Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 165

Fascism
There, I said it.

Everyone knows Trump has always used incendiary rhetoric, which many have observed that in some cases comes real close to fascist-speak. Until recently, reliable sources have apparently determined the rhetoric does not quite cross the line for them to report it as such. But this has changed in recent weeks as Trump has sharply escalated his rhetoric, such that multiple reliable sources have now explicitly reported his rhetoric echoes that of fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler. And now significant reporting has emerged about plans he and his allies are making for a second term. This NYT lede alone is particularly stunning in drawing historical parallels to fascism:

And there's a lot more than that. I believe the sourcing is now sufficiently DUE for this to be mentioned in the BLP and not merely relegated exclusively to his 2024 campaign article. soibangla (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There continues to be an overriding NPOV fail on this page in its presumption that Trump was a successful businessman and a patriotic politician. These are not thecurrent views of the best RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be discussed to elicit compelling reason why I should not restore this edit:
 * soibangla (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (The better term is "Nazi rhetoric", and I used it at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign.) "In the fall of 2023" is still a year away from the election, WP:NOTNEWS.  What’s the enduring notability of Trump and his spokesman/campaign spokesman’s unfiltered speeches, and do we want to turn this article or the 2024 campaign article into a platform for every outrageous thing Trump/his campaign utters until the 2024 election?  He’s now playing high school auditoriums with a capacity of a few hundred, not convention centers. He’ll repeat the material his rally attendees love, and he’ll say anything that will get him headlines in the "fake news" — it’s going to be a long year.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  11:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Space4Time3Continuum2x, you used 3 sources to support the notion of "Nazi rhetoric." Two of those, the NYT and WaPo, are behind a subscription wall. The third one, CNN, which is freely accessible, does not contain the word "Nazi" in its text. Could you add in your citations a full quote of the pertinent sentences from the two sources' text? -The Gnome (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be reinstated but in a very summarised trimmed way, just mentioning "vermin" and "crushed" and that it's Nazi rhetoric. It bears mention but it's little more than a way to get attention, and we shouldn't focus on that at the expense of covering his overtly authoritarian 2024 plans (Agenda 47, Project 2025; deploying the military against civilians and replacing the executive branch with loyalists). We could do all this in fewer words than what's being proposed for reinstatement. DFlhb (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Nazi rhetoric" seems unduly inflammatory and less on point than "fascist rhetoric" - the cited sources do make the connection with Nazi wording - our users can see that from the cited sources - but "Nazi rhetoric" gets close to the kind of labeling that we try to avoid and that is likely to alienate readers without giving broader context. SPECIFICO talk 14:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that avoiding the word Nazi is the better part of valor. Mentioning Hitler and Mussolini is also problematic, no matter how accurate. Just mentioning Mussolini I think works better. Fascists of the mid-20th century is another option. Has to be some way of saying Nazi without using the word. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better - DFlhb (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends if the RSs are saying it, in which case, why shouldn't we (with attribution)? Yr Enw (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "poisoning the blood of our country" The statement reflects Nativism in United States politics, which has centuries of history in that xenophobic country. The main article cites xenophobic texts and policies by the politicians Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton in the 18th century as the foundations of American nativism. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It`s text book Know Nothing  politics Anonymous8206 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing I don't like about the first suggested edit is the way it leads with "drew criticism for" rather than going straight into what he said and afterwards saying it was criticized. Sennalen (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the take that Trump is a fascist, Wikipedia is no place for such heavily debated things, even if they do seem pretty obvious & objective. This sort of precedent of not stating such controversial things, at least not far in advance to when said controversial things happened, can be found everywhere on Wikipedia from articles on Christianity to ones on Hitler. I think we must stick to the non partisan leaning of this article even if the partisan info is 100% true. Including info on his fascism is fine, as long as it isn't stated matter of factly. 25eanglin (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe we should refrain from labeling a U.S. president as fascist. I'm already skeptical of the Project 2025 article, as it seems to suggest Trump's desire for changes, which is a common aspect of any head of state throughout history. I propose waiting until after the election; if he loses, the relevance diminishes. I'd even consider deleting the Project 2024 article. While I personally don't support Trump, I'm undecided about labeling him as far-right. Overall, I suggest waiting for the election results. If he wins and the country turns into a dictatorship, then I would agree with such classifications. Otherwise, if he doesn't run in 2028, perhaps it's best to move on from discussing him. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

can we move toward a consensus on phrasing and inclusion? here's another source:

