Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump and fascism

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Queen of Hearts talk 02:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Di (they-them) (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 25 past nominations.

Di (they-them) (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment is this not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Trumpism? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note: I became aware of this nomination from a Discord post.) Regardless of whether this article should exist, I am highly skeptical that any hook could pass WP:DYKBLP, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." Note that that is undue relative to the person, not relative to the article, so the fact that this article is about Trump and fascism would not justify a hook about that topic, unless that is due focus for Trump. The article Donald Trump only uses the word "fascism" or "fascist" once, regarding Trump's rhetoric during his current campaign. Given that DYKBLP sets a higher bar for due-ness than standard editorial guidelines, I just can't picture any hook that would work, other than something completely tangential to what the article's about. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to be bold and mark this for closure, concurring with Tamzin's rationale. Considering the deeply polarized nature of American politics, the upcoming election (meaning this couldn't run immediately anyway), and DYKBLP concerns, the article seems like a bad fit for DYK regardless of hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, thanks. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

Does every opinion need to be covered as a Wikipedia article? JakeyJakey eggs n Bakey (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a majority of this content is opinion. The section "January 6 attack and the Beer Hall Putsch" is purely opinion. 2604:F580:14F:1000:A43C:B800:FF17:DAB (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also clearly not written in good faith. Steven Britton (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree per WP:TDS LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Proposed to be deleted. Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the article is not the place to propose a deletion. Go read the WP:deletion policy and continue there. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every opinion needs it's own article but popular opinions are definitively noteworthy WP:NOTE. While I'm pretty skeptical of this article I assume good faith WP:AFG. I would implore people who believe any article to biased to simply add necessary countervailing citations and facts to the article, in this case potentially by expanding the "Criticisms of the Comparison" Section or editing any parts that seem particularly biased and citing relevant parts of WP:NPOV in the edit summary. W0lfgangster (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an opinion piece. This is an article that is backed up with reliable sources. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i would argue that the very political guardian article is not a reliable source 2603:8001:B300:D383:9C44:C5B2:2907:D919 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. The Guardian should be reconsidered under Wikipedia:RS. agomulka (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a shame, we cannot use blatant falsehoods as reliable sources even if they come from a tabloidish and biased website. The Impartial Truth (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Agomulka, If you want to reconsider it, bring it up at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard talking about it here is gonna be like walking into a wall. It ain't gonna lead you anywhere. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting policy changed at Wikipedia is very much like banging your head against a brick wall, too. Steven Britton (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources of opinion are reliable in providing the opinion of the author, and nothing more. Steven Britton (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article is not WP:NPOV. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the whole page inadequate. The initial definition of fascist could equally apply to Communist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except fascism and communism are on two opposite sides of the political spectrum. I also don’t see how this comment benefits the article. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. The similarity derives from the basis that they both rely heavily on intervention and control by the state. Therefore, they are not on "opposite sides" of the spectrum. Steven Britton (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scbritton: a reliable and impartial source is essential to support your statement (to avoid misunderstandings, I didn't write that I disagree with you). JacktheBrown (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to raise WP:Competenceisrequired concerns about Mr. Britton. The above sentences clearly illustrate that the basic competences needed to edit articles on political topics are missing here. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No point when he is already blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this article is why people say Wikipedia is broken and not trustworthy

[edit]

Maybe every time Kamala makes a claim someone should create an article to support that, then the fact checkers can site "Wikipedia".

Really, just the title says this is one of the dumbest articles created on Wikipedia.

I vote for deletion. ZeroXero (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's probably better for wikipedia to fork off a "political wikipedia" or something for these sorts of opinion pieces 2603:8001:B300:D383:9C44:C5B2:2907:D919 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded for deletion. agomulka (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. Please go through the appropriate avenues regarding deletion. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no easy way to get this deleted for being low quality garbage, SOURCE the links, as the lefties love to say. 73.178.251.47 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has 108 different sources, and is very unlikely to be deleted on that basis. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
108 bad sources are nothing more than 108 sources of bad information. If all Wikipedia wants are numerous sources to allow a page to remain when it shouldn't, then there is a serious underlying problem. Steven Britton (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any arguments why they are "bad sources" to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's do that. Oh wait, I can't edit the page itself to initiate the proper channels, because the page is protected from editing. Funny thing, that... Steven Britton (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been consuming Wiki content for decades. I donated yearly up until the Trump virus set in among the primary contributors. It is moves like this and many others that has closed my substantial pocketbook. You are putting this magnificent community service at risk by regularly violating Pillars 2, 4 and 5 (through implied not stated rules). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.244.36 (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone who wants deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the place. Present policy based arguments and you got it. And anyone autoconfirmed is free to create an article, and everyone else through WP:AFC. win8x (talking | spying) 19:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Let's actually propose this article for deletion and go through the approp... oh wait, nobody can edit the page without some kind of elevated privileges. Strange thing, that... Steven Britton (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protection was set to "Extended confirmed" per the usual practice noted at Wikipedia:Contentious topics. There are over 72,000 people with extended confirmed editing privileges, of all political persuasions, which simply means they've been around for longer than 30 days and made more than 500 edits. This prevents "drive-by" editing from people who want to put their personal opinions in the article on a contentious topic rather than sticking around long enough to become familiar with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It is not an indication of bias. It does not prevent editors who are not extended confirmed from requesting changes or deletion here on the talk page. -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violates Wikimedia Code of Conduct

[edit]

"In line with the Wikimedia mission, all who participate in Wikimedia projects and spaces will:

  • Help create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge
  • Be part of a global community that will avoid bias and prejudice
  • Strive towards accuracy and verifiability in all its work"

- this is opinion, citing opinion sources and not knowledge. Knowledge is fact, not opinions. If we wanted opinions we could just go to a social media site.

