Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 180

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180Archive 181Archive 182→Archive 185

something feels missing on lead

By reading the lead, this is an exceptionally different read than other politican pages on wikipedia. It is almost exclusivelly composed of criticism. It feels extremelly strange that there is almost no direct analysis of how Trump won the US election. This is the only phrase that refers to it:

"During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, and nationalist."

It feels so underdeveloped, indirect, as if it was avoiding the topic entirelly. Am I the only one feeling that this is an issue? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No as the lede is a summery, the body is for more detailed reading into the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
There are dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles about Trump. His single-page, top-level biography is not the place to fully address things like direct analysis of how Trump won the US election. Interested readers need to drill a little deeper than this article—a task made very easy by the in-context links found in the article.
As for almost exclusivelly composed of criticism, read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. Since your comment has a little specificity, I'm opting not to close this thread per current consensus item 61. Other editors are free to disagree, as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Nothing against the criticism. Also I am asking, not even touched the edit button, so it would be kind of aggressive to shut the topic down immediatelly.
I am not talking about fully adress, with "direct analysis" I still meant a summarization, same as it is done with criticism.
I've read the link you are providing. It states "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires us to report the bad (negative) with the good (positive), and the neither-bad-nor-good, in rough proportion to what's said in reliable sources, which in this case are largely major news outlets."
I just remember that Trump victory was not an easy prediction, that it was very notable and widely analised by major news outlet. Just that. This is the main reason why the lead sounds weird to me. Like I said there is that phrase that at least refers to why he could have won, but it is very much indirect. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but this can't go anywhere unless you propose specific change(s), supported by reliable sources. It's fairly uncommon for someone else to take up your banner just because you brought up the topic. If you ask, "Who supports me on this?", the common response will be "I don't know, that depends on the specifics. I don't support or oppose vague generalities." ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I couldn't edit in the past week.
I think it is a reasonable path to ask for other editors opinions before having a fully formed one myself to propose an edit.
I don't know what the best formulation would be to add a phrase about why and how Trump won his first election. But, like I said, I feel that it is a crucial piece of info currently missing. This feeling is supported by reading reliable sources at the time obviously. The fact that Trump won was arguably the most notable event of his life, full of social insights.
Also note, and that's what I found strange, that there is (as it should) a whole paragraph about that election already. Russian interference is noted, him losing the popular vote is noted, protests are noted, his campaign tone is noted yet... No direct mention or why/how he won.
Again, how do you, and other editors, feel about this? I am not asking anybody to take my banner, feel free to disagree. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The Electoral College. He won because of the Electoral College. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Khajidha thank you for coming to the discussion. That is already presented on the paragraph! It is clearly written that he lost the popular vote.
Don't you think that one phrase with analysis of why he won could be helpful? Note that the lead for 2016 United States presidential election is attempting to do something like that, with poor results in my opinion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
No. The mechanics of the win is relevant to the election article and the article about his presidency, but not really to this article. Especially not to the lead. This is the article about Trump (the person), the fact that he won the 2016 election is the important part for the intro here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, is should be more developed on those two pages' leads.
But there already are broader social informations on the election paragraph in this lead. It mentions that Russia interfered to favor Trump, despite not being an action of Trump (the person), and the subsequent protests. How is a single phrase that directly refers to why he won less relevant than those two elements? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Just to further develop the very strange approach of this lead I want to point out how the very high quality lead of Hitler reads out. I am obviously choosing this lead NOT as a comparison of Hitler and Trump, but to showcase how even for an highly negative biography's lead there should always be room for social analysis.
He was decorated during his service in the German Army in World War I, receiving the Iron Cross. In 1919, he joined the German Workers' Party (DAP), the precursor of the Nazi Party, and in 1921 was appointed leader of the Nazi Party.
This helps readers understand his rise to power. You could argue Trump's lead does the same, but I don't think it does. The references to his business empire don't connect at all to his political activities.
After his early release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting pan-Germanism, antisemitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda.
This directly connects his policies and style to popular support.
Domestically, Hitler implemented numerous racist policies and sought to deport or kill German Jews. His first six years in power resulted in rapid economic recovery from the Great Depression, the abrogation of restrictions imposed on Germany after World War I, and the annexation of territories inhabited by millions of ethnic Germans, which initially gave him significant popular support.
This again connects his most negative actions to a complex set of economic and social relationships.
It would be very naive to frame lead writing as positive vs negative. The Trump's lead is currently avoiding any high quality summarization, shielding itself behind a fact checked style. I understand the difficulty of improving it, since this is a BLP and it will be challenged down to the comma. Still, the issue is there. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
@Cinemaandpolitics,Agreed,Wikipedia has to not take sides UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
this isn't that much about sides, criticism on lead are a good thing (per MOS) and are actually a big improvement on other politician pages. The issue is not having context (also required by MOS lead) to make sense of the info, even for the most notable facts as winning the election. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead cleanup move third para in lead to "First Presidency" section