Recommend the proposed paragraph be placed in the his 2024 campaign page. If he becomes US president on January 20, 2025 & then implements or attempts to implement such policies? then we could add the paragraph here. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Trump currently presents these totalitarian, xenophobic narratives and the agenda of converting the US government to his personal instrument of retribution against whomever he chooses. It is his personal core. It is extensively sourced and discussed in secondary and tertiary RS. It should be prominently placed in this page. The question is whether the proposed wording should be inserted or whether it can first be improved. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The US Constitution is the law of the land, not the president. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is unintelligible. Please read recent references and comment on the arguments in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I already have read them. Again, the proposed paragraph belongs in the Trump's 2024 prez campaign page, not here. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This relates to the man. We don't need to wait for a second presidency to include significant well-souurced content about the man that is known now. soibangla (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This relates to a potential second term in the White House, for Trump. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's say this is about anyone but Trump. Would you agree that with the extensive reliable sourcing here that this rhetoric would and should be included in anyone else's BLP? soibangla (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If this was about (for example) Joe Biden? I would recommend such a paragraph be added to Biden's 2024 campaign page, not Biden's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the person has a long history of highly incendiary rhetoric that multiple reliable sources now explicitly report has crossed into the realm of fascism, regardless of his presidential candidacy? soibangla (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * His promises/proposals belong in his 2024 campaign page & again, what he believes he can do & what he can actually do, are different things. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "poisoning the blood of our country" and "vermin" are not campaign promises/proposals, they are dehumanizing rhetoric that are classic tells of fascism, as multiple reliable sources have reported. soibangla (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the statements belong in his 2024 campaign page. I think we few have given our input on this. So, it's best to allow others to give their input, as a circular discussion, just goes... in circles. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not both? Sennalen (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, that objection is basically the same as the false and failed claims of the American right that claims Trump's incitements, coded calls to calumny, and extra-constitutional aspirations are just good ol' American Free Speech. Those claims are widespread, from Trump to his rotating set of defense attorneys to the far-right social media. So it is not merely about what might occur in the future. There have been multiple arrests for attacks, planned attacks and other crimes incited by Trump's rhetoric after he was no longer president. See Attack on Paul Pelosi. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My position hasn't changed, concerning whether the proposed paragraph should be added to this BLP or not. However, I foresee this discussion devolving into unpleasant areas. Therefore, I'm going to stand aside & allow the content dispute to continue forward, by others. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How does it not relate to the present time ? it needs to be in the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * soibangla, the NYT lede fails rs, per WP:NEWSORG. It's hyperbole. It's not what fascism experts say. TFD (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * did you take a deep dive into the first NYT article, it's a major article, and dive into the second NYT article I've cited here to see remarks by people such as Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Jennifer Mercieca? have you googled Trump fascist rhetoric? soibangla (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)::How does it not relate to the present time ? it needs to be in the article Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Jon Meacham: "To call your opponent 'vermin,' to dehumanize them, is to not only open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes."
 * Michael Beschloss: "Please tell us if this reminds you of any earlier historical figure."
 * Jason Stanley, author of How Fascism Works: "It doesn't echo 'Mein Kampf.' This is textbook 'Mein Kampf' ... Trump's comments are remarkably evocative particularly of Hitler's rants against Marxists and socialists -- Hitler also decried pro-democratic forces as Marxist ... [Hitler] took it that Jews were behind the international left, Marxism, communism, but his real target was democracy. This overbroad use of Marxism to target basically any political opponent, this is familiar from fascism and the way you attack democracy. And of course labeling your political opponents vermin, yeah, I mean the Nazis targeted their political opponents, they targeted them for incarceration and concentration camps."
 * Ruth Ben-Ghiat: "There are echoes of fascist rhetoric, and they’re very precise. The overall strategy is an obvious one of dehumanizing people so that the public will not have as much of an outcry at the things that you want to do ... calling people 'vermin' was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence ... Trump is also using projection: note that he mentions all kinds of authoritarians 'communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left' to set himself up as the deliverer of freedom. Mussolini promised freedom to his people too and then declared dictatorship." soibangla (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Jennifer Mercieca: "He describes a world of threats and a nation that is humiliated - he claims that there is danger everywhere and he's the only one who can provide safety - he claims that his opposition are enemies who cheat. Those are the classic arguments of fascism." soibangla (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Timothy Naftali: "The language is the language that dictators use to instill fear. When you dehumanize an opponent, you strip them of their constitutional rights to participate securely in a democracy because you’re saying they’re not human. That’s what dictators do."