- most definetly bias and prejudice with no mention of ways Kamala Harris could be seen as fascist (or communist)

-When you dwelve into opinion, the possibility of accuracy and verifiability doesn't exist. How do you verify an opinion? Just that it's made? That's all this article does. Firejack007 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. JD Lambert(T|C) 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know about that, because it’s attributed to the source.
but I would favour deletion of the article WP:TDS. If somebody wants to propose a deletion let’s see. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is allowed to exist, why not this article? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. This should be deleted. Rebelnicci (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firejack007, @Jdlambert, @Rebelnicci, this is not the place to bring about an article for deletion. Please read the deletion policy at WP:Articles for deletion. Do note that you must have a valid reason to submit an AfD, simply not liking the article is not one of the valid reasons of deletion. You can view the reasons at WP:DEL-REASON.
I am also gonna add onto this. The article in subject is about Donald Trump, not Kamala Harris or even them both. So I have no reason to see why including Kamala Harris in this article would even make sense at that fact. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with this article and others similar being up front and centre on Wikipedia, because it illuminates the political bias implicit across the site.
When someone cites Wikipedia as being an unbiased and neutral fact-based source, we can just point to this article as definitive proof that it's nothing of the sort. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create an article about Kamala Harris and Communism if needed. They just need some editing history and some sources. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the CIA and Pentagon control Wikipedia. They would not allow a Harris and Communism article. It would immediately be deleted by editors. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bruh what are you saying Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator, so feel free to disregard this comment as FUD, but I think the only Langley we've got here is Ms. Shikinami in the section below us. I would elaborate on whether or not SEELE/NERV is subject to UN jurisdiction, but I think that is an EoE spoiler. As for actual psyops, I am pretty sure there aren't any. Every time I see partisan bias on Wikipedia, it is the kind that's silly and unconvincing -- one suspects professionals would just write the propaganda and not spend fifty thousand words arguing over crap nobody cares about. jp×g🗯️ 00:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? "... the CIA and Pentagon control Wikipedia"?? How are you still an editor here? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I want to create a page called "Kamala Harris and communism"? It's no more true than "Donald Trump and fascism".
The point I was making was that this article brings Wikipedia into disrepute. And I'm fine with that because Wikipedia has a clear left wing bias across political and historical pages, aided and abetted by the political leanings of its editors and its allowed sources of information.
One only needs to look at the main steam media providers to work out that if you label the only right wing news source fox news as unreliable, but CNN et al as reliable.... If you label the guardian as reliable but the daily mail as unreliable... Etc... you are setting the terms of a systematically left-leaning encyclopedia. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and far from the same quality as the others. Fox News has been found to repeatedly run misinformation, and their own lawyers argued in court that the channel ran rhetorical hyperbole rather than statements of facts. A better comparison would be The Wall Street Journal, which is right-leaning but very much considered a reliable source. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ is a centrist news reporter - https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-bias as is the FT. But within that there is a culturally neo-liberal leaning, for example pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-lgbt etc rather than a social conservatism. The fact you think it leans right is part of your own bias.
And while it's true that the daily mail has a tabloid/click-bait tendency it has just as valid and worthy for news-based opinion pieces as The Guardian. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ is neutral in terms of news reporting, as you say, but the opinion pieces are considered right-leaning, including by AllSides: Wall Street Journal - Editorial Media Bias. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even aware of WP:DAILYMAIL? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any less NPOV than the other 800 articles about Trump, all with the exact same biases and opinions? If those don't violate the code of conduct, which they clearly don't because they're been up for years with little issue, I fail to see why this much milder article does.
You're making mountains out of molehills when we have already reached the foot of Mount Everest. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Wikipedia is community-edited and driven by the consensus means that its content will reflect the biases and ideologies of those who established themselves strongly as a core group, or "clique" (I can't come up with a better word) of editors and admins. The fact that there are so many articles that are not NPOV but allowed to exist illustrates the danger this consensus-based, community-built project holds in terms of information control.
