Talk:Right-wing populism

Section on Right-wing populism in the UK

None of these sources are opinion pieces; nor is there any reason to believe anything they're saying is disputed; nor is there any reason to think their perspectives are marginal. The sourcing for this section is higher-quality than the rest of the article, at this point; no valid reasons have been given to entirely remove it. If someone thinks there are better ways to word it, propose alternate wordings; if they think there are other sources that disagree with those, indicate them. But we have decent academic sources backing every point, sometimes multiples for key points, all of them stating these things as simple fact; it would be inappropriate to represent this as mere opinion, let alone to remove it entirely when it is so well-cited. I could understand tagging or rewording, but the sweeping way the entire section has been removed multiple times is baffling - these are entirely unexceptional statements cited to high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

They are the subjective opinion of their authors, and not incontrovertible fact, and WP:YESPOV is clear, Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

These are not subjective opinions; rather, they are evidence-backed analyses that elucidate a political phenomenon in the UK. Your assertion is incorrect. 92.1.168.50 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes from the Popple piece cited from Populism, Democracy and Community Development that you think supports In the Conservative Party, Thatcherism had right-wing populist elements, including nationalism and social conservatism as an incontrovertible fact then. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable summary of the chapter as a whole, but if anything it honestly downplays the source's conclusions, particularly by omitting race and class. The source says that The right-wing populism that Thatcher fed on was typical of approaches by such leaders; it had signifiers primarily based on race and class, and where people and communities were turned against each other and, in its conclusion to the section, that ...we can see that through the years a racist discourse has been a strong element in right-wing British populism. From Oswald Mosley’s 1930s anti-Semitic oratory and leading marches of his ‘Blackshirts’ followers through communities where Jews lived, to the anti- immigrant racial superiority rhetoric of Enoch Powell, and then Thatcher’s use of terms such as ‘swamped’ in regard to non-white immigrants, we can identify powerful threads of excluding people on the basis of skin colour, and differences in culture, language and religion. Non-white immigrants were presented as unwanted and harmful, although any referenced understanding of how capitalism operates shows that a country’s immigrants have provided a powerful engine for economic and social change and a valuable resource in the labour market. The 'swamped' quote is emphasized in a similar way in Tournier-Sol, which says that The authoritarian conservatism of Thatcher allowed her to occupy the political space which had been left to the National Front in the 1970s. Her famous declaration in the run-up to the 1979 general election testified to the repositioning of the Conservative party: “People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture. (…) If you want good race relations, you have got to allay peoples’ fears on numbers. (…) We do have to hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration.”. I suspect that "nationalism" in our article is being used as a more nuanced way to say "anti-immigration" (especially, as the first source says, opposition to the immigration of nonwhites), in that context. We could reword it to reflect those sources more closely rather than summarizing, I suppose. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the additional term "social conservatism" is not supported by the sources cited, and that one of their sources McSmith 2013 gives her a mixed record on policies and rhetoric that would be considered socially conservative. The significant ones are in race-baiting and nationalism, which I think is adequately expressed by the term "nationalism", especially in the context of "right-wing populism". (Keep in mind McSmith makes serious omissions in this piece to paint Thatcher in a worse light, particularly on unemployment numbers.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the summarising of subjective opinions is fraught with the danger that the summarising author's own opinions and agenda will influence the summary too. That is even more reason to avoid trying to present these sources as support for controversial assertions of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinions, even of academics, do not support assertions of facts. That is straightforward logic. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

So digging down a bit, we find that the Mamonova and Franquesa source used to support this, in which the only paragraph discussing Thatcherism is introduced as their "third argument" (i.e. personal opinion), relies on, what they call an "interpretation of the rise of Thatcherism" (so 'interpretation', i.e. personal opinion) from a book by Stuart Hall. And Hall is described in their Wiki article as a "Marxist sociologist, cultural theorist, and political activist". Hence we are asserting the personal opinion on Thatcherism of a Marxist sociologist, cultural theorist, and political activist, in Wiki's voice, as if fact.

