Talk:Donald Trump and fascism

Bias

This article is left-wing biased. Mast303 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

How so? And how would you correct it? Médicis (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Include more mention/evidence of the opinion that Donald Trump is not fascist. Mast303 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Which mention/evidence do you want to include? Médicis (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reliable sources unambiguously and explicitly call trump a fascist. If anything the article is muddying the waters by not doing so in wikivoice, despite the requirements for it being met. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

i would start by mentioning that he does not meet the criteria or characteristics of a fascist as per the definition. This article still states that he incited the Jan 6th incident when it has been shown unequivocally that his statement specifically stated peaceful protest and encouraged acting in a reasonable manner and in fact, was not made at the location or to the people that it has been implied.

It also includes false associations with white supremacists. Donald Trump is not now, nor has ever been a rascist. He has been lauded by the black community for his administration doing more for then than Obama. He backed Jesse Jackson's bid for presidency in the 80s and if you watch the republican primaries where they were calling the candidates out onto the stage and they seemed to skip over the Black candidate, I don't remember his name, Ben something, who stood awkwardly while they called other who went around him and onto stage, when Trump was named, he stopped and stood with him until, at the end, the announcer was forced to reread Trumps name and the Ben fellow after. They had done that man a disservice and Trump saw that and stood with him while other went around . Would a racist do that? It was a small gesture to stand with him, but it spoke volumes as it wasn't words, it was action.

If you really are so unable to see clearly through your obvious bias.. there is an easy resource for maybe bringing you back into clarity... There are several AI that could give a better breakdown of actual truth Vs fiction and totally unbiased representation. 2600:6C67:487F:DE40:3024:C037:9D8:3275 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Many reliable sources disagree with you about Trump's authoritarian and fascist tendencies and nothing you've said there was sourced or clearly addressing any specific statements in the article.

And if you want people to stop thinking Trump is a racist, you'd have better luck by asking him to stop talking about how people with brown skin are going to 'poison our blood'. Good luck. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The article in fact downplays Trump's fascism by presenting it as an unsettled question, even though the body of the article makes it clear that a consensus has been reached. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting inversion of our usual bias complaint. I will say I have noticed a trend of academic outlets being more willing to call Trump a fascist since 2021 really but ramping up in 2024. However to suggest the matter is settled enough for us to say, in wiki voice, that Donald Trump is a fascist we would probably require a meta-analysis showing yes-fascist vs no-not-fascist claims from top-quality sources as a time series. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The "usual bias complaint" comes from brigading trolls organizing on X and other alt-tech platforms - I would know, because I monitor them regularly. The REAL usual complaint that I've seen voiced by actual veteran editors is that site consensus has a tendency to err on the side of False Balance in favor of Trump.

The meta-analysis shouldn't be too difficult, because there are a grand total of ZERO "no-not-fascist" claims from top quality sources. The few that exist are from before January 6, and the people who made them have since changed their minds. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

By all means please present findings of such an analysis. Many of us would welcome a clarity that could achieve consensus but I can see at least two peer-reviewed sources in the "criticism of the invocation" section that fall under no-not-fascist so I'd want to actually see the sources being counted. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind; I did it myself.

My methodology was to focus only on peer-reviewed journal articles and on books published by academic presses. This was just to stop me from having to read two hundred newspaper articles and to focus on best-quality sources only. Please note I am not saying newspaper sources are unreliable, just that our decisions about article weight should skew toward academic sources when available.

I also only focused on sources that are currently being used in the article presently.

I divided these sources by year and across four dispositions toward the question of Trump and fascism:

1. Ambiguous sources are sources that are used to support points that could arguably either be yes-fascist or no-not-fascist arguments.
2. Irrelevant sources were academic sources being used on background that did not speak to Donald Trump or the 21st century Republican party.
3. Yes-fascist sources are sources that were either explicitly calling Trump a fascist or were supporting that the Trump regime engaged in activities that unambiguously correlate with fascism.
4. No-not-fascist sources are sources that explicitly stated Trump was not fascist, although they may have stated that he was some other form of authoritarian, was a right-populist or against democracy.

My hypothesis was that the time series would show increased ambiguity and "no" articles in the past and increased "yes" articles as we approach the present.

I had a sample of 28 articles. This is actually 27 articles as one article was a debate article that included unambiguous Yes-fascist arguments and no-not-fascist arguments. As the source unambiguously argues for both I treated it separately from "ambiguous" articles and counted it both as "yes" and "no."

