Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump and fascism

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

Did you know nomination

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

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

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

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

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

New article name suggestions

[edit]

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

Let the ongoing RM play out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Give it a week or so. There's no rush. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a decent title—per WP:AND, a title like "Trump and fascism" contains a subtle implication that the two are connected (rather than just neutrally reporting on allegations of fascism), which should probably be avoided per WP:NPOV. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The old "Comparisons between Donald Trump and Fascism" title doesn't make sense. Trump is a person and fascism is an ideology. So 'comparisons between' them is a grammatically improper title, and sounds very bad--that title does not even sound like English. Comparisons between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler could work, but that is a whole other article. 'Fascism allegations against Trump' is introducing language that isn't in the sources. This is not a legal proceeding and no one is describing it as an allegation in the sources cited. This is a similar type of article to Joseph Stalin and antisemitism which is titled similarly to the present article.Other "allegation" articles relating someone to a perjorative ideology such as Jefferson and Slavery, Heidegger and Nazism just use the simple "and" title without needing to phrase it as "allegations" Fascism allegations is at least better than the Comparisons title tho, which was not even grammatical. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Jefferson (1743-1826) nor Stalin (1878-1953) nor Heidegger (1889-1976) are living persons, are of historical interest. Skullers (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an excellent title as it more accurately describes the article. The current title makes assertions that Trump and fascism are by common knowledge tied together. But the article purely discusses accusations. Again this proposed title is concise and is less disputable. Angrycommguy (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV banner

[edit]

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

Pinging related parties: @PARAKANYAA, @Chaotic Enby, @Di (they-them), @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Cowboygilbert - I have also posted on the NPOV noticeboard here letting others know Artem P75 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75 I don't think this article can be much better about this than it is now. If the sources are biased, Wikipedia is as well, and pretty much all sources that would counteract this were declared generally unreliable long ago. Whatever you or I think about the topic personally, we're supposed to reflect what the reliable secondary sources say, and if they say nonsense so do we. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's a good point and one I have become much more open to, my main issue is the weight in that the "criticisms" section is considerably small compared to the rest of the article - but someone did point out that this may be because of a lack of sources on the criticisms or opposing viewpoint. If I can find some time to do some research I will try and locate some - interested in collaboration with any interested parties that come across this as my time is very limited Artem P75 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75 I do think adding to the criticisms section would help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the reasoning for the tag, I disagree that there's a NPOV issue. The article reflects what sources say, and it doesn't at any point make original claims. Every opinion in the article is cited to the person or organization that gave it. If the article said that he is a fascist, that would be an issue, but it doesn't. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There was a lot of chatter and attempts to delete the article but they all failed. There is a lot of academic debate over this, and Wikipedia does not in wikivoice state Trump is a fascist. A lot of the above chatter was because the page got mentioned in a misleading article on a right-wing website that was boosted by Elon Musk and attracted a bunch of trolls and bad faith edits.
@Artem P75 If you want to add some more RS from valid criticisms you are more than welcome too. But I would suggest removing the NPOV tag at the top for fear of having this talk page devolve into yet more accusations of the "Pentagon and CIA-funded Wikipedia working for the Democrat Party" and how mention of "Kamala Harris' Fascist New World Order" should be mentioned to balance it. (Yes, some people really did say that.) I really don't want to have this discussion again. BootsED (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Returning here from NPOV/N. There are definitely weight and POV concerns here. The article as it's written is essentially a handpicked set of random media pieces, not all of which even mention fascism (which makes this BLP, NPOV, and OR violations all in one). And don't get me started on that "poll" that misrepresents the results to apply a "fascism" label without any academic support for its definition. It also has serious WP:POVFORM problems with the criticism section suggesting a WP:PROCON setup. Most of it probably needs to be rewritten with better sourcing and structure. I listed a whole bunch of academic sources at the top of this page that can be used to rewrite the article (expand the "other banners" for the longer refideas template), but that would require someone to actually work on the article instead of complain about it, which seems to be the more popular option. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: I completely agree with you, and I see that I'm not the only one. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do strongly agree with you, unfortunately I myself do not have the time to work on fixing the article, certainly not alone... I have removed the NPOV banner per the previous two comments. I wouldn't be opposed to it being added back as the attention it draws feels as though it is the only way that this article will be fixed Artem...Talk 02:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the tag is supposed to stay up while this discussion is ongoing to serve as a notice/link to the discussion, but I don't recommend adding it back if only because people usually start arguing about the template instead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I will leave it as is. Hopefully someone interested and with enough free time will come along and do some research / raise some real proposals to improve this article... as contentious as it is, it would be nice to see it in a better state Artem...Talk 02:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY tagging the article by random people based on personal opinons. First of all let the people actually explain why they want to remove or change the article that has 180+ sources without just expressing their personal opinon, then add the tag to show that there is a merit in it. YBSOne (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're getting at or if that WP:DENY was aimed at me, but I can assure you that the AfD was quite extensive on this article and if you review the talk page history you will see how disputed the NPOV is Artem...Talk 21:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at you. It will always be disputed. But is currently disputed by people seeking attention or ranting. YBSOne (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I will just leave it as it is... as pointed out earlier the tag just attracts argument and nobody seems committed to work on actually bettering the article, myself included due to lack of time unfortunately Artem...Talk 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. My point was based on similar contentious articles and how non-constructive those POV/bias accusations are, like Talk:Republican_Party_efforts_to_disrupt_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election. People with few edits just seem to vent in there and not really to better anything. YBSOne (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism?