That is unacceptable in many ways, including the gross WP:NPOV violation I mention from the WP:YESPOV section above. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you believe the section of the Mamonova and Franquesca source to which you refer is personal opinion? Why do you think the Stewart Hall monograph is offering a personal opinion? Are you aware of any competing RS account of Thatcherism that conflicts with Hall's, in some way that is relevant to this article? We are not supposed to present undisputed characterizations of facts or historical figures as attributed opinions, which is what you seem to be proposing here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

These are subjective opinions, there is no black and white with these characterisations and categorisations. I'm not proposing we include them at all, I'm proposing we remove them as failing WP:NPOV, at least. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no "bright line" distinguishing "subjective opinions" from "facts". In general, observations about which WP:HQRS are in universal agreement must be presented in wikivoice - to do otherwise would be the NPOV fail, and seems to be what you are proposing in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't state the observations as facts, it credits them as their "third argument" (i.e. personal opinion) and a supporting source as an "interpretation of the rise of Thatcherism" (i.e. more personal opinion). That doesn't sound like there's "universal agreement" on this to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

First, please list and preferably link to the specific source being referenced, along with the page number to which you are referring. At a certain point if it's too much of a hassle to figure out what you mean, people will just ignore you. Second, Marxist sociology is a quite common method in sociology (as well as literary, art, and cultural criticism, among many other things). It's independent of, and does not imply the sociologist/critic is sympathetic to, Marxist politics. Third, your logic is odd: unless source A is directly quoting without qualification from source B's statement of opinion, there is no transitive property relating source A to B. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There is only one Mamonova and Franquesca source currently cited in the article:

• Mamonova, Natalia; Franquesa, Jaume. "Populism, Neoliberalism and Agrarian Movements in Europe. Understanding Rural Support for Right‐Wing Politics and Looking for Progressive Solutions". Sociologia Ruralis. 60 (4): 710–731. doi:10.1111/soru.12291. ISSN 0038-0199..

It is that one. The bit about Thatcherism is on page 716. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You missed the second part of YESPOV, which says that Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. These are uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by multiple high-quality academic sources (most of which are in fact secondary in the sense that they cite other sources, themselves, for the points we're using them for.) If you want to argue that they're contested or controversial, you have to demonstrate that, not just assert it; part of the purpose of WP:WEASEL is that we shouldn't downgrade things that the sources state as fact to mere opinion just because an editor disagrees or dislikes their conclusions. I spent a bunch of time digging up additional sources for every part you initially objected to; if you don't think they're good enough to use for statements of fact, or if you have some other issue with them, you at least need to be specific as to why - dismissing them as opinion without a more clear basis for that characterization is just indicating your personal disagreement with them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't apply here because we are talking very subject political notions here, not facts. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

💀 92.1.168.50 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if you think that these are subjective, the best sources we have available at the moment disagree, and we have to go by the sources rather than your personal opinions; otherwise every part of every political article would have to be stated as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources convey the views of the academics, nothing more. There are no proven findings, just as you might find in scientific research, just subjective interpretations of events and situations. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you get consensus for such comically unfortunate commentary, then maybe 92.1.168.50 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you've resorted to disruptive editing now, by removing valid tags before the problem is resolved. What makes you think that the opinions in those cherry-picked sources can be asserted in Wiki's voice as facts? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it pointless to argue with you 92.1.168.50 (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

E.C.: Please detail which sources you object to, or which are inconsistent with their respective main articles, in the reverts on UK populists. Almost all are academic sources that cover in explicit detail the topic populism in the UK. The sources themselves cite sources which are about the subjects and/or populism in the UK. (E.g., These are not throwaway blurbs by nobodies on articles about unrelated topics. Kenny & Ife, cited for Thatcher, themselves cite among others McSmith's 2013 retrospectives on Thatcher.) There are good uses of sources and bad uses of sources, and on reviewing this is not the latter. The main biography articles are the places to amass citations to further such points -- we don't need 5 citations for each person on this article if one or two good citations do the job. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

REDFLAG applies. Compare the wording in this section with that for Canada: "In recent years, right-wing populist elements have existed within the Conservative Party of Canada and mainstream provincial parties and have most notably been espoused by [various politicians]."