A methodological weakness of the sampling I used is that it excludes journalistic interviews with experts.

The results by year:

2015:

Irrelevant: 1

2016:

Irrelevant: 1

2017:

No: 1

Yes: 3

2018:

Yes: 4

2019:

Ambiguous: 1

Yes: 1

2020:

Yes: 2

2021:

No: 1

Yes: 5

2022:

Ambiguous: 1

Yes: 1

2023:

Yes: 3

2024:

Yes: 2

This disproves the hypothesis as there was not an increased number of "no" or "ambiguous" articles early on in the series. Instead, Ambiguous articles were rare, occurring a total of twice (in 2019 and 2022) while "no" articles occurred twice as well in 2017 and 2021. The majority of academic sources either explicitly called Trump a fascist or were being used to support that Trump or the Republican Party have features in common with fascism (22 of the total sample of 28). These spiked after the January 6 riot at 5 in 2021 but were relatively consistent, demonstrating a very gradual reduction in frequency (linear trendline is y=-0.119x+3.5236) that matches the reduction in frequency of use of newer academic articles near-perfectly.

The end result of these findings do support that this article, by framing the debate as being divided within academia, demonstrates an article bias compared to the best quality sources the article uses. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

All of the NO articles listed under "criticism" are pre-insurrection.Your list here shows 1 ambiguous and 1 NO article post-insurrection versus 11 YES articles. That is a blatant consensus, and more than enough to justify using wikivoice. If THIS isn't enough for you, then it's safe to assume nothing ever will be, which raises serious questions regarding your neutrality on this topic. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean if you would like to propose the change you're looking for... I am assuming you're looking for wiki-voice language in the lede. As my findings were rather more stark than even I expected I'm receptive to changes but keep in mind I'm not the only person you'll need to persuade. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The change I'm proposing to this article is to cut the framing of this being a debate and explicitly call trump a fascist, his base fascists and his regime a fascist regime. More broadly, I recommend extending this policy to all articles concerning trump and trumpism, along with adding the "Fascism" infobox to said articles, but that's beyond the scope of this article. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a bigger change than we can probably undertake at an article talk discussion. For such a centralized discussion I'd suggest WP:NPOV/N might be the place to go and that you'd want to frame it as an RfC. Do you know how to do that? Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I could look it up if I wanted to. I only just realized the scope of these changes as I was typing my previous reply. If this requires an RfC on a noticeboard, I'm probably the last person who should be doing that. Besides, I have no doubt that this will eventually be brought up by others in the coming months, so I'll just drop it for now. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@IP Editor. So you claim that being a fascist/racist/antisemite/neo-nazi is:

- Imposing tarriffs

- Deportation of illegal migrants

- Being a strong advocate for peace in wars

- Supporting Israel (funny)

- Critizing the media for asking him questions like "What are you going to do with the economy? X expert disagrees with you... blah blah blah" while asking Joe Biden "What flavor of ice cream did you pick out?"

In that case, Obama fits all of the above except for imposing tarriffs. Guess I have to go over to the Barack Obama article and change his ideology from left-wing to fascist neo-nazi zionist african-american racist. DotesConks (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, hopefully for the last time, this page is not about Obama and what you are describing would be, at best Wp:OR. Please avoid WP:SOAPBOXING about your opinion on the relative merits of these two men. It's entirely irrelevant to the scope of this page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

From "So" to "out?" the user raised very valid and correct points. Donald Trump is trying to end the two wars that started during the Biden presidency (for the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Trump has already obtained a 30-hour ceasefire, and on 8 May he will obtain another one, this time for 72 hours). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Did Biden have anything to do with the Russo-Ukraine conflict? I get what you mean by him ending wars, but criticizing Biden for not handling it well is out-of-scope for this page. — EF5 ^(questions?) 19:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you misread and misunderstood; I wrote "during the Biden presidency", not "Biden" (in any case, Biden as president was responsible). JacktheBrown (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

"in any case, Biden as president was responsible"?? Unless Biden (like Trump) was supportive of Putin, Putin, not Biden, was responsible for starting that war. Trump even had the GOP party platform altered to favor Russia over Ukraine. Don't believe his pretend "defenses" of the Ukrainian people. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems a bit simplistic insist that a fascist would be for *all* wars everywhere. If you want to claim that helping an ally end a war with a favorable treaty can't be something that fascists do, you're going to need to find some very persuasive sources. I don't believe they exist.

