Jump to content

Talk:Comparisons between 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]

Discussion Regarding Deletion

[edit]

Many individuals discussing this topic might be less-familiar with the way Wikipedia does things, which is why I have put this particular topic here rather than below - because I think it is important enough that people should see it before scrolling on down to the more in-depth discussion.

Wikipedia has "appropriate channels" for deleting pages, and the channels require that a discussion occur about deleting or keeping the article is appropriate first. To that end, an editor with appropriate editing permissions has put the flag on this article, which has opened up the deletion discussion. Regardless of your opinion as to keep or delete, I highly recommend you head over to the discussion on the subject here and express your views in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, of course.

(Note - I couldn't work out how to use a standard shortcut to take you to that discussion)

The person who put the flag on the page thinks that the article will be "speedily kept", which deeply concerns me as to the biases of the wikipedia community as a whole, but, since we're working within the principles of good faith, let's work within the rules. Steven Britton (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no need to come after me. I did as you asked, and I'm still being called biased. I have no opinion on this, I'm doing it because several other non-EC+ editors expressed concern. SMG chat 19:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "coming after you". If you put it on the page, then thank you for doing so. I thought it was another individual (see my comment down below). If you did it, then I withdraw my comment. Steven Britton (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question of relevancy on this topic

[edit]

I want to raise some concerns about the neutrality and relevance of a Wikipedia article, which is over 90% authored by just two contributors. This brings into question the balance and objectivity of the article itself. Even more notably, the article was published on the same day as a Guardian editorial questioning whether Donald Trump can be labeled a fascist—a piece that’s cited multiple times in the Wikipedia article. Given these circumstances, it almost feels like the article was crafted to echo specific criticisms or influence perceptions ahead of the U.S. presidential election.

Wikipedia is intended as a consensus-driven project, reflecting a variety of perspectives to provide a balanced view. But in this case, the article seems one-sided, potentially written to provoke negative sentiment toward a particular political figure. Is this truly the direction Wikipedia has come to? Shouldn't Wikipedia’s administrators step in to question whether this article serves an unbiased informational purpose or if it's inadvertently feeding into the polarization currently affecting the U.S. and the English-speaking world? Wikipedia’s value as a neutral resource is at risk when articles start feeling more like opinion pieces or political narratives than impartial summaries.