If Wikipedia is to keep its place as a valid, useful source of reliable information, this approach needs to be seriously revisited. I know that this is not the place for an in-depth discussion, but since I have raised it before and been shouted down, I am going to raise it again and, hopefully, this time, it will hit home. I doubt it will, but I will the principle of assuming good faith and hopefully, someone will realize what's happening. Steven Britton (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is not Wikipedia:NPOV. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deletion. The fact that something of this nature was even allowed to make its way as an article on Wikipedia is disgraceful and a prime example of why people laugh at this Encyclopedia and consider it grossly unreliable. Artem P75 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The entire "Trump and fascism" thing is back by reliable and highly-read sources. Elon Musk calling out this page doesn't make it a violation of anything, if it's true. SMG chat 17:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're "only reliable and highly-read sources" when they support the point of view of the person supporting the opinions being expressed; which is precisely why this page is not written in good faith to begin with. The sources are cherry-picked to support a particular point of view. Steven Britton (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will be the case with any "perspectives" article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest that "perspectives" articles are not reliable sources for making factual claims about someone's motivations. Steven Britton (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that any "criticism of ___" Wikipedia section/article will probably have opinion sources. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't mean it's an accepted fact. An opinion that Kamala Harris is a fascist does not mean that Kamala Harris is actually a fascist. (And I did not make a mistake here. I used KH to make a point.) Steven Britton (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed this article and didn't find mention of motivations. By which I mean questions like, is Trump at heart seeking racial purity and running for President as a means to an end, or does he want to be President and is playing on people's bigotries as a means to gain power? The analysis seems to mostly focus on finding correspondences between the policies, rhetoric, ideology, and campaign techniques of Trumpism and historical fascist movements. -- Beland (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a majority in favour of moving, and the comments here make clear that simply calling the article Donald Trump and fascism does not ipso facto mean we're endorsing the viewpoint that Trump is a fascist, simply discussing the topic. Note that the move being made here is also a return to the previous stable title, therefore even had this close been "no consensus", the move would still have been reverted.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism → Donald Trump and fascism – WP:STATUSQUO. Article was moved from original title before the discussion ended. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion article based on opinion sources. It cannot be labeled as definitive fact. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article called "Donald Trump and fascism" wouldn't mean that Wikipedia thinks Donald Trump is a fascist. We have an article called "Flat earth", but that doesn't mean we think the earth is flat. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Vaccines and autism, an article about the lack of a relationship between vaccines and autism. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, a "Kamala Harris and communism" page would be legitimate.
Many opinion sources are claiming that maybe she could be : https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-marxist-we-asked-actual-communists-1953534 or https://thehill.com/opinion/4895506-kamala-harris-socialist-policy/ MoldciusMenbug (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek article actually concludes that she is likely not. The article even states that the CPUSA hates her.
The Hill page is an opinion piece by someone who is employed by a free-market capitalist think tank, so of course he would say this. Even if he wasn't, a single opinion piece isn't enough for an article. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a draft. Even if the answer is pretty obviously "no", the comparison as a campaign point is notable and has been commented on by reliable sources. Again, the existence of the draft doesn't imply that she is, per the Vaccines and autism precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want write that article then go ahead. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent - As the person who moved the page, I did so under WP:BOLD. My reasoning for moving the article was because I believed that having the original title could possibly be seen as an outright declaration of Trump being a fascist to those who didn't bother to read the article (like those who came from the Elon tweet). I personally think both titles are okay-ish, but the original title may come off as provocative.
Weak Oppose - I oppose a merge, as claims of fascism are somewhat notable enough for their own article. However, I can see the case for wanting to merge.
— Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Friendly reminder to any newcomers that this discussion is about whether or not the title of this page should be changed to "Donald Trump and fascism". If you want argue that the page shouldn't exist in the first place, you can do so here. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note – Since this has moved past just being about WP:STATUSQUO and reverting a barely-discussed move, I'd like to bring back a point I made in the last discussion: "Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism" is awkward phrasing because it compares a person to an ideology/system of government. It would be like having an article called "Comparisons between Jeb Bush and liberal democracy". If we really don't like the original title then something like "Fascism allegations against Donald Trump" would be better. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current title is a bit clunky. Perhaps a better name should be chosen? I kinda like the title you gave. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 03:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a little better. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Concise, and is indicative of the same topic. Comparisons is probably fine though, so eh PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The conjunction “and” signifies that the article discusses the relationship between Trump and fascism. A relationship may be strenuous (Vaccines and autism) or it may be close (David and Jonathan) or it may even be somewhere in the middle (Napoleon and the Jews). In each of these cases, the “and” signifies the relationship, but it does not indicate the strength of that relationship. The article we are currently debating covers both support of the Trump–Fascism comparison, but also those who criticize it. I believe that “Donald Trump and fascism” serves as the shortest way to express the scope of the article. ―Howard • 🌽33 10:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the reasons succinctly said above. BootsED (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original Research and Personal attack. WP:NOR, WP:ATTACK