And again, nobody said that merely deporting people in the country illegally is part of fascism. We've been doing it for many decades now. We, and the reliable sources, are pointing out that doing so while ignoring the law and the Constitution is what makes it fascism. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

All of this is just the personal opinions of individual editors. We should stick to what reliable secondary sources say. This is not a forum. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, this is important people: Wikipedia doesn't care about your definition of fascism. It doesn't care about my definition of fascism. It doesn't care about logic games we can play to support or oppose the idea that this or that person is or is not fascist. It doesn't care about comparing one person to another and drawing parallels between their actions. Wikipedia cares about what reliable sources say. Our articles should be derived from those. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, then why was my post from a noted professor deleted, and from the talk page? 2601:645:C601:6010:6C79:9FCB:F1B8:B5C1 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Total propaganda. 2600:1700:FB0:19B0:130A:908:4EC4:5DAA (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If you think something on the page is incorrect, please state what it is along with your source. The talk pages are WP:NotAForum. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is just so bad. It is so many strange things that is going on in this article that I don't know where to start. Sadly someone removed from the lede that many will call Trump a fascist more as an insult. This was a part of the lede some months ago but now it is gone.

You don't need to go far in this article before it is getting really messy. First the lede I would say is still okay, to be clear the standard in this case is really low, I think this is the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia in my life.

Then the next two sections under Background, I would also say it is "okay".

But then the next section the shit really hits the fan. It starts "okay" with some January 6 event and that Trump's connection with fascism needs bigger scrutiny. but after that the paragraph is getting really strange. Then in the same paragraph we change subjects completely and starts to talk about a random poll that has nothing to do with the earlier part of the paragraph. Why is this under background subsection? How is this poll the background? Reading this paragraph feels a bit like hallucinating. Oddly enough one part of the article about the poll is left out, I will quote it It's common for people to think highly negatively of candidates or political figures they oppose, especially in the heat of a presidential campaign. This finding, regardless, marks the divisions -- and the high stakes -- of this particular contest.. This is a really important part of that article.

I don't want this edit to be too long so we will continue on reading the paragraph. Now suddenly we start to get down in the rabbit hole of all discussion. We will add Hitler to this messy paragraph. How can these three things things be in the same paragraph? Why are these two polls so important that they are two of the absolute first things in the article? How is this the "Background". It is funny that those who defend this article talks so much about academic research, but two of the first things in the article is two polls. That Hitler poll is just so strange, but I must say that it fits perfect for the worst article on Wikipedia. So the theory is that if you believe that Hitler did some good things, you are a Fascist? Or is this some sort of 1984 Newspeak, that you need to rethink the question as, "do you believe Hitler was a good person". To keep my mind sane, my reply will end here and I will not read any more of this crap /Bro (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia works. The left and far left love to sabotage Wikipedia; they don't care about constructive criticism, they respond to it with prepackaged phrases and continue their senseless war (lost from the start) against Trump (the left and far left have gone completely nuts since Trump became president for the second time (people's vote)). If you do a search, no left-wing politician has criticism on his Wikipedia page, while all right-wing politicians do (just from this you can understand how reliable Wikipedia is): https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased.