There is no universal consensus that the U.K. Conservative Party, Thatcher and Johnson are/were right-wing populists, just that they have incorporated elements into their campaigns and policies.

A similar phenomenon has occured among other mainstream right-wing parties, for example in the U.S., Canada and Australia. Are they also right-wing populist parties? If so, the article should discuss this as a whole, rather than at the country level. TFD (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the sourcing and our article say that the U.K. Conservative Party has a right-wing populist faction, that some of its policies have right-wing populist elements, and that some of its prominent members have been right-wing populists, not that it the entire party is a right-wing populist party. That statement is entirely anodyne and unexceptional - I'm baffled that you'd suggest it could be considered REDFLAG; is your assertion that any statement that anyone is on the political right now somehow exceptional? I absolutely do think there's academic consensus that Thatcher and especially Johnson were right-wing populist politicians - the objection to Johnson is particularly bizarre; he's perhaps one of the most iconic right-wing populists in recent politics and is regularly discussed in-depth in academic papers about right-wing populism as a whole. We're not calling them far-right here; the term is a neutral, uncontroversial, and unexceptional academic description of their political style, backed by multiple high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing what the source (Karine Tournier-Sol) said with the text. She wrote, the Conservative Party "gradually repositioned itself as a radical right populist party."

See The Populist Radical Right' by Cas Mudde (2016). "The most important parties that are excluded from this analysis, but some other authors include, are...United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the United Kingdom. All these parties share some but not all of the three core features that define the populist radical right party family.

"In most cases the debate is over the question of  whether nativism (most often anti-immigrant sentiments) is ideological or opportunistic, i.e. used only strategically in election campaigns. I exclude the following parties because nativism is not a core feature of their party ideology...UKIP."

The book does not describe Thatcher or Johnson (who was not yet PM but whose politics were known) as rw populists.

I think that classifications of right-wing parties is more likely to raise REDFLAG issues because, as Mudde explains, "Given that no party self-identifies as populist radical right, classification is up to scholars." Saying that the Liberal Party of Canada is a liberal party in comparison is relatively straightforward. TFD (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: The IP involved in some of the above conversation has been blocked for block evasion. I have struck their comments per WP:BANREVERT. Pinging Aquillion, DeFacto, SamuelRiv, Newimpartial & The Four Deuces for information as you were involved in the above conversation in which the IP took part. A smart kitten (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring/OWNership/improper removal of content by User:SamuelRiv

Hello, I believe that SamuelRiv's revisions are improper. He has repeatedly removed SOURCED content, by multiple editors. After the first time, he removed sourced content, I added more sources. He reverted those too. He also seems ignorant of rather basic facts, such as that "globalism" and "new world order" are rather synonymous. pbp 04:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review my edit summaries, in which I make always make a point to give my complete reasoning. Every novel statement of fact and substantial qualification in your prose must be supported directly by the in-line references. Please review verifiability, the bare minimum standard for inclusion of material.

Furthermore, when I remove content that fails verification, I note in the edit summary that you can provide an exact page/section number and quote if I missed it. If instead you cite additional sources, incompletely listed without links or authors, and 70+ pages, it appears to me as if your response to being asked for verifiability is hostility. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Dude, it's sourced! You haven't provided enough justification to remove 2K+ of texts, including several citations, and edit-warring to do so. Instead of removing whole chunks of texts, you should have come here FIRST, BEFORE removing anything that HAD A CITATION, and explained the SPECIFIC CLAIMS YOU WERE OBJECTING TO. You could've used the CN tag instead of removing large chunks of (and let me say this again) SOURCED text. It's also pretty clear to me that you haven't ACTUALLY READ the citations you're removing, at least not the preponderance of them. Just because you're too dense and hasty to find it in a 5-second search doesn't mean it's not there. And, yes, I AM a little bit pissed at you, because you're not assuming good faith towards the edits and you're coming off as trying to take OWNership of this article. For example, above you assume that I don't understand verifiability (a policy, which, I might add, does NOT require specific page numbers for anything) pbp 05:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In response to other messages: I review every source I remove. In this case all I had to do (after finding it because you didn't provide links) was ctrl+f for the novel key words. Prose follows sources, and the WP:BURDEN is on the editor challenged to show verifiability, the minimal standard. (After that, we can talk about reliable sources -- you can't use a NYT opinion piece unattributed, for example.)