[edit]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

The article is quite clearly a piece of propaganda created by the Harris campaign, with the primary goal of associating the opposing candidate with fascism. Comparing someone to fascism in itself is an act of judgment and violates several guidelines, specifically WP:ATTACK WP:NPOV

Similarly, the entire article constitutes original research; it does not cite specific studies but serves as a secondary source attempting to draw parallels between Donald Trump and fascism by using various newspaper articles and campaign materials. WP:NOR

This article should be immediately deleted, as contributing to a politically motivated Reductio ad Hitlerum not something we expect from an encyclopaedia. Kalpet (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had an article, for years, Racial views of Donald Trump, that gets as close to calling Trump a white supremacist in wiki voice as it possibly can without doing so. This one is substantially more neutral. The media does not like him, hence our pages reflect that. If this was a personal attack article it would be far worse. It's not OR, it's merely presenting the opinions of other sources. If there are sources that don't mention him in relation to fascism they should of course be removed, but the vast majority are on that topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current situation, the Harris camp has effectively utilized media campaigns. I believe the article should just remain as it is. Editeur16 (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing someone to fascism publicly is a personal attack, and a felony in a lot of European countries. This is an Encyclopedia not a campaign tool. Kalpet (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think making that comparison is a felony anywhere in Europe (of course, shouting it to their face might be different), and Wikipedia operates under US law, so it isn't especially relevant to begin with. It isn't even the first time we've compared a person's politics to fascism, as we've done it for Franco's Spain or Putin's Russia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is original research, so clearly violates WP:NOR Kalpet (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the proficient editors say otherwise Editeur16 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, as all of it references published sources. You could argue that some sections like #Use of internment camps may be WP:UNDUE as they do not fully rely on sources explicitly connecting it to fascism, but it is still a far cry from WP:OR. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, it is orginal research, with a lot of references. But still, original research. A tertiary source like an encyclopaedia is summarising secondary sources, not arguing, using primary and secondary sources. This article, prima facie arguing, and trying to convince the reader about it's pretext. An encyclopaedia never an argumentative material.
Also FYI: This comparison is prima facie violates the Section 186 of the German Criminal Code (Defamation). In most EU countries publicing articles like this, is a felony.
And also Reductio ad Hitlerum is not a cultural way to argue. Kalpet (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No legal threats.
I did remove the #Use of internment camps section which was definitely more on the arguing side, but the remaining text looks well-sourced to sources discussing the comparison, and summarizing them. If you have any specific sections in mind that appear to rely on primary sources, or argue points that the sources themselves do not explicitly mention, please point them out. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those 120+ sources say otherwise. :) SirMemeGod  15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion-based sources are sources of opinion, not fact. Steven Britton (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scbritton: They are widely considered to be reliable, though. See WP:RS/PS. What sources do you think are reliable? (Same guy, I changed my signature). SMG chat 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that cite fact. Articles not found in editorial and opinion sections would be a good start. Steven Britton (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? SMG chat 17:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to debate sourcing; except that I will say that if you can't find non-opinion-page sources to back up an entry as citations, that suggests that the entry is based on opinion rather than fact, and should probably be reconsidered. Steven Britton (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSOPINION reads:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion

This looks like it is what is being done throughout the article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However citing opinions of people to pass something off as fact is definitely not good faith authorship of an encyclopedic entry. Steven Britton (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there specific sentences/paragraphs where opinions appear to be misrepresented as facts? If yes, you can point them out and we can work on rewording them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be reworded. I think it should be deleted. Steven Britton (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scbritton: if you are thinking the aim here is to use cited opinions to support the factual claim "Donald Trump is a fascist", the article bends over backward not to do that. It certainly does catalog points of comparison using facts raised by opinion writers, but readers are expected to draw their own conclusions from those comparisons. It also presents specific writers who argue both in favor of and against that factual claim, illustrating for readers how either conclusion might be reached. The article itself should be and I think is neutral on the question, unless you've read it more carefully than I have and have found a violation of that principle? If so we'd be very interested the details so it could be fixed. -- Beland (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No." - NWS Dodge City Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar article was deleted back in 2017?

[edit]

I found out there's an old wiki page titled "Comparisons between Donald Trump and Fascism" which was deleted back in Jan, 2017. Not sure where to look for reasons for deletion, though. Vc06697 (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vc06697 Look here: Comparisons between Donald Trump and Fascism/User talk:Wikpedia Emperor/Draft:Comparisons between Donald Trump and Fascism. It's not much detail, but it's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess it's because the subject didn't pass WP:GNG back in 2017. There are lots of examples of pages not being due at first but then being notable later. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Markle is a favorite of mine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it was created by a blocked sockpuppet user - see the logs for the draft page. I took a look at the deleted article, and it was a three-sentence stub followed by 129 (!) separate citations. Not anything that was really worth preserving. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was basically a placeholder stub for a page to be written out of later, and it doesn't seem to have ever actually gotten to that point. jp×g🗯️ 09:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet here we are 7 years later, and it looks like the topic was indeed highly notable. The perils of deleting articles based on spurious IDONTLIKEIT concerns. Trump's fascism was obviously a matter of serious academic and media concern back in 2017 if there were 129 sources, but once again we have seen a highly conservative cadre of concern troll editors yet again distorted encylopedia contents through abuse of process about "neutrality". If reliable sources concur in the assessment that Trump has employed all the classical tools of fascism in his ceaseless efforts to rob and hoodwink the American people, then that is what the encylopedia must reflect. The place to wage that war is in the academic literature, not through abuse of Wikipedia processes and crocodile tears about "neutrality" and "bias." I hope that crow tastes good, friends. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an article would have been kept then if someone had been arsed to work on it, perhaps not. That someone listed 129 sources doesn't mean they were good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the significant public response to this Wikipedia article be acknowledged in “Criticism of the comparison”?

