Talk:Trumpism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

RFC: Should the fascism template be included in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I find a rough consensus for keeping the template. Users in favor of keeping the template argued that there are many sources that say that Trumpism is fascist. Users against disputed that argument with arguments that ran the gamut from very strong to very weak, with one lengthy analysis arguing fairly persuasively that in fact the sources are equivocal on the topic. However, while several editors after that point were convinced, plenty still weren't. So the overall effect on the discussion was to turn a clear consensus for keeping the template into a rough consensus for it, not to stop a clear consensus. Loki (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]



User:Cat's Tuxedo and I have a disagreement on whether it is appropriate to include the fascism template at the bottom of the article. My argument is that, since there are multiple sources in the article that indicate that many experts consider Trumpism to be a form of fascism, and the article indicates as such, it should be included. Their argument is that the sources are all invalid because they do not cite Giovanni Gentile specifically or make comparisons to his works. According to them, quote, "If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing".

So I would like to ask, should the template stay or go? Please reply with keep template to indicate that the template should stay, or remove template to indicate that it should not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

  • Foster (2017): Editorial published in a magazine
  • Butler (2016): Primary source interview of a gender studies philosopher
  • Badiou (2019): Reliable source
  • Giroux (2021): Editorial published in a journal
  • Traverso (2019): Opinion in a book published by a questionable press
  • Tarizzo (2021): Reliable source
  • The Chomsky, Husser, Ibish, Cockburn, and Drutman sources do not support the claim that Trumpism is fascism (and are all editorial/opinion).
Furthermore, it's trivial to produce sources that argue the opposite or give a more nuanced perspective, both in academic and journalistic outlets:
We should mention the comparisons to fascism a few times in the body where appropriate (and possibly in the lead), but we should not do anything to suggest that this is an agreed upon fact or even that it's widely accepted in the academic community, because it is not. If I can add my personal opinion, Trumpism is its own beast, and it's important to recognize it as such. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these sources talk about whether Trump is or is not fascist, not whether Trumpism, as a movement or tendency, has fascist elements. That's quite different. Neutralitytalk 22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is different, and that's the problem. Nothing about this discussion hinges on whether Trumpism has "elements of fascism". We're talking about whether sources consider it to be a type of fascism. The sourcing does not broadly support the claim that it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources contrasting Trumpism with Fascism only strengthen the case for inclusion of the template. The standard for inclusion is relevance per RS, not equivalence. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - Agreeing with @
    talk) 22:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - sufficient academic sources say that Trumpism has fascistic elements. William E. Connolly, a distinguished political theorist, argued this in Aspirational Fascism: The Struggle for Multifaceted Democracy under Trumpism (2017) is an example. The book was favorably reviewed by other political scientists, e.g., Lebovic 2019 and Isaac 2018. Neutralitytalk 22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relation between Trumpism and fascism has been the product of significant coverage that has been published by multiple reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without making a definitive statement, and if reliable evidence to combat this claim exists, that evidence should be listed as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It is a violation of NPOV. -- 2804:248:FBEE:1900:126:2EAA:925F:7102 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would only be a violation of NPOV if the term was used as a derogatory statement, not as a legitimate label. In this case we are discussing if Trumpism is, legitimately, a form of fascism. That is a matter of categorization, not point of view. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it isn't, "Trumpism" (if it can even be called a coherent political ideology) has few elements in common with fascism, those comparisons are usually meant to be derogatory. 2804:248:FB5C:1600:29A8:E502:F000:A04E (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, One often sees that positive use of "fascist" as a descriptor. 2601:285:C001:4D0:38AE:9B1A:A0A8:4FC (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , including the template doesn't mean wikivoice is equating trumpism with fascism. But discussion of the latter is clearly involved in the coverage of the former in RSes. Feoffer (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove , Donald Trump is not a fascist, nor is the ideology fascist. Fascism is based on these principles:
characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Well, these don’t fit. Donald Trump is not a dictator. Trumpism is not autocratic. At no point did he suppress political opponents. He and his ideology don’t believe in a natural social hierarchy. At no point has Trumpism attempted to subordinate individualism. And Trumpism is supportive of limited government and business, whilst fascists heavily regiment the society and business.
Even if these are reliable sources (which is highly questionable, as people like Chomsky, cornel west, etc. are obviously going to be opponents of his ideology anyway), none of Trumpism’s characteristics fit fascism. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{Neo-fascism}}, but otherwise Keep per others. –Vipz (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's necessary to link sources stating Trumpism has been likened to Neo-fascism , but putting a template for it is pretty uncouth for a wikipedia page as Trump has completely denied that he is. Also politicians that have been labeled Neo-Fascist have overwhelmingly said that they aren't remove template 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E7B2:A08C:F1D0:6B82 (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth does them denying have to do with anything? That's irrelevant, other than that we document they deny. That doesn't mean they are being honest, are innocent, or whatever. See
      WP:MANDY. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Remove per criteria set forth by The Hammering Hammer.--FeralOink (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template. If it's covered in the article and in
    WP:RS then the template should be on the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

