Talk:Donald Trump and fascism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why?

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

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)

It is also clearly not written in good faith. Steven Britton (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree per WP:TDS LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Proposed to be deleted. Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Second this. The Guardian should be reconsidered under Wikipedia:RS. agomulka (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Agreed. The article is not WP:NPOV. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@Scbritton: a reliable and impartial source is essential to support your statement (to avoid misunderstandings, I didn't write that I disagree with you). JacktheBrown (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to raise WP:Competenceisrequired concerns about Mr. Britton. The above sentences clearly illustrate that the basic competences needed to edit articles on political topics are missing here. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No point when he is already blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)