I think the lead in general needs a very thorough cleanup, for example the entire third paragraph, starting with:

"In his first term, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, funded expansion of the Mexico–United States border wall..."

Should probably just be moved to the "First Presidency" section... These are things he did while he was in office for his first term so I would think that is the section where they belong rather than contributing to the bloat in the lead.

We have mention of racism and sexism in the second paragraph preceding this one, so I don't think it is appropriate to go into discussion of his policies that reflect this in the lead, but are better left to be considered in the article body per my brief understanding of MOS:LEAD, MOS:INTRO and WP:LEADLENGTH Artem...Talk 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead absolutely requires a description of the policies he implemented as president. It doesn't "contribute to bloat" because it is one of the core features of his biography, this article, and the lead of any article on a U.S. president (or leader of any country). The details can be debated, but pretty much everything mentioned is important. If anything is bloat in the current lead, it is instead sentences such as "He and his businesses have been involved in more than 4,000 legal actions, including six business bankruptcies" (see my proposal to remove this above), or perhaps the exact details on his indictments (which as commentators have noted [1] are now basically dead) and civil liabilities. — Goszei (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
That is a fair point - do you think it requires such an in-depth of a discussion about those policies though? The business and legal actions / bankruptcies I agree should be looked at, I think maybe cut down or removed and left for the body? These things happen all the time with businesses. I also think the exact details of his indictments could be removed and left for the body - I think mention of them should stay in the lead as a summary of the body, but as a whole I do not believe the specific details are lead appropriate and should be left for later on in the article Artem...Talk 00:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
If we want to trim down that section of the lead, it should probably done to the list of things he did in response to COVID, or the part about Kim Jong Un and North Korea, since nothing substantial came of that. The parts besides those are too important to cut, in my opinion. I will note that there are other things that had real effects which are currently absent and could be added, such as the USMCA or Abraham Accords. There's also nothing about the Operation Warp Speed or the CARES Act, which some editors have mentioned in this discussion above. — Goszei (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
A "discussion" involving two editors that lasted 91 minutes and you claim that a consensus has appeared to emerge? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
No, I was not referring to this thread, but this one above. I believe that a fairly clear consensus has emerged there. — Goszei (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
My apology, hadn't seen that one. Will respond there. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
These things happen all the time with businesses: does the majority of reliable sources say so? Not to my knowledge, and we have many sources to the contrary. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am seeking a consensus to add these links to the lead:

  1. populist, protectionist, and nationalist --> populist, protectionist and nationalist
    • These are specific enough terms that the average Jane probably isn't going to know a lot about.
    • I have wanted to click on these before and couldn't. Why not just link them?
  2. building a wall --> building a wall
    • This was a major part of Trump's 2016 rhetoric.
    • There is an article on it.
  3. initiated a trade war --> initiated a trade war
    • It's a specific and very important moment in his presidency.
    • There is an article on it.