The lead section of this article is well-researched and contains a great deal of relevant information. To me, it seems like too much detail for the lead. I also found it confusing and a bit scattered. Would other editors be open to a revision/reduction of the lead along the following lines?

Trumpism consists of the political movement and
political ideologies that are associated with former U.S. president Donald Trump.[1][2] Trumpists and Trumpians
are terms used to refer to those exhibiting characteristics of Trumpism.
The precise composition of Trumpism is disputed and is sufficiently complex to overwhelm any single framework of analysis.
neo-nationalist sentiment seen in multiple nations worldwide from the late 2010s[6] to the early 2020s. However, some commentators reject the populist designation for Trumpism, viewing the phenomenon as a new form of fascism or authoritarianism.[7][19][note 1] Trumpism has also been described as a cult of personality.[23][24][25] Though not limited to any one party, the Trumpist faction became the largest faction of the Republican Party in the United States
in the late 2010s.
The label Trumpism has been applied to
national-conservative and national-populist movements in other democracies. Several politicians outside of the United States have been labeled as staunch allies of Trump or Trumpism, or even as the equivalent to Trump in their respective nations; among them are Jair Bolsonaro, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Viktor Orbán, Jacob Zuma, Shinzo Abe, and Yoon Suk Yeol
.

MonMothma (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit curious about the supposedly recent rise of neo-nationalism in the United States. I was under the impression that American nationalism was already thriving in the 2000s. Per the main article on American nationalism:
  • Oppose trim. Isn't it interesting that election season starts to creep up and people want to trim? Now is not the time to trim. Andre🚐 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I assure you that there is no connection between election season and me wanting to trim a lead section that isn't very well written. If you have a reason for your opposition to the proposed edits, please state it. "Now is not the time to trim" is not a reason. Thank you. MonMothma (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, I reverted the removal of "Never Trumpers" from the lead. I also reverted the removal of Nixon, Ford, and Bush from the Republican Party page. Why are we memory holing these things? Let's not. Andre🚐 05:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I am seeking consensus for proposed revisions to the lead section of this article. Issues with other articles can be discussed elsewhere. I am fine with retaining a sentence on the Never Trump movement in the lead now that you added sources for it. Do you have any other issues with my proposed revision? MonMothma (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the proposals one at at time, but all together I oppose the proposal Andre🚐 21:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's start with the intro sentence. In its current form, it contains so many terms--many of them obscure--that it doesn't really mean much of anything. I would revise it and simplify it to read as follows: "Trumpism consists of the political movement and
political ideologies that are associated with former U.S. president Donald Trump." Thoughts? MonMothma (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Trumpism consists of the political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance, political movement, and set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism that are associated with 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his political base. I agree with you that " and set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism" is a bit awkward and unwieldly, and a little too technical for the first sentence, so I'd support moving or rephrasing that. I took a first stab at decomposing the sentence into two here [1] Andre🚐 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Andre. That helps, and I appreciate you working with me on this even though we have disagreements. I would propose that the "set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism" clause be moved down into the body of the article (or, alternatively, removed altogether). I find it confusing. More importantly, though, putting this language in the lead makes the reader expect that the article will explain what those mechanisms are--but it really doesn't. Would you be OK with that? MonMothma (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think something about that should be in the lead, so I don't want to remove it altogther, but I'm definitely agreeable to rephrasing it or softening it. I'm not wedded to "mechanisms of" "autocratization" but I do think "authoritarianism" clearly does belong. Andre🚐 00:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with mentioning authoritarianism in the lead. Authoritarianism is amply mentioned and sourced within the article body. The mechanisms and the autocratization are not. So I think we are in agreement here. MonMothma (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I would like to go ahead and remove this sentence from the lead. The lead mentions authoritarianism elsewhere, and we agree that the rest of the sentence isn't helpful. Are you OK with that? MonMothma (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support removing it altogether. Per
