Talk:Demagogue/Archive 5

RfC on Donald Trump inclusion
In  February of 2019 there was an Rfc as to whether Trump should be listed as an example of a demagogue. No consensus was reached. Reliable mainstream sources have published a plethora of articles/books in respect to Trump/demagoguery since that Rfc. Consequently, I present you now with one question: should this article include opinions and/or analysis which assert that Donald Trump has characteristics of a demagogue, is a demagogue, or otherwise analyzes Trump through the lens of demagoguery? DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support - I was surprised he wasn’t already listed, and even more so when I started reading some of the survey opinions here. The level of controversy and debate regarding the status of Trump as a demagogue deserves a mention. I would propose as a minimum an entry regarding the controversy of whether or not to include Trump in the list on Wikipedia. That way it is not a statement of opinion on his status as a demagogue, but rather a statement of the fact that there is debate amongst wiki editors regarding his inclusion in the list —> you can even link to this page as a reference. If you can argue against that being a statement of demonstrable fact then I really worry about the future of Wikipedia.
 * Support - Per WP:BLPPUBLIC - “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.“ There are a plethora of publications from mainstream reliable sources specifically written about Trump and demagoguery (see discussion section below). Noteworthy is easily met. Clearly relevant - If all those top tier sources find it important to get the analyze Trump under a demagogue lens who are we to argue. Clearly well documented. See sources in discussion section.


 * I would proffer that the reasons for opposition given at the last Rfc were rather bizarre, illogical, and contrary to wiki policy. Also, there are an abundance of new reliable mainstream sources since the last Rfc weighing heavily in favor of inclusion. Finally, common sense compels inclusion. The absence of a Trump on this page is downright bizarre. It’s why I’m doing this after stumbling on this page the other day. Basically every major source on the internet except Wikipedia has an article (or more) specifically on Trump/demagoguery. Trumo isn’t even mentioned once in this article. An internet search for anything demagogue related and it’s almost impossible to not come across Trump at every link. For the last four years when the word “demagogue” is used there’s a ~97% chance it involves Trump. Trump being the person most associated with demagoguery, and probably the reason many of us even know the definition. Start Making Demagogue Trump ... or don’t ... but your opinion is appreciated.  DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2020

EDIT - New book which goes through a history of demagogues from McCarthy to Trump which specifically looks at connections between McCarthy and Trump. These books and articles just keep coming. It looks more and more bizarre Trump isn’t mentioned in this article. Further, the NPOV violation due to Trump protectionism becomes all the more glaring. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/19/books/demagogue-joseph-mccarthy-larry-tye-interview.html DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional Comment Anything relating to ‘is demagogue’ vs ‘is not demagogue’ speaks to WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION ... WP:NPOV generally. Before we get to that step, and the crux of this RFC, is whether opinions on the issue even warrant inclusion. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC - “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.“ I have not heard one argument that explains how this policy does not apply. Never in my rather prolific 15+ year Wikipedia career (I lost my password to a prior account) have I ever seen a consensus building exercise that was so entirely based on arbitrary subjective determinations void of any basis in wiki policy, lazy misrepresentations of wiki policy proffered to justify subjective determinations that we must avoid even the remote possibility that Wikipedia could be misconstrued as editorializing (rather insulting to the intelligence of Wikipedia users who I’d argue likely know the definition of encyclopedia and know the importance of checking references in Wikipedia articles), and sophomoric arguments scarcely masquerading as earnest POV concerns that reveal themselves as NPOV violations under the slightest scrutiny. Adding to my perturbation - in the last RFC similarly unprincipled reasons were asserted opposing inclusion. Yet there was enough support to be closed as no consensus. And now that there are abundantly more in depth reliable sources there is almost universal opposition. A disconcerting trend. Nearly anyone who comes across this article will likely be rather bewildered at the glaring absence of a single mention Trump. I sure was. And commentors expressed as much at the last RFC as well. In fact I would guarantee this page has seen a massive uptick in views since Trump became president. Surely many come here for more information on the topic as the term has become a lexiconal mainstay. I adore Wikipedia and everything it stands for. What a beautiful project. I am must unsettled and distressed this starry-eyed, visionary experiment turned bastion of knowledge appears to be falling under the spell of subjectivism. I don’t mean to insult anyone who took part in this RFC (I know it sounds like it - sorry) and I sincerely appreciate all commenters. But I would be remiss if I didn’t express my misgivings. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, insofar as the nominator proposes using Trump not as an example of someone who is sometimes described as a "demagogue", but as an example of a demagogue. This is not because I personally disagree with the characterization, but because I think that this would substitute the opinion of Wikipedians for the judgment of history, or of scholarly sources.  Sure, there are a lot of sources calling him a demagogue.  And a lot more that don't—perhaps irrespective of whether the writers consider him one, but because there's nothing to be gained by arguing whether or not he qualifies.  And if we could go back in history to see which politicians or leaders of movements have been called "demagogues" since the time of McCarthy, no doubt we'd see a number of familiar names other than Trump's, some of which might seem quite surprising today: I'm thinking of Martin Luther King, Jr., or Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher, or Newt Gingrich.  As Wikipedians, our job is to report what reliable sources describe as fact, and while it's a fact that many people would call Trump a demagogue, that doesn't make it a fact that he is one.  That's a current political controversy—and not really provable.  If we were to use him as a modern example—alongside Hitler and McCarthy—it would strike readers as Wikipedia taking a strong political stance on current issues.  I don't think that's a good idea.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment should’ve worded that better. Of course it would be included as the opinions and analysis of others. I took it for granted it was understood that an encyclopedia must not have an opinion of its own or editorialize. By NOT including these opinions/analysis Wikipedians are substituting their judgment for the opinions and/or analysis of nearly every mainstream English speaking reliable source. There are a deluge of English speaking reliable sources that felt it was important to publish detailed, in-depth analysis and/or opinions regarding the relationship between Trump and demagoguery. By not including them it appears that Wikipedia is biased in favor of Trump by ignoring policy requiring an issue be included in order that Trump not be portrayed in a negative light. And where is this Wikipedia policy that says certain material must be excluded for over five years and only until the ever so ambiguous “history” has passed can the material be included? This issue clearly falls within WP:BLPPUBLIC. By not including this issue it could appear that Wikipedia is willing to violate its own policies in order to exclude material that may portray him in a negative light.
 * Can you provide me with the sources that say that Trump is not a demagogue? I found a few reliable sources that took that position. That’s incredible if you found more publications that opine Trump is not a demagogue. It doesn’t change a thing though. It doesn’t change a thing though. Simply apply WP:BALANCE and add the material proportionally to its prominence in reliable sources. Well ... actually that would make it all the more clear that this issue needs to be included. Ignoring policy and leaving out the analysis and opinions, the majority of which propound that Trump is not this negative thing, would violate NPOV and could be seen as biased against the opinion that Trump isn’t this negative thing. Or are you asserting that because some sources don’t discuss Trump through the lens of demagoguery that this issue should be left out of the article. Something has to be mentioned by most reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia? Ok, if you want to start deleting every single article from the letter A and I’ll do the same working backwards from the letter Z. See you around R. Every major political figure has probably been labeled or analyzed as a demagogue before. But none of the figures you named, nor anyone else, has had detailed, in depth analysis and/or opinions published about them by nearly every major reliable source and many more in the way that Trump has. They’re not in the same ballpark. Not in the same universe. Like a barely audible whisper vs a symphony.
 * An assertion that Trump is or is not a demagogue is obviously not a fact and I can’t really see someone withe a grasp of language thinking it was anything but an opinion. No one who knows the definition of fact and opinion would think a statement that a President is good or bad or a big jerk or a nice guy is a fact. Sure, part of editing Wikipedia is using facts from reliable sources and adding them to articles. But part of editing at Wikipedia is adding opinions from reliable sources. Every movie or album of some renown has a critical reaction section. Every major politician, alive or dead, has a section titled legacy or historical impact or something similar which includes. The opinions of Wikipedia editors must not be included, only opinions from reliable sources. I assumed this was taken for granted. And once again, there are many controversies, opinions, critiques and otherwise that are not provable but might be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is obviously far from a variety of factual statements. And if we DON’T include a noteworthy issue that has received in-depth coverage by nearly every major English speaking reliable source over a period of five years and WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly mandates inclusion it very much looks like Wikipedia is biased in favor of Trump. Other editors have noted this as well. Look at the last Rfc. When I stumbled across this page a few days ago when I came across this page I thought it was odd that Trump didn’t have a section as over the last four years I’ve read or heard Trump mentioned in relation to Demagoguery a great deal and these generally would have been from mainstream reliable sources. When I realized Trump wasn’t even mentioned I was fairly bewildered