If you did five seconds of research you'd stumble upon Rashida Tlaib, a democratic lawyer with tons of controversy and criticism. Do some research before saying blatantly false things. ^EF⁵ 16:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen Bob Menendez(which names him a convicted felon in the first sentence) or even Hunter Biden. And Trump did not win due to a massive increase in support(it only increased slightly over 2020), he won because Democratic voters stayed home(Harris got fewer votes than Biden did in 2020). But keep drinking the tea as he figuratively burns down the US federal government. In any event, if you don't have specific changes to propose to this article, this isn't the forum to debate the ideological bent of Wikipedia. If your issue is with the ideologial bent of independent reliable sources, you need to take that up with them, and perhaps get right wing sources to stop making things up and adopt actual journalistic standards. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Literally the article about Hunter Biden calls some of the accusations false, and never directly refers to the accusation about the laptop (which was founded, or at least the Russians have nothing to do with it; after every accusation against the left the first thing you do is accuse the Russians with the sole purpose of distracting attention from the real accusation, the one against you): "...which intensified after the New York Post published an article in October 2020 about a laptop computer that had belonged to Hunter Biden."; so, what are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.255.178.78 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a debate forum, nor is “ButWhatAbout” a good argument for changing this article. If you disagree with something here, look at the source to verify it (or not) and look for other sources that contradict it. Just saying you don’t like something is not a valid reason to change the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yup. As a comparison, the article on TDS goes at length to note how the term is only used by the right, yet no such polemic (that only far-leftists/leftists call Trump a fascist) is made on this article. It would be way more fairer to stop treating the lunacy as an actual discussion point, and to treat it like a thing a certain political extreme believes in (in a similar way as to how usage and by whom of TDS is treated, J6 or any 2020 election fraud claim) PLMandarynka (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the case that only leftists and far-leftists call Trump a fascist. "Fascist" in this context is not an insult. It refers to a specific form of authoritarian ultranationalism, which has defined meaning within political science. There is serious academic debate on whether Trump can be considered a fascist. By contrast, there is no serious debate in the American Psychiatric Association, for example, that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a genuine mental disorder or maladaptive social pathology. These two subjects are not remotely comparable. We report what reliable sources say about what educated subject-matter experts say. It's also worth noting that, technically, Trump is a far-right extremist, so most people around the world are going to be further left than him and Wikipedia is an international project. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, it is the case. No centrist/conservative says that ever. I've never seen anyone outside of (American) leftist bubbles say honestly that Trump is a fascist; on the contrary, as a European, the term is met with ridicule from liberals and conservatives alike (atleast from a sample size of a few politically active people i know). And to "is not an insult" - yet repeatedly comes off and is used as one.

Secondly, "There is serious academic debate on whether Trump can be considered a fascist", again, within leftist circles - maybe. But not as an actual point with wider approval. People who believe he is will say he is, and people who don't believe he is don't entertain such thoughts. As people who don't believe the 2020 election was rigged/stolen don't entertain polemic with people who do. To reiterate, both points are general examples of largely politically extreme mindsets; one left-wing, one right-wing.

Thirdly, not my point at all. My point was at how within the TDS article, mention of the usage of the term being by the right-wing is heavily commonplace. However, there are zero words on the longer (comparable) article towards the term being used (only) by the left-wing. You can find this, as addressed previously, bias, comparing leftist points and right-wing points, quite often, especially outside of mainstream articles which goes slightly more unnoticed.

And lastly, sure. I can agree Trump's right-wing and that Wikipedia will, naturally, have more people further left at him. My critique is simply towards obvious bias, instead of something unchangeable. PLMandarynka (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple academic sources already included in this article which argue that Donald Trump is a fascist. This isn't a partisan issue. Your anecdotes are original research at best and they do not override the perspectives of legitimate scholars on this subject. If you believe that the scholarly sources provided are unreliable sources due to left-wing bias, that's a discussion to have on the meta page regarding reliable sources rather than this article's talk page. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

"Academic sources" are not free from any sort of bias. I'm pretty sure you know this, so should everyone

"This isn't a partisan issue" It definitely is. Can you even name one Republican/conservative who seriously thinks he's a fascist? Even social democrats i know (though, European) ridicule the term. And for good reason. Americans never had anything under fascism, so then they extrapolate anything they don't like and is further right-wing than Romney to "fascist". To anyone outside of USA, it's a joke.

And i'm not saying they're unreliable, that's a whole different story. My original claim of bias was that on right-wing "fringe claim/talking point" articles, such an article goes at great length to mention at how it's only used by the right-wing. So, i feel it would be very just and overriding a bias if we were to mention "Donald Trump is a fascist" being a left-wing talking point. PLMandarynka (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue here between the right wing articles you allude to and this is probably one of source quality rather than ideology though, absent concrete examples, I can't say for sure. But there's a world of difference between Breitbart and an academic journal. While some research suggests that social sciences and humanities publications tend to skew slightly left of the overall population this is not actually something that worries Wikipedia. Wikipedia's neutrality is not one of absence of bias - rather it is one that neutrally reflects the bias that exists in reliable sources. Basically: if the entirety of sociology or history skews left then so will Wikipedia because Wikipedia's goal is to accurately summarize what sociology or history say as disciplines about a topic. Basically: there's a difference between NPOV and centrism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, fully true, however in this case the entirety of sociology (or definitely not history) does not state that Trump is a fascist. Said academic papers are purely a product of leftist political writers/professors/students, and do not reflect a neutral point of view. I can say with confidence that there are much, much more academic papers which allude to Trump being a "populist", "authoritarian-like", "Trumpist", etc. What does (reflect one), atleast in my opinion, is acknowledging the fact that "Trump is a fascist" is a purely leftist talking point. The article has many other glaring issues (which were addressed previously by others) but this is just another take of mine on it. PLMandarynka (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You're missing my point. My point is that the bias here is WP:ACADEMICBIAS rather than a left wing one. It just so happens that the groups of people who study politics in an academic setting (sociologists, historians, political scientists, philosophers) may skew somewhat left. This is a result of the fields and not an invention of Wikipedia. Basically: sorry - but the general consensus in academia is that there is a relationship between Donald Trump and fascism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