[edit]

True fascism is completely different: Fascist Italy. As an Italian, I'm very disappointed that in this article the term fascism is often used incorrectly ("Half of Americans see Donald Trump as a fascist": [1]). As Beland rightly wrote, "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." (here: Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Violates Wikimedia Code of Conduct).
I would like a peaceful discussion. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That point of view should be reflected in the "Criticism of the comparison" section. Is there anything you feel is missing from that section, which could be referenced to a notable commentator? -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: I will check carefully later. Sounds like a good paragraph to me, which makes the article acceptable. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. The term "fascism" has been so over used and diluted as a smear tactic by political oppositions that it bears no meaning to its true origins and is ignorant of and insulting to those who have really experienced true fascism. All it is used as now is a political campaign trigger point Artem...Talk 22:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there specific parts of this article you can point to that you feel inappropriately fall into using a dilute meaning of fascism? Can you point to a notable commentator making this argument, such that it could be added to the "Criticism of the comparison" section? -- Beland (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way that Wikipedia operates, probably not. All of the sources fall under WP:RS so its impossible to argue against, even if an argument was formed and it went to an RfC it would likely be heavily voted against as is usually the unfortunate case with most things that contradict left wing ideologies in this space. I understand that Wikipedia is more or less a reflection of what these "reliable" sources say, and the weight given to them, but unfortunately the majority of these sources are heavily left leaning so if those sources adopt the trigger point that he is a "fascist" then I guess so does Wikipedia. Its just unfortunate that this is the case - we have seen fascism historically, it is atrocious; and we have seen Trump in power for 4 years - comparatively there is nothing indicative of fascism - you could probably draw on a few hand-picked in-genuine quotes which were arguably said for shock value and notoriety / publicity but the truth is he has not done anything fascist in nature...
In any case now I am just ranting so I will leave this be Artem...Talk 23:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75: after reading your comment, my desire to be active in editing has decreased by 50%. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate. One good deed per day as they say Artem...Talk 04:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75: in my case, my work as an editor is both very qualitative (obviously with some mistakes in the past) and quantitative. But let's stay on the main topic, because it's very important.
Thank you very much for your contribution. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75: Well, as part of "the way Wikipedia operates", I'm asking you for specific concerns about this article. If you don't give other editors the opportunity to say "yes, your concerns are legitimate" and fix bad content...well, it hardly seems fair to claim the neutralization process is broken if the only reason it's not working for you is that you're unwilling to participate in it. -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: Yes, I apologize. The way the term fascism is used in modern times is just a topic I have very strong personal opinions on that I often let get in the way of rationality and policy.
I try to remain neutral but my personal perception of fascism, and the way that (I believe) it is just thrown around contrary to the historical suffering that real fascism has brought to tens of millions of people often gets in the way of any rational articulation. I will work on doing better. Artem...Talk 23:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Beland as to the best approach. Jack, when you have a reliable source that you would like to discuss including here, ping me back in. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution @JacktheBrown to make sure that postings inviting people to participate are neutral and, ideally, posted to relevant noticeboards rather than article talk. With that being said, I brought up Google Scholar and pulled the following sources:
  1. British Journal of American Legal Studies 2018 - Professor Ewan McGaughey is a law professor - Properly understood, ‘fascism’ is a contrasting, hybrid political ideology. It mixes liberalism’s dislike of state intervention, social conservatism’s embrace of welfare provision for insiders (not ‘outsiders’), and collectivism’s view that associations are key actors in a class conflict. Although out of control, Trump is closely linked to neo-conservative politics. It is too hostile to insider welfare to be called ‘fascist’. Its political ideology is weaker. If we had to give it a name, the social ideal of Donald Trump is ‘fascism-lite’.