I hope we can have a respectful discussion that leads to an agreement, rather than seeing this conversation dismissed. Manvswow (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I try not to get into politics. However, one could argue that what the left is currently doing on this platform constitutes fascist acts. Hatrick24 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a forum for political discussion, rather a place for discussing the article itself. If you have any reliable, non-partisan sources that support your claim, please let me know. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't possibly pretend The Guardian is or most of the sources in this article are non-partisan. And you will claim that any sources arguing the contrary regarding Trump + Fascism are unreliable. As it stands, it's not actually possible to have an unbiased article on this topic due to Wikipedia's dismissal of right-leaning sources as being unreliable. The only feasible solution is for this article to be deleted. 71.120.246.125 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may find the articles Fascism and Definitions of fascism useful in avoiding making ridiculous claims. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly second this concern. This article is far from neutral in tone, does not meaningfully advance understanding of either Donald Trump as a politician or fascism as a political ideology, and seems to exist only to amplify political grievances harbored by Trump's opponents or certain media outlets. The fact that some people hold an opinion does not make this topic worthy of a Wikipedia article, and I'd argue this article should be deleted entirely under Wikipedia:Notability. People have opinions about all kinds of things. That does not merit a Wikipedia article. agomulka (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to deleted this article or merge it per WP:TDS.
Also this article has made its way on X and has revived millions of views, as a warning to editors for possible vandalism or just a lot of IP editors and good faith edits. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not "defeated". This language is not conducive to building an encylopedia. We are aware of the fact that this article made its way to Elon Musk's twitter profile and are working to protect the safety of those targeted. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "defeated" may not be the right term, I'd argue that the article should be "deleted" because it lacks noteworthiness, neutrality, or relevance, does not advance understanding of Donald Trump the politician or fascism the ideology, serves only to create a perception of bias around Wikipedia. No one's "safety is being targeted" because they don't get to use Wikipedia as their personal propaganda outlet. agomulka (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing Wikipedia for years, sorry I clearly meant to say deleted.
Also may I ask how we are ‘protect the safety of those targeted’ I have never seen that before. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that anyone's safety is in jeopardy because someone challenged them for writing up their political grievances as a Wikipedia article is a bad faith claim to shut down this discussion. agomulka (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. All good! I retract my statement about that then. Thanks for clarifying!
As for the protecting safety thing, a few individuals were specifically targeted by the post in question, so the usual REVDEL tactics are being used. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. This article uses reliable sources and doesn't ascribe an additional value judgement.. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources? These are almost entirely opinion pieces. 2600:1008:B1CE:E237:D9A9:D1F2:46A0:B8AD (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I’m inclined to agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source of unbiased information, and creating this article with the majority of its reasoning being a day-old Guardian article seems concerning at best.
I think the page either needs to be re-written or moved to Comparisons Between Trump And Fascism. Its current language seems incredibly biased. Norovern, bro! (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norovern bro: The October 27 article by The Guardian was cited one time, and the article has 107 citations. I have literally no idea what you could possibly mean by "the majority of its reasoning being a day-old Guardian article". Di (they-them) (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is only cited 9 times out of 129 citations and the article in question is citated once. This is one of the most well researched and citated new/newer pages I've seen on Wikipedia. Most of the wiki page is quotes from real people from the the Trump admin or President Trump himself, not opinions from the Guardian. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, it's not an objective discussion of the very real phenomenon of labelling trump a facist. it's a "hit piece", drawing on a single political viewpoint and drilling into that at the expense of any criticism. even if a reader came away from this with the neutral: "huh people did call trump a facist, and that's definitely a campaign and political tactic that was used", that would still be wrong. because the act of having this page at all without the broader context of bias doesn't belong in wikipedia.
a better entry might have this sentiment: "Labeling political figures as fascist has become increasingly prevalent, here is some evidence." then you can have trump and other figures listed. labeling kamala as "communist" is a similar topic, for example. 2603:8001:B300:D383:9C44:C5B2:2907:D919 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which is over 90% authored by just two contributors
This is what happens when a new article is created. A few people write the page then as time passes more people add to it. This page is brand new, the majority of it was written by one person like all brand new articles.
the article was published on the same day as a Guardian editorial questioning whether Donald Trump can be labeled a fascist—a piece that’s cited multiple times in the Wikipedia article
The October 27 Guardian article is cited one time, and the article has over 100 citations in total. This is ridiculous.
But in this case, the article seems one-sided, potentially written to provoke negative sentiment toward a particular political figure.
Every single aspect of this article is attributed to reliable sourcing. There are literally no original opinions in the page, the page is just about the widespread comparisons that have been drawn.
I also want to point out that this article is gaining attention from an article by Pirate News, which is an "anti-woke" website and the article contains multiple blatant falsehoods about this Wikipedia page. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens when a new article is created. A few people write the page then as time passes more people add to it. This page is brand new, the majority of it was written by one person like all brand new articles.
When one or two editors drive a new article, especially on a polarizing figure, the resulting tone can indeed influence readers, regardless of the article's intention. It’s misleading to suggest that this article will naturally balance out over time without acknowledging the initial bias.
The October 27 Guardian article is cited one time, and the article has over 100 citations in total. This is ridiculous.
After reviewing the article’s citations, it’s clear that it repeatedly references various news outlets throughout—such as ABC Today, Politico, The Atlantic, CBS News, and The Washington Post—yet all of these citations revolve around the same story, one example: 'Donald Trump says he will be a ‘dictator’ only on ‘day one’.' Why does the article need not one or two, but over five citations from different sources for the exact same story? The same issue appears with multiple citations related to quotes from John F. Kelly and Mark Milley. It’s evident that their statements about Trump are more ad ignorantiam than factual, and the ‘news’ sources cited are opinion pieces rather than verifiable facts—they reflect "he said, she said" reporting, not objective claims. This article presents their opinions as if they were facts and not opinions, which they are - opinions. Similarly, there are six citations discussing the claim that the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden drew comparisons to a 1939 Nazi rally. Really? Six citations for what is essentially the same ‘news story’—which, in this case, feels more like an opinion piece. Additionally, while it's true that each citation may technically be reliable, there's a difference between reliable sourcing and balance. Reliable sources still need to represent a broad spectrum of perspectives, particularly in articles that discuss comparisons to historically charged ideologies. Articles lacking diverse viewpoints risk becoming echo chambers, even if no "original opinions" are present.
Comparing internment camps to WWII labor camps is appalling. At this rate, I suppose we can expect an article drawing comparisons between Barack Obama and fascism soon, since apparently, that kind of content is deemed relevant and worthy.[1][2]
I also want to point out that this article is gaining attention from an article by Pirate News, which is an "anti-woke" website
Dismissing criticism solely because of its mention in Pirate News overlooks the broader feedback that’s surfacing. Critiques based on perceived imbalances should be reviewed on their own merits rather than discredited due to the source mentioning them. It’s essential to maintain Wikipedia’s core value of neutrality, especially in politically sensitive articles such as this one.
The existence of this Wikipedia article raises important questions about what qualifies as encyclopedic content, thats for sure. Its focus on comparing a modern political figure to a historically extreme ideology arguably crosses into subjective territory, as these comparisons are speculative rather than fact-based analyses. The timing of the article’s creation also raises concerns. It was published immediately following media narratives questioning Trump’s alignment with fascism, suggesting it may be more of a reactionary piece rather than a neutral, research-based article. Furthermore, it’s worth considering whether this article serves Wikipedia’s purpose or merely fuels ongoing political divisions. Manvswow (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This article seems highly non-neutral. There are numerous Wikipedia guidelines that this article broaches on violating. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles being 90% authored by a two contributors is normal. Sometimes less. Particularly new, lengthy articles. I myself am the only significant contributor to most of the articles I've written, though ah, they tend to be on less contentious topics than this. But other than extremely popular topics, a lot of articles are written by a few people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is thinly disguised electioneering Washusama (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Washusama (talk). The timing of this article's publication, the number of authors, the content and the fact that the content is definitely not "written from a neutral point of view" goes completely against the Purpose of Wikipedia. Also, since a the term, "fascist" in a political context when dealing with a living person, particularly given the history of fascism, is highly divisive, politically-charged, and extremely based on opinion and interpretation, it is quite likely that this particular article violates the Principle of Neutrality Wikipedia claims to hold. Lastly, because this involves a living person who is currently running for high political office, this particular article probably violates the Wikipedia policy on Attack Pages, and probably qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia's policy on Libel.

