "he is going to know more about Wikipedia" Are you serious? Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in March 2002, less than a year following its foundation. We have plenty of editors who put way more effort on the project than Sanger ever did. And most of Wikipedia's rules were set in place after Sanger's departure. Dimadick (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am not going to debate about whether Larry or Simon is more knowledgeable on Wikipedia. If Simon believes he is better than Sanger, that is an ego problem that needs to be solved internally. MMD † (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly, just because the co-founder is a critic of the website doesn't mean he's inexperienced, but remember that, in any discussion, it's necessary to respect WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA, even if (as in this case) you're provoked by other users. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. We have spent too much time discussing irrelevancies anyhow. MMD † (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Larry Sanger is quoted in your source as saying that Wikipedia provides a “reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything.” (I presume by leftist you mean establishment.) But that's ingrained in policy, which he opposes. This is not the place to argue about policy, just whether the policies are correctly applied. TFD (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Again I am not the one who brought up the topic of Leftist bias on Wikipedia, Simon brought it up by saying it was a "legend". MMD † (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  I second @Ztimes3 points. MMD † (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Different articles for "right-wing populism" vs "national populism"? (+ Bolsonaro or Modi would be a better article image than Milei)

Should "right-wing populism" and "national populism" have separate pages? Javier Milei and Trump/Kaczyński/Orbán/Meloni are obviously very aligned on the left-right spectrum, but if term even roughly synonymous with "nationalist" includes someone as Javier Milei, an anarcho-capitalist, something needs to be seriously edited.

(In addition, I think Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil or Narendra Modi of India is a far better fit among the other four in the title image. Again, Milei is very much aligned with Trump/Kaczyński/Orbán/Meloni (and Bolsonaro/Modi) in terms of right-wingness, but I reiterate my earlier point about nationalism/Milei's ultra-libertarianism.) 49.204.117.133 (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Because what you've said above is a fantasy unsupported by reliable sources. Seriously, no reliable sources suggest Trump or Orbán is left-wing and your misinterpretation of Anarcho-capitalism is also unsupported by RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

First person here (in a different country now). You've misunderstood my point. Milei, Trump, Orbán, and the rest of the names mentioned are all very much right-wingers. What I was saying is that Milei, because of his ideology, wants to get rid of government entirely, and the rest of them, because of their ideology, have generally expanded the role of government since they've taken office.

All of the people in the image are right-wing populists, but I think the type of right-wing populism that makes you want to expand the role of government and the type of right-wing populism that makes you want to get rid of government entirely are two distinct things and should be labelled as such.

Looking back, removing Milei from this article's image was unnecessary, but I still believe we should give "national populism" its own article and distinguish it from Milei's style of right-wing populism. 49.204.143.191 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that would make such a distinction or is this WP:OR? Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Article images

Hi, I would just like some feedback on the collage I made.--Deva1995 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it looks good, but it appears that someone removed the names of one of the subjects of those images in a recent edit. 1101 (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we remove Modi and Mileli from the collage

In Developing and less developed countries, 'right wing popupulisum' is fully brushed aside when looking at things like ecanomy, and goverment spending, who people are direcrly affected by. E.g. India had center-left congress for very long time before moving to BJP for ecanomic reasons(inequality and corruptioon decreased signficnatly in this peroid), right-wing left-wing politics pretty much didn't have anything to do with this Chasity Tea (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You would need remarkably high-quality reliable sources for this claim. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)