  2. [2] Brill Journal "Fascism" - 2021 - Professor Paul Nicholas Jackson is an historian specializing in far-right movements - This article is a shell in which other experts were asked to present dissenting opinions. Mattias Gardell, Professor at the Centre for Multidisciplinary Studies on Racism, University of Uppsala says, Discussing whether Trump himself is a fascist may not be the most fruitful endeavour. Trump may be many things; a narcissist with a grandiose sense of self, a compulsive confabulator, a populist charlatan, but there is not much to indicate that he is politically conscious, or even interested enough to have adopted an ideology of any sort, including fascism. Yet, his maga campaign positioned the key fascist vision of national rebirth at the centre of political attention, and we are well advised to remember that also Hitler and Mussolini could be dismissed as egomaniacs, half-insane rascals, big-mouths, and buffoons, by mainstream commentators at the time. Ruth Wodak, Emerita Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies at Lancaster University says that it's irrelevant to ask whether Trump is personally a fascist before saying As historian Timothy Snyder rightly maintained, ‘this [Trumpism] has everything to do with race from top to bottom’.4 Trump explicitly contemplated that Hillary Clinton should be assassinated while continuously repeating the phrase ‘crooked Hillary’; and he launched traditional antisemitic tropes of a ‘Jewish World Conspiracy’ claiming that philanthropist George Soros was responsible both for the influx of so-called ‘illegal migrants’ from Mexico and for political opposition. Moreover, serious media and facts were delegitimized, ‘alternative facts’ and lies legitimized. He openly sided with ‘Proud Boys’ and equated antisemitic, white supremacists with anti-fascist demonstrators. Such ‘dangerous speech’5 was further enhanced by expressions of blatant machismo and misogyny. Obviously, discursive practices constitute and manifest realities – Trump’s rhetoric thus accompanied and also enabled authoritarian policies and practices. Benjamin R. Teitelbaum, Assistant Professor of Ethnomusicology and International Affairs, University of Colorado Boulder says I would think differently about ‘fascism’ were its contemporary usage something other than a lynchpin of this paradigm; instead it is the banner of our certitudes and the content in our proclamations of our subject’s regularity and dulness. I would think differently, also, were our field’s challenges of another kind, were they actually (as some critics allege) to be found in excess relativism and apologetics. Until that becomes the case I will seek out labels that do not attempt to explain so much and that deprive us the comfort of familiarity. David Renton, independent scholar and author of Fascism: History and Theory (Pluto Press, 2020) says There are two conclusions we could draw from this. Both address the susceptibility of our moment in history to capture by a violent, far-right. In one approach, the centre is surprisingly robust. It turns out that no plausible case could be made in favour of an American dictatorship. Even Trump-appointed judges and lawmakers would not consent to it. In the other approach, we have just been given a warning, and not from history. Had the voting in the 2020 election been closer, so that a decent argument could have been made that the results were genuinely unclear, Trump would have faced a much more serious opportunity to keep himself in power. If so, we can assume that even more elected Republicans would have supported him, and even the armed forces might possibly have been split. At that point, the comparison with fascism would indeed have become meaningful. There are several more expert professors who have stated opinions that may be WP:DUE in this article. I would suggest care and nuance to prevent cherry picking if used.
  3. American Anthropologist - 2020 - Dr. Nicholas De Genova is an anthropologist specializing on migration, borders, race, citizenship, nationalism and their intersections. He says, Whereas fascism has historically tended to be ushered into state power only following the gestation of a fascist social movement organized on the basis of paramilitary violence, the ethos of civil war that has come to more or less universally animate Republican politics in the United States has delivered a populist opportunist into power, and now, only in the aftermath of that cataclysmic systemic backfire, in the aura and orbit of that nonstop demagogical spectacle, a white supremacist fascist movement—albeit in convulsive fits and starts—is gathering its forces. From the brazen lies and conspiratorial innuendos of Trump, to the translation of that incendiary rhetoric into “policies” that institutionalize atrocity and routinize crimes against humanity, to the transnationally networked online fascist echo chamber that semi-regularly dispatches white terrorist bombers and mass shooters to massacre their unsuspecting “enemies,” to the braying heavily armed white supremacist fiends of the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally chanting “White Lives Matter!” and “Blood and Soil!”—the United States today has come under the grip of an ethos of civil war, whereby everything is permitted.
  4. Theory and Event - 2017 - William E. Connolly is a leading political scientist in the United States - he says, Perhaps we can gain preliminary bearings by listening to things Hitler said about the potent mixture he pursued of leadership, propaganda, and violence in Mein Kampf, a two-part book published in 1926 and 1927 when the Nazi movement was consolidating itself. I consult this text not because Trump is on a course that must end in death camps, or because the scapegoats he identifies are the same as those marked by Hitler, or because the institutional restraints against Trumpism are definitely as weak as those were against Hitlerism, or because Hitler launched a world war and Trump will necessarily lead us to a nuclear winter. The latter is indeed possible. But real differences between the two circumstances and drives must be kept in mind as we explore affinities in style and organization between them.
These are merely the first four sources that came up in Google Scholar. As you can see, the question of Trumpism and its association to fascism is well covered by the most high quality of sources (academic journals) but it's highly nuanced, technical in its language and divided. There is a lively debate and there is not a strong academic consensus about whether Trump is a fascist nor, even, whether Trumpism is a fascism. I would suggest all parties involved in this discussion put down their copies of Politico or The American Conservative or whatever and look at the academic press. Just be alert to WP:DUE and ensure you are accurately communicating the terms of the academic debate. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current title

