This is an archive of past discussions about Trumpism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The page has very many sources that back up the claim that Trumpism is a form of fascism. As such I think the template should be added to the page. I know that it's controversial because it's partisan, but there is consensus from experts that it qualifies as fascist. The page also mentions the word "fascism"/"fascist" 88 times, all in reference to Trumpism. Here are some of the sources:
Connolly, William (2017). Aspirational Fascism: The Struggle for Multifaceted Democracy under Trumpism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-1517905125.
As such, I think that Trumpism should be added to the template, and that the template should be added to the page. I will make a WP:BOLD edit and add it. If you disagree, please discuss it here. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
None of those articles explain how "Trumpism", a form of right-wing populism, is "fascist". They use it more like a political adjetive rather than analysing and comparing it with Gentile's ideology Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, the comparison between Trumpism and Fascism is nothing short of insane. Biden's ideology is closer to Fascism than Trump's ever was. bree Breeboi12:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You're simply wrong in saying that the sources don't explain how it fits the definition of fascism. That's literally the entirety of what the sources are. They also explain how scholars of fascism pretty much agree on the usage of the term. Removing it because you personally disagree with the sources and think that "Biden's ideology is closer" is biased editing, simply put. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@Di (they-them): I'm not the one making any argument about Biden. I'm pointing out that none of the sources make any effort to align what they call "Trumpism" with fascism as Gentile originally defined it. You can't simply call any little thing under the sun "fascism" without backing yourself up, as none of these so-called experts even attempt. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
A comparison to Gentile isn't necessary for a source to be valid. The scholarly consensus is clear, regardless of your opinion. Not citing Gentile doesn't invalidate the sources or their claims. And the sources clearly do back up their claims. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Di (they-them): Gentile quite literally wrote the book on fascism. It's certainly not our fault if a few coastal blowhards choose to ignore the rules and slap an increasingly impotent label on whatever so much as annoys them. A consensus formed by ill-faith players is not the gospel truth. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with the scholarly consensus doesn't make it any less true. Your opinion is irrelevant here. Just because you disagree doesn't make the experts "blowhards" or "ill-faith players". You're the one arguing in poor faith by declaring all sources you disagree with invalid because they don't cite Gentile. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Di (they-them): That's precisely what makes them invalid, or at least highly dubious. If you assign a label to something even if it doesn't fit, that's what's defined as being wrong whether or not you're a "scholar" or "expert". Several such wrongs do not equal a right, and we in building an encyclopedia ought to strive to be right. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Except the label does fit, as the sources clearly indicate. If you were right in your assessment that the sources don't make any valid comparisons then you would be in the right here, but the sources clearly indicate that it fits the definition quite well. These aren't just random people declaring something is fascism because they don't like it, they're experts who have studied fascism declaring something is fascism because the glove fits neatly. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Also, regarding your claim that an we "ought to strive to be right", I suggest you read WP:VNT. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Di (they-them): If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing, and their word that "the glove fits" should be taken with a grain of salt. The conspicuous absence of such citation in these sources puts their credibility in question (to say the least) as far as the fascism claim goes. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
You're going in circles. Your argument hinges on the idea that Gentile is the only authority on fascism, which is blatantly false. I'm going to start an RfC to get this over with. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I think Western scholars who don't regard Shinzo Abe as a fascist but Donald Trump as a fascist are biased. South Korean scholars see Shinzo Abe as a fascist and Donald Trump as NOT fascist. Trumpism is not associated with Nazism or Italian fascism. However, Shinzo Abe is a Japanese fascist who inherited Kishi Nobusuke's fascist tradition. Unlike Abe, Trump is not an ultranationalist. Although it follows tradition, Abe is the heir to fascist, but Trump is not fascist. Donald Trump is not a fascist, and Shinzo Abe is a fascist. Shinzo Abe has a legacy of war crimes in World War II. Donald Trump has no such legacy. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This is not Whataboutism, but a lack of consistency. Currently in Wikipedia, there is no fascist category in Giorgia Meloni and her party. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Far right and fascism must be distinguished. Of course, there are scholars who see Donald Trump as a fascist, but there are many who do not see him as a fascist. A key element of fascism is ultranationalism. The United States has never had a government in its history that supports this ideology. The criticism that Trump is a fascist is because he is a populist. Abe is accused of being an ultra-nationalist because he is more far-right than Trump, but Wikipedia does not classify him as a fascist category. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
One editor keeps adding Lee Jae-myung as an example of a Trumpist. Is Lee Jae-myung really a person who can be seen on the same line as Viktor Orban, Shinzo Abe, or Yoon Suk-yeol? South Korean liberals' nationalist attitude toward Japan is related to decolonism and partly to the issue of compensation for victims of war crimes by the Japanese Empire during World War II, which survived in South Korea. Japanese conservative media rarely take a neutral view in South Korean politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
You have not provided any reasonable sources to support your claim. Bloomberg and Nikkei Asia are recognized as reasonable sources on Wikipedia. However, the basis for you reversing my editing is nothing more than your political claim.Jeff6045 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Some media compare Lee Jae-myung to Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but that's because he is literally a [liberal] 'populist' politician. We can find countless sources comparing [liberal] 'populist' Volodymyr Zelensky to Donald Trump in the past. (Of course, those sources are almost all pre-2022 sources.) But it would be a ludicrous argument that Zelensky is a Trumpist. No source describes Lee Jae-myung as Trumpism or Trumpist. 'Donald Trump' and 'Trumpism' are not synonymous. See WP:SYNTH. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I will report you to the Wikipedia administrators for violating the WP:3RR policy. Also, if your logic is correct, why are Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo on the Trumpist list? The sources about them seem much weaker than those about Lee Jae-myung. Additionally, neither of the sources are directly describing Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo as TrumpistsJeff6045 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff6045: No. Yoon Suk-yeol is described directly as "K-Trumpism". While Yoon Suk-yeol is a right-wing politician, Lee Jae-myung is a liberal politician. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Maddy from Celeste: I think I made a mistake while editing as well. I apologize for my inappropriate behavior. If I have done something wrong, I will take appropriate action to rectify it.Jeff6045 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted Hong Jun-pyo and Yoon Seok-yeol from the list of figures related to Trumpism