When something is likely uncontroversially accurate and likely verifiable and WP:DUE, I will tag rather than remove it. This text was on inspection, and upon checking the sources, none of those things. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv: that's not really thorough enough to say you "reviewed it". You more or less have admitted you DIDN'T READ THE CITATIONS YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE REVIEWED. You haven't even explained what novel key words you used, and I'm not even sure you used the correct novel search terms. You haven't really even listed the claims you believe to be controversial and thus requiring a source, and, until you do, I can't really take you seriously. Again, a half-assed Ctrl+F job isn't justification to remove 2K+ of text that sources. I'm not even sure you've even READ THE CITATIONS I added, because the NYT thing I added was fully attributed. pbp 05:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

To this and above: If it's in the sources, you have to point me to the location precisely. It is completely unfair to respond to a failed verification removal by adding 70-page source and expect me to do anything other than a ctrl+f. (And that's a courtesy -- your thesis advisor wouldn't even review such a source if you presented it to them in that way.) I address NYT above. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't explained what statements you find controversial, so how the hell can anybody point you in the right direction? I might note that verifiability doesn't mean "cite everything", it means "cite everything CONTROVERSIAL". You haven't explained the SPECIFIC STATEMENTS you find controversial (let alone WHY you find them controversial), and this now is the second or third time I've asked you to. And frankly, unless you explain what SPECIFIC statements you want cited and what SPECIFIC terms you looked for in the sources, we shouldn't take anything you say seriously, you should be reverted and move on.

Also, FWIW, I already have a Master's Degree, I got it in 2014, so you can take your little snark about thesis advisor and shove it. pbp 05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:Verifiability. (Note this is a minimum standard -- sources must also be reliable and material must be WP:Due, among other things.) Among other things, every wikilinked term in the deleted text must be explicitly supported; "frequently" as a characterization must be directly supported; any connection of WJB, and separately any connection of the Populist Party (not its policies -- the party itself) to right-wing populism must be explicitly supported (i.e. it must be related by the source itself directly to the article topic, or else it is at best WP:SYNTHesis). SamuelRiv (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

While I won't vouch for their demeanor, it is possible some of these citations might be in order. I see no issue with requesting attributions or asking for help in finding the context that relates to the issue at hand. The one part that concerns me is...

• The Republican Party (United States) is a big tent party that includes right-wing populist factions.

While the GOP may have been a "big tent" party until recently, many experts now seem to say that is no longer the case. I looked through most of this citation and could not seem to find the context it refers to, though it may quite possibly be present somewhere in the wall of text. Full disclosure, I do not have a Masters degree. Cheers. DN (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I have several problems with SamuelRiv's approach. Among them, 1) He refuses to accept any paper citations, only online ones (and that's contrary to policy), 2) It took multiple tries for him to actually explain on the talk page which portions of the removed text he found controversial, 3) He hasn't explained what terms he searched for and didn't find in the sources, 4) he didn't look through the sources thoroughly, removing them after a hasty "ctrl+f" job, 5) he's essentially edit-warred because he's reverted multiple DIFFERENT edits with different levels of sourcing, 6) I question whether he examined at all the sources he removed in his last edit, and 7) he's assuming bad faith and talking down to me. pbp 12:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review ONUS. SamuelRiv has stated the problem, in their view the claims fail WP:V. Since you disagree the next step is to provide page numbers and if needed the specific passages that support the claims. Also, please keep a civil tone. I suspect much of this is just frustration and venting but it's always easier to come to a mutually equitable solution when all people remember to use a civil tone. Springee (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: Please take a look below at what I've said about a couple of the passages and sources in question and let me know if I have addressed ONUS. Also please note that I think Sammy's claim that they fail WP:V is built of a rope of sand; I don't believe he did due diligence before removing large passages of SOURCED content. In some cases, I believe the sourcing was there; he just wasn't able to find it because he half-assed looked for it. pbp 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: @SamuelRiv:: Consider this article by National Public Radio. Information in the article can be used to:

1. Identify a link between Bryan and right-wing populist Donald Trump
2. Apply a populist label to both Bryan and Trump
3. Equate populism with nativism and cultural conservatism ("Populism has also often had a strong admixture of nativism, resistance to cultural change or diversity and outright racism.")
4. Link Bryan specifically to creationism, Prohibition and Christian fundamentalism. (For this, start reading at "Bryan served as Wilson's secretary of state for two years and thereafter..." and continue reading to the end of the section.)
5. Supports a claim that right-wing populism is racist and anti-intellectual (with the quote "As Oscar Winberg, an international scholar and a student of U.S. political history, has described it, there have been "anti-intellectual and, at times, overtly racial appeals" that characterized "right-wing populism."")
6. Supports labeling George Wallace a right-wing populist.
7. There were concerns about the affiliated idelogies of right-wing populism, but this article alone ties RWP to nativism, Christian fundamentalism and segregation (Anti-Semitism already had a source)

If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm not sure anything will (and I'm not sure we can take you seriously; as I said above, perhaps if you don't approve of this either, your comments should be ignored). I might add there already WAS a source for WJB information, so it probably was in error to remove information about WJP. pbp 12:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: @SamuelRiv: And let's look at the sourcing for Thomas Watson, the Georgia Encyclopedia. The statement being challenged for inclusion in this Wikipedia article is, "Watson, the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Populist Party in 1896 and presidential nominee in 1900, eventually embraced white supremacy and anti-Semitism." Quotes from the Georgia Encyclopedia include "In later years he emerged as a force for white supremacy and anti-Catholic rhetoric.", and "In 1913, during the trial of Leo Frank, Watson’s strong attacks on Frank and on the pervasive influence of Jewish and northern interests in the state heavily influenced negative sentiment against Frank, who was lynched by a mob in 1915.", the latter quote providing evidence of embracing anti-Semitic rhetoric. pbp 12:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The NPR article compares Trump and Bryan as populists, not as right-wingers. The author cites Politico favorably that the two were "the perfect populist" for their respective times, which is antithetical to the topic. The only other citation is to Weinberg, who notes right-wing populism only in the context of Wallace. To reiterate: you cannot take individual policies of the 19th-century Populist Party, compare them to modern right-wing policy positions, and conclude that PP is right-wing. (First because that's definition OR, second because you can do the exact same to conclude PP is left-wing, which is a big reason OR and SYNTH are explicitly not allowed.)

The latter is why I can't see the relevance of the Watson article. Again, for every specific right-wing policy analogue you note, I can note a left-wing policy. Maybe that's why they never call this person explicitly right or left, or even directly conservative (except indirectly in noting someone else is far more conservative).

Again, this is again discussion of verifiability. We would also have to review whether Elving or Pierannunzi are reliable sources for making such broad characterizations and comparisons of turn-of-the-century politics (had they in fact done so in the way you seem to think they did). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is NOT a discussion of verifiablity. This is a discussion of Sammy-gotta-get his way. You've demonstrated with your last comments that NO sourcing will satisfy you, and you are misusing WP:V to try and get your way. Your comments should be ignored. It seems you have trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing populists, but call this what it is: a content dispute, not a verifiablility dispute.

Let me state that it is my belief that verifiablility has been passed and the content should be re-added.

Also, Sammy says, "To reiterate: you cannot take individual policies of the 19th-century Populist Party, compare them to modern right-wing policy positions, and conclude that PP is right-wing." Why not? The sourcing is there to support the claim that elements of the Populist Party, including its two most-prominent standard-bearers, supported conservative or fundamentalist policies. This quote by Sammy is utterly ridiculous and goes above and beyond anything that WP:V asks for, reaffirming my belief that this is about Sammy getting his way more than anything else.