[edit]

I've the impression that, due to the current title, many IP addresses and extreme right-wing users will attack the article's discussion page. I would suggest changing the title to something less direct; any ideas? JacktheBrown (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JacktheBrown, the page has gone through an AfD on the name change previously, I came in a bit late but from what I saw the name was moved from the current title, to "Comparison between Donald Trump and Fascism" and remained that way until after the election where it was then decided to be moved back to the current title Artem...Talk 21:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Donald Trump and fascism/Archive 1#Requested move 29 October 2024. -- Beland (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that Trump said immigrants have murder in their genes

[edit]

Article: "He has also claimed that immigrants are genetically predisposed to commit crimes and have 'bad genes'"

This is a misconstruction of what he said. The relevant sentence is: "You know, now a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes."

His campaign stated that he was talking about murderers, not immigrants, and the quotation makes that clear. This misinterpretation should be removed from the article.WackyEd (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's relevant isn't limited to one sentence. He said "How about allowing people to come to an open border, 13,000 of which were murderers, many of them murdered far more than one person, and they're now happily living in the United States. You know now a murderer, I believe this, it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now. They left, they had 425,000 people come into our country that shouldn’t be here, that are criminals." (audio and transcription here) The sentence you quoted was sandwiched between sentences that are clearly about immigrants, both of which addressed immigrants committing crimes, one of which was explicitly about immigrants committing murder. The text in the article can certainly be modified, but it shouldn't be removed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Public image of Donald Trump

[edit]

An attack page through its title WP:NPOVTITLE.

Propose merging any appropriate content into Public image of Donald Trump at best. (discussion there)

Compare and contrast:

Skullers (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not an "attack page". That applies only to an "unsourced or poorly sourced" article. You are way off and totally misunderstand "attack page". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is clearly an independently notable topic with significant coverage and obviously not an attack page. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. BLPPUBLIC, so those don't apply. There are various ways to improve this article, but it's clearly notable. I think the whole thing is nonsense, but Trump's relationship to the ideology has very clearly been debated for a long while by RS, and there is enough to sustain an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as this is an independently notable topic and would create an undue weight problem at the "public image" article. It does deserve a short mention there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pages that depict a public person under a potentially negative light are not attack pages per se, provided that they are properly sourced and reasonably NPOV-compliant. Per WP:ATTACK: When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject.. Comparisons between Trump and fascist figures have been made by conservative and liberal commentators, as well as prominent historians, since at least 2015, there is not denial that this is a notable topic. And this article is not about Trump's public image (the way he is perceived by the public), but rather about the comparisons made between him and fascists. Badbluebus (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just an attack page, not notable at all and purely dependent on left wing media and smear campaigns, unbalanced and written with heavy bias, should not be a stand alone article. WP:G10; WP:NPOVTITLE; WP:ATTACK Artem...Talk 21:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Artem P75: what you wrote is, unfortunately, 100% true, but remember that Trump (whom I also dislike, but don't detest) is detested, rightly or wrongly (I don't judge), by the entire US political left. He is called "fascist" without knowing the true meaning of this term (fascism was, unfortunately, born in Italy); we Italians know in detail the true roots of fascism because those who lived through that difficult period have told us and continue to tell us what they experienced directly (obviously, history books provide much more information). See: Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Fascism? JacktheBrown (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75, @JacktheBrown, please quote the text in WP:G10, WP:NPOVTITLE, and WP:ATTACK that you believe applies to this page. WP:G10 says Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. None of that applies here (e.g., the material here is clearly sourced, there is no libel in the article). The part of WP:NPOVTITLE that applies here is WP:NDESC, which says These [titles] are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions, referring editors to WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. How would you reword the title? I quoted from WP:ATTACK in my earlier comment so won't repeat that here, but that doesn't apply either. JacktheBrown, the article isn't a place for discussing whether we personally believe that the comparison is apt, but a place for summarizing what WP:RS are saying about it. If you think that the term is misused, I suggest that see whether there are RS that say this, in which case it would be great for you to add their critiques to the Criticism section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion: "If you think that the term is misused, I suggest that see whether there are RS that say this, in which case it would be great for you to add their critiques to the Criticism section." I will most probably do this. JacktheBrown (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the articles are simply too long to do so. Any POV concerns about this article should be explained in detail and addressed. Merging should not be used as a means to erase unfavorable truths or criticisms. -- Beland (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:ATTACK says An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. In and of itself, that a topic reflects negatively on the subject does not turn it into an attack page. This page is well-sourced and exists because lots of RSs are discussing the topic based on things that Trump has said and done. There's too much material to merge into the Public image of Donald Trump. Moreover, if you were going to merge it there, it would most naturally go in the Political image section; but if you look at that section, almost all of the subsections refer people to other pages for more in-depth discussions (e.g., the Racism sub-section refers readers to Main article: Racial views of Donald Trump). There should be a paragraph there about this topic, referring people here for a more in-depth discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is well sourced and not an attack page. This point was previously brought up in the deletion discussion and the consensus was to keep the page. Merging this page and cutting over half of its content is analogous to another deletion attempt. BootsED (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Merging this page and cutting over half of its content..."; it's the best option. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would think Donald Trump and authoritarianism a better title. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick: +1, absolutely yes! JacktheBrown (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because that's not the subject of the article. The article is specifically about the comparisons drawn with fascism. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is ridiculous to begin with given the nature of real fascism, not this new concept of fascism loosely applied by left wing propagandists to any political ideology contrary to theirs. Artem...Talk 02:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you or I agree with the comparison is completely irrelevant. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but articles like this one drag Wikipedia's already poor name and reputation even lower. Artem...Talk 23:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge There is a significant quantity of high-quality academic work on this specific topic. If it is merged into "public opinion" it's going to get buried under a deluge of politically motivated newspaper editorials. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge You can throw around as many Wikipedia phases all you want, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't have it's own page. There is a section of the page called, "Criticism of the comparison." Add well documented secondary sources there. If you look at the posting history of those who support the merge, it's clear their opinion is political, not based in reality. Other posters have said, "well what's to stop me from making a page comparing Joe Biden and Communism." Go ahead and do it, line up the well documented secondary sources.Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - the high level of academic comparison suggests there is smoke, which implies fire (if the fire means notability of its own topic). I think the case gets stronger over time as more material gets published, but that's more speculation i suppose.
Seems better to keep this separate for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose — Article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and generally NPOV. Numerous efforts have been made to reduce the bias and subjectivity. The topic is notable enough to warrant a distinct page. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 23:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