I removed Hong Jun-pyo and Yoon Seok-yeol from the list of Trumpism-related individuals. The sources linking them to Trumpism were from The Korea Herald, which is perceived in Korea as a media outlet with a specific political color. Additionally, in Korean politics, opposing sides often attack each other by accusing them of being like Trump. Based on these points, if a Korean politician is included in this document, it could threaten the neutrality of Wikipedia. Therefore, I have made my edit like this [2]. If you have a different opinion, please feel free to respond. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
You are approaching that list as though it's "the list". The lead (the top part of the article) is only a summary of the rest of the article. You repeatedly added a name to that list that isn't in the rest of the article and have now repeatedly removed two names that are in the article. Again, this is not a definitive "list of figures related to Trumpism" but a summary of figures covered in the article which have been connected to Trumpism. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I respect your edit. Can you point out which part of the source relates Hong Jun-pyo or Yoon Suk-yeol to figures related to Trumpism? Jeff6045 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand your point. It seems that you only included the individuals in the article who have explicit mentions of their connection to Trumpism. Jeff6045 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you point out which part of the source relates Hong Jun-pyo or Yoon Suk-yeol to figures related to Trumpism? - We have an entire article about it: K-Trumpism, and the section about it in this article reuses some of the same sources. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
″Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.″
Now, I haven't looked at the reliable sources list lately but unless things have changed beyond recognition, there are still classical liberal, moderate, and conservative reliable sources out there that have addressed Trump's ideological motivations without coming to the conclusion that it's 'proto-fascist' or the like. Not all seventy-four million Americans who voted for Trump are likely to have voted for fascism or been deceived into voting for fascism. Maybe some of those editors who pride themselves on achieving Wikipedia's mission want to stay compliant with it will look for some of those lonely positive analyses of "Trumpism" and add them to the article in a proportional way. Just one piece of advice: Don't search for them under the name "Trumpism" any more that you would look for positive reviews of Biden's ideological motivations under "Bidenism." —Blanchette (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, Carlstak. I'm not (or no longer) an editor of political articles, just an occasional reader, but you could start here: [3]https://www.hoover.org/research/victor-davis-hanson-case-trump and then branch out with little effort. I was surprised to see that "Trumpism" is actually used there without a sneer, like so:
At home, Trumpism is populist free-market capitalism—part traditional conservative economic doctrines of deregulation, tax cuts, and private enterprise boosterism, mixed with the doctrine of “fair” rather than “free” trade, in that Trump uses taboo tariffs to force allies and enemies alike to agree to symmetrical trade, while not letting the market entirely adjudicate social policy, as he sought to stop offshoring and outsourcing and maintain entitlements for the middle classes.
If you want to make your case, it's up to you to find reliable sources that support your contention. Looking over the ref list of the article, I see a preponderance of academic sources cited. It's hardly surprising that someone writing on the Hoover Institution's website might view "Trumpism" favorably, considering that "[t]he Trump administration maintained close ties with the institution and multiple Hoover affiliates were assigned top positions in government...", as our WP article on the Hoover Institution says. Your one source doesn't pass muster. Carlstak (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Adding The Philippines to the list of countries under "Beyond The United States"
@Synotia: You've reverted my removal of this material without providing an explanation. Could you clarify why you think this belongs in the article and why you don't share the concerns raised in my edit summary? Let me know of course if you'd like me to explain my thinking in more depth. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
You're the one who reverted my addition, it's up to you to explain why. Why is it not relevant when the topic is about the blind devotion of Trump followers? Synotia (moan) 07:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
It's up to all editors to explain their edits, especially when reverting one another; that's why I did this in the edit summary linked above, and why I'm asking you to do the same. I'm happy to clarify any aspects of that edit summary, but in case it's not obvious the relevant policy is WP:SYNTH: we have sources saying Trump said this, and sources saying dominance orientation is a feature of Trumpism, but (to my knowledge) no sources connecting the two. As such, we can't connect them ourselves by including the quote. Your version also contradicts MOS:BQ, the final sentence of which describes the use of pull quotes as a form of editorialising. So I can't really answer your question, as I'm not arguing that that the material is not relevant, but rather that it (much more concerningly) contravenes some of our fundamental policies and guidelines. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes it worse, not better. The point of the guideline is that quotes should be coherently integrated into the article prose – a pull quote (or something resembling one) that doesn't even appear in the text is not preferable to one that does. You also haven't responded to the several other fairly incontrovertible reasons for not including this given above. I'd suggest that your best option would probably be to accept there isn't currently a consensus for this, and either try to build one or propose some sort of compromise that's in keeping with the relevant policies and guidelines. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Beyond the United States
The section "Beyond the United States" is quite problematic. It strains credulity to have a section on Japan (Abe), but no section on Hungary (Orban) or Turkey (Erdogan). In the case of Abe, what some have called his Trumpism can easily be characterized as simply conservative positions on foreign policy and defense. For example, Abe's policy of raising defense spending from 1% to 2% of GDP is difficult to call Trumpism, when the US spends 3.5% of GDP on defense (a policy that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans). Westwind273 (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Trumpism is a Cult, Not a Political Movement