and decided to look into it. That’s why I’m even doing this. And I understand you don’t think inclusion is a good idea. But can you at least point to a wiki policy as to why we should ignore WP:BLPPUBLIC and exclude this issue? DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically it would be okay to say that someone has been called a "demagogue", but it wouldn't be okay to single out just one person, particularly the current president, because that would appear to be a political statement on the part of Wikipedia. If you were to include a paragraph or short section on other persons who have been described as "demagogues" in modern times, i.e. since 1900, or since World War II, that might provide reasonable context—so long as there's scholarly support for each person included, including caveats (for example, mentioning people who would generally not be considered demagogues, but who may have been so called by their political opponents, such as civil rights leaders being accused of demagoguery by far-right sources, if there's any documentation to support this, which I think there would be).  And whatever your opinion of Trump, he shouldn't take up a disproportionately large amount of such a section—a sentence or two should be enough.  Bear in mind this isn't about whether there are more "pro" or "con" demagogue sources; much of what's said is rhetorical, not political theory involving the technical definition of demagogy.  But to the extent that the documentation is out there, the claim can go here, provided it's in context, and doesn't appear to reflect Wikipedia's stance on whether or not somebody is a demagogue.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Two reasons. 1) this article has had a strong tradition of not listing ANY living people as demagogues. I support that tradition. Listing living people would open the floodgates to constant edit warring. Partisan POV pushing would come into play, and BLP violations would be inevitable. IMO only the judgment of history can decide whether a person was a demagogue. 2) I have described Trump as a wannabe demagogue. He meets some of the described attributes, he admires strongmen, he would like to be one - but the country's rule-of-law limitations on his power have prevented him from becoming one in actuality. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dispute: It does not take much analytic skill to recognize this idea ("but the country's rule-of-law limitations on his power have prevented him from becoming one in actuality.") as complete nonsense and bogus. By this notion, we need to remove McCarthy from the article just as well, because as a senator he had even more limited power than a president. By this notion, no one in the U.S. could ever be considered a demagogue. The scholarly established criteria of demagoguery, which are well documented in this article, do not specify a certain level of power a candidate must possess. How absurd this notion is. Also, edit warring happens for all kinds of reasons and topics, fiercely for even minor or obscure topics, and the notion that political polarization is special is just as absurd as the previous argument. Kbrose (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment 1) Is there a policy that articles should abide by a “strong tradition” over wiki policy. Following traditional norms frequently inhibits progress and often begets lazy, stagnant reasoning. And what benefit is there in breaking rules to keep with tradition only for traditions sake? Plus there is a living person already discussed in the article. 2) Are you saying we shouldn’t include the issue because of your opinion that Trump is not quite a demagogue over an overwhelming amount of mainstream reliable sources? Your personal opinion that you don’t believe he currently quite fits as a demagogue and therefore the ubiquitous in depths analysis/opinions from mainstream major reliable sources shouldn’t be included out of a concern that it will look like Wikipedia editors are expressing their opinion. So because of your opinion that he isn’t quite a demagogue and that tradition should be followed we should ignore the overwhelming reliable sources on the issue because we shouldn’t inject our opinion in wiki articles. I’m not even saying that the article should say commenters refer to him as a demagogue. But the ubiquity of the articles clearly mandates inclusion and they should be examined and summarized proportionally when adding to the article per WP:BALANCE. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a matter of opinion, and WP should not traffic in opinion. "There is a difference between demagogues and demagogic behavior," said Michael Signer, an author and lawyer who has made a 15-year study of political demagogues and wrote a book: "Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies" on the topic. "Everything he has been doing has been at the level of him benefiting from controversy. There's a propagandistic element to it. He knows how to outrage people for his own benefit, and he's done that his whole career," he said. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In that very book, Michael Signer explains that whether someone is a demagogue or not is not a matter of of opinion. The explanation is summarized in our article, currently under "History and definition of the word". —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No: It seems premature to include Trump. If he is included, then I believe almost every far-right politician in the world would fit the definition of demagogue. ImTheIP (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you are equating far-right politics with demagoguery. There have been far-left demagogues as well, I would argue. But to stay with the assumption, in the period from Hitler to McCarthy to Trump the world has seen many far-right (or other persuasions) personae, who may have well qualified for the distinction here; yet, there does not appear to be a prevalent urge to include them in this article. Indeed, it is only the outstanding level of their behavior and its effect on nationwide or even worldwide opinion, policy and outcomes, and their domination of national or international discourse, that qualifies them for inclusion here, I would argue. It is inconceivable that Trump could not qualify on the grounds of egregiousness. He may not be the master that McCarthy was, who may well qualify as one of Trump's role models or teachers (via Cohn), but McCarthy did not reach the level of power of the presidency. It does not even require expert analyses to come to the conclusion, just an inquisitive analytical mind, and perhaps even only an avid reader of the news, to arrive at that conclusion. As noted though, there is no shortage of even non-political expert witness testimony to that effect. The only aspect that seems to stand in the way is the notion that living persons should not be listed as demagogues in Wikipedia. I don't know where this notion is cemented. Wikipedia articles cite living persons in many articles, and probably just as many cite 'negative' behavior as opposed to 'good' characteristics. Indeed, many articles make a point of listing public investigations into person's actions or character, even public conspiracy theories about them. Gossip and controversy seem to be a steady attraction for some to add to people or company articles. Yet, there does not appear to be a policy in place that forbid any derogatory statements or associations about living persons. Yes, in this case, they have been raised from the beginning of the Trump era. Of course it is understandable that inclusion would raise the ire of a large section of the current population, just as it would have if Wikipedia had existed in 1950s' America. Perhaps this is the real unspoken reason for opposition to inclusion at this time. It appears inconceivable that Trump would not be included when public opinion has calmed and no one wants to associate publicly with support of this administration anymore? That is what inevitably happens in post-demagogue societies. Will then be the proper time for inclusion? Or has the speed of communication, technological advance, social media, etc., shattered that aspect of protection as it has many other norms in modern society? Perhaps extra-ordinary circumstances call for similar levels of consideration in this debate. Kbrose (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MelanieN. Adding contemporary political figures as examples to articles on concepts with pejorative or laudatory implications is a bad idea. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per different points raised in above discussions. Idealigic (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support I have read all the arguments made so far (and I would like to emphasize that I appreciate the quality of them all) and I will, in what follows, take them into consideration.


 * First things first though: are there WP:RS describing Trump as engaging in demagoguery or outright calling him a demagogue? It seems to me there are. With all due respect, the fact that one can find WP:RS NOT calling him a demagogue does not equate to having WP:RS stating that he is NOT a demagogue. Therefore, going by the sources presented, I see no issue.


 * 's argument for example, that "our job is to report what reliable sources describe as fact, and while it's a fact that many people would call Trump a demagogue, that doesn't make it a fact that he is one." doesn't make sense. Is he perceived, called, referred to as a demagogue by WP:RS? Then, even if only for Wikipedia editors' perspective, he IS a demagogue... Moreover, please see the source provided below, which specifically refers to Trump as a demagogue. It is not up to us to determine if Trump is or is not a demagogue, just to accurately represent what WP:RS say on the matter. The fact is that that there seem to be WP:RS that describe him (or refer to him) being a demagogue - that is the only fact we need be concerned about. As for taking a political instance - I really doubt Wikipedia "filters" anything that might possibly be perceived as a critique of say Putin or Merkel or whatever other well known leader which otherwise, by the same principle, would constitute in Wikipedia taking a political stance, wouldn't it? Therefore, and irrespective of my personal opinion that Wikipedia trying avoid "sensitive" subjects because of fear of being accused of taking a political IS in fact taking a political stance, I cannot see any reason why some would be "spared" and others not.


 * From a practical PoV however, I would have to say I partially agree with, on the part of the risks posed by the inclusion of living people. I disagree on the "tradition" part as this is simply irrelevant as well as the "judgement of history" - which is, in my opinion, a poor argument, especially since it's more about who writes the history than anything else as well as what we today consider historical events (in some cases a couple of years passed is enough...).


 * For my info - I am really curious, can you please expand on what the source says about how is being a  demagogue any different than engaging in demagoguery and how the source applies this to Trump? What makes someone a demagogue if not the demagogic behavior? Here is an interesting article in which Mr. Michael Signer specifically refers to Pres. Trump as being a demagogue, multiple times. Frankly, this (among other articles Signer wrote on the same subject) makes a very convincing argument for the inclusion of Trump as a typical example of a demagogue.