[edit]

I am not able to edit this article anyways but I wanted to raise the question. There seem to be sufficient sources to do so. RhymeWrens (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources talking about it, then sure. I'll leave that for someone else to decide, since I'm not frolicking in political articles this close to the election. :) SMG chat 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SUBJECT, articles should not talk about themselves, even if there are sources mentioning them (which isn't that rare, as we've got a whole template for that). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't know that. SMG chat 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not usually, but if the whole article is a takes-about-takes-about-takes media uroboros spectacle, might as well. jp×g🗯️ 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:SUBJECT. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely unthinkable, see for example Asian_News_International#Litigation_against_other_organisations, but per the sources I've seen, like WP:ALMAYADEEN, WP:BREITBART etc, it would fail WP:PROPORTION for the time being. If Trump sues WP for this article, we'd probably mention that, cited to CNN and WSJ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I call. Where are these sources? Let’s see them. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see some under "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:", which is under "Other talk page banners", top-ish on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I’ll take a look at that. Tho it seems its already been settled that articles should not refer to themselves even if the coverage is notable.68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PROPORTION. As an aspect of the article topic, the WP "thing" is not much of a muchness. Articles can sometimes mention themself, see for example Asian_News_International#Litigation_against_other_organisations, but the context is different.
I'll give you another example. Check "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" (this one is pretty good) at Talk:Recession. Then check what's in the article about that brief newsflash. Nothing, and that's how it should be, since for the topic as a whole, it hardly matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deletion

[edit]
Editor who created the thread is blocked for WP:NOTHERE. No point in arguing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Numerous individuals have said that if we think this page should be deleted, we should go through the appropriate avenues per policy. That's all fine and good, except the page has been locked and protected from editing, meaning only a select few of us can actually initiate the process to begin with. If good faith is to be assumed, then someone capable of editing the page should begin the process immediately. Steven Britton (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scbritton Now that is a fair point. Note also that a deletion discussion runs for a week as standard, longer if deemed necessary.
I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page can be used for a request in this case (not saying it would be approved). One could post a request for assistance at WP:HELPDESK, or even here on the talkpage. I'm not sure what would happen if you (auto but not extended confirmed) used WP:TWINKLE to start an afd, that might work. My guess is that an afd would end in keep or no consensus, but I don't know that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page you linked is to make edit requests when the talk page itself is locked. Since it isn't, I can treat this as an edit request and copy Scbritton's opening statement there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby According to template at top of page, this talkpage is indeed locked. What I don't know is if auto confirmed editors can technically start an afd on an extended protected article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the editor making the request was autoconfirmed, so could (obviously) make a edit request on the same page. Either way, the point is moot as the AfD has already been started. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started one, because Britton did bring up a very good point regarding opinions, and the entire community should be able to decide whether this meets our myriad of guidelines on somewhere other than a jumbled talk page discussion. It'll probably be speedy kept, anyway. SMG chat 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that solves that. I will watch with interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify though that I personally have no opinion whether this should be kept, it's more just on behalf of several others than don't think it should be kept. I will also be watching with interest. SMG chat 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it got interesting, in a way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been like two hours as well, wait till the media coverage picks up. SMG chat 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to be nominated for deletion, same would be appropriate for the page titled Age and health concerns about Donald Trump. I don't think either of these is anymore correct to have than the other. If somebody could please initiate that, I'd vote on it. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dibble-dabbled in political controversies a lot in the past day, I'll step back from that. Someone else can, though. :) MemeGod chat 18:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor judgment was exercised here. The editor who proposed a deletion discussion was banned as WP:NOTHERE and he raised no actual grounds for deletion. It’s unfortunate when we allow consideration of such proposals when they do not give any actual reasons for deleting the page. I would suggest you clamp down on such WP:ABUSEOFPROCESS as it appears to be systematically being used to suppress the sort of scholarly attention to topics that belongs to an encyclopedia in favor of a False Balance between scholarship and the opinions of Breitbart News. “MemeGod” who started the cursed deletion discussion on behalf of the banned Mr. britton stated, “I have started one, because Britton did bring up a very good point regarding opinions.” Britton bringing up a point about “opinions” is not a possible reason to delete an article and he had no business starting one without supplying any reason for deletion besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I pointed out in the deletion discussion, the discussion appears to have been created in Bad Faith, and people around here should stop kneeling before every bad faith abuse of process employed to push a conservative viewpoint that is not reflected in the expert literature on a topic. Finding this discussion vindicates those claims entirely. The evidence was out in the open all along. Memegod even opines “It's only been like two hours as well, wait till the media coverage picks up.

“ indicating that his goal in the deletion discussion was to spark media coverage and some kind of phony public outrage, rather than contribute to an encyclopedia. That is quite unfortunate. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article name suggestions

[edit]

I seems as if we cannot come to an agreement, so I'd like to open a section where we can discuss a better name.
@The Midnite Wolf has suggested "Fascism allegations against Donald Trump". — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let the ongoing RM play out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Give it a week or so. There's no rush. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a decent title—per WP:AND, a title like "Trump and fascism" contains a subtle implication that the two are connected (rather than just neutrally reporting on allegations of fascism), which should probably be avoided per WP:NPOV. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The old "Comparisons between Donald Trump and Fascism" title doesn't make sense. Trump is a person and fascism is an ideology. So 'comparisons between' them is a grammatically improper title, and sounds very bad--that title does not even sound like English. Comparisons between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler could work, but that is a whole other article. 'Fascism allegations against Trump' is introducing language that isn't in the sources. This is not a legal proceeding and no one is describing it as an allegation in the sources cited. This is a similar type of article to Joseph Stalin and antisemitism which is titled similarly to the present article.Other "allegation" articles relating someone to a perjorative ideology such as Jefferson and Slavery, Heidegger and Nazism just use the simple "and" title without needing to phrase it as "allegations" Fascism allegations is at least better than the Comparisons title tho, which was not even grammatical. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious edit

[edit]

@Artem P75: When an edit of yours is reverted, the burden lies upon you to start a discussion and try to reach a consensus. Your edit is unnecessary and unhelpful, and you continuing to add it after being reverted is edit warring. Please stop, the burden lies on you to discuss why your edit is necessary. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add information to make this grossly biased article at least start the move to being somewhat balanced

[edit]

Propose change FROM: According to an October 2024 poll held by ABC News and Ipsos, 49% of American registered voters see Donald Trump as a fascist...