Trumpism is not a political movement. Donald Trump's following emerged in the 1980s with idolatrous fans, before he went bankrupt 6 times in the 1990s. He didn't have political views at the time, just narcissistic claims about his personal greatness. Very little has changed since, other than Trump's adoption of some political stances promoted by other US entities, wrapped in his continuing narcissism. Currently, many of his 'fans' or so-called political followers believe that he is the 2nd coming of Jesus, or that he was anointed by god. That is not a political movement, that is a cult, as clearly as it has ever been. That's why he has articulated and believes that he should continue to be reelected past 2 terms in office, should he get that far. It is also a confirmation of his cult status. As his followers argue he is not a politician, he is anointed by god. Even his Energy Secretary (and former Texas Governor) Rick Perry publicly argued that. Trumpism is a cult, plain and simple, and was long before Donald Trump harnessed it for political gain. He used his cult worshippers for years for his own personal gain. So this article needs to be fixed to reflect the origin of Trumpism having originated from his cult following of 40 years and later fused with political issues. Otherwise, this Wikipedia article looks to be half-baked, largely by his cult followers. Donald Trump is simply a 21st century Jim Jones. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Citation style
The citation style used in this article has been a nuisance for some time. WP:CITESHORT is a smart approach when a small number of multi-page sources are cited multiple times; it quickly becomes unmanageable when lots of single-page sources are cited once or twice each. As could probably have been predicted, editors making new additions have frequently not followed it and instead have used a more conventional style. Editors removing material have also removed inline citations but left the associated full citations in the bibliography. This second problem is less noticeable, but has the unfortunate side effect of new editors adding sources to the bibliography that aren't cited anywhere, presumably mistaking it for a "further reading" section. I've reverted on this basis, but it's not the most convincing rationale when the bibliography has plenty of other sources that aren't cited anymore. As such, I'm raising this on the offchance that anyone's interested in tackling it – that is, bringing it into line with one style or another, probably the standard one – or if anyone has any other ideas for how it could be made more manageable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The deep causes of Trumpism
I think this article is good at describing what Trumpism is and how it operates. But in a lengthy article like this, I would expect it to go deep on what causes people to support Trumpism. Here the article seems disjoint and confusing. To be specific, I am thinking of a deep description of what causes Trumpism, akin to the five whys that Toyota uses to get at deep root causes. I think the article should cover the following valid viewpoint: Trump did not create Trumpism, rather Trumpism created Trump. So then the question becomes: What created Trumpism? Here I find it hard to get an answer by reading the article. I apologize for not having a lot of sources which I can point to, but I think there are at least some prominent sources that say the root cause of Trumpism is the inability of many Whites to accept the racial and economic changes that are taking place in America. There are parallels here with southern Whites in the 1850's, who could not accept the end of slavery and the accompanying change from slavery to free labor in the economy of the South. I really wish the article were heavier on what I describe above, and not so heavy on the actual mechanics of how Trumpism works. Westwind273 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is already quite a long survey of the literature. Regarding your interest area, much of the research that focuses on causes I was forced to condense into one or two sentences when at minumum a couple paragraphs were required to do justice to the subject. In general, there are historical, political, social media, cultural and social psychology forces casaully at play here, and there is plenty of high quality citable sources sufficient to support an spinoff article in any of these areas. There is much overlap between the causal explanations, but the emphasis is heavily skewed. For example, a social dominance theory academic will typically make the claim that racial dynamics are simply derivative of the social dominance emotions in play- That is, given that the phenomenon is observed in many other countries gives support to notion that we are observing a phenomenon driven by social emotions shared by all humans, perhaps even extending to other species as suggested by Goodall. There is a counter perspective of course, and not just one grouping of such reductions, and wikipedia should fairly represent them making no attempt to arbitrate or give favor to one version versus another. As for the particular theme of your comment- it is indeed well represented in the literature taking a political science/ history of racism in america type analysis. There are many academics who argue that it is a significant, if not dominant facet of american trumpism, but the tribal/caste "othering" takes other forms in other countries where trumpian dynamics are being observed. So this new article would need not be so narrow as to only cover american forms of racism, and caste. I might propose that you begin a candidate article as one of your user pages, and invite others to contribute. Once it gets into a form suitable for a new article, it could go live then. There are many subject matter interest groups on Wikipedia and possibly you could have some take a look and make suggestions about how to structure and improve it. Or you could just Be Bold and create a new article if you think there is enough material for a quality wikipedia article. I can tell you for every sentence I added to this article, there was several hours of reading published academic papers or books. It can be a huge time committment. J JMesserly (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Unconstructive NOTFORUM thread. Griping and attacking don't help. Base suggested changes on RS.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had to double-check multiple times that I was actually still on wikipedia. This article reads like it's describing a mental illness rather than a political ideology. Articles on Scientology and other controversial topics manage to be objective with little to no effort, so it's strange that, as stated by another user above, this article seems to approach the topic from an entirely adversarial starting point. It seems to me that there was a lot of political vitriol behind the creation of this article, especially given how new it is. 2603:7080:9AF0:7A60:DCA2:2FDD:2EC:9581 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
You have an interesting perspective, but you'll need to come to the table with a concrete citation to a source, or a change you want to make to the article, and please consult the policies, guidelines, and FAQs. Andre🚐22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
You're soapboxing, IP, and have made no suggestions how you think the article could be improved. Your complaints remind me of Trump's endless whining about "fake news", which means news he doesn't like. Personally, I think the article is overly analytical, and ridiculously overlong at more than 300,000 bytes. It should be trimmed to around 100,000 to make it more readable and navigable. Carlstak (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's one suggestion: remove "authoritarianism" from the intro. That claim is totally removed from reality and the citations are weak at best. I can also attest - as a casual Wikipedia reader - that this article sounds deranged. Ultimately, I think it should be removed but I doubt that will actually happen.