 * That there are many more examples we could include - there is no doubt. However, my understanding is that Trump would be included as an outstanding example. In any case, that there could be many more examples does not mean that this specific example could not or should not be included.Cealicuca (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BLP, I don't think it's a great idea to name a living person a demagogue. ~ HAL  333  23:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think it is a good idea for Wikipedia to be calling people demagogues (yes, not in its voice, but it's the same effect). Plenty of opinion pieces have said Trump is a demagogue. Just because a few sources say something does not mean that it merits inclusion. Sources have called Lopez Obrador, Macron, Morales, and even Trudeau demagouges. Granted, some of these sources are not as high-quality as the others, but the mere fact that many reliable sources claim many world leaders as demagogues means that any inclusion of one as a demagouge, even if not said in Wikipedia's voice, is inherently an editorial one unless there is a widespread consensus in reliable sources of it. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty opinions, few sources? The "widespread consensus in reliable sources" appears to be exactly in existence in this case. While it may have been harder to establish two or three years ago, it is now far past the quality of opinion. It is likely much harder to find *reliable* sources that dispute it.Kbrose (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an article I easily found clearly stating he is not a demagogue. I simply don't see widespread consensus in reliable sources that he is a demagogue; many of the sources I see say he has done some demagogic behavior, but less call him a demagogue outright. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN opinion pieces (that even predate the election) are not reliable references by sources with appropriate credentials.Kbrose (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The author of that article, Stephen Collinson, rescinded it in December of 2015 in "What we learned from Donald Trump in 2015", in which he quoted Michael Signer to say that Trump turned out to be a demagogue after all. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: The consensus of reliable sources seems to be that he is a demagogue. A search for "Trump demagogue" on Google Scholar returns numerous sources calling him a demagogue, but I can't see any arguing the opposite. Avoiding criticism of a living person simply because they are living is not a good standard. M.Clay1 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Of course, there are going to be a large number of people who (understandably) hate trump and therefore call him a demagogue; half the country detests him and assigns him any right-wing label that has negative connotations. What I'm trying to say is without a neutral, scholarly review of sources that establish conclusively he is viewed as a demagogue by the vast majority of sources just showing a dozen or so sources or a google search won't convince me that the widespread consensus is to label him as such, preferably across party lines. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The criteria for demagoguery have been well established in the relevant fields of scholarly endeavor for well over a century. It is not necessary to experience hate or political bias toward the candidate. The analytical test against those criteria is totally sufficient and has been performed in many scholarly writings about Trump by now and a plethora of authoritative figures support this conclusion by now, but where are the contravening scholarly sources? Kbrose (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't consider sources from Google Scholar to be scholarly sources, what sources would convince you? M.Clay1 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, let's not forget the existence of the world outside of the US (of which I am a part). It doesn't matter about party lines if we're talking about people who aren't Democrats or Republicans. M.Clay1 (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's a fair point, but the majority of sources concerning the US president I would think would be from the US. And what would convince me is something scholarly, like a review of literature, that conclusively says that the scholarly consensus is that he is a demagogue, not just a sentence saying that from an academic or a scholarly source calling him a demagogue but an actual study saying that. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 's well-reasoned points. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Those points have been exposed as plain nonsense. Kbrose (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The decision on Trump must be made through the lens of history, not contemporary commentary. Any other approach uses Wikipedia as a Soapbox, which we must avoid. Editors are free add material from recent commentary in the various Donald Tump articles, but we must keep this one clean. (I recently read the John Bolton & Mary Trump books. They are critical of Trump for various reasons, but I don't think their opinions support Trumpagoguery.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support a brief mention, not "opinions" or extended analysis. Reasons are as follows; hopefully these address most of the points raised above:
 * The sources support it. There is no controversy in the scholarly literature about whether Trump is a demagogue. We have accumulated a list of sources here on this talk page.
 * Compared to the scholarly material about other demagogues, the amount on Trump is still relatively small. Per WP:PROPORTION, this merits relatively small coverage in our article.
 * Trump is now the most famous active demagogue in the world. Omitting Trump violates WP:NPOV, comparable to omitting Al Capone from the Gangster article. Omitting Trump reflects a biased agenda, not faithfulness to the sources.
 * Whether someone is a demagogue is not a matter of opinion, according to the sources cited in the article. You can support Trump while understanding that he is a demagogue—that is, by understanding the methods by which he attracts political support and subverts democracy. Nor are demagogues necessarily bad. Scholarly sources also speak of "benevolent demagogues".