WP:NODEADLINE to make these changes. Andre🚐 17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Andre, I have taken a shot at revising the sentence. I believe my revisions are consistent with our discussion. See what you think. MonMothma (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Thanks. Andre🚐 05:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the new lead's redescription of Trumpism solely from one particular analytical framework until there is broader academic concensus to frame it that way. To date, there is no such concensus. The current lead misleads the reader into thinking that the stated particular perspective is not strongly contested. Within the article, there are ample citations from academic sources demonstrating contrary frameworks such as one which regards it is mistaken to view Trumpism as an ideational rather than an affective phenomenon, let alone a political "movement". That is, that it is more of a collective emotion as sociopsychology and other disciplines are cited as describing it. Though not a citable academic, George Will encapsulates this perspective this way: "Trumpism, too, is a mood masquerading as a doctrine, an entertainment genre based on contempt for its bellowing audiences. Still others view it as a political technique that agree is reliant on many such non political science factors such as basic drives some of which are held in common with many other species. However, the sections of the article discussing the link up with mass communication (EG Fox and use of social media) theorize that Trumpism should be viewed as a communication / collective consciousness (Le Bon derisively termed "Mob mentality") phenomenon. So while I agree the former wording was perhaps needlessly complex, it did accurately summarized the diversity of dominant views on what constitutes Trumpism. If no rewording is proposed that captures the dominant competing frameworks for explaining Trumpism, I shall do so. I am also not averse to restoring the original lead with adjustments to reduce its complexity. Any thoughts on this? J JMesserly (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead misleads the reader into thinking that the stated particular perspective is not strongly contested. Lol, no. Obviously the Trumpists object, but per
WP:MANDY, that isn't terribly relevant. The lede is fine as-is, you're trying to dredge up a months-old discussion that settled the matter. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Reicher & Haslam 2016.
  2. ^ Dean & Altemeyer 2020, p. 11.
  3. ^ Gordon 2018, p. 68.
  4. ^ Lowndes 2019.
  5. ^ Bennhold 2020.
  6. ^ Isaac 2017.
  7. ^ Foster 2017.
  8. ^ Butler 2016.
  9. ^ Chomsky 2020.
  10. ^ Berkeley News 2020.
  11. ^ Badiou 2019, p. 19.
  12. ^ Giroux 2021.
  13. ^ Traverso 2017, p. 30.
  14. ^ Tarizzo 2021, p. 163.
  15. ^ Ibish 2020.
  16. ^ Cockburn 2020.
  17. ^ Drutman 2021.
  18. ^ West 2020.
  19. ^ [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
  20. ^ Badiou 2019, p. 15.
  21. ^ Traverso 2017, p. 35.
  22. ^ Tarizzo 2021, p. 178.
  23. ^ Haltiwanger, John. "Republicans have built a cult of personality around Trump that glosses over his disgraced presidency". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-10-04.
  24. ISSN 0190-8286
    . Retrieved 2023-10-04.
  25. ^ Ben-Ghiat, Ruth (2020-12-09). "Op-Ed: Trump's formula for building a lasting personality cult". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-10-04.
  26. ^ "The Demographics of Military Enlistment After 9/11". Archived from the original on February 26, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2007.
  27. ^ Sanger, David E. (2012). "1–5". Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power.

Authoritarianism, really?

All 5 of the sources backing the use of "authoritarianism" in the intro are opinion pieces that fail to draw a clear correlation between Trump's policies or supporters and authoritarianism. I think the editors are playing a bit fast and loose here. Do we really want to claim here on Wikipedia that the ideology of Donald Trump and his supporters is authoritarian? That just seems so removed from reality and I'm wondering if we're not saying this in bad faith here.