 * Public Religion Research Institute: "What we have witnessed from Trump over the last few weeks is something new," said Robert Jones, founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI. "Trump has clearly crossed into the domain of Nazi ideology openly."


 * Brian Klaas: "I study the breakdown of democracy, and I don’t know how to say this more clearly: We are sleepwalking towards authoritarianism, and people are not waking up to this."


 * Stephen Miller: "Any activists who doubt President Trump's resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown. The immigration legal activists won't know what's happening."


 * soibangla (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fascism is the subject of extensive academic study. Tens of thousands of books and academic papers have been written about it. People write PhD papers about fascism, become professors, write academic papers and books. The academic community then decides which views are most credible and which scholars are most authoritative. IOW it's a real academic area of study, no different from any other.
 * Some of the people you mention are noted fascism scholars and none of your sources was published in an article or book in the academic press.
 * Jennifer Mercieca is a scholar of rhetoric. Jacob Urowsky is a professor of philosophy whose book was published by Random House, which is not an academic publisher.
 * See Is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in (Dylan Matthews, Vox Oct 23, 2020). It says, "Call him a kleptocrat, an oligarch, a xenophobe, a racist, even an authoritarian. But he doesn’t quite fit the definition of a fascist."
 * The experts include Roger Griffin, Robert Paxton, Stanley Payne, who are among the top ten if not the top five fascism scholars.
 * Also, note that the article mentions Jason Stanley and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, whom you quote in support of your thesis. But note the article says they have both said Trump is not a fascist.
 * You need to show us a textbook that says there is consensus among fascism scholars that Trump is a fascist. In the meantime you are doing what climate change deniers do. They present non-significant scientists, editorials and distortions of expert sources to support a predetermined conclusion. TFD (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have noted over the years that in certain instances you insist on academic research papers to substantiate content, when that is rarely the norm of what we do here. Rather, we overwhelmingly rely on contemporaneous reliable sources. And what we have here is subject matter experts quoted in reliable sources, right here and now. Moreover, this is not a matter of whether Trump is a fascist, but rather whether his rhetoric reflects that of fascists. soibangla (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, Robert Paxton whom you cite in 2021 wrote an op-ed for Newsweek in which he stated that he now believed Donald Trump was a fascist, after insisting for several years that he was instead a right-wing populist soibangla (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of this article meets that textbook standard? ~None. SPECIFICO talk 09:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Different types of sources are required for different types of claims. Rather than recite them all, let me point to the common sense approach to this. Articles should only refer to people as fascists if that is the academic consensus. The best way to determine this is to consult textbooks, but articles that poll leading experts such as the Vox article or the earlier one for History can be useful.
 * Note that I am not recommending that the Vox article be used as a source. I am merely citing it as evidence that your opinion is contrary to expert opinion.
 * Paxton wrote an editorial for the NYT saying that his opinion on Trump had changed after 1/6. However, he has not written a paper on this and remains an outlier.
 * Calling one's political opponents fascists is very common. It is however offensive because it trivializes fascism. Fascists were responsible for WWII and the Holocaust, leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people. They suspended parliament, banned rival political parties, locked up or killed opponents, censored the press and had gangs terrorize local populations. However odious the Trump administration might have been, that didn't happen, at least not to any significant degree.
 * When you trivialize fascism, you help its rehabilitation. If everyone is a fascist then no one is a fascist. This is exactly what the gun lobby does when it harps on about gun control in Nazi Germany.
 * I don't understand why, with so many actual facts you can use to criticize Trump, you rely on the argumentum ad hitlerum. This type of hyperbole is more likely to backfire than persuade and is best avoided. TFD (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting considerably away from the proposed article content. There's lots of RS detail about the efforts of Trump's current entourage to source and vet prospective appointees who, like various now-charged January 6 defendants and disgraced former Trump advisors, would support, enable, and execute presidential actions adverse to the American core. This thread is not about labeling Trump a "fascist" at the top of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that all the references I provided above are from this month. The Vox piece you cite is from three years ago. You also mention some fascism experts who wrote their major work decades ago and appear retired now. Things have changed. The proposal here relates to the change in Trump's rhetoric in recent weeks, on which subject matter experts have been quoted in publications here and now, rather than academics writing papers that get peer-reviewed and published years later.
 * As notes, there is no proposal here to label Trump a fascist. No one is suggesting the lead should say Donald J. Trump is a fascist who was the 45th president of the United States. It's about his rhetoric. As it stands, nowhere in this article is his authoritarian rhetoric even mentioned, despite it being extensively written about for several years. The article says "Trump's political positions and rhetoric were right-wing populist," with sources from 2+ years ago. Nowhere in the article does rule of law appear.
 * And now many reliable sources, supported by modern fascism and rhetoric academics, report his rhetoric now reflects that of Mussolini and Hitler. soibangla (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * His authoritarian rhetoric and lack of respect for the rule of law both definitely deserve mention, along with what I suggested in my first comment. DFlhb (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * His authoritarian rhetoric and lack of respect for the rule of law both definitely deserve mention, along with what I suggested in my first comment. DFlhb (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The article already says, "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist...Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic."