And you're missing my point, rather opinion, on how said academic sources which are used are left-wing. If you have a case where x ideology says x and y/z ideologies say nothing, that doesn't mean that those academic sources are credible or not subject to bias. Same here. Where the left-wing academia says Trump is a fascist and more liberal/centrist/conservative writers/professors do not engage on the subject, or at least sparsely, then it doesn't mean the only point (the leftist one) is credible or not subject to bias. Also proving the previously mentioned opinion of mine on how "counter-sources" are generally moot as non-leftists don't seek to engage on the subject. Let's not ignore the fact that there are countless conservative/libertarian/centre-right/etc professors who speak on politics. PLMandarynka (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Then cite them. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You cite them, namely, non-leftist academics (or just about anyone) who do call Trump a fascist, removing any sorts of biases. I've yet to hear one. PLMandarynka (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You are the one who says that the articles selected represent a selection bias so, no, that's your job. Try Wikipedia Library to start. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't and won't be able to find any. ...Point proven? PLMandarynka (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Reality in general has a left wing bias. If right-wingers have a problem with them, they're more than welcome to look in the mirror. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a 'left wing' talking point, though. There are plenty of Republicans who call him a fascist, some meaning it as a compliment, some meaning it as a (negative) description of his authoritarianism and other tendencies. Don't you remember when Musk did the Nazi salute and a whole bunch of Trump voters applauded it and there were people who started copying him?

You're arguing for a false balance here, just because you don't like having people describe Trump this way doesn't mean that it isn't true. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

"Plenty of Republicans who call him a fascist" I laughed from this one. I'd like it if you proved that bogus point. Bonus points for not using RINOs or former Republicans who skewed sharply left.

"Don't you remember when Musk did the Nazi salute and a whole bunch of Trump voters applauded it and there were people who started copying him?" No, not at all. Also not willing to debate over a largely irrelevant point on this talk page.

"You're arguing for a false balance" And how so? Wanting to have clarity over the fact that only one side of the political spectrum says something is a false balance, even if it's done countless times for the right? PLMandarynka (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This is reaching WP:IDHT quite quickly here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you have heard Republicans call him that, you've decided you have an excuse to ignore them because they don't agree with authoritarianism. That is an example of the 'No True Scotsman' Fallacy.

You do remember it, you just want to ignore it, see above.

But as you admitted, it isn't just one side saying it. You just decided to ignore the people on the other side, and in the middle.

"But it's done for the right!" - If you believe that's true and that RS show that it shouldn't be, go fix those articles. Don't argue to change this one for False Balance. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have definitely not heard them call him that. I've seen them ridiculing it, but not joining it.

You also still haven't proven your case.

And i don't believe those articles should be changed where the right-wing's use of a term is often mentioned. That's fine. However, it's a problem when a very obviously leftist talking point has nothing mentioning about it's usage of the term being leftist. PLMandarynka (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, you are claiming there is a bias in article selection here but, when asked, you have presented zero new sources to suggest that the editors maintaining this article have missed anything let alone that they've missed such a vein of WP:BESTSOURCES saying "Trump has nothing to do with fascism" that it would significantly affect the POV. We don't make article changes based on gut feelings. Sources are required. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, i can prove the bias in the articles.

On TDS (adjacent article; claim by political extreme): "The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters.." "The term has been widely applied by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump.." "the preferred nomenclature of Trump defenders.." etc.