Please remove or back it up with actual examples of policies that are unambiguously authoritarian. 24.20.252.82 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No, strong oppose. Strongly references. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late. Andre🚐 20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article, particularly that all-important first paragraph, suggests that the tens of millions of people who support Trump's candidacy are authoritarians, without giving any early consideration of the people who support Trump without supporting the radical ideas laid out here.
If the term "Trumpist" is going to be used, there ought to be an early disclaimer that not all who vote for or support Trump believe in the abolition of the rule of law and the Constitution, or these other extreme positions that are labeled as "Trumpist." In other words, it'd be helpful to provide an early distinction between those who support Trump over his opponent in our current political climate as compared those who actually believe this radical ideology. 2601:5C4:C500:6F30:83D5:F6EC:DFDC:EE94 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Andre. The claim that Trump is authoritarian is backed up by a ton of sources from both sides of the pond and various ideologies.
p 05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It really doesn't seemed to be backed by many. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be helpful to distinguish Trump's beliefs and ambitions from those of the bulk of his supporters instead of implicitly lumping all of his voters/supporters under that single label of "Trumpist." 2601:5C4:C500:6F30:83D5:F6EC:DFDC:EE94 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritarianism is quite a loose term and, at least in this case, depends on perspective. One can be seen as authoritarian in some ways (e.g., mask mandates, vaccination mandates, government confiscation of resources (through taxation that takes the majority (ie over 50%) of some people’s earnings), forcing audits and creating government mandated impositions of high burdens of proof (via tax audits) of individuals who express political views contrary to those who hold federal power (e.g., Tea Party), establishment of government/central authority defined rules of what it means for corporate boards (private business entities) to be “diverse” and penalizing large corporations for not aligning with such subjective interpretations of ethics. Forcing private places of business (even in cases where said business is entirely owned and run by a single individual or a family) to serve (e.g., waxing/massage services) any and all potential clientele based on those clientele’s own self-identification, versus the business’s right to refuse service to anyone for absolutely any reason. Imposing that all schools federally must teach potentially subjectively perceived materials (regarding homosexuality, transgenderism, etc) with a partial approach versus allowing local parents to review and perhaps amend or exclude the content of such subjective/opinionated studies from their children’s mandated, taxpayer funded curriculum.. In these ways and many more, one could argue that Trump and his followers’ policies may actually be seen as anti-authoritarian. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued that Trump’s current policy on abortion is arguably “less authoritarian” in some ways than that of most Democratic politicians and many Republican politicians. Roe v Wade asserted, through central, federal power of the judicial branch, that abortion cannot be effectively outlawed by a smaller, more local government (e.g., the states). However by encouraging Roe v Wade to be overturned, one can argue that now the power is left to the states (thus *removing* authority from the federal government). Trump has actually argued for allowing abortion in the case of exceptional circumstances, and is not supportive of a national ban, as many Republicans are.
Has he evolved on this issue? Maybe, or maybe it’s a calculated shift, but we have to judge political candidates on their most current stated platform, otherwise we would have to judge candidate Joe Biden as being a segregationist with respect to schools.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-abortion-brags-about-role-in-overturning-roe-v-wade-urges-gop-caution-on-issue/
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-federal-ban-trump-gop-2024-20586bbb64a511030ef58290e98f99f0
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1021626 100.38.103.114 (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Trumpers label themselves as libertarians. I think it would be helpful to put, Trumpism has frequently been seen as authoritarian 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:9D91:E9F0:4C38:E3 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely much more defensible wording than what stands on this page right now. Thank you. Can we change the wording to "Trumpism is frequently seen as authoritarian," or even "Trumpism has frequently been seen as authoritarian"?
If you leave this intro as is, you might risk alienating and at least 'being seen' as validating unfounded beliefs by a large chunk of the 40-45% of American voters who voted for Trump, who might say that sources like Wikipedia are fundamentally biased and run by 'globalist elites' (their words, not mine) who only pretend to be objective, but are willing to give up their honesty due to personal gripe and/or political viewpoints. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, if the goal is neutrality, can you please back up the statement (if it is not an opinion): “Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late.”? Trump’s stances on several issues (COVID vaccines (strongly encouraging people to have them, but against government mandates); abortion (coming out against any federal ban or ruling)) can arguably be called compromises towards moderation. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Times

Really? This is a great source on AMERICAN Politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:7557:CF07:746:75D9 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy way to prove how biased this article is. Type "What is Trumpism?" into Google and read the top results from reliable sources such as The Hill, BBC, The Atlantic and others. None of these reliable sources mention authoritarianism or fascism as a main characteristic of Trumpism. They talk about nativism, populism, nationalism, industrialism, tribalism, and identity politics. And yet this article leads off with authoritarianism and fascism. This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources. The resort to Irish Times is just one indication of this. Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources."
Is that discounting the 2-3 dozen, or so, reliable sources already in the lead? DN (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of "reliable sources", like Irish Times. The question is which ones are more toward the mainstream and which ones are at the fringe. The problem with this article is that it relies heavily on fringe reliable sources that are at the liberal end of the spectrum. Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing expert political science opinions

