The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Trumpism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Trumpism at the Reference desk.
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The lead section of this article is well-researched and contains a great deal of relevant information. To me, it seems like too much detail for the lead. I also found it confusing and a bit scattered. Would other editors be open to a revision/reduction of the lead along the following lines?
Trumpism consists of the political movement and political ideologies that are associated with former U.S. president Donald Trump.[1][2]Trumpists and Trumpians are terms used to refer to those exhibiting characteristics of Trumpism.
The precise composition of Trumpism is disputed and is sufficiently complex to overwhelm any single framework of analysis.[3] Trumpism has been referred to as an American political variant of the far right[4][5] and the national-populist and neo-nationalist sentiment seen in multiple nations worldwide from the late 2010s[6] to the early 2020s. However, some commentators reject the populist designation for Trumpism, viewing the phenomenon as a new form of fascism or authoritarianism.[7][19][note 1] Trumpism has also been described as a cult of personality.[23][24][25] Though not limited to any one party, the Trumpist faction became the largest faction of the Republican Party in the United States in the late 2010s.
I am a bit curious about the supposedly recent rise of neo-nationalism in the United States. I was under the impression that American nationalism was already thriving in the 2000s. Per the main article on American nationalism:
Oppose trim. Isn't it interesting that election season starts to creep up and people want to trim? Now is not the time to trim. Andre🚐20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I assure you that there is no connection between election season and me wanting to trim a lead section that isn't very well written. If you have a reason for your opposition to the proposed edits, please state it. "Now is not the time to trim" is not a reason. Thank you. MonMothma (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, I reverted the removal of "Never Trumpers" from the lead. I also reverted the removal of Nixon, Ford, and Bush from the Republican Party page. Why are we memory holing these things? Let's not. Andre🚐05:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I am seeking consensus for proposed revisions to the lead section of this article. Issues with other articles can be discussed elsewhere. I am fine with retaining a sentence on the Never Trump movement in the lead now that you added sources for it. Do you have any other issues with my proposed revision? MonMothma (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's start with the intro sentence. In its current form, it contains so many terms--many of them obscure--that it doesn't really mean much of anything. I would revise it and simplify it to read as follows: "Trumpism consists of the political movement and political ideologies that are associated with former U.S. president Donald Trump." Thoughts? MonMothma (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpism consists of the political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance, political movement, and set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism that are associated with 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his political base. I agree with you that " and set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism" is a bit awkward and unwieldly, and a little too technical for the first sentence, so I'd support moving or rephrasing that. I took a first stab at decomposing the sentence into two here [1]Andre🚐23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Andre. That helps, and I appreciate you working with me on this even though we have disagreements. I would propose that the "set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism" clause be moved down into the body of the article (or, alternatively, removed altogether). I find it confusing. More importantly, though, putting this language in the lead makes the reader expect that the article will explain what those mechanisms are--but it really doesn't. Would you be OK with that? MonMothma (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think something about that should be in the lead, so I don't want to remove it altogther, but I'm definitely agreeable to rephrasing it or softening it. I'm not wedded to "mechanisms of" "autocratization" but I do think "authoritarianism" clearly does belong. Andre🚐00:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with mentioning authoritarianism in the lead. Authoritarianism is amply mentioned and sourced within the article body. The mechanisms and the autocratization are not. So I think we are in agreement here. MonMothma (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, I would like to go ahead and remove this sentence from the lead. The lead mentions authoritarianism elsewhere, and we agree that the rest of the sentence isn't helpful. Are you OK with that? MonMothma (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support removing it altogether. Per WP:PRESERVE we should find a way to move or preserve it and refactor or change it. I'm supportive of that, but I don't think we agreed on removing it. Also, there's WP:NODEADLINE to make these changes. Andre🚐17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trim I don't think trimming the lead has anything to do with the election or politics. The lead is obviously too long and scattered. I think it should be reduced to a maximum of 2 paragraphs. Actually, one paragraph should be enough to cover what Trumpism is and include a few thoughts from commentators who are for it or against to keep it more neutral.