That description has similarities to Fascism and Nazism. It also makes him comparable to contemporaries such as Duterte, Modi, Putin, Viktor Orban, Meloni, Javier Milei, LePen and Bolsonaro.

But it also has similarities with nativist and other movements throughout U.S. history: the Salem witch hunts, the Sons of Liberty, Andrew Jackson, Know Nothings, Copperheads, Klansmen, anti-Communists, Birchers, etc. These are more likely to be influences on Trumpism than foreign ideologies.

There are rs making these comparisons. However, if the article makes comparisons of Trump and Fascism/Nazism, then it should write about all the comparisons made in proportion to their support in rs. We must not give greater prominence to Hitler than Andrew Jackson, just because Hitler is less popular with the U.S. public.

TFD (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That completely ignores the subject of this thread, the prominent awareness an RS discussion of his agenda to implement extra-legal powers by installing select agents in his second term. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You might be confusing this tread with another one. This thread is called "fascism" and is introduced with Trump's "rhetoric echoes that of fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler." There's also mention of a crackdown on immigration, although it's unclear how this relates to Mussolini and Hitler.
 * I haven't read about the "select agents." Has this been covered in news media? TFD (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kudos for sharing that you have not been reading recent secondary and tertiary sourcing about Trump's current campaign, current statements, and current staff activities. ANS: yes. If you're interested in getting up to speed with how he's projecting himself and his vision for the future, there are numerous daily, periodical and book format references on that. This thread is discussing how best to convey their descriptions and, in some cases, revelations.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The content is widely covered by several reliable sources that quote contemporary fascism/rhetoric academics who explicitly liken the Trump rhetoric to fascism, specifically that of Hitler and Mussolini. No one is proposing this be included in the lead, as is the language you cited above. Characterizations like "populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist" should explicitly include "authoritarian," as this has been attributed to him for several years. The current language, indeed the entire article, ignores the elephant in the room. It is passive POV by omission.
 * My edit was deep in the article, as the matter arose during his 2024 campaign. It is by no means prominently placed. It is notable that Trump's spokesman said of anyone making such comparisons that "their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House."
 * I am aware there is a long history of people calling others they hate "fascists" and "communists," which sets up a "cry wolf" dilemma, but that's not what is happening here. It's not people screaming on Twitter. This is highly reliable sources going through rigorous editorial controls to report this. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutrality says that opinions reported in the article should reflect the weight in rs articles about the topic, in this case Donald Trump. It's not enough to show that Trump's rhetoric has been compared to Hitler's, but that it is a significant aspect of the topic as reported in rs.
 * Comparing political opponents with Hitler is pretty hackneyed by now, which is probably why rs don't give it the degree of attention to merit inclusion, per weight. You see the argumentum ad hitlerum more frequently in right-wing sources, whether it's about gun control, abortion or even unisex restrooms. TFD (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, have you googled Trump fascist rhetoric? Do I need to list even more RS and experts than I already have? That sourcing alone would almost certainly be sufficient for inclusion of this content in anyone else's BLP. I just explained that this is not the usual phenomenon of people calling each other Nazis on message boards and podcasts, it's many reliable sources reporting on the man's rhetoric. It is "clearly fascistic," says Peter Wehner. soibangla (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this discussion should be widened via RFC soibangla (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are at the point where an RfC is going to help. Some editors are up to date on RS narratives and others have not yet seen them, before somebody takes the time and trouble to produce even more references, e.g the ones at "stephen miller 2024" "trump retribution" "trump kelly" etc. It's beyond me why the most elaborate opinions here are based on the least familiarity with recent sources, but that's nothing new.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS? NPOV? RS? I seriously doubt that news reports about Trump in the last few weeks have had a major change on how you or anyone else perceives him. Can you explain what you now think about Trump that you didn't several weeks ago? Or do you just have more ammunition for your opinions? TFD (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No I didn ''t google Trump fascist rhetoric because I don' t begin with what I think should be in the article and search for it, but instead use reliable sources to determine what should be in the article. Please read the policy on neutrality. What weight if any an aspect of the topic should receive is not based on the political biases of editors. If it were, then the content would be determined by the relative number of editors who were MAGA Republicans or Resistance Democrats.
 * You should thank your stars that rs are already negative toward the subject so you don't have to google search for additional negative material to add. TFD (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * well ok then. anybody else want to join this discussion? soibangla (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no opposition based on the sources, so I think you could proceed to implement article text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, I'd recommend not adding the proposed paragraph, without a consensus to do so. Perhaps, you should consider opening an RFC instead. We're inching closer to the official opening of the 2024 US presidential campaign & such proposals need as wide an input as possible. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This page has thousands of page watchers, with no meaningful dissent. No, we donxt need RfCs on each and every sourced content improvement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose soibangla's text above.
 * ...dehumanizing rhetoric is both a MOS:EGG and a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. (It really, really ticks me off that no one has pointed that out, for various reasons.)
 * Fascist, sure. It is clearly supported by reliable sources. Nazi? Not so fast. No matter how accurate, I oppose Nazi. I also oppose comparing him to Hitler or Mussolini in Wikivoice.
 * Cessaune  [ talk ]   17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * multiple sources say "dehumanizing rhetoric" but rhetoric can be dewikilinked here if that will address your concern. multiple sources explicitly relate the rhetoric to Hitler, Mussolini and Nazis, so is that in wikivoice? soibangla (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , does my reply mitigate your concerns? soibangla (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delinking rhetoric is good. I don't like the idea of stating it in Wikivoice, regardless of the number of sources. Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