This afternoon there was an edit war: [3], [4], [5], [6]; I don't want to intervene, but it's important to decide whether or not to keep the content rather than continue to restore it. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ping the other editors involved and invite them to discuss it, per BRD. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Di (they-them), Czello, Roggenwolf, Badbluebus: let's discuss it; until a consensus is reached, the content cannot be restored. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and thank you for pinging. My point is simple: the statement is unsourced, but also unless a source directly mentions Donald Trump then it's WP:OR. Yes, it's true that Mussolini and Hitler utilised civilian militias – but what's that got to do with Trump? Quite simply, in order for this to be included there needs to be a source that directly makes this comparison. — Czello (music) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Czello. I reverted the edit because I think that something being "disrespectful" is very poor reasoning and does not justify removing content, but Czello bringing up that it is OR is much better reasoning for its removal. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): yes, Czello provided a much better rationale than I did; I apologize to Di (they-them) for this. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JacktheBrown Yesterday I added the missing source to that statement and you removed the content again with the source still there. Why did you do that?
The only reason why it was removed was because the statement had been left unsourced, now there is a source (it is this one) so it can be restored. @Di (they-them) @Czello. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Badbluebus, I think there are two issues with this specific editing back-and-forth. One is that there were two sentences, and the citation you added was placed after the second sentence, even though it applies to both sentences, resulting in Czello thinking that the first sentence was unsourced. The second is that the WP text simply didn't make clear that the source (rather than a WP editor) was the one linking Trump's armed supporters to Mussolini's blackshirts and Hitler's brownshirts, thus the WP text also isn't OR.
I think that this is an issue in much of the Comparisons section: it's not always clear that the source is the one making the link. At the very least, I think that each subsection should start off with text making that clear. For example, the political violence section starts off "Trump has repeatedly expressed support for violent actions by law enforcement and his supporters since the early days of his fist presidential campaign in August 2015," when it might be better to start with the last sentence in that paragraph, "Some historians consider Trump's praise of violence against his critics, among other behaviors, as fitting a characteristic of fascism," or to combine the two into something like "Trump has repeatedly expressed support for violent actions by law enforcement and his supporters since the early days of his fist presidential campaign in August 2015, and some historians say that Trump's rhetoric is a characteristic of fascism." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the source after the second sentence, and (unless I'm reading the wrong one) didn't support the first sentence or mention Mussolini at all.
However, I did miss the source that Badbluebus added (it appears to have been added and removed both while I was offline). It's worth pointing out that, per WP:RSP, The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. — Czello (music) 08:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Trump Building an Army of Modern Blackshirts?
  • It’s hard not to draw a parallel between the SA’s role in protecting Hitler’s beer hall events and the emergence of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters—all paramilitary-like groups— as unofficial bodyguards and security for Trump.
  • During Italy’s Black Years (1920–21), self-organized gangs of street thugs began taking shape in a few urban centers, under the rubric of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, a decentralized militia-like organization established by Mussolini. Calling themselves squadristi, many of them donned ragtag uniforms, carried rifles and revolvers, and began a pattern of systematic small-scale attacks against their political opponents on the left.
Badbluebus (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czello, that was my mistake, and I also made a mistake about how many sentences were involved. Four sentences were removed and restored several times: Both Hitler and Mussolini also engaged with civilian militias. Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento was established in the early 1920s as a decentralized street militia that would attack his political opponents. Hitler's Sturmabteilung (SA) provided protection to Hitler during his street events and engaged in violence against political opponents. In November 1922, the SA violently took control of the city of Coburg.