Elving or Pierannunzi not reliable sources. Oh boy, more WikiLawyering... Elving is a longtime reporter and editor for an nonpartisan news outlet. Again, Sammy putting up pedantic roadblocks to try and get his way.

@Darknipples: @Springee: please take note of my comment pbp 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is Ron Elving's bio from NPR:

• He is also a professorial lecturer and Executive in Residence in the School of Public Affairs at American University, where he has also taught in the School of Communication. In 2016, he was honored with the University Faculty Award for Outstanding Teaching in an Adjunct Appointment. He has also taught at George Mason and Georgetown.
• He was previously the political editor for USA Today and for Congressional Quarterly. He has been published by the Brookings Institution and the American Political Science Association. He has contributed chapters on Obama and the media and on the media role in Congress to the academic studies Obama in Office 2011, and Rivals for Power, 2013. Ron's earlier book, Conflict and Compromise: How Congress Makes the Law, was published by Simon & Schuster and is also a Touchstone paperback.
• During his tenure as manager of NPR's Washington desk from 1999 to 2014, the desk's reporters were awarded every major recognition available in radio journalism, including the Dirksen Award for Congressional Reporting and the Edward R. Murrow Award from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Carol Pierannunzi:

• University Press of Kansas Carol Pierannunzi is an Emeritus professor of political science and international affairs at Kennesaw State University and author of Politics in Georgia, co-author of Building Civic Capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools.
• CDC Senior Survey Methodologist for the CDC

I currently don't see any issue with these sources. DN (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The obvious issue is that neither of them are experts and since commentary even in reliable sources is not considered reliable, these are not reliable sources. There are people who get PhDs, teach at universities and write papers that undergo peer review. Why would you use an article in CNN or NPR or whatever by someone with a BA in journalism from Columbia when expert sources are available. TFD (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Obvious? Pierannunzi is an Emeritus professor of Political science and she is sourced from the Georgia Encyclopedia. Your personal standards for the term "Expert" seems strangely exorbitant. Is there perhaps a reason for that? DN (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

One week later...

After one week, and five days of the discussion being stale,

• Darknipples "currently [doesn't] see any issue with these sources". He DOES object to the use of the phrase "big tent" but that can easily be remedied.
• Me, Purplebackpack89, as the guy who added the sources, has repeatedly said he doesn't see any
• Springee address Purplebackpack89's behavior but not really whether he objects to the sources being used or not
• SamuelRiv appears to be alone in objecting to the sources, but consensus seems to be against him. There is the additional concern that he has been presented multiple sources and found things to dislike about any of them, and that his behavior verges on POV pushing and OWNership.

Therefore, I am going to restore something akin, albeit with the NPR source added and some phrasing fixes. Darknipples and I have CLEARLY demonstrated that the source material is verifiable and reliable. pbp 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• SamuelRiv, I just spent twenty minutes figuring out what that edit of yours was all about, and finding the text for this, "Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism? Economics, Culture, and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism". Annual Review of Economics (13): 133–70. 2021., trying to see if indeed this citation somehow "Failed verification". What I think, also given the lack of discussion here, is that you didn't actually look at this source, and that your large-scale revert was just unwarranted. I also think that this discussion shows you need to be much more careful.
  Now, on to the actual source: User:Purplebackpack89, did you add that source? There were two typos in there, and there was no link, even though the journal is open-source (and the journal has an article here). Worse, I do not see how the statement "American right-wing populists tend to cast politics as a struggle between the people and a globalist conspiracy of business, cultural and political elites" is verified in that article--which is really not about that, doesn't really discuss conspiracy theories (doesn't even mention the term), and takes a very historical approach to "American populism", which in the section you just restored has a recentist and decidedly non-historical slant. So, for different reasons than SamuelRiv (who I don't think did their homework), I do not agree with the current state of that section. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  If a source does not verify the article text for which it is used as a citation, then the article text "fails verification". In this case, Rodrik 2021 proceeds the "globalist conspiracy" statement -- as you acknowledge, the source has nothing to do with it. What exactly should I have done differently -- what text here was salvageable, even if I untangled which source was supposed to go where?