On Republican efforts to "disrupt" the 2024 election: "Historical allegations of cheating by the Republican Party" "Interference by Elon Musk" "the conspiracy theory that Elon Musk used Starlink to hack the election results, which Snopes described as "unfounded"" being very far down, etc.

However, in the longer "Donald Trump and fascism" article, there is nothing mentioning the fact that said point is a purely leftist talking point, it's treated as an actual point that can be discussed, like Putinism and it's ties to despotism.

I also never said "Trump has nothing to do with fascism" - there are very few, but existing, similar characteristics (which tend to be expanded and overblown). Not calling for the article to be removed. PLMandarynka (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This is no sources still. You are still declining to provide any sources. Please keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM and stop wasting peoples time. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If what i addressed isn't the point then what even is your point? PLMandarynka (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This is just more But What Aboutism. TDS *is* a term that is used only by the right. As the sources in this article prove, 'fascist' is not a description of Trump that is used only by the left. Ignoring the sources to push a false balance isn't going to help anything. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It literally is. Unless you can prove otherwise, but i know it's impossible. PLMandarynka (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but as we've discussed, that's because you've chosen to avoid reading the article and refuse to read the sources, so it's only 'impossible' to prove because you don't want it to be true.

Remember, choosing not to learn something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that you've proven it wrong.

And again, if you find a RS that says all of the right-wingers who have compared Trump to a fascist don't actually exist, or didn't say the things they posted or said on video, you're welcome to post that and then we can compare it to the sources in the article. That's how Wikipedia works. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So you still can't prove your point after all this time? Very constructive argument indeed. Not interested in circling all the time from both sides, have a good night! PLMandarynka (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that your decision to pretend that Republicans who call Trump fascists don't exist or that they are No True Scotsmen doesn't mean that they don't exist. The usage here isn't 'leftist'. It's accurate. The fact that you don't like the description doesn't change that.

The way we can tell it's accurate is that you aren't challenging any of the sources or discussing any details at all, you're just complaining. Again, your decision to ignore the sources doesn't mean that they don't exist. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

...So can you prove your point or will you just be on a loop all day?

And of course i won't challenge biased leftist sources just like you won't challenge Breitbart saying the election was stolen. It's like talking to a brick wall. Why would i ever do that? PLMandarynka (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If we're using any sources that are as terrible and as full of misinformation as Breitbart, you absolutely should challenge them. Why would anyone want propaganda nonsense in an encyclopedia?

And I've made my point, if there's something I said that isn't clear you are welcome to ask about it. Instead, you chose to say that you just don't feel like disagreeing with any of the sources that contradict your claim.

In that case, until you're ready to discuss the article and the sources in it, there really isn't anything for us to talk about it. Wikipedia is not a forum. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

So have i made my point, and a few questions. Yet you keep circling your arguments and not sourcing your points either. I also believe there's nothing to talk about here anymore, this isn't a constructive argument. Have a good day too. PLMandarynka (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You didn't make a point, you just came in and said you refuse to read the sources, but that you don't like them.

As two people have told you multiple times, the sources that support what we're saying are the ones in the article. The ones you refuse to read. That refusal is your own decision, not ours. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Read the article you're commenting on. Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bret Stephens, John Noonan, Jim Gilmore, Gary Johnson, Christine Todd Whitman, Glen Beck, JD Vance, Robert F Kennedy Jr., and Mark Esper are all right-wingers who have invoked the comparison between Trump and Fascism. To say these are not right-wingers is just a No True Scotsman. Several of them were Republican candidates. And, this is original research on my part, all three of the previous Republic presidential nominees have voiced disapproval of how far right Trump is, including Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George Bush. So again, this isn't something only leftists are saying. On top of this, from a political science perspective, liberals in the US are right-wing, too, because of their promotion of neoliberal capitalism; so the mainstream "leftists" saying this in the US (like Biden and Harris) aren't even leftists. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure they have. And i'm not denying him being far-right, only delusions.

"from a political science perspective liberals in the US are right-wing" LOL what sort of political science have you been taking? The Communist Manifesto? Get a grip. PLMandarynka (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It might be useful for you to take a look at the Wikipedia page we already have on this topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#types Here, you will see that leftism is defined in opposition to capitalism. The closest the US has had to a mainstream leftist political candidate in this millennium is Bernie Sanders, who is a moderate centre-left. We have an entire page dedicated to the history and use of these terms, too, if you're interested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#history Now, it's true that, in the US, the Democratic Party is more left than the Republican Party. However, somebody isn't a leftist just because they are left-of-centre in a country whose Overton Window is entirely right-wing. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders has admitted himself he's a democratic socialist and a leftist. Democratic socialism isn't "centre-left", especially not in USA.