Steven Britton (talk) 17:07, 30 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]

This article should be moved to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

[edit]

The title "Donald Trump and Fascism" doesn't provide much insight into what the intended subject matter is, and risks becoming a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Donald Trump, Fascism and Trumpism. If the intention is to simply list comparisons between the two then it would be fruitful to move it to "Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism" or "Comparisons between Trumpism and fascism" (although, that the latter would fit raises the question as to why this isn't just a topic under Trumpism) as this seems to be the actual subject and would appear more neutral. W0lfgangster (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However this article is not very long and is very opinionated. It would be best trimmed down to be more concise included in the main Donald Trump bio page. Angrycommguy (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a lot of backlash against this article due to Elon sharing an article about it and a lot of angry IPs on this talk page, I do believe that this article has many violations of WP:NPOV and needs to be revised to be fair. I'd argue that this article isn't necessary because it's quite redundant (This being the chief example but this as well) but I can understnad why it exists. - RockinJack18 20:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This too. - RockinJack18 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the opionons? Almost of all of the wiki page is direct quotes from people who served in his admin, people who know him or Trump himself. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would count as heresay. Just because someone writes something does not make it valid. Steven Britton (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this does not need an article any more than "Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism". It should be deleted entirely. "Some people said so" is not a basis for a Wikipedia article. That's an opinion piece. agomulka (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I question the necessity of a dedicated article (again, really seems like this should just be a section under Trumpism if anything) I think that Donald Trump has been called a fascist much more than Kamala Harris has been called a communist. An article called "Comparisons between Bernie Sanders and Communism" would be a better comparison, however the fact is Donald Trump is more talked about than either of them. Trump has dominated the public consciousness for 9 years now and as such there are going to be more notable WP:NOTE subjects about him. W0lfgangster (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, the content, timing, and nature of this article's content clearly violate numerous WP policies. The fact that it has been locked from editing by the wider community is also highly suspect right now. I know the explanation is to "protect the integrity" and/or "to avoid an edit war", however it also prevents anyone from starting the process of considering the article for deletion, which is furthermore highly suspect. Steven Britton (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of a move to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism, since that is what the whole article and nearly all of its section titles are about. Toadspike [Talk] 19:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. "___ and ____" is a pretty common title structure. See Christianity and abortion, Abraham Lincoln and slavery, Napoleon and the Jews, etc. No one is saying that the former article is a redundant fork of Christianity and abortion because its clear that the connection between the two subjects has been written about enough to pass WP:N. Even if we don't like the original title, "Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism" doesn't work as a phrase. Why are we comparing a person to an ideology? It makes as much sense as "Comparisons between Donald Trump and handshakes". If we really don't like the original title then something like "Fascism allegations against Donald Trump" would be better. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I also support moving it back to the simpler and more encyclopedic 'Donald Trump and fascism' Superb Owl (talk) 22:19, 29 October 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]
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]
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]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2024

[edit]

Proposed spelling and grammatical changes.