 * —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Modest support While the point about avoiding calling anyone a demagogue is a good one - a slippery slope that once started could be hard to stop (e.g., Biden or Clinton as demagogue, etc.), Trump is different. The deliberate "Fake news" thing, insults, documented lying (though it is often not called that word), etc, etc.; over the top.  Even that might not be enough to support "demagogue", but in recent weeks, as the election campaign has heated up, Trump has become a demagogue on steroids.  With his behavior during this campaign I believe the situation is different. To fail to call this demagoguery what it is would be irresponsible.  The quote in the lead of the article is Trump to a T. There are sufficient sources, and one can go through each definitive point of what a demagogue is and give examples from Trump's behavior (presumably the sources do that). That said, I do find it surprising that the news media does not use the word demagogue more often; perhaps a situation similar to avoiding the "lie" word. I would perhaps like to see more recent citations that use the word. Bdushaw (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I will note that perhaps the article ought to include a discussion of the reluctance in practice to call anyone a demagogue, e.g., The Atlantic, Rolling Stone. In the Donald Trump article we do not call him a liar, but we describe how the press is reluctant to use "lie" and why.  That might be an approach for this article. Bdushaw (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Improperly closed RFC
The editor who closed the RFC, User:Srich32977, already voted in the RFC and he voted in the 2017 RFC on Trump/Demagoguery. Per WP:NAC "editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted" The editor states the 2017 RFC "decision was well founded for WP:POLICY reasons ... reasons which I, myself, listed." It doesn't seem proper to close an RFC and justify the decision by referencing your own arguments. I think the RFC needs to be reopened. Someone who is a loyal advocate for a position shouldn't close the RFC in favor of that position. At minimum an impartial editor should reclose it. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the procedure to contest a closing is to first discuss it with the closing editor on their user talk page, and if no meeting of the minds is possible, then to file an appeal on WP:AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'm confused about a procedural issue the editor brings up too. He says the 2017 "closed with a decision not to include." And that "this RfC is flawed because it does not ask whether we should overturn the consensus per Consensus Can Change." The user who posted the RFC linked to the 2017 RFC and asks whether Trump should be included.  I guess the closing editor was saying the question should have been should consensus change from not including trump rather than asking directly if Trump should be included. This seems odd to me. If consensus can change it would seem more straightforward to state the consensus in 2017 and let the question simply be what's the consensus rather than ask has the consensus changed from the consensus in 2017. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2017 RFC was actually closed as no consensus. Per the editor the flaw was in not asking to overturn consensus. If I understand correctly then no consensus is actually considered to be a type of consensus when determining whether consensus has changed? So the question should have been whether consensus had changed from a consensus of no consensus? I'm confused.SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, asking about consensus instead of asking directly about inclusion was impossibly meta. We don't generally go around sticking a probe in things to see if the level of consensus has changed, we just discuss the disputed change and the result of that discussion tells us what the consensus is.  In the same spirit, rather than disputing the close of the recent RfC, you might just start a new RfC, asking the question directly: "Should this article include Donald Trump as an example of a demagogue?" (or however you want to phrase it), cite reliable sources in your own response to your question, not in the question section itself, and see what response you get.  WP:Consensus can change, even within a short period of time.  Instructions on starting an RfC can be found at WP:RFC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. Thank you sir! SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How should I mention and cite to the other RFCs? Something like "There was a RFC in 2017 that was closed as no consensus. There was a RFC in 2020 that also did not reach a consensus."?SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You could just do a bulleted list, with links to the previous RfCs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The improper restoration from Talk:Demagogue/Archive 4 of the section "RfC on Donald Trump inclusion" has resulted in a minor clusterf... Predictably, that section has now been archived again, in Talk:Demagogue/Archive 5. Would User:SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters please sort this out? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I had no idea. How do I unclusterf... it? SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC - Should this article include Donald Trump?
Should this article include Donald Trump?

Support section / Support mention / Oppose SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * RFCs in 2019  and  2017  did not reach a consensus.SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support Section
 * Trump is now the most famous demagogue in modern history. The sources are overwhelming. Nearly every major publication covering politics has published an in depth article on this very issue.
 * Perhaps the most cited to argument in opposition at the last RFC was "this article has had a strong tradition of not listing ANY living people as demagogues." Articles do not get to create their own wiki policies. Following User:BenKovitz reasoning from the last RFC. Omitting Trump violates WP:NPOV comparable to omitting Al Capone from the Gangster article. Omitting Trump reflects a biased agenda, not faithfulness to the sources.