And i didn't exactly mean Biden and Kamala by leftists; though, Kamala is very progressive, i meant people such as AOC, aforementioned Sanders and the whole leftist belief of hyperfixating on "fighting fascism". Establishment liberals aren't as susceptible to the naming but sometimes do go under party line.

But that's besides the point. No conservative/right-wing person has ever actually called Trump a fascist. It's purely a leftist talking point and that should be reflected in the article. PLMandarynka (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You were just shown a list of 11 Republicans who said it, but it appears you aren’t able to remember them? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my point, i'm sure they have said it. PLMandarynka (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

So your point is that you know they said it, but you're going to ignore that and continue to claim that no Republicans have said it?

Then... Nobody should listen to you anymore, correct? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

My point is that they (obviously) haven't said it. It was sarcasm. PLMandarynka (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that isn't what sarcasm means. You're looking for the word "dishonesty". You've decided to pretend that the sources are wrong, even without having bothered to read them, because you know The Truth.

Remember? That's why you refused to discuss the sources at all, because you know they don't agree with you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He is a social Democrat and an advocate for a mixed economy. To be fair, that is a little confusing, because social democrats do often refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists. Some social Democrats are socialists, but they are also centre-left, that's why I say Sanders is a moderate centre-left since he advocates for a mixed economy and not socialism. Our page on social democracy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy and our page on democratic socialism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism can hopefully clear up the confusion. As the left-wing politics page accurately reports, social democrats are centre-left, not left. Sanders only feels like a socialist because he's further left than the left-of-US-centre Democratic Party, which is predominantly right-wing. The Republican Party is far-right, due to its flirtations with ultranationalism and populism. The actual academic debate is whether Trump is specifically fascist, which is a particular kind of totalitarian ultranationalism, or merely a far-right populist and/or authoritarian. It's not really a weird conversation to have: there's a fuzzy line in academia between authoritarian nationalism and fascism that's been debated for nearly a century now. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a socialist, though he is close to one, i said he was a democratic socialist, which he has admitted himself.

Other than that i do agree with you. Many of his ideas do come off as social democratic, and yes, the line between nationalists and fascists is definitely fuzzy. Some put it at where BNP or SRS (including me), and some put it further "left" at figures like Trump or Meloni. PLMandarynka (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There are also multiple conservatives and right-wingers referenced who have argued that Trump is fascist, also already sourced in the article. So we have both several right-wing figures and politically neutral academic sources calling Trump a fascist. The premise of your argument is debunked by simply reading the article and looking at the sources. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no politically neutral academic sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.39.229 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, i'm sure of it. lol

Have a good day. PLMandarynka (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Non-expert opinions are potentially unreliable

While there is academic discussion on whether or not Trump can be considered a fascist, this article seems to give undue weight to non-expert opinions on both sides of the discussion simply because their views have been reliably documented. Even if an opinion is documented reliably, that does not mean that the subject giving that opinion is a reliable source on the subject. This article should probably place more emphasis on the views of historians and political scientists rather than politicians and journalists.

This does depend on how we interpret the page. Is it about any noteworthy comparison between Trump and Fascism, which I think might not meet notability criteria (because celebrities and politicians call each other fascist all the time)? In contrast, is the page covering the actual arguments that Trump is a fascist and the refutations of these arguments? If it's the latter, shouldn't we be focusing more on scholarly and academic opinions that are actually qualified to argue one way or the other?

I've seen shades of this complaint in other topics where it isn't relevant, and I figured it could be useful to have that disagreement worked out here so it's less ambiguous. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This article is not at all about people calling Trump a fascist as an insult. If you disagree with the academic and other reliable sources that point out all the similarities, please address them with specifics. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair request, but there are a lot. In rough sequential order with the article:

Dr. Mike Cole does not have the relevant education to determine what is fascistic in a scholarly context.

John Russo is a professor in labor studies speaking outside of his field.

Henry Giroux is an expert in cultural studies, which has questionable relevancy, although a good case could be made for him.