TO: According to an October 2024 poll held by ABC News and Ipsos, 49% of American registered voters (on a poll of 2,392 registered voters) see Donald Trump as a fascist..

This change includes the actual sample size, being less than 0.02% of registered voters. Claiming that 49% of registered voters have this opinion is misleading and omits information that was included in the source. Claiming that 49% of voters hold this opinion is not just misleading, but is outright false, when the data reports 49% out of a sample of less than 2,400 (out of some 14 or so million in 2022) registered voters. Adding this in takes nothing away from the article, it gives the reader more perspective and a clearer understanding of the actual truth of the situation, rather than omitting significant data to try and push a certain agenda. Artem P75 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All polls use samples, that is how they work. It's ridiculous to say that we need to specify sample sizes for political polls, everyone knows that polls are based on samples. Can you imagine if we specified sample sizes for every single poll cited on Wikipedia? It's an absolutely unnecessary waste of space and time and it doesn't help in any way. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is already an overwhelmingly biased and contentious article. Please put your political biases aside and attempt to view this from a neutral lens.Please recognize there is a considerable difference between 0.02% and 49% and that the inclusion of this data actually helps the reader understand the true statistics rather than attempted to push a political narrative by omitting data to prima facie bend the truth. An omission can be as damaging as an outright lie. Thank you. Artem P75 (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pushing a political agenda to write what the poll says. Like I said, ALL polls use comparatively small sample sizes, everybody knows this. Obviously they didn’t ask every human in America, that’s common sense. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, no poll actually goes and ask 100% of registered voters. Polls are usually conducted on a small, demographically representative sample (usually from 500 to 5000 voters), and statistical tools allow to estimate the standard deviation of the poll.
As I'm definitely a supporter of transparency in polls, I think adding the sample size is always a good thing, but for practical reasons we can't have it after every mention of every poll in running text. Since this poll is already followed by a footnote explaining its technical details, adding the sample size in the footnote (and possibly the estimated standard deviation if given by the polling institute) could be helpful. This way, it doesn't break the flow of the text, while still providing technical details about the poll's implementation.
@Artem P75 @Di (they-them), would having the sample size in the footnote be a good compromise for both of you? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with that, thank you for your suggestion Artem P75 (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jews prefer Trump over Harris

[edit]

Since the article mentions comparisons of Trump to Hitler, I think it should also mention that Orthodox Jews (the most intense form of Judaism) prefer Trump over Harris. I want for this to be cited in the most objective way, and I was wondering what others thought about including this or not including it.

https://manhattan.institute/article/survey-analysis-of-political-and-policy-preferences-of-2024-jewish-electorate

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-824531#google_vignette

https://forward.com/opinion/670246/trump-israel-jewish-vote-orthodox/

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They (bolshie elitists who run this site) will never include it, such information could reduce anti-Trump bias. We all know by now that Wikipedia is a one-trick pony. 124.169.133.156 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it should be included if the sources explicitly discuss it in the context of comparisons to fascism. For example, if a source says "Trump has the support of Orthodox Jews, so he can't be a fascist/can't be compared to Hitler", then it should definitely be mentioned and attributed. Otherwise, if sources only say "Trump has the support of Orthodox Jews" but don't connect it to the topic, it's the kind of WP:SYNTH that we're trying to avoid here from both sides. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TRUMPHATE 124.169.133.156 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't see the connection, except if you're saying that the article should be deleted based on that? Although the AfD just closed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly synth, the suggested articles are about Trump being supported by Orthodox Jews. There is no mention of the article topic, Fascism. You bizarrely drew a connection between Judaism and Fascism. The Nazis are far from the only fascists, and being supported by Orthodox Jews has no discernable relevance to the question of whether Trump is fascist. Please clear out the trolls, like both of the above editors, especially the nutter going on about "bolshie elitists who run this site." Why these repeated bad faith requests from conservative concern trolls is tolerated here is beyond me. Please stop bending the knee to conservatives at every turn and allowing them to raise ridiculous objections such as these without penalty or consequence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.5.168 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 2024 November 7 (UTC)

Edit request

[edit]

"Critics of Trump have drawn comparisons between him and fascist leaders over authoritarian actions and rhetoric, while others have accused critics of using the term as an insultrather than making legitimate comparisons." i have greatly improved the sentence in various ways. 