Change "term which refers to a broad set of aspirations and influences which emerged" to "term that refers to a broad set of aspirations and influences that emerged".

Change "to widely spread false claims about electoral fraud" to "to spread false claims about electoral fraud widely".

Change "Trump's previous comments such as suggesting" to "Trump's previous comments, such as suggesting".

Change "to fight "the enemy from within" which he describes as" to "to fight "the enemy from within", which he describes as".

Change "previously denied that Trump was a fascist, but changed his views" to "previously denied that Trump was a fascist but changed his views".

Change "last2=Licon first2=Adriana Gomez" to "last2=Gomez Licon first2=Adriana". Gomez Licon is a last name in Spanish. Gomez is not a first name.

Change "who will be "rooted out" has been compared" to "who will be "rooted out" have been compared".

Change "where he stated "The Jews" to "where he stated, "The Jews".

Change "echoing rhetoric of authoritarian leaders" to "echoing the rhetoric of authoritarian leaders".

Change "Since fall 2023" to "Since the fall of 2023".

Change "ruining the "fabric" of the country, and that undocumented immigrants" to "ruining the "fabric" of the country and that undocumented immigrants".

Change "generals that served Hitler" to "generals who served Hitler".

Change "United States president Joe Biden" to "United States President Joe Biden".

Change "in 2017, but later criticized the comparison" to " in 2017 but later criticized the comparison".

Change "In a column pulished in" to "In a column published in".

Change "Jan Werner-Mueller" to "Jan-Werner Müller".

Change "argued "it is perfectly possible" to "argued, "It is perfectly possible". Asuka Langley Shikinami (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the suggestions! — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 21:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the second batch of changes too. Thanks again! — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 21:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons by the sources?

[edit]

I'm not trying to defend Trump or anything, and I can see that there are many sources that do make this comparison, but I do find it a bit concerning that a significant portion of the article is based on sources that do not explicitly make this connection. For example, the "Nationalism" section is currently based on two articles from The Economist but reading through them, I don't see any mention of the word "fascist" or "fascism"? I'm not saying that there are not sources that do compare the two, but the sources currently in this section of the article do not explicitly make this comparison. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally valid criticism. Do you have any suggestions yourself how it could be changed? — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming sources can be found that actually connect the two, I would just replace the quotes from The Economist. I have removed them for now. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2024

[edit]

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]

Additional talk page warning

[edit]

Could we put a warning template for talking about deletion of the article on the top of the talk page, like {{Warning|'''This is not the place to talk about deletion of the article''', please see the [[WP:Deletion policy]] for information about the deletion policy.}}. I can with my toes at this point with the amount of people proposing deletion in the talk page. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 03:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Article should just be Deleted Due to Potential Bias and Timing Concerns

[edit]

Given the recent publication of this article, coinciding closely with the ongoing 2024 U.S. presidential election, I am concerned that its timing may unintentionally influence public perception during this critical period. As Wikipedia strives to provide balanced and neutral content, it is essential to ensure that articles, particularly on sensitive political topics, do not inadvertently sway opinions or contribute to potential biases, especially in the context of an election. Editeur16 (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the article may intend to explore academic and political perspectives, its publication so close to the election could be seen as potentially impacting the objectivity expected of this platform. The topic is undeniably complex and polarizing, and as such, I believe there may be a case for either postponing the article’s availability until after the election or conducting a thorough review to ensure a balanced representation of views from both supporters and critics of Donald Trump Editeur16 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just determine whether this article fully aligns with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons BLP policies, which require us to exercise additional caution with contentious material involving public figures.? Editeur16 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I suggest that the sources used in this article should be carefully evaluated to confirm that they reflect a balanced perspective, as one-sided representation can impact perceived neutrality. Editeur16 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the news media pushes it, what exactly are you expecting? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this question. I appreciate that media coverage on certain topics can influence public discourse, and Wikipedia often mirrors the subjects gaining attention in the news. However, my concern is less about the presence of media coverage and more about the timing and potential impact of this particular article in the context of a closely contested election. Editeur16 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s natural for Wikipedia to reflect current events, it’s also crucial for us to ensure that such coverage aligns with Wikipedia’s core principles, especially Neutral Point of View NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons BLP standards. Articles published during sensitive periods should carefully balance differing perspectives to avoid any unintentional influence on public opinion. My suggestion is not to question the relevance of the topic itself but to encourage a discussion on whether its timing and presentation maintain the neutrality expected by Wikipedia's policies. Editeur16 (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for considering my viewpoint, and I welcome further thoughts on how we can best uphold Wikipedia’s commitment to impartiality in politically sensitive times. Editeur16 (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick bit of advice, you can post comments in one single go, rather than paragraph by paragraph. Also, the (sometimes unnecessary) wordiness of your answers may be discouraging for other editors, and looks similar to ChatGPT replies. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I’ll keep it in mind moving forward. Editeur16 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this could possibly prejudice the public against Trump any more than any of our 800 other articles on him have already. This one is more neutral, if anything! PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point. Thanks for the perspective—I agree and finally step back on this. Editeur16 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any worse than say, the Donald Trump article, or Racial views of Donald Trump, which more or less directly call him a racist conspiracy theorist. How is "some academics view him as fascist or having commonalities with a fascist but others disagree" worse? The ship has long since sailed. This one is pretty decent I think. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the existence of yucka poopoo articles is a good argument for the active creation and endorsement of more. jp×g🗯️ 12:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a stickler for consistency. Wouldn't have made the article myself, but I find it interesting that this is the one everyone gets up in arms over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of these concerns, I believe a discussion on whether this article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and timing relevance is warranted. I appreciate the community’s input on this matter and look forward to an engaging and respectful discussion. Editeur16 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles don't get deleted for "timing relevance". If it's not notable, then it might become notable later, but this is notable and notability is not the issue here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Propose Deletion