I strongly oppose the new lead's redescription of Trumpism solely from one particular analytical framework until there is broader academic concensus to frame it that way. To date, there is no such concensus. The current lead misleads the reader into thinking that the stated particular perspective is not strongly contested. Within the article, there are ample citations from academic sources demonstrating contrary frameworks such as one which regards it is mistaken to view Trumpism as an ideational rather than an affective phenomenon, let alone a political "movement". That is, that it is more of a collective emotion as sociopsychology and other disciplines are cited as describing it. Though not a citable academic, George Will encapsulates this perspective this way: "Trumpism, too, is a mood masquerading as a doctrine, an entertainment genre based on contempt for its bellowing audiences. Still others view it as a political technique that agree is reliant on many such non political science factors such as basic drives some of which are held in common with many other species. However, the sections of the article discussing the link up with mass communication (EG Fox and use of social media) theorize that Trumpism should be viewed as a communication / collective consciousness (Le Bon derisively termed "Mob mentality") phenomenon. So while I agree the former wording was perhaps needlessly complex, it did accurately summarized the diversity of dominant views on what constitutes Trumpism. If no rewording is proposed that captures the dominant competing frameworks for explaining Trumpism, I shall do so. I am also not averse to restoring the original lead with adjustments to reduce its complexity. Any thoughts on this? J JMesserly (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead misleads the reader into thinking that the stated particular perspective is not strongly contested. Lol, no. Obviously the Trumpists object, but per WP:MANDY, that isn't terribly relevant. The lede is fine as-is, you're trying to dredge up a months-old discussion that settled the matter. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Sanger, David E. (2012). "1–5". Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power.
Authoritarianism, really?
All 5 of the sources backing the use of "authoritarianism" in the intro are opinion pieces that fail to draw a clear correlation between Trump's policies or supporters and authoritarianism. I think the editors are playing a bit fast and loose here. Do we really want to claim here on Wikipedia that the ideology of Donald Trump and his supporters is authoritarian? That just seems so removed from reality and I'm wondering if we're not saying this in bad faith here.
Not done No, strong oppose. Strongly references. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late. Andre🚐20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article, particularly that all-important first paragraph, suggests that the tens of millions of people who support Trump's candidacy are authoritarians, without giving any early consideration of the people who support Trump without supporting the radical ideas laid out here.
If the term "Trumpist" is going to be used, there ought to be an early disclaimer that not all who vote for or support Trump believe in the abolition of the rule of law and the Constitution, or these other extreme positions that are labeled as "Trumpist." In other words, it'd be helpful to provide an early distinction between those who support Trump over his opponent in our current political climate as compared those who actually believe this radical ideology. 2601:5C4:C500:6F30:83D5:F6EC:DFDC:EE94 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Andre. The claim that Trump is authoritarian is backed up by a ton of sources from both sides of the pond and various ideologies. pbp05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritarianism is quite a loose term and, at least in this case, depends on perspective. One can be seen as authoritarian in some ways (e.g., mask mandates, vaccination mandates, government confiscation of resources (through taxation that takes the majority (ie over 50%) of some people’s earnings), forcing audits and creating government mandated impositions of high burdens of proof (via tax audits) of individuals who express political views contrary to those who hold federal power (e.g., Tea Party), establishment of government/central authority defined rules of what it means for corporate boards (private business entities) to be “diverse” and penalizing large corporations for not aligning with such subjective interpretations of ethics. Forcing private places of business (even in cases where said business is entirely owned and run by a single individual or a family) to serve (e.g., waxing/massage services) any and all potential clientele based on those clientele’s own self-identification, versus the business’s right to refuse service to anyone for absolutely any reason. Imposing that all schools federally must teach potentially subjectively perceived materials (regarding homosexuality, transgenderism, etc) with a partial approach versus allowing local parents to review and perhaps amend or exclude the content of such subjective/opinionated studies from their children’s mandated, taxpayer funded curriculum.. In these ways and many more, one could argue that Trump and his followers’ policies may actually be seen as anti-authoritarian. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued that Trump’s current policy on abortion is arguably “less authoritarian” in some ways than that of most Democratic politicians and many Republican politicians. Roe v Wade asserted, through central, federal power of the judicial branch, that abortion cannot be effectively outlawed by a smaller, more local government (e.g., the states). However by encouraging Roe v Wade to be overturned, one can argue that now the power is left to the states (thus *removing* authority from the federal government). Trump has actually argued for allowing abortion in the case of exceptional circumstances, and is not supportive of a national ban, as many Republicans are.