This article states that Jackson defied the Supreme Court but that order never required him to do anything, common misconception as noted on the article for Worscester v. GA. shouldn't the article be edited to reflect that? Emperor001 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Note 23 needs to be removed outright. That skull looks nothing like the Punisher symbol, it has a mandible just like a regular skull.
Additionally, the rest of the text from that section
"Dominance imagery using the Stop the Steal conspiracy theme erected on the day of the Capitol assault. Three of every four Republicans believe the conspiracy theory with nearly half approving of the Capitol assault.".
IMO, text from "Three of every four" ought to be removed. Sample size on the second poll was only ~1500 from YouGov and CNN didn't even disclose sample size. "Three of every four" is misleading. AxolotlFridge (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Per [4] @MonMothma, these statements are factual and not opinions. It is not an opinion that Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have determined to be dehumanizing and rooted in physical violence. WP:YESPOVUncontested 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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you name any political scientists who disagree? If no, this creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. See 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Poll
Keep. Elements of fascism are part of Trumpism according to many of our sources. The fascism connection is discussed in the article in multiple places. Of course we keep the fascism navigation footer template. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep Many reliable sources indicate Trumpism is a form of fascism. I know this might upset his fans but I don't see how this is controversial.RKT7789 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
How is Trump fascist? Accepting the moniker of fascist because “many sources” say he is seems fascist is fascism. Was he fascist when he let governors handle the Covid response? I just don’t see the elements of fascism. This site is tainted with mistruths and bias. No wonder it can’t be cited for an academic paper. 73.86.172.182 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Accepting the moniker of fascist because “many sources” say he is seems fascist is fascism. No, that's not what fascism is at all. Ultimately though the rest of this argument is WP:OR. We go by what sources say. — Czello(music)16:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That said, if I or any other user tries to classify 21th Japanese nationalist politicians as 'fascists', it will attract opposition from conservative or Japanese users. Donald Trump is much less often referred to in the media as an ultra-nationalist, unlike Shinzo Abe. This is a matter of equity. Fascism must presuppose ultra-nationalism. Donald Trump is not an ultra-nationalist. Donald Trump is nothing but a violent right-wing populist who doesn't really have a fascist tradition, unlike Giorgia Meloni or Japanese nationalists or Iranian conservatives. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) — Mureungdowon (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Storm598 (talk · contribs).
Does Donald Trump insult WW2 victims? Does Donald Trump glorify WW2 totalitarianism? Donald Trump doesn't, but almost every conservative politician in Japan does. I don't think Donald Trump is a fascist compared to the Japanese LDP. Even those in South Korea who do not think Trump is a fascist would refer to Abe as a fascist. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) — Mureungdowon (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Storm598 (talk · contribs).