  I am always careful with deletion of cited material and I look at every source. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The question at hand (per my deletion) is not whether the sources are reliable (for now), but whether they verify the text as written. I understand you've messaged other editors directly about this issue, but nobody has written in support of your text or [addendum: denied] your WP:Burden to provide verification when challenged. Do not restore your text. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think "big tent" is still applicable in a historic sense. This began to change with the Trump administration, and the rise of the far-right. DN (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Except the source in question never uses the words "big tent" as you quote. (I also looked for "inclu*" and "vari*" to see if it talks about the GOP in such context, but no luck.) That's failed verification. Whether the paper is due or that particular MDPI journal is suitably rigorous is a reliability question.

Again, and it seems I must belabor this point: the reason for mass deletion is that every statement failed verification on inspection, and most appear to not have reliable sources for analyzing historical politics for example. I have still not seen any text offered that is actually verifiable from the source, and in today's re-addition all the unverifiable text was still present. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As a reminder, I agreed with your original removal of it, and thanked you. I don't always have time to read through walls of text such as the citation that was presented for it, and I assumed you had taken the time. I also think Drmies has made some salient points on this topic, and I think it would be better if everyone stopped making assumptions about each other (myself included of course) and their respective positions and intentions. This will all go much smoother with some good faith and patience. I suggest we slow it down and take things step by step. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear to everyone: I hope I have been transparent that I usually do not read an entire WP source word-for-word. I read the abstract, I search for keywords related to the cited text and go to any specific cited pages, and I scan the intro and conclusion. It would be impossible to regularly verify text if I did more than that, as even good WP text drifts from its citation unfortunately quickly. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sam, You haven't been transparent enough in the sense that you haven't told us what terms you searched for. And I echo what Drmies said above: I don't think you looked thoroughly enough to justify removal. And this was made more difficult because you treated me and my edits as something beneath your dignity. To the claim "every statement failed verification on inspection", that's cap because I explicitly delineated what statements are supported by the NPR article above.

Drmies, even if you believe that the specific wording is unsupported by the text, I would counter that the source DOES make a case that globalism is a concern of right-wing populists, and there's alternative phraseology that would be supported by the article. For example, the paragraph on page 2 that begins "Globalization figures prominently in..." and ends with "The high points of globalization in previous eras have also been marked by a populist backlash." would support a quote, either in the American section or in general, of "right-wing populism has frequently occurred as a response or backlash to economic globalization." pbp 01:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I did read the NPR article in full, and I already detailed which among the points you asserted it did not support and why.

Your use of Rodrik 2021 here again is problematic == as I noted earlier, "right-wing" and "frequently" are both quite specific terms that are not verified by the passages you suggest (first paragraph of Intro, apparently?). It may or may not be verified elsewhere in Rodrik (it actually is) -- my point however is that here you are saying that "Section A" verifies "statement X", whereas in fact there are the most significant pieces missing.

This is the essence of how it happens that the cited text I removed has all failed verification. This is why I keep needling you to verify every significant point -- and why, similarly, I suggest to instead rewrite your prose completely to fit the sources, instead of the reverse. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis of the NPR article was not conducted in good faith. Your approach was clearly looking for something, ANYTHING, to dismiss. You even made a ridiculous claim that NPR/Ron Elving wasn't a reliable source, which was quickly dismissed by both DN and I. pbp 02:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Well unless you can make a RfC that states plainly what text you propose to include/exclude, I suggest openly requesting a WP:THIRDOPINION. I suppose the question at hand is whether this is a verifiability matter at all? SamuelRiv (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have declined the request for a third opinion as there appear to be more than two involved editors presently. 3O should be used in cases where literally a third opinion is desired. Editors are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)