Those four sentences had already been removed and restored; then you removed them again, noting that they were unsourced. They were then restored with a "citation needed," removed again, and then Badbluebus restored them, adding The Nation (Dreyfuss) citation, which was placed after the next sentence (During Trump's presidency, several of his armed supporters occupied several state capitols, organized around the Mexican border and engaged in street fights with Antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters), as Dreyfuss discusses the content of all five sentences. Then JacktheBrown removed the four sentences, presumably thinking that they were still unsourced, leaving the fifth and the Dreyfuss citation. There's also another The Nation (Abramsky) citation after the fifth sentence; I don't know why, as Abramsky's article doesn't seem to apply to any of the five.
Dreyfuss substantiates all four sentences that were removed. Badbluebus quoted some of the relevant text, and there's more, mostly in the paragraph before the first sentence Badbluebus quoted. So the four sentences can be restored, as they're all sourced. As you note, most editors think use of The Nation should be attributed. Would it be sufficient to add "Dreyfuss notes that" at the beginning of the first of the four sentences? And should we also add the Dreyfuss citation after the four sentences, to make it clearer that they're sourced as well? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no worries - the shifting sentences appears to have created some confusion. I've clearly misread something as above I was talking about the Abramsky citation, although that mentions Mussolini plenty (not sure how I made that mistake, apologies) but doesn't support the sentences about militias - however we seem to be on the same page about that.
The Dreyfuss citation appears to be fine. I'd attribute it as Bob Dreyfuss, writing for The Nation, notes that in the first instance, and any repeat uses of that citation can simply say "Dreyfuss" or "he" where appropriate. That way I think we're making it very clear who is saying what and for which publication. — Czello (music) 07:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badbluebus, you recently added the following sentence: "Paxton saw the attack on the capitol as similar to Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome, in which his blackshirts successfully took over Italy's capital." I will not delete your edit ([7]), because you've reported Paxton's thoughts, but it's an exaggerated comparison.
I don't want to open a new thread. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JacktheBrown, when you say "it's an exaggerated comparison," what is the referent of "it"? Are you saying that you think Badbluebus exaggerated what the NYT said about Paxton's view? Or are you instead saying you think that Paxton's view (as characterized by the NYT) is exaggerated? If it's latter, your focus should be on finding RSs saying so, as the article is based on what RSs say. The relevant NYT text is "For an American historian of 20th-century Europe, it was hard not to see in the insurrection echoes of Mussolini’s Blackshirts, who marched on Rome in 1922 and took over the capital, or of the violent riot at the French Parliament in 1934 by veterans and far-right groups who sought to disrupt the swearing in of a new left-wing government." FWIW, my understanding of Paxton's views (based on the NYT article and an earlier one in Newsweek) is that he's at least as concerned with Trumpism as an environment in which fascism takes hold as he is with whether Trump himself is a fascist, and he also doesn't think the term "fascism" is all that helpful, preferring "ways of being more explicit about the specific danger Trump represents," in part because "the word fascism has been debased into epithet, making it a less and less useful tool for analyzing political movements of our times." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Paxton is a rather prominent scholar of fascism and related topics. You can disagree with him, but his comparison has been discussed by the NYT. I don't see any policy-based reason not to include his opinion. Badbluebus (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Badbluebus: "Robert Paxton is a rather prominent scholar of fascism and related topics." Among American scholars yes. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion: simply because Trump isn't and will never be even remotely comparable to Mussolini.
I'm emotionally involved in this topic, I don't want to write anything else for now. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the term 'neo-fascism' as currently it would be very hard to "achieve" what classic fascists "achieved". Neo-fascists today usually lack the militaristic aspect of classical fascism. Does not make them less fascist, just different, just like the times and geopolitics now are different. YBSOne (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think as nobody has an objection to [8] these edits - which are the main point of contention in this thread - that we can wrap up this conversation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the article title to "Donald Trump and far-right politics" and one big problem will be solved