Keep. Numerous extremely high-quality sources say that Trumpism contains elements of fascism, and that coverage is significant enough (and central enough to the topic and its notability) that it ought to have the categories and template. A fourth of the lead and the main paragraphs of multiple sections are heavily devoted to discussing this. --Aquillion (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep - the counterargument is a no true Scotsman fallacy. On Wikipedia we describe things as they are described by reliable sources, and numerous sources describe Trumpism as [a form of] fascism; the navbar should stay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove. After looking at the sources used to support the claim that Trumpism is fascism in the lead, I'm not convinced that they give enough weight to classify it in this way:
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)
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. Neutralitytalk22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Remove - Agreeing with @Thebiguglyalien and along the same lines, fleeting comparisons is not enough to tack under the Fascism template in my view. It would make sense if this was a majority accepted opinion to have it but it is not, even in the lead it states that it is debatable (and even more confusingly that seemingly everyone has said this is what the majority of reliable sources say when it is not said case?) ~ Tweedle (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
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. Neutralitytalk22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 template2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E7B2:A08C:F1D0:6B82 (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Remove I understand people don't like Trump, but per Thebiguglyalien a fascism template doesn't belong here. Fascism is widely used when discussing modern politics in the United States. It's like the sophisticated version of Godwin's law. The sources may mention fascism, but they do not broadly support the claim that it's fascism. Arguments not addressing this distinction should be discounted. - Nemov (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep As long as this is still open, may as will chip in. The fascist elements of Trump's belief system are readily apparent, and supported by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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). @CandleGuy1111 the entire article is political opinion, with few if any facts provided. Looking for 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)
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)
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 battleground mentality. Actions like this become evidential should you one find oneself before a place like WP:AE. Just an FYI. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
Generalized complaints are nearly impossible to fix. Please make clear the changes you are requesting. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)
Yes. the entire thing is just a hate article making trump and all his followers out to be these horrible evil people with no morals. Where is the Bidenism article so we at least have one for both sides. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with this article, even if I might not share your point of view. Even though I lean left politically myself on many issues, I can readily observe and concede that many of Wikipedia's editors are extremely biased on certain topics, in a way that is not reflective of humanity as a whole or the total corpus of useful published information. That, in turn affects their judgements about what to say, what not to say, and how to say it; what sources to cite and what sources to ignore. That is a problem, and even people who do not like Donald Trump should be able to concede that and work to remediate it.
If you want to have a hand in contributing to the article, a good first step would be to look for reliable sources that are not currently cited in the article. I have no doubt that they exist. Google Scholar might be a good place to start. I see that the very first article listed, "Dysfunction by Design: Trumpism as administrative doctrine", is not cited in this article, and I suspect that there are many other academic articles that are uncited, also. You may be surprised to find that scholarly literature is often critical of & more nuanced than popular journalistic coverage, reflecting the fact that scholars are usually much more educated on the topics they discuss than journalists and newspaper writers.
As for your remark about "Bidenism" - I know your comment was mostly an expression of frustration about this article, but there are actually quite a few reliable sources that use the term "Bidenism". There may be enough to create an interesting and informative article about the term. If you are interested in looking further into that, you can leave a message at my talk page and maybe I can help you.
These are excellent articles (a MUST read!) dealing with MAGA's war against truth, freedom, and democracy. It is carried on by elements of Trumpism (MAGA, GOP, Trump) and Trump's autocratic dictator friends.
Oliver Darcy's commentary about it: "Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it 'one of the worst crises for American democracy this century'"[2]
On a side note, I recently came across an opinion by another editor that historians, unlike Anne Applebaum, are not to be considered "experts" or historians, without certain accreditations such as a degree in history, which Applebaum has, and or publishing in academic journals. It's not my intention to hijack, so feel free to respond on my page. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hat personalized comments that add more heat than light
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This, IMHO, is a textbook example of problematic sourcing methodology in that it quite openly seeks to co-opt selected RS (this status being determined by mechanically consulting the RSP color-coding rather than in full adherence to the PG&E on sourcing) opinion pieces to support a predetermined statement driven by specific editor-held views, rather than surveying the body of RS and distilling them into an encyclopedic format. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The body of reliable sourcing is in agreement on this. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" and all that. Zaathras (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
While it’s extremely ironic that Colbert is being quoted here of all places, I don’t completely disagree. I just think that one or more major authors of this page and its lead clearly decided to give Trump the full-scale Antichrist treatment instead of discussing him with the sobriety that we accord to various people a whole lot worse than him.
Anyway, my concern was with tone and the GIGO (technical sense not literal) concerns about methodology that comments like Valjean’s OP naturally spark. I originally had jumped in because I’m watching this page for some reason I’ve half forgotten. And also because 1) I was in the mood that day to speak my mind frankly 2) it pisses me off when nonpartisan cleanup processes such as GOCE are interfered with, as they have been in the past 3) whenever there is an entrenched group of editors forcefully dominating a broad topic area (and ampol is the single worst offender as at least in PIA there are two opposing cliques and other geopolitical CT are typically almost pastoral by comparison if you’re not a citizen of a participant), that really pisses me off.
I don’t intend any incivility by anything above, but I’ve had a long day and I’m not feeling inhibited. Have a great night.
RadioactiveBoulevardier, fortunately I just happened to notice this. You should strike your comment above at 06:30, 12 May 2024, and maybe your subsequent comments, as they are grossly personalizing this and assuming bad faith. Comment on content, not editors. That source is not even (yet) used in the article and is provided as an excellent commentary and analysis. You don't have to agree with it, but you shouldn't poison the well here and assume bad faith in other editors. Remember that using an editor's political persuasion against them can be seen as a personal attack. Analyze the content in isolation from the editor, unless there is a clear pattern of violation of PAG and BLP. Then do it on the editor's talk page and try to peacefully improve the situation, not attack and start more fires.