What do y'all think? Cessaune [talk] 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Blanket-oppose new links in the lead, per my opposition to steering readers from the lead to other articles, bypassing the related body content. Lead-to-body links are a potential major improvement over no links in the lead, but that effort has stalled. That said, a trade war with China, not initiated a trade war. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Support, as these are useful and relevant links to the average reader which don't make the lead too bloated and provide value for those who want to read more about it. I'd also suggest linking "his political positions". If we'd want to take a more restrictive approach to keep the lead clean, we could leave the links to "populist, protectionist, and nationalist" out, as these are links to general articles not directly related to Trump or his actions. However, the argument that we should try to avoid "steering readers from the lead to other articles" seems rather patronizing and not very rational to me. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Support - helps the reader further understand the topic of the article per MOS:BUILD. The mentioned links are all important concepts for the article which the general reader will not be familiar with. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - We've enough links in the lead. Keep adding more & we'll end up with a WP:SEAOFBLUE situation. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a good argument, either logically or based on precedent. For starters, "we've enough" isn't argument, just a statement that means nothing without reasoning to back it up. Why do you believe we already have enough?
And do you truly think the slope is that slippery? On this page? What is being proposed will not create any SEAOFBLUE issues, and this page will likely never contain any SEAOFBLUE issues in the lead for any lengthy period of time. Cessaune [talk] 03:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
On this page? Oh yes, the slope can be that slippery. PS - I still oppose your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. See consensus 60, which, incidentally, resulted from the RfC in which you proposed ten other links. Seems to me that we've been heading down the slippery slope ever since because we already have several Wikilinks that violate the consensus (i.e., items that were in the lead at the time of the RfC, e.g., "many false and misleading statements" and others). And, obviously, items that were added later (e.g. felony convictions). Helps the reader further understand the topic of the article per MOS:BUILD — reading the article and not just the lead would help. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
All you do is essentially referring to an old RfC and arguing that adding more links would violate the consensus reached back then, which is not an argument in itself. We gave valid arguments for why we think that adding further links would be an improvement. Like I already wrote, I think trying to force users to read the article by deliberately not adding links is quite patronizing and not very rational. Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that "old RfC" is part of the current consensus, whether you consider it "patronizing and irrational" or not. WP:LEAD says The lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, not a collection of links to other pages. Nobody is forcing anybody to read anything on WP. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I know that this is the current consensus, and Cessaune and I are challenging it, arguing that adding the proposed links would be an improvement. So far, there has not been a single argument against including the proposed links; simply noting that adding further links would violate the current consensus is a mere observation, and citing this as a reason against the proposal is circular reasoning. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
1) I would tend to disagree that the RfC precluded the addition of new links. But let's assume it does. People such as yourself should've been jumping over themselves to revert. If people didn't/don't care to, then it couldn't have been all that important, or—my preferred theory—editors recognize the utility and don't see a problem with it. If, according to you, the outcome of the RfC has been effectively ignored by a lot of different people (including YOU, the author of a tenth of the text on this page and a quarter of the edits—someone who must've been very aware of this) that means... what exactly? Help me out here, because I'm genuinely confused.
2) If the consensus suggests that we are only allowed to add those links, I'm challenging the consensus directly here. So the outcome of the RfC is irrelevant.
3) Do you have an actual argument against adding the links? Cessaune [talk] 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
As to process, we have usually required significant new argument(s) or a significant change in the external situation to revisit an existing consensus. Otherwise, it's a simple roll of the dice that depends on who happens to show up; we could reverse the existing consensus only to have it restored in a few months after a change in the editor mix, back and forth indefinitely (make that make sense). Otherwise, it's a settled issue and time-limited volunteers have better ways to contribute than putting the same ingredients through the same machinery to see if we get a different product. It is not constructive to allow repeated bites at the same apple, and consensuses don't require periodic "refresh". Unless you meet one of those criteria for revisitation, you and Cessaune challenging the existing consensus is no different from you and Cessaune having opposed it and ended up on the losing side. Do you meet either of them? (In this case, there doesn't appear to be any "external situation" [external to Wikipedia] that could change, significantly or otherwise. So that leaves significant new argument(s).)
By the by, the above reasoning is supported at WP:CCC (policy) in language about as strong as language ever gets in Wikipedia PAGs outside of WP:BLP: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." My emphasis. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say that the Abraham Accords RfC is where I stopped agreeing with this kind of philosophy. There were random, relatively frequent discussions all the time as to whether the Abraham Accords were DUE in the article, and all of them ended in 'consensus against' for literal YEARS. Until one of them didn't. I was very certain that an RfC wasn't warranted, and when one happened, I was somewhat certain that the outcome was going to come out as no consensus or consensus against. Yet here we are. This is a very similar situation.