"Trump is widely regarded as a fascist by scholars, journalists, historians, former Trump advisors and officials, and both his political critics and closest allies; Trump's authoritarian rhetoric and acts have frequently been compared to those commonly employed by fascist leaders in the news media and academic scholarship. However, some political analysts have opined that Trump's critics are merely using the term as an insult rather than making a legitimate comparison between Trumpism and Fascism. " 68.196.5.168 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. Would like to hear other's opinions before I make the change Artem P75 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither yours or the current statement on the article is properly sourced. Please refer to WP:RS and find a reliable source for this statement. Badbluebus (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand how the lead of an encyclopedia works. The sources are found in the body. The lead introduces and summarizes the article contents. Statements in the lead that summarize the article contents do not need to be given a source. The article body contains the sources. Please refer to and familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:LEAD yourself, friend.(“It is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead”) On reflection, i would say the only thing in my proposed passage that could be said to be not drawn from the article is the false balance of “some commentators say that calling Trump a fascist is just an insult.” This is kind of just thrown in to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE when the literature on this topic discussed in the article does not really support this claim. So we can strike that part. Ok? 68.196.5.168 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can also add to the article body this source and a statement that "in the days after the election, Trump's supporters called for a violent, fascist purge and "military executions" of Trump's enemies, echoing Trump's own fascist campaign rhetoric about destroying the "enemy within" As one of Trump's devoted supporters put the point: "I was promised Hitler shit. I demand Hitler shit”. Please add. Thanks. https://www.wired.com/story/donald-trump-far-right-supporters-violent-memes/

Comments by far-rights figures about Trump

[edit]

@Artem P75, what is your reasoning for removing the statements made by Neo-nazi and far-right figures about Trump? The first source is an academic book, the second is a WP:GREL source (Wired). I don't see any policy-based NPOV or RS ground for this removal. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though it is poorly sourced for the quantity of information and can lead to adding additional bias. There are three paragraphs and only two sources cited for those paragraphs. I suppose it would be better if you narrowed the information down and got to the point although these things have already been discussed to great lengths on this article, I don't see how further adding to this comparison of Trump to a Nazi or Fascist is really necessary and adds undue weight per WP:WEIGHT / WP:NPOV to the article - there is an entire article already dedicated to this topic so I dont see how adding this information to the already large amount of it on this article is constructive.
Some editors may disagree, if others disagree with me I am fine with the information staying. This is just my view of this and my attempt to maintain neutrality on these very contentious articles that are heavily prone to editors trying to insert information to conform to their opinion and shift the tone of the article to suit their political ideologies. I completely understand where you are coming from with your desire to insert this information, however for the reasons I provided above I just do not see it contributing to the article as a whole and only adding undue weight / creating an imbalance to the Fascism issue Artem P75 (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through Badbluebus's entry, it clearly belongs in the article. I'm not really sure how "there is an entire article already dedicated to this topic..." proves your point. The article is about the topic so anything relevant to the topic should be included in the article. If we went with your logic then no one would ever add any information to articles again. – MW(t•c) 04:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was only one point I raised and in it I probably failed to convey my point adequately - my main concerns are that there are three rather large bodies of information for only having two sources, as well as there already being a great deal of information on this topic in this article - yes this entire article is dedicated to this topic, but we cannot have the entire article be only information on proving this point or pushing the reader to adopt this point. If it were it may very well turn into an attack page. There needs to be a balance of information, yes there is currently a "criticisms" section, although it makes up maybe an eighth(?) of this article.
There has already been an AfD on this article for bias concerns and attack page concerns. For disclosure, I did vote delete on bias concerns, but now that the article has passed through the AfD and is accepted by Wikipedia, we do not want to give reason for that to happen in the future and need to do our best to maintain neutrality. Yes, it may be easy to get carried away and add every single bit of information that we can find, which I am aware there is a lot of. But there is already a great wealth of it on this topic, if sparsely sourced information like this keeps getting through the cracks, the imbalance in neutrality grows and further concerns are raised
Just my two cents, I will leave it at that and give room for other's opinions - whatever is decided I will accept Artem P75 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find more sources saying Trump isn't a fascist then feel free to add them to the article, but if the majority of sources say he is a fascist then we shouldn't create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I don't see how any of this justifies removing three well-written and relevant paragraphs. – MW(t•c) 05:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert my edit then. I am only trying to contribute to the quality and impartiality of this article Artem P75 (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article sways too much into false balance territory. There are almost no reputable sources that deny that Trump has heavily employed at minimum, highly fascistic rhetoric. His own allies don't even deny this, let alone serious people. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the fascist thing is over-saturated nonsense from biased media outlets as a trigger point and adopted by those who strongly oppose Trump, the entire concept is speculation and debate - although, it is very widely covered and this article seems like it is here to stay. And since it is up I think we should work to maintain the quality of the article and not over do it with the fascism thing to the point it leans too far into attack page or bias territory which will only give reason for it to be contended once again. Source appropriateness and weight should always be maintained Artem P75 (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it doesn’t matter whether you think it is “over-saturated nonsense from biased media outlets as a trigger point and adopted by those who strongly oppose Trump, the entire concept is speculation and debate.” That is merely your personal opinion and of no interest to others, much less a basis for writing an encyclopedia. As you admit, the topic is “widely covered” and we will continue to draw from that coverage rather than your not particularly relevant personal opinions. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

[edit]

"According to an October 2024 poll held by ABC News and Ipsos, 49% of American registered voters see Donald Trump as a fascist, defined in the poll as "a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights and threatens or uses force against their opponents"."