My and others' political bent is irrelevant to this thread. Discuss the source. You claim you "don’t intend any incivility by anything above," but (that you say that reveals it can be understood that way) that's exactly what it is. Your comments are uncivil, personal attacks, and they assume bad faith by attributing to personal ideology what can be attributed to a million other innocent factors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
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.[3] Trumpism has been referred to as an American political variant of the far right[4][5] and the national-populist and 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [5]Andre🚐23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't support removing it altogether. Per WP:PRESERVE we should find a way to move or preserve it and refactor or change it. I'm supportive of that, but I don't think we agreed on removing it. Also, there's WP:NODEADLINE to make these changes. Andre🚐17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Trim I don't think trimming the lead has anything to do with the election or politics. The lead is obviously too long and scattered. I think it should be reduced to a maximum of 2 paragraphs. Actually, one paragraph should be enough to cover what Trumpism is and include a few thoughts from commentators who are for it or against to keep it more neutral.
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)
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)
^Sanger, David E. (2012). "1–5". Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power.
Fascism or Neofascism
It has already been decided that the fascism sidebar should be kept on the page as for RFC, but something that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the sidebar for fascism doesn't contain any mention of Trumpism, while the neofascism one does. Shouldn't it be neofascism then? XCBRO172 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
This edit request to Trumpism has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove the errant ref tag here:
* {{cite journal |last=Yang|first=Mimi |title=Trumpism: a disfigured Americanism|journal=Palgrave Communications |volume=4 |date=25 September 2018 |pages=1–13 |doi= 10.1057/s41599-018-0170-0|doi-access=free|quote=Trump’s “America First” is not exactly original but from a culturally genetic and historic make-up that builds the vertical America. The xenophobic and anti-immigration rhetoric has its origin in nativism that harbors white nationalism, populism, protectionism and isolationism ... Trumpism is not Americanism, but a masqueraded white supremacism and nativism; it is a disfigured Americanism in its vertical form.}}</ref>
There is a difference between left-leaning bias and flat lies.
This is incredibly misleading and does not represent at all what Trumpism is. For example, Trump supporters favor LEGAL immigration. That does not make them "anti-immigration". How is any way shape or form is he authoritarian? Trump supporters fully support the constitution- it is a flat out life.
I understand wikipedia has a left leaning bias and I am totally okay with that. But this article is just false. There is no other way to put it. It is not what Trump supporters believe. It is what the far-left labels Trump supporters. Wow - never seen such misinformation. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I almost forgot- "heavily favors racist attacks"??? This is the most absurd statement of all time presented as fact. Please give one example. The implication is that roughly have the country supports racist attacks. I am in absolute shock that this is an actual wikipedia article. You can totally disagree with Trump, but this is misinformation regarding what Trumpism is and what him and his supporters believe. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zaathras The citation for the anti-immigration part links to a NY Times article in it Trump is claimed to have said immigrants were "poisoning the blood of the country" which he did say but if you hear all of what he said it can be easily understood that he was referring to illegal migrants and not immigrants in general. Being opposed to mass illegal migration isn't the same as being anti-immigration. The NYTimes article itself is misleading and stretches the truth. Therefore it cannot be a sufficient source to support the claim that Trump and Trumpism are anti-immigration. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
There are two true statements here: 1) Wikipedia repeats what "reliable sources" say about Trumpism, and 2) the "reliable sources" do not accurately characterize what Trump supporters really think. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, this is a great article. But in terms of actually educating Wikipedia readers about what Trump supporters think, it's an awful article. @Listenhereyadonkey, are you the IP editor who started this thread? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Your personal interpretations of what you think the sources say are irrelevant. This can be taken as a response to both of the users immediately above. Zaathras (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zaathras The New York Times is known to have obvious left wing bias. Just like how Fox News has an obvious right wing bias. The New York times have even endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since 1960. You can't deny the New York Times' bias. If we can't have Fox News we sure can't have the NY times. Even the wikipedia article on NY times talks about its bias. 2601:548:8203:8C10:11C7:8B47:D244:2EA7 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Trumpism and Populism in the United States
I am new to Wikipedia.
I have found a brief paragraph on Donald Trump under "Populism in the United States". It seems objective. Yet I found different categories and lots of paragraphs under "Trumpism" and Populist themes, sentiments, and methods. These categories and paragraphs also seem objective.
I believe a consideration should be given to merging the two in some way. The Populist themes, sentiments, and methods under "Trumpism" seem to naturally fit under Donald Trump under "Populism in the United States".
So you don't see any of that mentioned in the body? It's a pretty significant and important topic that should be mentioned in the lead as it really defines Trump and Trumpism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm. I wonder if there is a line between Trump's thinking and rhetoric and Trumpism. He sets the agenda which his MAGA base follow, and that's all "Trumpism". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
While the citations aren't necessary for the body lead, I can understand why they may be there in an article such as this. FM's concern in regard to LEADFOLLOWSBODY makes sense, and we really shouldn't turn the lead into a list of descriptors. Would everyone agree it needs to explain the prominent aspects and try to use a bit less specificity? Let's stick with what is essential in the lead and put the rest back into the body via WP:PRESERVE. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
^ abAdler, Paul S.; Adly, Amr; Armanios, Daniel Erian; Battilana, Julie; Bodrožić, Zlatko; Clegg, Stewart; Davis, Gerald F.; Gartenberg, Claudine; Glynn, Mary Ann; Gümüsay, Ali Aslan; Haveman, Heather A.; Leonardi, Paul; Lounsbury, Michael; McGahan, Anita M.; Meyer, Renate; Phillips, Nelson; Sheppard-Jones, Kara (2022). "Authoritarianism, Populism, and the Global Retreat of Democracy: A Curated Discussion"(PDF). Journal of Management Inquiry. 32 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1177/10564926221119395. S2CID251870215. Archived(PDF) from the original on January 14, 2024. Retrieved January 14, 2024. The decoupling of the man from the movement suggests that authoritarianism can continue well beyond the authoritarian's rule. The most enduring vestige—apart from the democratic institutions attacked—is Trumpism. It has metastasized from Trump's delusional framing on his inauguration day in 2017—with the biggest crowds ever—to a widespread and ambient movement, amplified by disinformation and distortion, broadcast in social and right-wing media, aggressively militant, and framed with falsehoods.