Has he evolved on this issue? Maybe, or maybe it’s a calculated shift, but we have to judge political candidates on their most current stated platform, otherwise we would have to judge candidate Joe Biden as being a segregationist with respect to schools.
That is definitely much more defensible wording than what stands on this page right now. Thank you. Can we change the wording to "Trumpism is frequently seen as authoritarian," or even "Trumpism has frequently been seen as authoritarian"?
If you leave this intro as is, you might risk alienating and at least 'being seen' as validating unfounded beliefs by a large chunk of the 40-45% of American voters who voted for Trump, who might say that sources like Wikipedia are fundamentally biased and run by 'globalist elites' (their words, not mine) who only pretend to be objective, but are willing to give up their honesty due to personal gripe and/or political viewpoints. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, if the goal is neutrality, can you please back up the statement (if it is not an opinion): “Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late.”? Trump’s stances on several issues (COVID vaccines (strongly encouraging people to have them, but against government mandates); abortion (coming out against any federal ban or ruling)) can arguably be called compromises towards moderation. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more accurate wording would be "labled as authoritarian." Apart from rhetoric, there is little evidence that Trump's policies and actions have in fact been authoritarian. 72.234.113.204 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an easy way to prove how biased this article is. Type "What is Trumpism?" into Google and read the top results from reliable sources such as The Hill, BBC, The Atlantic and others. None of these reliable sources mention authoritarianism or fascism as a main characteristic of Trumpism. They talk about nativism, populism, nationalism, industrialism, tribalism, and identity politics. And yet this article leads off with authoritarianism and fascism. This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources. The resort to Irish Times is just one indication of this. Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources."
There are hundreds of "reliable sources", like Irish Times. The question is which ones are more toward the mainstream and which ones are at the fringe. The problem with this article is that it relies heavily on fringe reliable sources that are at the liberal end of the spectrum. Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inflammatory image in the heading.
I do think this image should be removed and replaced because its obviously Inflammatory and is meant to paint some kind of cultish image of the movement. I personally wanted to remove this image a long time ago but I was inexperienced with editing on Wikipedia. @User:Valjean says removing this image is whitewashing. I do think keeping the image is a violation of NPOV. The image file is literally called "Fascism Worship". Sources do state there are similarity's with Trumpism and Fascism. but that can be summed up as Fascism and Trumpism are inherently National Populist ideologies, and that they are right-wing movements. The image also doesn't adequately represent the movement like the other images in the heading. Another concern I have about this image is if it was uploaded with negative attentions. why do I think this? Because the file is called "Fascism Worship" and Trumpism is a Contentious subject. thank you, I'm going to bed and will be back tomorrow afternoon Zyxrq (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to keep the image I would agree its more appropriate for the for the Christian Trumpism section. Though I would say that there are plenty of images that would give a more arcuate representation of the movement when talking about the Religious section of Trumpism. I think a images like the ones seen on the websites I just linked would be a big improvement. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] I will go and look for better images. Zyxrq (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are essentially two images of the St. Johns photo op (one is the promo video), I would propose moving it down and replacing one of those with it, if there is consensus. DN (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of whether or not to address conservative Catholic support of Donald Trump, I think, Is relevant to this article. Sindenheim (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sindenheim That was not your question. Your original question about whether they will be "targeted as well" seems to imply general bad faith assumptions, does not specify any requested changes in particular or point to any specific citations or context. Catholic support of Trump is only relevant to this article in the context of Trumpism. DN (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret my use of the word target, as it seems rather aggressive which was not how I wanted it to come across. I was saying whether they were using the flag to "target" protestant christians, as in making a point to exhibit the overwhelming support of Trump in (southern) protestant communities, or if they wanted to exhibit general christian support, in which the flag could be misleading. I didn't put forth a specific change in my post because we were having a discussion about a certain change and whether we would support it, and I was clarifying some information about it. It wasn't my intention to put forth any new material to that specific edit prospect. Although my wording wasn't perfect, you misunderstood what I said and tried to accuse me of violating talk page rules. I would appreciate if you repeal that statement, thank you. Sindenheim (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply made an observation about the language you were using, which you seem to regret, but have yet to repeal or strike. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I think you have confirmed why that misunderstanding may have happened. DN (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support leaving the image as is. The naming of the image as "Fascism Worship" refers to the name of the image on the Flickr page where it comes from in order to provide attribution of the image to the photographer. The name does not represent the bias of a Wikimedia uploader deciding to rename the image. Furthermore, this page does include several sources that describe Trumpism in relation to a "cult of personality," so it is not out of place and inflammatory, as it relates directly to the content discussed in the page. However, I also agree with Zyxrq that adding in another image to the Christian Trumpism section would be helpful. Currently, we have a video of the St. John's Church photo op and a picture of Trump holding a bible from the St. John's Church photo op in the same section. We can remove the video (more relevant to the page on the actual event) and add in another one of the images you linked to Zyxrq, as I think they do a better job of conveying the sense of the section. BootsED (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED I know I wasn't referring to a "Wikimedia uploader". I was referring to the "Flickr page". Yes Trumpism has a cult of personality element to it but its not big enough or influences Trumpism enough in the way the image is portraying to warrant being included in the heading. It would simply be violating Undue weight to keep it on the heading. Zyxrq (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zyxrq, I was tempted to say something the first time but figured someone would point this out, but it hasn't happened, and now it's happened again. You use the word "pacific" twice when you mean "specifically" and "specific". It's not a biggie, since typos are a dime a dozen around here, but this is not a typo and should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that many of the sources cited to justify Trumpism as “fascist” or “authoritarian” contain heavy bias against Trump and his supporters. Many of these articles approach and address conservative beliefs as monolithic, though in reality, as most things tend to be, they are not. As stated by others, these articles have trouble connecting fascist ideas, like autocracy, to Trump’s actions. Instead of blindly applying predetermined notions, we, as logical editors and readers of the Wikipedia community, should analyze this article’s bias and inaccuracies with an open mind. Hopefully, when we do that, we can see that the information present here can be greatly condensed or removed to improve Wikipedia and report from a neutral standpoint. As always, discussion is welcome and encouraged! Wranlo (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Zaathras! It’s not so much that I have a problem with the sources. More that I think we should treat certain cases individually instead of relying 100% on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources. While I agree that many of the sources cited by this article can be reliable, I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces. Thanks for contributing! Wranlo (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bias in sources is not a problem—see WP:BIASED. If you have a problem with a source, start a discussion about it. We are not going to dump notionally biased sources if they are generally reliable for facts. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Binksternet! I agree that bias of the sources is not the issue, but it is our duty to make sure we transfer it to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner. Perhaps, rather than saying “Trumpism is an authoritarian movement,” we can say “Trumpism has been regarded as an authoritarian movement.” Thanks! Wranlo (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The statement is attributed to over twenty citations. This is an unusually high number for a single sentence, and it was done to forestall these very types of pointless arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, I understand, but this argument does have merit and should, in my opinion, be revisited in the future (Perhaps after the 2024 election and Trump’s legal issues.) I will be taking a backseat in this discussion from here on out. Please feel free to continue sharing your perspectives! Wranlo (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wranlo, you're right when you say: "I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces." Per NPOV, we should be neutral by not removing that bias. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so.
Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras:, thats your opinion, and not everyone holds that same belief. 74 million people voted for what you call “dangerous authoritarian values.” The article should be rewritten in a more neutral manner with more neutral sources. It is not our duty to judge the beliefs of others. 73.150.197.202 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In saying that do you not think you are revealing a personal bias? Many conservative opinion columnists are employed in both of those news organizations. And even so, would you as an individual like your work disregarded simply because the person who disregarded it has different views than you? Put simply, I believe if a cited source was biased on the right you would argue it had no bias. The New York Times and The Washington Post are both highly credible and distinguished newspapers, therefore we must, in a way, assume their biases more well founded than you, and other random people on here. Sindenheim (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MAGA movement is thoroughly Trump related, but I believe it involves not only trump but a plethora of far-right politicians and ideas who believe that only that kind of conservatism will, “Make America Great Again.” It just so happens that the Trump campaign coined the phrase and popularized the sentiment. Whereas Trumpism is the specific cult like following that almost support only him as a person rather than his morals or even policy decisions. Sindenheim (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entire article is blatantly misleading and characterizes the “Trumpism” movement in an inaccurate way. Hopefully someone with editing powers can correct this to something more accurate and useful. The article conveys a severe lack of understanding and is extremely politically charged in one direction. 2600:6C63:427F:A528:3CE3:12CE:F670:BD67 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. the entire thing is just a hate article making trump and all his followers out to be these horrible evil people with no morals. Where is the Bidenism article so we at least have one for both sides. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration with this article, even if I might not share your point of view. Even though I lean left politically myself on many issues, I can readily observe and concede that many of Wikipedia's editors are extremely biased on certain topics, in a way that is not reflective of humanity as a whole or the total corpus of useful published information. That, in turn affects their judgements about what to say, what not to say, and how to say it; what sources to cite and what sources to ignore. That is a problem, and even people who do not like Donald Trump should be able to concede that and work to remediate it.
If you want to have a hand in contributing to the article, a good first step would be to look for reliable sources that are not currently cited in the article. I have no doubt that they exist. Google Scholar might be a good place to start. I see that the very first article listed, "Dysfunction by Design: Trumpism as administrative doctrine", is not cited in this article, and I suspect that there are many other academic articles that are uncited, also. You may be surprised to find that scholarly literature is often critical of & more nuanced than popular journalistic coverage, reflecting the fact that scholars are usually much more educated on the topics they discuss than journalists and newspaper writers.
As for your remark about "Bidenism" - I know your comment was mostly an expression of frustration about this article, but there are actually quite a few reliable sources that use the term "Bidenism". There may be enough to create an interesting and informative article about the term. If you are interested in looking further into that, you can leave a message at my talk page and maybe I can help you.
@Superb Owl: I believe the section mentioning world leaders similar to trump should be redone completely or removed. It’s kind of flawed (such as adding two politicians for the Philippines whereas the others had one) and there is evidence for some politicians that were added. Firekong1 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firekong1, the lede section you edited was to replace well-sourced commentary on world leaders with unsourced ones not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Per the request in both reverts of your edits, please add reliable sources to the leaders you want to add and reasoning for removing leaders with reliable sourcing on the talk page (you can also add reliable sources that dispute the comparison into the article). Superb Owl (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Superb Owl: Only one of the additions had sources, and I personally think there are other Spanish politicians comparable to trump. But I will add sources, just please do not revert them immediately. Instead I prefer if you’d let me know which ones are and are not appropriate for Wikipedia’s standards. Firekong1 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are excellent articles (a MUST read!) dealing with MAGA's war against truth, freedom, and democracy. It is carried on by elements of Trumpism (MAGA, GOP, Trump) and Trump's autocratic dictator friends.