Per [2] @

WP:YESPOV Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Nobody in political science disagrees with this characterization of Trump's rhetoric, so for our purposes, it's factual. Andre🚐 23:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No, Andre. The disputed sentence reads: "Trump's aggressive rhetoric is dehumanizing and suggests physical violence". Your words above are: "Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have determined to be dehumanizing and rooted in physical violence". Your words are a factual assertion (although one that contains weasel words and includes the word "determined", which is problematic in this context). The disputed sentence is a statement of opinion, which is the reason why the sentence violates WP:NPOV and why the policy you cited is not applicable. Something along the lines of my proposed revision (which reads "In 2020, authors Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Yaeli Bloch-Elkon asserted that Trump's aggressive rhetoric is dehumanizing and suggests physical violence") is needed. As I noted in an edit summary, Whether or not someone's rhetoric is dehumanizing is a matter of opinion. In this case, I agree with the stated opinion, but that doesn't matter; it's still an opinion. The credentials of the individuals stating the opinion do not change the fact that it is an opinion.
As to your assertion that political scientists unanimously agree that Trump's aggressive rhetoric is dehumanizing and suggests physical violence: I have no idea whether that is true or not, but I somehow doubt it. MonMothma (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to "Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have determined to be dehumanizing and rooted in physical violence" - does that work? Andre🚐 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Andre. I think that is an improvement. However, the word "determined" is too strong and conclusive and should be changed. Also, the reference to political scientists creates a WP:WEASEL problem. May I ask why you object to naming the three political scientists? MonMothma (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name any political scientists who disagree? If no, this creates a
MOS:CLAIM. "Determine" is good because it's conclusory and this is an acceptable conclusion by experts with no rebuttal. "Assert" will create doubt. Andre🚐 00:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Andre, the issue is that the Perspectives on Terrorism article you cited doesn't support the claim your sentence makes. In that article, the authors say that Trump's rhetoric is aggressive, violent, etc. They do not say that all political scientists agree with them on this point. That is why I believe it is essential to name the authors.
I have a problem with "rooted in physical violence" as well, because I don't believe that reflects the source, either.
Could we compromise and go with the following? "According to political scientists Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Yaeli Bloch-Elko, 'Trump’s online and off-line hate speech corresponded with his followers’ aggressive rhetoric, violent threats, and actual violence against Trump’s declared "enemies"'". MonMothma (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the text unattributed is factually true - why do you think it needs to be attributed? I don't object to the formulation of the text, but we don't need to ascribe this to them, it's just plain true, because they're academic experts in this field, and nobody is rebutting or disagreeing in the field. Andre🚐 03:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, would this work for you? "Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have deemed to be both dehumanizing and connected to physical violence by Trump's followers". MonMothma (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that works Andre🚐 05:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks. I have made that change. MonMothma (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing bias/sensationalism accusations & article length

A few users have accused the article of bias, most without much sourcing. I think however there may be some elements of the article that aren't neutral and may be biased. There are also elements of sensationalist language that cut against the article's neutrality.

Couple of examples below.

  1. The inclusion of Jane Goodall's quote comparing Trump's style to the dominance displays of apes. Jane Goodall's work is in primatology and animal conservation. For a persuasive journalistic work (the Atlantic article in Fallows 2016), including a quote from Goodall is a great idea because she's a famous (and generally very smart) figure whose opinions align with the author's own. But this wiki article is supposed to educate us on Trumpism from a neutral point of view, and the Goodall quote comes across as a personal opinion from an individual without relevant academic research in the subject. This is at the very least unnecessary and uneducational.
  2. Under 'Falsehoods', McManus calls Trump a 'bullshitter'. However this is written in Wikipedia's voice, without quotes. Sensationalist at least, and probably biased. As a general note, I recognise it's tough to write neutrally about a person whose primary mode of speech is telling fictional stories, but we need to find a way to do it. Lines like "Trump's lies are egregious" written in Wikipedia-voice is below-standard in my view.
  3. The Mark Milley 'wannabe dictator' quote. Similar to Goodall, while Milley is more relevant as a former JCS Chairman under Trump, the quote doesn't get us any closer to understanding Trumpism as an ideology. The quote itself is only notable on its own because of who said it. If such a quote were to live in Milley's own Wikipedia page, sure, but here all it does it colour the viewer's opinion rather than get the user any closer to understanding the ideology (especially since it's already stated that Trumpism is largely viewed as an authoritarian movement).

I recognise this is a contentious topic especially for Americans, and that news outlets in the US strongly influence the conversation about it. Ultimately we should ask the question of this article: "Is this educating us about Trumpism, or telling us that it's dangerous/bad without showing why?"