^ abCite error: The named reference Shapiro-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Irwin, Douglas A. (April 17, 2017). "The False Promise of Protectionism". Foreign Affairs. 96 (May/June 2017). Archived from the original on January 27, 2024. Retrieved January 17, 2024.
This is without a doubt one of the most biased articles ever. "Trumpism" is a concept that is mostly used, mostly (but not entirely), by political opponents, activists and voters who are against Trump. This article makes it seems like Trumpism is an actual ideology, and the list of things it supposedly includes (not just things it is accused of being) is heavily biased and without a doubt comes across like the people who wrote this article loathe Donald Trump, it needs a complete overhaul, it absolutely is designed to paint Donald Trump in a negative light.
Consider rewriting the article starting with something along the lines of, "Trumpism is a term often used to describe beliefs about politics, government and policy as well as actions caused by their level of vigour of support, by supporters of Donald Trump", maybe a bit of a mess and not concise, but it's better than what we have now. 2.100.206.55 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The section on right-wing authoritarian populism contains about 2 paragraphs on fascism, but fascism is also discussed in the section on "parallels with fascism". It seems to me that the discussion of fascism should be consolidated in one section. Comments? T g7 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That would make sense, but a lot of context that is useful for that section is within those two paragraphs that would be moved. I'd keep it the same for the time being, but I'd welcome more discussion on this. BootsED (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
See MOS:LEADCITE, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so sources aren't needed in the lead.
Having so many citations makes the lead much worse to look at and much harder to read. Move them into the body or delete them. If the lead summarizes the body, they're redundant. Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Generally, keep. The material with cites is generally contentious and controversial and likely to be challenged; the governing cite in the article body will be hard to find in an article having >342,000 bytes. As WP:LEADCITE states, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations", and including or excluding citations is done by balance and consensus. —RCraig09 (talk)19:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Given the pages of Lulism and Kirchnerism have their own Political Party style infoboxes as they are often political ideology that shift away from the mainstream of the party are governing which is relevant given political ideology of Trumpism often somewhat differentiates from the mainstream of the GOP. Mhaot (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories rules
Does Trumpism have to actually be "White Supremacy", "Fascism", "Christian Nationalism" and a "Disinformation Operation" for these categories to actually apply to this page, it would seem as if this page is saying that Trump is all of those things, or does a page have to be accused of being those things to be included, if it's actually saying Trump is those things not only is that extreme bias but it is also not true! 2.100.206.55 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Adding direct quotes from Trump to illustrate some of the points better
For the Money-Kyrle pattern in particular I had a hard time understanding it from just the description, having listened to a lot of trump speeches the closest example I can think is him describing how America is being "ripped off on trade deals" and how only his hard balling with world leader (such as telling Macron he will "put a tariff on all french wine") can quickly solve the issue
For the conspiracy theory section, i'd like to add him trying to suggest that Ted cruz's Father was connected to the JFK assassination
Also something he repeated a lot post Roe v wade being repealed particularly in his last debate with Biden is that "everybody, conservatives and liberals, wanted abortion to returned to the states", this is a clear and objective lie, that he repeats forcefully and which somehow dodged any scrutiny, said to make an action that should require a nuanced defense that would alienate some voters no matter what argument he used appear unambiguously positive. I think that fits well in the rhetoric portion. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources which define the topic. You are suggesting to use primary sources, which would be selected by you, presenting a personal viewpoint. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, we must summarize uninvolved secondary media sources, and if a few of them quote the same Trump comment, then we can be certain that the particular quote is part of the literature. The quotes must always be taken from media analysis. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I basically agree with Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah's choice of subjects, and I also agree with Binksternet that it's preferable(though not always required, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) to cite reliable independent sources that analyze Trump's statements as being lies or falsehoods and place them in context. —RCraig09 (talk)07:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree it's very long (and I will also contribute to that other article) but my concern is that its long and hard to digest, these are some very academic subjects that people may not see how they relate to Trump without an example. I also don't think it's balanced to have so many quotes of people talking about trump's rhetoric and so few of Trump's actual words. I know Bushism is a completely different thing but part of what makes that article both good and easy to understand is the direct quotes Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Inflammatory image in the heading.
