# Talk:Valence populism


### Valence populism
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on possibly nominating this article for FAC in the coming months. Therefore, I'd appreciate all suggestions on improving the article before nominating it for FAC.
Thanks, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Just doing some spring fall cleaning on the {{FAC peer review sidebar}}; are you still interested in comments, or can this be closed and put up at FAC? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm still open to getting comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll leave this open for another week (so until 15 October). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)


#### 750h
I'll be commenting on this. Remind me if I don't get to this by tomorrow. 750h+ 11:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
lead
the best known example ==> "the best-known example"
parties that have been described as valence populist include ==> "parties described as valence populists include"
background
the core populist concept of "the people" is being presented as a morally good force, while "the elite" are often portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. if "the people" is followed by "is", shouldn't "the elite" be followed by "is" instead of "are"
definition
valence populism to being described as a "purer ==> "valence populism to be described as a "purer"
history
noted that other political scientists viewed that populist parties the second "that" is redundant
political parties
is listed as the party that holds the highest priority on the issue, followed by the Italian Five Star Movement (M5S), and ŽZ the last comma is redundant
M5S has been also described as left-wing populist ==> "M5S has also been described as left-wing populist"
@Vacant0: that's all I got i think (feel free to reject any if you don't agree with them)! 750h+ 10:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: while reading the article did you understand everything it was said or do you think that there's anything missing that could possibly added in the article? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The article makes for a pretty smooth read, and I think it's fine in its current state. However i'm not an expert in this topic; you could possibly ask Phlsph7 because I think they're an expert in this topic, and possibly Remsense, AirshipJungleman29 and Shapeyness. 750h+ 11:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Will ask them. Thanks a lot! I appreciate it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Phlsph7
Hi Vacant0, happy to look at the article. I hope some of the following comments are useful.

They promote and valence issues that are widely approved by voters remove the "and" after "promote"
La République En Marche ! (LREM) I think the name changed recently to Renaissance (RE). Since you are talking about the past, I'm not sure whether to use the current name, but you should at the very least indicate the current name.
Zulianello noted that other political scientists viewed that populist parties "primarily engage in positional competition" on the economic and socio-cultural axes. "viewed that" sounds odd; maybe "argued that"?
Slavi Trifonov of Bulgarian There is Such a People should there be a "the" before "Bulgarian"?
The Italian Five Star Movement is a common example of a valence populist party add period since this is a full sentence
Junkowski is it "Jankowski"?
Zulianello built off the definition "built on" sound more natural to my ears
sometimes attributed as centrist populist would "described as" sound more natural?
Considering that valence populism is more prevalent in Central and Eastern Europe, whose countries were not members of the European Union until the 1990s The EU was formed in 1993 (Maastricht Treaty), so that's an odd formulation.
which won 1 seat, and the Lithuanian Labour Party, which won 5 seats I think small numbers should be spelled out
Garziano should it be "Graziano"?
Techno-populism...Technocratic populism if they are the same, it might be better to stick with one terminology
Valence populism is a form of populism linked... The first sentence is a little long. What about splitting it into smaller parts, maybe something along the lines "Valence populism is a populist approach to politics that campaigns for widely approved issues. As a form of populism, it seeks to promote the interests of ordinary people. Unlike left-wing and right-wing populism, it lacks a consistent ideology. Instead, it promotes valence issues, that is, issues that many people support, such as..."
Populism is a contested description among academics;[1] there is no consensus among them on the definition of the concept of populism.[2] that's correct but not very helpful to introduce readers to a term they may not understand. You could start with general characterization and mention the difficulties later as long as you don't frame it as an exact definition. Maybe "Populism is a political approach associated with ... Populists typically ... However, the precise definition of populism is disputed ..."
given that "right-wing", "left-wing", and "centrist" play a key role in the definition, it would make sense to explain somewhere what these terms mean
With 1792 words readable prose size, the article is relatively short. It's possible that the article has issues with the FA criteria of comprehensiveness and neutrality. I'm not familiar with the specific academic literature, so maybe this is due to the literature rather than the article. Some points to consider are: explain methodology of how political scientists determine whether a political party is valence populist; mention debates surrounding the good or bad that valence populists do (e.g. discussions of errosion of democracy); reduce focus on Zulianello's views and European politics. Again, some of these issues may be with the academic discussion itself, but it would be good to look into this.
WP:EARWIG shows no copyvios.
Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Phlsph7. Re last point: This term is relatively new, it was created back in 2020. There is not a lot of scholarly analysis in comparison to left-wing and right-wing populism. What is currently in the article is everything that I was able to scrap off Google Books, Google Scholar, and TWL. I've recently expanded the article with more coverage from 2024 and 2025. I will look to address your issues! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)