What if I were to suggest that the want to lead readers to information trumps the want to steer readers to the body? Cessaune [talk] 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Until one of them didn't. Did that one consider significant new arguments? I don't know much about the situation; had there been a significant change in the external situation that increased the DUEness? If either is true, that revisitation was warranted under this "philosophy". If neither is true, the consensus change was solely due to a change in editor mix, which is precisely what we seek to avoid.
What if somebody comes along who disagrees with the current Abraham Accords consensus? Would you support yet another revisitation, actively countering "AGAIN??" complaints, or do you assert "settled issue" when the current consensus is to your liking? Logically, those are the only two options if you reject this "philosophy".
What if I were to suggest that the want to lead readers to information trumps the want to steer readers to the body? I was hoping to avoid this. If you were to suggest that to me, I would respond that you should pick up the ball you dropped in April and get us moving on lead-to-body links again. They would serve both goals, leading readers to information while steering them to the body, and are the ultimate solution to this perennial problem.
All of your three proposed items should be supported in this article's body—else it's a bright red flag that the lead does not properly summarize the body—so lead-to-body links could be used for those items. The link might need to be structured differently in some cases; for example the current sandboxing includes: "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." If we think links to Populist, Protectionist, and Nationalist are warranted, they could and should be provided inline in the body prose.
Thus, lead-to-body links would both encourage and facilitate what are already widely-supported best practices.
Too often forgotten or dismissed: The level of detail in this article's body will meet the needs and desires of many readers, who are not served by facilitating, even encouraging them to bypass our body. Steer readers to the body first, then let them decide whether to drill deeper. Some will and others won't, and everybody will be well-served and happy.
Even if they choose not to read the body content, it's usually only one more click to reach the relevant other article. That effort may be compared to the effort of searching this massive table of contents for the body content elaborating on (and supporting) something you read in the lead. You think that's easy? Pretend you're new to the article and its ToC, forget everything you know about them, and try it for a few cases (no cherry picking). I think you'll find it's much harder than clicking a link in a hatnote at the top of a section you were just directed to. This equation may be different in shorter articles, which is why lead-to-body links should be nothing more than a local option; but they are sorely needed at at least one article—this one—and very likely others.
We offer a hierarchy of detail—lead→body→other articles—and lead-to-body links merely make it as accessible as possible—all of it, not just the first, third, and subsequent levels of detail. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
1) I actually tried to resume working on lead-to-body links, but I kept getting shut down by more experienced template editors and I still don't know how to solve the issue of switching text colors from white to black depending on the user's chosen theme.
2) If lead-to-body links aren't an option, then what? Cessaune [talk] 03:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
1a) "Shut down" how and on what basis? 1b) Doesn't sound insurmountable to me.
2) Premature question. As far as I'm concerned, they're an option until our best shot fails. We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll ask again to see if anyone knows how to solve the theme issue. Cessaune [talk] 04:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cessaune: I suggest vagueness, leaving the reason for asking out of it if at all possible. Regrettably, many editors will find reasons why "it can't be done" (or will merely be less helpful than they could be) if they oppose the underlying goal/proposal. And this is not an issue to be resolved in template space, WP:VPT, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, for the record, I'd be willing to suggest that pushing this is functionally the same as pushing for more links in the lead, considering that efforts of this sort have been shut down before... Cessaune [talk] 16:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
In my view, what we're proposing now is significantly superior to what has been shut down before (that's a whole other discussion). We've had more experience articulating the argument, so we do it better now. We've seen some of the major opposition arguments, so we can counter them before they're made. And it's had time to attract a larger support base, including Khajidha below. So I wouldn't let the past predict the future in this case. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean by "functionally the same". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose any and all links in lead. Full stop. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Clarification, "links" here refers to links to other articles. I still think the experiment we had with links to the relevant sections of this article was a good idea. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a justification for this? Cessaune [talk] 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 132.147.140.229 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Support. This is what wikilinks are for. Arguments that adding links to the lead cause the article to be underdeveloped are quite unconvincing. — Goszei (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose,we have a policy on this,Citations not needed in the lead UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
A citation and a link are completely different things. Cessaune [talk] 19:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Neutral ,then,in that case UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