Sidenote: I also agree with other commenters that this article is far too long. Cutting out the more sensational elements may go some way to reducing this length, but we should also consider the possibility of repetitious statements as well. That's beyond the scope of my post though. Cheers RichardThePeterJohnson (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to make this Trumpism page have less bias, it would read like the French article. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E7B2:A08C:F1D0:6B82 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fundamental claims – that Trumpism is a nationalist authoritarian movement that has been widely compared to contemporary fascism – these are all verifiable and well-supported claims. Documenting them here does get readers closer to understanding Trumpism as a movement and ideology. If those facts make followers of Trumpism or conservatives in general uncomfortable, I understand, but true statements are often uncomfortable without becoming less true.
It's the additional guff around those factual statements, examples above, that make the article more biased. Trim those and stick to statements that are relevant/informative, and you have a good article. RichardThePeterJohnson (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article draws from reliable sources that are at the extreme end of the spectrum. This is easily shown by typing "What is Trumpism?" into Google and reading the top results from reliable sources such as The Hill, BBC, The Atlantic and others. None of these reliable sources mention authoritarianism or fascism as a main characteristic of Trumpism. They talk about nativism, populism, nationalism, industrialism, tribalism, and identity politics. And yet this article leads off with authoritarianism and fascism. This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources. To expose my bias, I am an American, and I hate Trump; I wish he would disappear. But this can only happen through the dissemination of truth. Gratuitous attacks on Trumpism using words like fascism do not serve this purpose. The true nature of Trumpism has a lot more to do with desired policy changes and resentment at the inability of Washington to implement them. There is also reaction to change, as America moves to a country that is less than 50% White. Here are two sources that get closer to the heart of Trumpism than the current Wikipedia article. Neither of these sources uses the words fascism or authoritarianism. https://democracy.psu.edu/poll-report-archive/americans-not-only-divided-but-baffled-by-what-motivates-their-opponents/ https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supporters --Westwind273 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary to put in how Trumpism has been linked to Fascism—but there may be issues with editors putting in semantics that make it seem objective. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:1DA:6FA5:6F6A:CC71 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the article

Should the mention of the movement as fascist merit editing into the article and updating it? Some of the wording below the header is somewhat confusing and possibly even conflicting. Firekong1 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive length etc.

The article is too long to be comfortably read at 320,425 bytes. I will look up in WP:MOS about excessive article length to be certain. Also, I noticed that over half of the article content is written by a single editor. (55.9% if I read the chart correctly.) That fact would tend to support allegations of bias; i.e. concentration of content from a single person is more likely to have a single POV. I haven't read enough of the article to express an opinion regarding bias or lack thereof. FeralOink (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory image in the heading.

right-wing movements. The image also doesn't adequately represent the movement like the other images in the heading. Another concern I have about this image is if it was uploaded with negative attentions. why do I think this? Because the file is called "Fascism Worship" and Trumpism is a Contentious subject. thank you, I'm going to bed and will be back tomorrow afternoon Zyxrq (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

