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.

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 think the old lady is the best image. Simple and clear in its presentation, and doesn't promote a website as previously stated. BootsED (talk) 03:36, 4 December 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]

WP:SYNTHESIS concerns in Internment Camps section

[edit]

Hi, I have recently started following this article. I think it is a very good article. I have concerns about the Internment Camps section. In my opinion, the Trump administration family separation policy led to very serious violations of human rights. And the detention facilities may well be an indication of fascism. That being said, it seems to me that the Internment Camps section contains some WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." T g7 (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More specific? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of including the "Internment camps" section in this article is that Trump's use of internment camps is evidence that he has fascist tendencies. But only one of the sources, the one by Nathan Robinson (last reference in the section), states this. Most of the other references are describing the camps. Internment camps are not unique to fascist governments, as one of the references points out. Most of this section on internment camps amounts to the making of the logical argument that because Donald Trump advocates internment camps, and fascist governments use internment camps, this is evidence that Donald Trump is fascist. This argument is not made by any but the Robinson reference, so most of the section is synthesis. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original logical arguments. I think this section should be substantially cut down. In my opinion, the sentence containing the Robinson article should remain, as well as one or two sentences and references for context, but the rest is not relevant to this article. There are other Wikipedia articles that describe the camps and these may be linked. T g7 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only need the one source to tie it together for it not to be synth. Could be compressed, but enough background is needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we not supposed to give relevant weight to sources used for an argument? One source seems hardly enough to justify such a lengthy inclusion, making it feel very much like a synthesized argument Artem...Talk 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure more than one source calls these internment camps fascist. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Facism

[edit]

So much is political today, so we have to be cognizant of what information we are taking I when looking for answers and definitions. Most mainstream inter web actors such as Wikipedia are some of the worst purveyors of dis and misinformation. Here are the facts. FACISM: the term was first coined by Benito Mussolini who before he uttered this word was a dyed in the wool Socialist and named after a liberal Spanish leader and so in spite of the scholars, political scientists and frauds Wikipedia refers to when defining Facism it quite obviously is a left wing ideology born of a socialist leader. Period and it doesn’t take a university education to figure this out. However it doesn’t take take being objective and a hunger for the truth. Thank you my name is shamus Shoop and I will be glad to debate anyone that disagrees. 2601:447:C088:DAE0:6CE1:C6A2:C4C1:1B05 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facism it quite obviously is a left wing ideology. It is not recognised as left wing at all by academics and historians. — Czello (music) 08:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_and_fascism&oldid=1263820348"