[edit]

Academics who study fascism recognize it as a phenomenon that had many emulators but only a few governments ever have been considered fully fascist, including Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. There are many people who claim that Francoist Spain was fascist, it had a lot of fascist-appearing aesthetics of party militias and a dictator and even open support given to it by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany but scholars regard it as parafascist, the ruling party was not at the centre of politics in Spain during Franco, the military and the Catholic Church were. There were far-right ultranationalists before fascism existed. Trump has associated with a number of far-right figures and stances, that would be much easier to make a claim for than the current one.

If you want to keep the title "Donald Trump and fascism" that claims that Trump is a fascist you need to bring reliable scholarly sources forward. Sensationalist political partisan posts only show that there is a significant view of him being a fascist and not a reliable source. Do major scholars who study fascism claim that Trump is a fascist? 205.211.143.126 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about "Donald Trump and far-right politics". It is about Donald Trump and fascism. We don't need to change the title. And yes, major scholars of fascism have called him one, as is stated in the article. Even if they didn't, that wouldn't matter because the article is about the comparison existing, not about whether or not it is true or accurate. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): the only difference is that Mussolini and Hitler acted according to their misguided ideology, Trump on the other hand only provoked; it's a HUGE difference.
But yes, if academics, who have never experienced fascism with their own eyes, claim that Trump is a fascist, then let's believe it... JacktheBrown (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're moving the goalposts. First you said that reliable scholarly sources are needed to make any claims. Now you're saying that reliable sources don't actually count because the scholars didn't live in fascist Italy. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump “can be considered a fascist”

[edit]

This sentence is very biased and reinforces the argument of those who believe he is a “fascist”, and misleads the readers to believe Trump is actually a fascist dictator no better than Mussolini or Hitler.

Anyway, the whole article is very liberal biased and tries to portray Donald Trump as a far-right ultranationalist fascist by using political articles written by liberal or left-leaning journalists and shutting down any attempt to modify it to make it less biased. LeonChrisfield (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources and suggest specific edits. Complaining that reliable sources are biased is unhelpful. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are many articles, even from left-leaning ones, calling the notion of Trump being an actual fascist ridiculous
References: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/29/trump-rally-fascism-politics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/29/trump-rally-fascism-politics https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/scholars-fascists-agree-trumps-not-a-fascist-but-an-opportunity/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21521958/what-is-fascism-signs-donald-trump
Secondly, I just find the idea that trump “can be considered a fascist” just because many commentators and academics believe so ridiculous since it’s universally agreed by any means. In fact, not just Fox News and Newsweek commentators from the conservative media disagree with this; many left-leaning scholars and commentators also do not consider Trump a fascist. LeonChrisfield (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the typo: It’s not universally agreed at all and is a highly controversial accusation against Trump and the MAGA movement. LeonChrisfield (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LeonChrisfield: I doubt this article will improve, but thank you for trying. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue about this article is the comparison of Trump's internment of illegal immigrants with Nazi/fascist camps, which is highly misleading: the internment camps of the United States existed under Obama, under Joe Biden, and existed as a racist institution under FDR, yet only Trump has an article and a section for it to be compared to fascism. LeonChrisfield (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LeonChrisfield: I don't think this article can be completely improved, today I started a discussion about two sentences (without any source): Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Edit war. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Di pointed out to you, the article does not state that Trump is a fascist in wikivoice, and the actual sentence — in contrast with the phrase you quoted — is objectively true. The article notes that there is RSOPINION that considers Trump a fascist and other RSOPINION that does not. No one is "shutting down any attempt to modify it to make it less biased." Nothing is stopping you from improving the article. The first of the three articles you linked to is already cited in the article, but if you think that the sentence referring to it can be improved, then modify it, and if you think new text should be introduced and sourced to the other two articles you mentioned, do so. Or if you think text is not justified, remove it. Just be ready to discuss your changes if someone else disagrees. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence does not say that Donald Trump is a fascist. The full sentence is There has been significant academic and political debate over whether Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States and President-elect of the United States, can be considered a fascist. This is 100% true. It is not biased to say that this debate exists. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV term (it seems to be solved)

[edit]

I think "authoritarian populist individual" is a fair and correct definition for Trump; "dangerous", on the other hand, is objectively a very POV term: [9]. The sentence was written in a way that implied objectivity ("while being a dangerous authoritarian populist individual"); it's not "according to academics, he's dangerous", but that he's dangerous. The form of the sentence was absolutely wrong. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most scholars and commentators who are reluctant to call him a fascist per the references called him either dangerous or inflammatory for his rhetorics during January 6th and bolstering far-right populism in general, so I don’t personally see an issue with that label. It’s cited in multiple reliable references and should be considered a credible claim LeonChrisfield (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, while he may not be a criminal in the strictest sense, he was indeed convicted of more than 30 offenses and impeached twice, especially for his incitement of the January 6 riot. Just because Trump is a popular figure and the current president-elect doesn’t mean he isn’t widely considered dangerous. LeonChrisfield (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LeonChrisfield: the form of the sentence was wrong, read my new edit summary: [10], [11]; the term was POV because the sentence implied objectivity, not the point of view of academics. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BootsED: now the lead section is very good, although not perfect. Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I basically restored it to what it was before for readability, but split one sentence into two to incorporate some of the added content. BootsED (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&oldid=1258735244"