Stephen Miller, Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bret Stephens, John Noonan, Jim Gilmore, Christine Todd Whitman, JD Vance, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Steve Bannon, John F Kelly, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mark Esper, Mark Milley, Elizabeth Warren, Scott Wiener, and Susan Benesch are all politicians with no relevant expertise and conflicting interests.

Jonathan Chait, Glenn Beck is a political commentator with no education in the relevant fields.

Olivier Mannoni, Andrea Pitzer, Roger Cohen, Andrew Sullivan, Rich Benjamin, Howard French, and Jim Acosta are journalists, not relevant academics.

Cornel West is a philosopher, which is not a relevant field for defining fascism.

Al Gore has a degree in government, but this is dubiously relevant.

Most other references seem fine to me, and only use figures to speak on what they have credibility in. The bulk of the article seems okay, it's just the scent references here and there that are a little questionable. Good arguments could probably be made in favor of them, but it seems worth discussing. 2601:486:100:9780:F1D8:66FC:84EB:77A6 (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You missed JD Vance calling him a fascist, too. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Vance also a fascist and proud for his status? Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You aren't reading my comments and are taking them in bad faith. None of your replies to me have been an actual response to what I'm saying.

Firstly, I'm not saying these people are using fascist purely as an insult.

Secondly, I did in fact include JD Vance in my previous comment.

My concern is purely with source and article quality, not with promoting one or another viewpoint. If you have nothing productive to add and can't even bother to read what I write, then why respond at all? 2601:486:100:9780:F1D8:66FC:84EB:77A6 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is your idea of a qualified expert? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to defining political movements, political scientists. When it comes to determining what movements fit in what labels, predominantly political scientists. For the latter, historians who specialize in particular movements as well as sociologists also have expertise in linking various movements together. A great example in the article is when a linguist mentions that Trump's rhetoric is comparable to the rhetoric of historical fascists: that's reliable. A poor example would be a journalist calling Trump fascist in an opinion piece, regardless of how carefully they try to make the comparison. 2601:486:100:9780:F1D8:66FC:84EB:77A6 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I did read what you said, you very much want to imply that all the sources in the article are wrong and somehow people only want to use the word as an insult.

Otherwise you’d have been able to point to a specific statement that isn’t suitable sources, instead of writing essays filled with generalities. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about the IP's long list of politicians and will instead focus on Cole, Russo and Giroux.

The Cole essay cited is about pedagogy within the context of the spread of fascism. It is within his specialty.

The Russo interview is about the interconnection of labour relations to fascist resurgence. It is also within his specialty.

The Giroux essay is about the topic of Trump and fascism from the perspective of cultural studies, particularly looking at new media infrastructure. It is within his specialty.

The IP is taking an unnecessarily narrow view of what academics might have something significant to say about this topic. The study of politics spreads out across the humanities and social sciences quite broadly. These three authors are clearly appropriate experts and the Cole and Giroux pieces, especially are WP:BESTSOURCES while the Russo interview provides valuable context despite being from a newspaper rather than an academic journal. Simonm223 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You have made a massive Straw Man of what I'm saying intentionally, then?

I think Trump is a fascist and I want to be able to direct people to this page in order to give them a decent overview of the arguments within academia. You have entirely misread me. But my personal views are irrelevant.

If you think journalists and politicians are academics who are qualified to determine what can and cannot be called fascist, then you are completely out of step with the scholarship.

I did not in fact list every source calling Trump a fascist and in fact included several sources that argue he isn't one in my list. I did not mention political scientists or historians who used the label. I only mentioned people who were quoted calling Trump fascist or not fascist who are not qualified to make that judgment. You are genuinely lying about what I wrote, so forgive me for trying to act in good faith by assuming you misread.

I get that there are a lot of right-wing trolls on this talk page, but if you're so jaded that you can't have a nuanced conversation about source quality then you have no business being involved in these articles. You should take a break from Wikipedia. I certainly am, because I respect myself enough to not deal with your unfair abuse. I hope you're nicer to other users going forward. 2601:486:100:9780:F1D8:66FC:84EB:77A6 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Add this article to Template:Donald Trump series?

This article is not among those listed in Template:Donald Trump series. My sense is that it should be. I'm wondering if anyone else has thoughts one way or the other. And if you think that it should be added, which category makes most sense: Tenure? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, in my opinion it should be in Tenure within "Trumpism". Médicis (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)