If sources do state there are similarities between Trumpism and Fascism, what precisely makes it an NPOV violation? Would it be more appropriate for the Christian Trumpism section? DN (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to keep the image I would agree its more appropriate for the for the
Christian Trumpism section. Though I would say that there are plenty of images that would give a more arcuate representation of the movement when talking about the Religious section of Trumpism. I think a images like the ones seen on the websites I just linked would be a big improvement. [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] I will go and look for better images. Zyxrq (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Specifically a image with a Trump flag and the
Christian flag would be a good image to upload.
Zyxrq (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Since there are essentially two images of the St. Johns photo op (one is the promo video), I would propose moving it down and replacing one of those with it, if there is consensus. DN (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Zyxrq (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That flag is commonly used with Protestant Christians, is it your intention to target them or do you wish to include Catholics? Sindenheim (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NOTFORUM DN (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The importance of whether or not to address conservative Catholic support of Donald Trump, I think, Is relevant to this article. Sindenheim (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sindenheim That was not your question. Your original question about whether they will be "targeted as well" seems to imply general bad faith assumptions, does not specify any requested changes in particular or point to any specific citations or context. Catholic support of Trump is only relevant to this article in the context of Trumpism. DN (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret my use of the word target, as it seems rather aggressive which was not how I wanted it to come across. I was saying whether they were using the flag to "target" protestant christians, as in making a point to exhibit the overwhelming support of Trump in (southern) protestant communities, or if they wanted to exhibit general christian support, in which the flag could be misleading. I didn't put forth a specific change in my post because we were having a discussion about a certain change and whether we would support it, and I was clarifying some information about it. It wasn't my intention to put forth any new material to that specific edit prospect. Although my wording wasn't perfect, you misunderstood what I said and tried to accuse me of violating talk page rules. I would appreciate if you repeal that statement, thank you. Sindenheim (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply made an observation about the language you were using, which you seem to regret, but have yet to repeal or strike. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I think you have confirmed why that misunderstanding may have happened. DN (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support leaving the image as is. The naming of the image as "Fascism Worship" refers to the name of the image on the Flickr page where it comes from in order to provide attribution of the image to the photographer. The name does not represent the bias of a Wikimedia uploader deciding to rename the image. Furthermore, this page does include several sources that describe Trumpism in relation to a "cult of personality," so it is not out of place and inflammatory, as it relates directly to the content discussed in the page. However, I also agree with Zyxrq that adding in another image to the Christian Trumpism section would be helpful. Currently, we have a video of the St. John's Church photo op and a picture of Trump holding a bible from the St. John's Church photo op in the same section. We can remove the video (more relevant to the page on the actual event) and add in another one of the images you linked to Zyxrq, as I think they do a better job of conveying the sense of the section. BootsED (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED I know I wasn't referring to a "Wikimedia uploader". I was referring to the "Flickr page". Yes Trumpism has a cult of personality element to it but its not big enough or influences Trumpism enough in the way the image is portraying to warrant being included in the heading. It would simply be violating Undue weight to keep it on the heading. Zyxrq (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED My apology's for not being specific. Zyxrq (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zyxrq, I was tempted to say something the first time but figured someone would point this out, but it hasn't happened, and now it's happened again. You use the word "pacific" twice when you mean "specifically" and "specific". It's not a biggie, since typos are a dime a dozen around here, but this is not a typo and should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Zyxrq (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean Stop being so Atlantic. XD. DN (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. It was funny while it lasted.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was funny lol Zyxrq (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"January 6 hostage crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect January 6 hostage crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 20 § January 6 hostage crisis until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Note About The Sources

It seems that many of the sources cited to justify Trumpism as “fascist” or “authoritarian” contain heavy bias against Trump and his supporters. Many of these articles approach and address conservative beliefs as monolithic, though in reality, as most things tend to be, they are not. As stated by others, these articles have trouble connecting fascist ideas, like autocracy, to Trump’s actions. Instead of blindly applying predetermined notions, we, as logical editors and readers of the Wikipedia community, should analyze this article’s bias and inaccuracies with an open mind. Hopefully, when we do that, we can see that the information present here can be greatly condensed or removed to improve Wikipedia and report from a neutral standpoint. As always, discussion is welcome and encouraged! Wranlo (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are deemed
the reliable source noticeboard. Zaathras (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, Zaathras! It’s not so much that I have a problem with the sources. More that I think we should treat certain cases individually instead of relying 100% on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources. While I agree that many of the sources cited by this article can be reliable, I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces. Thanks for contributing! Wranlo (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bias in sources is not a problem—see
WP:BIASED. If you have a problem with a source, start a discussion about it. We are not going to dump notionally biased sources if they are generally reliable for facts. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hey, Binksternet! I agree that bias of the sources is not the issue, but it is our duty to make sure we transfer it to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner. Perhaps, rather than saying “Trumpism is an authoritarian movement,” we can say “Trumpism has been regarded as an authoritarian movement.” Thanks! Wranlo (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The statement is attributed to over twenty citations. This is an unusually high number for a single sentence, and it was done to forestall these very types of pointless arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, I understand, but this argument does have merit and should, in my opinion, be revisited in the future (Perhaps after the 2024 election and Trump’s legal issues.) I will be taking a backseat in this discussion from here on out. Please feel free to continue sharing your perspectives! Wranlo (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wranlo, you're right when you say: "I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces." Per NPOV, we should be neutral by not removing that bias. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Well said, Valjean. Carlstak (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are largely opinion or editorial pieces, or “news analyses0 that masquerade as unbiased news pieces. The New York Times and Washington Post are notoriously left biased. 2600:1016:B07F:DB24:F1E4:94F4:9AFC:6D0F (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Zaathras (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras:, thats your opinion, and not everyone holds that same belief. 74 million people voted for what you call “dangerous authoritarian values.” The article should be rewritten in a more neutral manner with more neutral sources. It is not our duty to judge the beliefs of others. 73.150.197.202 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define neutral sources. Sindenheim (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In saying that do you not think you are revealing a personal bias? Many conservative opinion columnists are employed in both of those news organizations. And even so, would you as an individual like your work disregarded simply because the person who disregarded it has different views than you? Put simply, I believe if a cited source was biased on the right you would argue it had no bias. The New York Times and The Washington Post are both highly credible and distinguished newspapers, therefore we must, in a way, assume their biases more well founded than you, and other random people on here. Sindenheim (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of NPOV?