[edit]

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]

FAQ talk page banner

[edit]

Should we have an FAQ on this talk page for frequently-asked questions, such as "Why make this now, this close to the election"? Clearly there's a lot of talk page activity, much of which is just asking the same questions. SMG chat 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that'd mean we'd have to answer that question. Why did we make this now, this close to the election? Obviously there's nothing stopping editors from creating pages when they want, but I doubt the general public is going to see that as a reasonable excuse. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, some explanation is better than no explanation. If no explanation is given, people will keep bringing it up. SMG chat 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When has the general public ever accepted what we do here as reasonable? Just saw a news blip earlier today about Musk calling Wikipedia broken, citing this article specifically... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the FAQ was supposed to be read and understood by the general public. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spoken like a true Wikipedian... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 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]

Internment camp section

[edit]

@XavierGreen @Premeditated Chaos While most given sources are indeed reliable, WP:NEWSWEEK is marked as "no consensus" for 2013 onwards, and shouldn't be used for such a delicate topic. In my opinion, it would be best to limit the section to sources explicitly mentioning the comparison with fascism: while concentration camps are indeed common in fascist regimes, they aren't unique to them, and making the link from one to the other ourselves would be improper WP:SYNTH. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the content per se, my objection was to the wide-scale removal under the general claim that all sources were unreliable (and without a talk page post to boot). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with your WP:BRD revert of the WP:BOLD content removal, just pointing out how the content can be improved while still mostly being kept. But yeah, definitely better to discuss this kind of stuff here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section should be rewritten with unreliable sources removed. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed the issues raised Superb Owl (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the additions have fully addressed the issues, besides the removal of Newsweek which is absolutely an improvement. The fact that one of the camps was previously used as a Japanese-American internment camp in WWII strays even further from the topic of fascism, and seems to fall in the "miscellaneous criticism of Trump" category. There's a lot to be said about many of Trump's policies, but this article should be kept on-topic, and ideally only use sources that explicitly mention fascism by name in relation to Trump. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this was copied here directly from Wikipedia's page list of internment and concentration camps. The sources provided here specifically, tying Trump past and promised use of internment camps to fascism are permissible sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the helpful reminder of @User:Chaotic Enby, I removed the piece that I had added as it did not explicitly mention fascism in those articles. Seems well on the way to more solid footing. Superb Owl (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

[edit]

Anti-democratic sentiment and illiberalism

[edit]

On October 31, 2024, Trump on stage in at the Desert Diamond Arena in Arizona used violent war imagery to describe killing former US Representative Liz Cheney saying, "She’s a radical war hawk,” and “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.” [1]


I think the above should be added to the Comparison section. Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link does indeed mention that Harris recently called Trump a fascist, but it appears to have been earlier than Trump's comment, and the article doesn't make a connection between them. I don't think every instance of Trump saying awful things about his political opponents should be added in the Comparison section, otherwise it might just be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, the linked article talking about Harris making the comparison could be useful, assuming it hasn't already been used as a source. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gold, Micahel (1 November 2024). "Trump Attacks Liz Cheney Using Violent War Imagery". Ny Times. USA.

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparisons_between_Donald_Trump_and_fascism&oldid=1255621887"