 * Further arguments included concerns about hypothetical edit warring and POV pushing. Hypothetical future disputes among hypothetical future editors should not prevent us from making Wikipedia the best it can be and applying wiki policy. Plenty of pages have this problem. This page sees an editor trying to add Trump every couple days at most and few if any of those edits are made in bad faith and not one has resulted in edit warring. And if somehow Trump's place on the Demagogue page becomes the new hip spot to edit war I believe the admins can do page protection. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Post RfC

 * I didn't see the RfC above when I added Trump w/ multiple sources to the article. I think that the RfC reached the wrong conclusion, and that waiting for "history" isn't going to change anything about the basic evaluation of what Trump is.  In any case, I'm putting my text here for possible use later:

and, at least according to some political analysts, Donald J. Trump,REF START
 * Collinson, Stehen (July 23, 2015) "Is Donald Trump a demagogue?" CNN
 * Meyer, Robinson (October 19, 2016) "Donald Trump Is the First Demagogue of the Anthropocene" The Atlantic
 * Hochshild, Adam (August 1, 2019) "Trump’s Demagoguery Is an Old American Tradition" The Nation
 * Shafer, Jack (June 1, 2020) "Donald Trump Could Write the Book on Talking Like a Demagogue" Politico
 * Zócalo Public Square (June 20, 2016) "What History Teaches Us About Demagogues Like The Donald" Time
 * Goldberg, Nicholas (June 24, 2020) "Trump was in full demagogue mode on Tuesday. It was terrifying" Los Angeles Times
 * Weiner, Tim (July 24, 2020) "A deep dive into President Trump’s doublespeak and other rhetorical tricks" The Washington Post
 * Posner, Eric (August 10, 2020) "Biden should make Trump’s demagoguery the campaign issue of Election 2020" MarketWatch
 * Merritt, Eli (October 15, 2020) "Why America must not reelect this demagogue: That’s what Trump is, and it matters" New York Daily News
 * Mishra, Pankaj (October 25, 2020) "Trump Is One of the World’s Lamer Demagogue" Bloomberg News
 * Garsten, Bryan (November 9, 2020) "How to Protect America From the Next Donald Trump" The New York TimesREF END
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like BMK, I dissent – the RfC reached the wrong conclusion. When a large number of reliable and reputable sources call someone a demagogue, Wikipedia reports it. WP:RS works both ways; historicism or historiography don't come into it. The closer's remark that the point may become "moot" is irrelevant; Trump's demagoguery in office doesn't disappear with the expiry of his term. Today's addition to BMK's list:
 * There are many more. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also failed to discover the RfC until reviewing edit history after adding Trump with citations and agree with the above dissent. It is astounding how many boxes he checks and yet still fails to be included. Drtmv (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm just biding my time to start another RfC when there's been enough time after the end of the Trump administration, and the academic articles start to come out putting the addition of Trump to the article beyond reproach. I'm quite certain that will happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No RFC should be needed to list and explain the most obvious, archetypical example of a demagogue, that even readers today can relate to from direct observation, as the most illustrative example to document the concept of demagoguery, which is supported by an overwhelming amount of reliable and citable references. kbrose (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Astounding. I just went to the demagogue page after hearing the word tossed around like mad in the media and whatnot. I was shocked Trump wasn't listed so I made a quick edit with a spattering of impeccable sources with the intention of adding a section later before discovering this saga. The admin who most cite to for support reasons “1) this article has had a strong tradition of not listing ANY living people as demagogues.” The admin explains the basis for this strong tradition as a concern over hypothetical POV issues in the future. A strong tradition. Hypothetical futuristic POV issues. I don’t know what to say. And “2) I have described Trump as a wannabe demagogue.” Arguing that Trump doesn’t belong in the article because in her opinion he isn’t quite a demagogue. Right after making a POV argument the admin argues her opinion should carry the day over the opinions of an overwhelming number of in depth articles on the precise issue. I can't think of a single major source with a connection to politics that isn't listed among the sources. I am blown away. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't know who you're referring to in your comments above, but it was me who reverted you. I have no view as to whether the RfC above came to the wrong conclusion or not - I haven't read through it - but unless the close is challenged or a new RfC is help, this result is binding. (Furthermore, regardless of whether one could argue the pros and cons of mentioning Trump in the body of the article, tacking a sentence about Trump onto a lead that mentions no other individuals seems disproportionate.) Girth Summit  (blether)  10:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You were 100% absolutely right to revert me. I would've reverted myself had I noticed the RFC and history of discussion on the topic. My apologies for the confusion! SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Girth, new section regarding DT as a Demagogue, sourced on every point, RFC time? He's historical now.
 * The 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been widely reported as a demagogue.
 * The 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been widely reported as a demagogue.