Not counting an image-caption, there is no mention of this poll in the body of the article, so the text is not "summary of its most important contents". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've moved the text about the poll to the background section. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, but now that it is in the article body, cant we restore this material to the lead? It seems a source that summarizes the public’s view on the question would be relevant to introduce into the lead, and since it is now discussed in the article body it is fair game.68.196.5.168 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, too little content to summarize in the lead. It deserves mention in the article, but I question that this single just-before-the-election-poll is very important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Perhaps if there is additional polling on public opinion then. I did want to also raise one other point on the phrasing of one part of the lead, which implies that the discussion of Trump as a fascist began with this campaign. It began in 2015. His declaration of his candidacy, after all, began with a fascist trope about invasion by immigrants coming to commit crimes and rape women. There was also significant discussion during his presidency. So the current wording seems misleading and not reflective of the body, without at least expanding the sentence to indicate that the question was a topic of debate much earlier. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I really do not think we need to have a drawing of Donald Trump with a Hitler moustache in this article.

First of all, it does not actually illustrate anything useful (e.g. it is WP:DECORATIVE).

Second of all, it is outrageously defamatory to a BLP subject -- I am not interested in hearing what anybody personally thinks of the guy, he is a living person. If you want to go to a place where the policies only apply to people that editors like, maybe try Conservapedia. This is not Conservapedia. We have rules here.

Third of all, it makes us, Wikipedia, look extremely childish and deeply unserious. It does not have any effect on Donald Trump. This image being here did not cause him to lose the election. It just made us look dumb, and caused people to take us less seriously as a source of information. jp×g🗯️ 20:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. We can have an actual encyclopedic discussion about Donald Trump and fascism without needing childish drawings to make a point. We know what Trump looks like, we know what Hitler looks like, this drawing (if not notable or discussed by itself in the article) doesn't bring anything new to the table. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

“According to some analysts, Trump’s politics represent a new form of fascism, a fascism funded by the ultra wealthy, and run by and for the benefit of billionaires.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-s-cabinet-heads-and-secretaries 68.196.5.168 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common Dreams isn't on WP:RSP; which isn't necessarily a problem on its own if it can be shown to be reliable. But Common Dreams also describes itself as progressive so it would probably be characterized as biased and not WP:NPOV by hordes of angry IPs and a few Usernames. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In subjects as controversial as this it would reduce argument if we present sources that even the staunchest denier of the topic would be unable to find issue with. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well I was just trying to use Commondreams as a source to report this argument given by Robert Reich, who argues that this alliance of Fascism backed by Big Money was present in 1930's Germany, where German industrialists bailed out a bankrupt Nazi party in a similar way that the Trump campaign was financially bailed out by Musk and other billionaires. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LEnI9THvLA)
Also potentially useful on the article topic as a whole is this article from today's New Yorker by Professor Timothy Snyder:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/dispatches/what-does-it-mean-that-donald-trump-is-a-fascist
I also found this other piece by Reich that makes a very clear argument for specifically regarding Trump's platform as classically fascist rather than merely authoritarian: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/trumps-fascism-is-now-in-the-open
These arguments are all fairly scholarly, so perhaps could be added to the article somewhere to satisfy the angry hordes, though I will withdraw my edit request since I think now my original summary of the source material was not quite right. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not any kind of authority on source quality or anything, I just lurk around a lot of talk pages watching the process. Most editors sneer at youtube as a source; it should be avoided whenever the content can be sourced from somewhere considered more reliable. The New Yorker might work; it's on WP:RSP and has a reputation for factchecking itself. Substack I think is also avoided if the content can be sourced from anywhere else. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YT is not a source, it's a platform. Reich is the source, Inequality Media the publisher. What weight to give him is up for debate, but according to WP, he seems to know something about politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Biographies of living persons policy applies to statements about Trump even on non-biographical pages, so self-published sources cannot be used to make statements about him (unless published by Trump himself), even when published by an expert. Substack is a self-publishing platform, and Reich is co-founder of Inequality Media, so arguably his Youtube video is also self-published. Snyder's New Yorker article can be used. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV banner

[edit]

I have BOLDLY added the NPOV banner to the top of the article as it seems extremely relevant per the talk page and previous discussions. May need to start an RfC as I am sure this will get challenged, so would like thoughts nonetheless Artem P75 (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging related parties: @PARAKANYAA, @Chaotic Enby, @Di (they-them), @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Cowboygilbert - I have also posted on the NPOV noticeboard here letting others know Artem P75 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75 I don't think this article can be much better about this than it is now. If the sources are biased, Wikipedia is as well, and pretty much all sources that would counteract this were declared generally unreliable long ago. Whatever you or I think about the topic personally, we're supposed to reflect what the reliable secondary sources say, and if they say nonsense so do we. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a good point and one I have become much more open to, my main issue is the weight in that the "criticisms" section is considerably small compared to the rest of the article - but someone did point out that this may be because of a lack of sources on the criticisms or opposing viewpoint. If I can find some time to do some research I will try and locate some - interested in collaboration with any interested parties that come across this as my time is very limited Artem P75 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75 I do think adding to the criticisms section would help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the reasoning for the tag, I disagree that there's a NPOV issue. The article reflects what sources say, and it doesn't at any point make original claims. Every opinion in the article is cited to the person or organization that gave it. If the article said that he is a fascist, that would be an issue, but it doesn't. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&oldid=1256780928"