Oliver Darcy's commentary about it: "Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it 'one of the worst crises for American democracy this century'"[2]
On a side note, I recently came across an opinion by another editor that historians, unlike Anne Applebaum, are not to be considered "experts" or historians, without certain accreditations such as a degree in history, which Applebaum has, and or publishing in academic journals. It's not my intention to hijack, so feel free to respond on my page. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hat personalized comments that add more heat than light
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This, IMHO, is a textbook example of problematic sourcing methodology in that it quite openly seeks to co-opt selected RS (this status being determined by mechanically consulting the RSP color-coding rather than in full adherence to the PG&E on sourcing) opinion pieces to support a predetermined statement driven by specific editor-held views, rather than surveying the body of RS and distilling them into an encyclopedic format. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it’s extremely ironic that Colbert is being quoted here of all places, I don’t completely disagree. I just think that one or more major authors of this page and its lead clearly decided to give Trump the full-scale Antichrist treatment instead of discussing him with the sobriety that we accord to various people a whole lot worse than him.
Anyway, my concern was with tone and the GIGO (technical sense not literal) concerns about methodology that comments like Valjean’s OP naturally spark. I originally had jumped in because I’m watching this page for some reason I’ve half forgotten. And also because 1) I was in the mood that day to speak my mind frankly 2) it pisses me off when nonpartisan cleanup processes such as GOCE are interfered with, as they have been in the past 3) whenever there is an entrenched group of editors forcefully dominating a broad topic area (and ampol is the single worst offender as at least in PIA there are two opposing cliques and other geopolitical CT are typically almost pastoral by comparison if you’re not a citizen of a participant), that really pisses me off.
I don’t intend any incivility by anything above, but I’ve had a long day and I’m not feeling inhibited. Have a great night.
RadioactiveBoulevardier, fortunately I just happened to notice this. You should strike your comment above at 06:30, 12 May 2024, and maybe your subsequent comments, as they are grossly personalizing this and assuming bad faith. Comment on content, not editors. That source is not even (yet) used in the article and is provided as an excellent commentary and analysis. You don't have to agree with it, but you shouldn't poison the well here and assume bad faith in other editors. Remember that using an editor's political persuasion against them can be seen as a personal attack. Analyze the content in isolation from the editor, unless there is a clear pattern of violation of PAG and BLP. Then do it on the editor's talk page and try to peacefully improve the situation, not attack and start more fires.
My and others' political bent is irrelevant to this thread. Discuss the source. You claim you "don’t intend any incivility by anything above," but (that you say that reveals it can be understood that way) that's exactly what it is. Your comments are uncivil, personal attacks, and they assume bad faith by attributing to personal ideology what can be attributed to a million other innocent factors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between left-leaning bias and flat lies.
This is incredibly misleading and does not represent at all what Trumpism is. For example, Trump supporters favor LEGAL immigration. That does not make them "anti-immigration". How is any way shape or form is he authoritarian? Trump supporters fully support the constitution- it is a flat out life.
I understand wikipedia has a left leaning bias and I am totally okay with that. But this article is just false. There is no other way to put it. It is not what Trump supporters believe. It is what the far-left labels Trump supporters. Wow - never seen such misinformation. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot- "heavily favors racist attacks"??? This is the most absurd statement of all time presented as fact. Please give one example. The implication is that roughly have the country supports racist attacks. I am in absolute shock that this is an actual wikipedia article. You can totally disagree with Trump, but this is misinformation regarding what Trumpism is and what him and his supporters believe. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras The citation for the anti-immigration part links to a NY Times article in it Trump is claimed to have said immigrants were "poisoning the blood of the country" which he did say but if you hear all of what he said it can be easily understood that he was referring to illegal migrants and not immigrants in general. Being opposed to mass illegal migration isn't the same as being anti-immigration. The NYTimes article itself is misleading and stretches the truth. Therefore it cannot be a sufficient source to support the claim that Trump and Trumpism are anti-immigration. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two true statements here: 1) Wikipedia repeats what "reliable sources" say about Trumpism, and 2) the "reliable sources" do not accurately characterize what Trump supporters really think. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, this is a great article. But in terms of actually educating Wikipedia readers about what Trump supporters think, it's an awful article. @Listenhereyadonkey, are you the IP editor who started this thread? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal interpretations of what you think the sources say are irrelevant. This can be taken as a response to both of the users immediately above. Zaathras (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras The New York Times is known to have obvious left wing bias. Just like how Fox News has an obvious right wing bias. The New York times have even endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since 1960. You can't deny the New York Times' bias. If we can't have Fox News we sure can't have the NY times. Even the wikipedia article on NY times talks about its bias. 2601:548:8203:8C10:11C7:8B47:D244:2EA7 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there could also be 20 left leaning sources that say he is a fascist, but there could obviously be 20 right leaning sources that say he isn't one. The only way wikipedia can be unbiased is if they use unbiased sources instead of the left leaning sources they use today. 2601:548:8203:8C10:A031:E551:BD6C:DFA1 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been decided that the fascism sidebar should be kept on the page as for RFC, but something that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the sidebar for fascism doesn't contain any mention of Trumpism, while the neofascism one does. Shouldn't it be neofascism then? XCBRO172 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove the errant ref tag here:
* {{cite journal |last=Yang|first=Mimi |title=Trumpism: a disfigured Americanism|journal=Palgrave Communications |volume=4 |date=25 September 2018 |pages=1–13 |doi= 10.1057/s41599-018-0170-0|doi-access=free|quote=Trump’s “America First” is not exactly original but from a culturally genetic and historic make-up that builds the vertical America. The xenophobic and anti-immigration rhetoric has its origin in nativism that harbors white nationalism, populism, protectionism and isolationism ... Trumpism is not Americanism, but a masqueraded white supremacism and nativism; it is a disfigured Americanism in its vertical form.}}</ref>
This is without a doubt one of the most biased articles ever. "Trumpism" is a concept that is mostly used, mostly (but not entirely), by political opponents, activists and voters who are against Trump. This article makes it seems like Trumpism is an actual ideology, and the list of things it supposedly includes (not just things it is accused of being) is heavily biased and without a doubt comes across like the people who wrote this article loathe Donald Trump, it needs a complete overhaul, it absolutely is designed to paint Donald Trump in a negative light.
Consider rewriting the article starting with something along the lines of, "Trumpism is a term often used to describe beliefs about politics, government and policy as well as actions caused by their level of vigour of support, by supporters of Donald Trump", maybe a bit of a mess and not concise, but it's better than what we have now. 2.100.206.55 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Trumpism have to actually be "White Supremacy", "Fascism", "Christian Nationalism" and a "Disinformation Operation" for these categories to actually apply to this page, it would seem as if this page is saying that Trump is all of those things, or does a page have to be accused of being those things to be included, if it's actually saying Trump is those things not only is that extreme bias but it is also not true! 2.100.206.55 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a brief paragraph on Donald Trump under "Populism in the United States". It seems objective. Yet I found different categories and lots of paragraphs under "Trumpism" and Populist themes, sentiments, and methods. These categories and paragraphs also seem objective.
I believe a consideration should be given to merging the two in some way. The Populist themes, sentiments, and methods under "Trumpism" seem to naturally fit under Donald Trump under "Populism in the United States".
Just the opening paragraph is nothing but vicious slander meticulously designed to demonize Donald Trump and his supporters using all the nastiest political slurs: Sexist, racist, fascist, etc. This ignores the fact that Trump himself is actually more liberal on quite a lot of issues than the GOP of 20 years ago. Bush wanted to constitutionally ban gay marriage. Trump supports gay marriage. Guess who Wikipedia calls homophobic?
I don't think Donald Trump is a savior, but basically any article about him is unrelentingly negative compared to articles about Democrats. The perspective of Republicans/Trump supporters on what "Trumpism" means to them is completely missing here. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Not done No, strong oppose. Strongly references. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late. Andre🚐 20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done And I found a second one while I was at it. Thanks, and well-spotted. --AntiDionysius (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Trump's politics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § Trump's politics until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)