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]

Merge to Public image of Donald Trump

[edit]
PROCEDURAL CLOSE
This merge proposal has been closed as not merged at the intended location of discussion. These votes are not part a survey, instead they represent a duplicate voting process, thus closing this discussion to avoid confusion. It's also unclear whether these stray votes attributed to that close, but nonetheless, there additionally lacked support in this survey for such a proposal, so this shouldn't be a controversial close despite being involved. Ie, moving these votes to the original proposal would not have affected it's outcome. CNC (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
  • Oppose - Per statements above, the suggestion of changing the article title by some editors feels politically motivated due to baseless statements about "left wing propagandaism" used to describe academic reliable sources... PHShanghai | they/them (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war

[edit]

This afternoon there was an edit war: [1], [2], [3], [4]; 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 ([5]), 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]
JacktheBrown, I assume that you know this already (you're a much more experienced editor than I am), but the English WP allows references in other languages, so if there are useful RSs in Italian, you can certainly draw on them here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:48, 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 [6] 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]
We should stick with what the reliable sources say. It's pointless to argue with them, especially when they are WP:GREL sources. Badbluebus (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Badbluebus: some sources that were previously reliable are now unreliable, so trying to convince me that it's wrong to argue about the reliability of a reliable source is very bad behaviour. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheBrown: I see that you reverted my recent edit about these sentences, saying can we stop continuing the edit war on this sentence? Stop. I gather that you didn't read the most recent exchange between me and Czello about it, even though I tagged you in my comment, so that you'd better understand what had occurred and would join in that discussion if you wanted. The sentences (plural) are all sourced to a RS. Czello and I both agreed to them being added back in (and I believe that Badbluebus also agrees, as the one who added that source, and I bet that Di would as well, now that it's clear that it's not OR). Other than that you don't like what these sentences say, what is your reason for removing them now? Either present a compelling argument, or else please revert your edit taking them out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion: I don't fully agree (not 100%), so the consensus isn't complete. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:02, 23 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: [7]. 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: [8], [9]; 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]

MOS:LEADIMAGE

[edit]

The lead image of this article has been changed a couple of times. Can we choose one to settle the case? These are some that I found looking up "trump fascism" on Commons, the two first have already been inserted by other editors on this article. In my opinion, the black-and-white one with column the of the Trump International Hotel painted with the words "Fascist Int. Hotel" would be the best choice. Badbluebus (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the old lady photo the most (second picture). It doesn't promote a specific website (1), mentions both Trump and Fascism (4 and 5 doesn't), and it is not overdramatized (3 and 4). Ca talk to me! 00:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bollox to the lot of you whiners, complainers and liars 2001:1970:519D:CA00:1543:E8E0:3255:A846 (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on further examination, number 5 does mention fascism in an implicit way by depicting Trump as Hitler. I also support the 5th picture. Ca talk to me! 23:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for the last photo:

JacktheBrown (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote for the last image, it does a great job of exemplifying the entire community involved in this concept Artem...Talk 23:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&oldid=1260355607"