I do think this image should be removed and replaced because its obviously Inflammatory and is meant to paint some kind of cultish image of the movement. I personally wanted to remove this image a long time ago but I was inexperienced with editing on Wikipedia. @User:Valjean says removing this image is whitewashing. I do think keeping the image is a violation of NPOV. The image file is literally called "Fascism Worship". Sources do state there are similarity's with Trumpism and Fascism. but that can be summed up as Fascism and Trumpism are inherently National Populist ideologies, and that they are 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)
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)
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. [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] I will go and look for better images. Zyxrq (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
First of all there is no evidence that this is a trump rally, there's also no evidence that this person is praying. so the current caption in this Wikipedia Article should be removed. Concerning the sensitivity of the subject we should use images that are actually explicit. the file name of the image is "Fascism worship" which gives no context and I think is also misleading. Zyxrq (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@BootsED Concerning the sensitivity of the subject we should use a image that's actually explicit. If you want a image that implies a cult of personality this isn't a good one. There is no evidence or citation, that they are "worshiping" or "kneeling in prayer" to anyone. Zyxrq (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Zyxrq (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I made an edit that added the image back but removed the word "prayer" from the description. The image source itself did not state the person was in prayer, although I can certainly see why it looks that way. I also added back in a description of another image that was removed. BootsED (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. but could you explain to me why a picture of a trump "supporter kneeling" and nothing else is appropriate to be in the heading? Its not showing an example of a "cult of personality" or "Religion". It simply doesn't add anything. This is why I'm so intent on adding a new image that's actually explicit. Zyxrq (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if the image was showing an example of a cult of personality the other images arguably already are doing the same thing. I'm still arguing to replace it with an example of the Christian/Religious faction of the movement, which is also more prevalent. Zyxrq (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I will be available to continue this conversation tomorrow night/this afternoon in which I can also clarify some of my thoughts. Central Time Zone
I think the kneeling supporter image is appropriate. It evokes the idea of worship or religion, based on faith and obedience. This fits with several themes in this article. If we are going to get rid of one of those pictures, we probably could get rid of either the picture of Trump or the "feelings" picture at lower left. T g7 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The problem with the image is that its not actually showing worship or religion, based on faith and obedience. Its quite literally just a trump supporter kneeling. though the other images arguably already shows examples of faith and obedience to Trump. Again I'm still arguing to replace it with an example of the Christian/Religious faction of the movement which is also prevalent and lacking appropriate representation in the heading images. Zyxrq (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no problem with the image. It shows very well how Trump inspires zeal in some followers. That's an important aspect of Trumpism. Very relevant, not to be removed. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I, also, see the image as proper, especially because of the neutrally descriptive caption "a supporter kneeling at a 2016 Trump rally in Tucson". Similar images are actually common in Trump's history, so it's neither misleading or inflammatory. —RCraig09 (talk)02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Binksternet Tg7 posted images that do a much better job depicting that Trump inspires zeal in some of his followers. Also to imply that this image is anything other than a trump supporter kneeling without any sources or evidence to the contrary is dishonest. You don't know what they are kneeling to or for so don't act like you do. this is a bad image because it doesn't add anything that's not already shown.
Your links contain images that cannot be used because they are not in the public domain. We must use images that are already hosted by WikiCommons. The main attraction of the disputed image is that it is strikingly composed—a standout example—especially considering that the small thumbnail size is just as compelling because of the single person wearing a Trump flag as a cape. The photos listed by T g7 are lacking in that department. Consensus here is clearly for retaining the image. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm using those images I linked as examples on what kind of images can be used to replace the current one. Also I'm going to point out you ignored my concerns and made claims without sources just to Declare consensus yourself. If one of us locates and or uploads a image similar to the ones I linked would that make you happy? Zyxrq (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
So the only real argument you have for keeping the image is because it looks pretty. But yeah I'd respect a consensus. Zyxrq (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
To me, these different images convey different messages and have different artistic value. The one with the woman in the cape is very good. There is some mystery to it. We know that someone kneeling like that must be feeling some emotion, but we can not see her face so we do not know what the emotion is exactly. Why is she on her knees and raising her hands? It could be awe or primitive religious fervor or euphoria or supplication or hope or relief. She could be praying or feeling an aura. What happened before and after that frame? Did she prostrate herself or just kneel there with her hands in the air? There is a timeless quality to it. Also the other people in the crowd appear to not notice her. They have their backs turned to her. What does that mean? In sum, the photo conveys that she has intense feelings about Trump, which likely include a religious type of feeling, but exactly what those feelings are is kept hidden from us in an interesting way. The other photos which more specifically reference Christianity are less visually powerful. They are less mysterious, and convey a less emotional and visceral, more cerebral message. Of the photos about Christianity, the one I find most interesting is the one of the men raising the giant cross. It conveys a feeling of power, strength, solidity. And it's interesting because the way they are erecting the cross is probably the same way the Romans did it 2000 years ago. Do they mean this cross to be a symbol of faith or an instrument threatening violence? T g7 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Grammar Errors & Topic Continuity
There are so many small grammatical errors that this article needs a good proofread. Also, in many sections the topic, point, or theme is not consistent. Some of the quotes or statements do not match the heading they are under.
Overall it reads like a rough draft of ideas thrown on paper and needs help to focus it and give it neutral bias. This article is like a rambling run-on sentence. 207.225.44.90 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2025
This edit request to Trumpism has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
You need to be very specific, as in exact quotes of existing content to be replaced with "these exact words" and sourcing. It must not be controversial and must already be a settled matter with other editors on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
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). Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Done I've added a short section citing this source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Trump effect 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/2023 October 20 § Trump effect until a consensus is reached. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}