Starts with violation of NPA and goes downhill from there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am concerned that this entire article doesn't conform to NPOV standards. From the start, the first sentence says that is is authoritarian in nature. I do agree on that, but I'm concerned that the entire article is written from an leftist point of view. ONE RING (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.
"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.
Per NPOV, editors should be neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else who be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.
Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this, too.;-) As you say (again;-) too many people think NPOV means to present "bothsides" as having equal weight. Not so. The weight is determined by what reliable sources say. Carlstak (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CandleGuy1111 you are 100% correct. Best to just step away from this page. It is, in essence, a dumping ground for all complaints about Donald Trump and his followers. That's why the article is so massive! In contrast, the Trump derangement syndrome article is tiny. This is the wrong place (as is most of politics-related Wikipedia) to look for balance or a neutral point of view, especially given that the vast majority of conservative secondary sources are marked as unreliable or outright banned. Mkstokes (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they lie, and it can be demonstrated. Carlstak (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there you have it. Most conservative secondary sources lie, most liberal secondary source don't lie. Nothing to see here. No bias. Furthermore, in order to keep things in check, primary sources can only be used if cited by "reliable" secondary sources (i.e., liberal sources). @
WP:NPOV in an article that is strictly the opinion and indeed the creation of leftists is a fools errand. The first paragraph, exclusively citing leftist secondary sources, is the template for the entire article. Mkstokes (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't blame Wikipedia for the fact that Republicans have become like that. And this is
not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The entire article is a forum. As for blaming Wikipedia, that's just silly. Wikipedia is just a technology stack for storing and presenting data. I'm merely saying in contrary to the topic of this section,
WP:NPOV is irrelevant for this article because the article is merely a storage place for anti-Trump screed. Mkstokes (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You beef is with reality, which has a well-known liberal bias. Not with the Wikipedia, nor its editors. Your comments above do nothing towards the aims of article improvement or editing, and instead foster a
WP:AE. Just an FYI. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
ALright. Let's stop this discussion before flame war starts. ONE RING (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tag rationale per
WP:DRIVEBY

The presentation style and overall tone, and perhaps the use of images, compare very unfavorably with every other article we have about other right-wing or far-right ideologies. It is immediately obvious to an uninvolved observer that the article is written in a polemical, albeit thoroughly cited, fashion.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalized complaints are nearly impossible to fix. Please make clear the changes you are requesting. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MAGA

The MAGA movement is synonymous with Trumpism. Is it not? If so, maybe you should leave it in the hat note. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MAGA movement is thoroughly Trump related, but I believe it involves not only trump but a plethora of far-right politicians and ideas who believe that only that kind of conservatism will, “Make America Great Again.” It just so happens that the Trump campaign coined the phrase and popularized the sentiment. Whereas Trumpism is the specific cult like following that almost support only him as a person rather than his morals or even policy decisions. Sindenheim (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political Bias

This entire article is blatantly misleading and characterizes the “Trumpism” movement in an inaccurate way. Hopefully someone with editing powers can correct this to something more accurate and useful. The article conveys a severe lack of understanding and is extremely politically charged in one direction. 2600:6C63:427F:A528:3CE3:12CE:F670:BD67 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the United States

@Superb Owl: I believe the section mentioning world leaders similar to trump should be redone completely or removed. It’s kind of flawed (such as adding two politicians for the Philippines whereas the others had one) and there is evidence for some politicians that were added. Firekong1 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firekong1, the lede section you edited was to replace well-sourced commentary on world leaders with unsourced ones not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Per the request in both reverts of your edits, please add reliable sources to the leaders you want to add and reasoning for removing leaders with reliable sourcing on the talk page (you can also add reliable sources that dispute the comparison into the article). Superb Owl (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Superb Owl: Only one of the additions had sources, and I personally think there are other Spanish politicians comparable to trump. But I will add sources, just please do not revert them immediately. Instead I prefer if you’d let me know which ones are and are not appropriate for Wikipedia’s standards. Firekong1 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&oldid=1220783125"