fascist in lead

is attributed to ten sources in the body, Zenomonoz soibangla (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Fascism is an radical extreme nationalist ideology controlled by a dictator, this does not describe Trump or his ideologies, he is a nationalist, populist, and protectionist republican politician, as mentioned in the lead, “fascist” in this case is being used to describe someone you dislike. Big Mocc (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1252842766

I’m actually having trouble finding your statement, that some of the people who used to work for him said he's a fascist, in the body. Riposte97 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Milley, Mattis and Kelly. I can add those. soibangla (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I think your sentence is too trivial to constitute a mention in the lead. It wouldn't make sense to include mention of positive characterisation by his former colleagues, either. What am I missing? Zenomonoz (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I contend that (now) 13 references to fascist in the body is not trivial, but rather a very significant matter that is worthy of lead inclusion for a man who seeks the presidency. soibangla (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I now added them to the body, so there are now 13 attributions, which I believe is adequate for lead inclusion, and the inclusion is not up top.[2][3][4] soibangla (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:LEAD isn't about number of cites. Per current article content on "fascist", it clearly fails inclusion in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
please would you cite the specific verbiage of LEAD to which you refer? soibangla (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Mentioned once in a series (described by historians and scholars as populist, authoritarian, fascist) in 2024 presidential campaign is not enough IMO; populist and authoritarian are also mentioned in Campaign rhetoric and political positions. However, it wasn't just historians and scholars, it was also people ("my generals") who worked for him during his term in office (Defense Secretary Mattis, Chief of Staff Kelly) and Milley, who was handpicked by Trump for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military job — hardly the kind of people that can be smeared as far-left radical-left lunatics. If that is added to the body, then IMO we should add "fascist" to the lead. I haven't read Woodward's book yet, and I still have to go through the numerous sources that were added recently. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm ultimately against the 'fascist' label being included as it's been a subject of contention and debate for 8 years now. The debate is more nuanced than how many citations we can find with the word being included – which is why we should link to Trumpism where this nuance can be explored in-depth. — Czello (music) 07:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
yes, fascist has been discussed for years, and many have been reluctant and resistant to speak the word, but we now have three senior generals who served him speaking the word, yet the word remains buried in 13 references in the body. I am not persuaded that at this point exclusion from the lead would persist in any other person's BLP under similar circumstances. The sentence does not say he is a fascist, but rather that some historians, scholars and generals have characterized him as such, which is consistent with the body. soibangla (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Isn't Trump the de facto leader of a neo-fascist party? The main article on the ideology describes it as including "nativism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment" Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
We don't describe the GOP as being a neo-fascist party on Wikipedia. There are far-right elements to the party, for sure, but again that's why we can't extrapolate and say the whole party is neo-fascist and that Trump is their leader, therefore he is fascist.
The topic of whether Trumpism is fascist is still hotly debated, hence why a link to the article where that debate takes place is more appropriate. — Czello (music) 07:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd also reiterate Czello's point that the lead follows the text of the body. Unless something stated in the body, it should be in the lead. Riposte97 (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
waaay down there, the body says "fascist" with 13 references soibangla (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Trumpism would not exist without Trump. soibangla (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what argument you're making here. — Czello (music) 08:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I see no cause to deflect to Trumpism when its source is Trump, so it belongs here soibangla (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Because the Trumpism article is where we can dedicate more space to the nuance of the discussion. — Czello (music) 08:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see nuance of discussion there and a short conclusive sentence here as mutually exclusive soibangla (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The article is nuanced discussion from beginning to end. It's pretty solely dedicated to exploring the intricacies of the ideoloy and its leanings. The whole point of having splinter articles is so that we can dedicate more space to exploring these topics more fully without overburdening the parent article – and, in this case, an article that is already much too big. — Czello (music) 09:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I would be disinclined at the moment. If we're counting sources, 10 (or 13?) sources out of about 850 is worth maybe about a third of a sentence? I don't think it would be easy to appropriately contextualise that. Relative to the body, we have short paragraph, not entirely about fascism, mentioning it briefly. I see a narrow possibility for adding authoritarian though, assuming the wording is worked out carefully. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems notable according to Steven Levitsky and the NYT..."never before has a presidential nominee — let alone a former president — openly suggested turning the military on American citizens simply because they oppose his candidacy." NYT 10-15-2024. Cheers. DN (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
So notable I do not see the word "fascist" there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
DN, Do you believe Trump said that as depicted by that excerpt? Bob K31416 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Bob, SS, I was replying to Alpha's statement - "I see a narrow possibility for adding authoritarian though, assuming the wording is worked out carefully." I have not commented on the fascist label as of yet, so please hold your horses. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Bob. I have started a couple talk page sections with sources on authoritarian rhetoric. See Talk:Donald Trump#2024 campaign rhetoric "The enemy within" & Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign#Rhetoric Section Fails NPOV subsection ("The enemy within" rhetoric). Cheers. DN (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Two minds this is a BLP, but it is an accusation that is out there, but does this take up a significant part of our article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
My estimate is that less than 1% of the current article body can be said to address fascism or topics directly adjacent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis. As pointed out by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it's the content of the article , not number or variety of sources that determine what's in the lead, and the amount of the article that is actually about fascism or fascist-adjacent is low. I think most people on both sides of the aisle understand that this is primarily just a mudslinging pejorative term used in the course of politics. Just10A (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, and that's precisely why it's UNDUE for the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Putting "fascist" in the lead, would be quite problematic. Indeed, attempts to add such a label shortly before the US prez election, doesn't look too good as it's likely to stir up emotions. In other words, the timing stinks. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Arguments on DUE vs UNDUE aside, I agree that the stability of the article is concerning, and while these issues are separate, they are in no way mutually exclusive. This is the crux of Wikipedia's "Achilles heel" which puts a huge strain on admin and editors alike during elections. IMO though, it is an important discussion that should be held elsewhere, perhaps at the Village Pump. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Historians and academics should be removed..... just American Media..... zero peer-reviewed academic journals listed as sources. Moxy🍁 23:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
What leads you to believe the two are mutually exclusive? DN (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd usually agree, but with the assertions by the former Chief of Staff being the latest, this may be inching towards an actual, genuine descriptor of his actions and beliefs, rater than just a political pejorative. Zaathras (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
this is no longer about randos calling people they hate fascists and communists and terrorists and pedophiles and any other perjorative they can imagine. it's about Milley, Mattis and Kelly, top military officers he hired and they served under, in the Oval Office. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Call me a stuffy academic, but I don't believe "top military officer" is a qualification that is of any use (expert opinion) for distinguishing what is fascism and what is merely other forms of far-right authoritarian populism. Leaving weight concerns aside, the attribution required would be entirely too unwieldy in my opinion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Well everyone knows people who get fired arent bias. Plus its on msnbc, cnn, and others. It must be true. I really had to see if it is true. I voted for the evil orange man. Versus the hyena. 2600:1009:B1C0:E89F:B806:558E:13B5:FD2B (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
According to NPR,Kamala Harris said it,and Historians are debating UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 21:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Soibangla Ironic that the very fascism taking root in America, expressed by the fascist sympathizers and enablers here (now echoed in Musk’s tantrum in on Twitler, I meant, Twitter…sorry, typo) IS the only reasonable explanation for excluding well-sourced and documented Trump’s fascism in the lead where it is MORE than WP:NOTABLE. If Trump’s own chief of staff, who was a General no less, says that Trump is the very definition of fascism, then what more do we need? Wikipedia remains broken as MAGA marches on. 2601:282:8980:C0F0:5446:2E0:549A:3FD3 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_180&oldid=1260033894"