 * During his reign he embraced a cult of personality . His pandering to this mob while pushing unbridled authoritarianism resulted in a post-election insurrection that breached the United States Capitol, threatening the lives of the democratically elected representatives who opposed his rule .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.54.21 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Seconded. as an admin without a view on this issue maybe you are the perfect person to ask to take a look at the RFC if you have a few minutes. Your insight would be appreciated. SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm an admin, but I'm not an expert on starting RfCs - as far as I can recall, I've never started one, and I haven't closed many of them, my areas of experience centre more around counter-vandalism and notability/deletion discussions. If I take off my admin hat, I'd suggest that the present moment in time probably isn't ideal, it's only been a couple of months since the last RfC was closed, and it's not like this article is sorely lacking another example of a demagogue (which would be the only valid reason for putting DT here - we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list of historic demagogues). That's just my off-the-cuff thoughts though, you are free to read WP:RFC and form your own opinion. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've said it before and I say it again: characterising Trump as a demagogue is not POV or UNDUE – it's the opposite. Wikipedia policies compel us to report what many reputable sources have written. On the other hand, whether this Wikipedia article includes him or not doesn't affect that fact – see the results of this Google search. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , respectfully, that's beside the point. This talk page is not the place to discuss whether or not it's POV or UNDUE to describe Donald Trump as a demagogue; it's where we should discuss whether or not to have a section on Donald Trump on the article about demagogues. This article is not (and should not become) an exhaustive list of all people who have been described by reliable sources as demagogues - it's an article about the concept of the demagogue. Having a few representative examples is probably reasonable, but we should use editorial judgment about how many, and which ones. I'm not splitting hairs here - there is a huge difference between saying 'Wikipedia can describe Trump as a demagogue' and 'Wikipedia should include Trump on the article about demagogues as an archetypical example'.
 * To be clear, I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on whether he should be included - I have no such view - I'm just suggesting what the framework for any such discussion should be. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well said! I can only add that WP:BALASP provides an excellent guideline here. I agree with that Trump deserves a mention, but only a brief mention, since even today, only a small percentage of the scholarly writing about demagogues mentions Trump. And even with no mention of Trump, I think the article already does a thorough job of summarizing the literature and really explaining for readers what demagogues are and what they do. So, while I disagree with the current consensus, I don't think there's any great urgency to overturn it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Quoting WP: "History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation') is the study of the past [emphasis added]." Accordingly, Trump, Trumpism, USW, is an on-going, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. My endeavor and hope is to keep this WP article apolitical. – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the RFC is ok. Feel free to edit it. The references section might explode were we to add all potential references though.SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * While I think there are a few good sources on Trump as demagogue, most of the sources listed above in this section are not appropriate for this article. Most are not even about demagogues. A few are, though, such as the book by Jennifer Mercieca. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is another RfC, you will have your chance to express your opinions about it then. Until then, please note that WP:reliable sources does not restrict us to using only academic sources, books or journals, nor does it forbid the use of periodicals. Also, there is no policy that requires articles such as this one to only deal with historical examples.  Donald Trump will be added to this article when the consensus is that it's right to add him.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , is there a misunderstanding? I did not mean and do not think that only academic sources, books, and journals are appropriate. The best source on Trump as demagogue that I've read is Michael Signer's article in The Washington Post; I listed it first in the section on sources about Trump. I also do not think that this article should be limited to historical examples. I think we should summarize the literature as a whole, the same as every other Wikipedia article. Do we agree? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021
Modern Demagogues

Add: Donald J. Trump

The 45th President exhibited every characteristic of a demagogue described above in his four years as President. 121051jrs (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. RfC closed with no consensus for Trump's inclusion. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
This article implies charismatic populists are bad for society - they are just bad for elites and rich people. This article lacks political neutrality to the extent that it violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Populists that upset rich establishments aren't all genocidal evil-doers, populism is not a "weakness" of democracy, that is rather its primary feature. 118.208.10.232 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No evidence presented for the opinion expressed. No specific change requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia is a summary of the authoritative sources about each topic, not a place to argue for or against populism. The present article summarizes the main points of the literature on demagogues. But the literature also includes the claim, or at least the possibility, that some demagogues do some good—and the article does not yet summarize that. Adding this is in the to-do list at the top of this page. I've collected some notes, including sources, but it's hard to find specifics. If 118.208.10.232 or anyone else would like to help track down authoritative sources on good demagogues, or good done by demagogues, please do! If you're not sure how to summarize or reference them, post them on this talk page and I'll add them to what I've got and write a new section specifically about them. Or just dive in and try it yourself. This is a wiki. Errors will get corrected; imperfections will get improved. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Demagoguery
Why isn’t Donald Trump featured in this article? He meets every criteria listed in the article. 82.42.113.100 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether to mention Donald Trump was discussed here in 2017 and no consensus was reached. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Seriously? A lot has happened in the five years since that discussion took place. I agree with 82.42.113.100; I think a new RfC is in order. Grorp (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023
Change "In contract, being an effective member of Congress requires" to "In contrast, being an effective member of Congress requires" in last section. 195.182.157.247 (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ RudolfRed (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)