said Harvard professor Steven Levitsky, co-author of How Democracies Die about how elected leaders can gradually subvert the democratic process to increase their power. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, this and this <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see more participation in this discussion, but lacking it I will seek to widen participation via RFC by Wednesday. soibangla (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Noticed that twice, attempts were made to give this discussion a more neutral heading. I recommend those attempts be allowed & not reverted. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lasting impact, coverage in RS? So far, we have a couple of speeches and a TruthSocial post. I think we should keep this in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign for now. Trump is revisiting all of the highlights (lowlights?) of his two prior campaigns with plans/threats/promises to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  15:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Recent developments are quite distinct from any plans articulated in his prior campaigns. Even his election denial in 2020-21 was couched in terms of the American legal process and remedies, albeit tenuous and ultimately resolved as vacuous. The current plans are to dismantle the civil service, staff the executive branch with anti-constitutionalists, and politicize the American military for Trump's personal goals -- among other things reported in RS including the several linked on this talk page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was Mandruss's reason for reverting Soibangla's revert. I reverted for a different reason than Soibangla; I think this heading is better. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  15:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Vermin
I see the word “vermin” occurs eight times in this talk page section so far, but never in context. Trump discussed “radical left thugs that live like vermin….” Thus, he was only referring to a certain subset of his opponents as vermin. No reliable source has suggested, of course, that he was calling Republican opponents such as Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis vermin, nor that he was calling Democratic opponents like Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer vermin. He was only calling “radical left thugs” vermin. Any discussion in this BLP about “vermin” should include at least the immediate context: “radical left thugs that live like vermin….” That quote with context is widely reported in RS’s.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * who are the "radical left thugs" he characterized as vermin?
 * soibangla (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe Trump has said those people are vermin or thugs, maybe not, but the article you link to uses neither word.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Your "immediate context" isn't the full context. On Veterans Day, he defined the "radical left thugs" both in the speech and in a post on social media: we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections. They're not off-the-cuff remarks where he went off-script, he then published the script.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  13:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That particular quote does not clearly accuse marxists, communists, or fascists of being like vermin. I can understand why opponents of Trump wish he had called those people vermin, or called his other opponents vermin, but I haven’t yet seen that he did so.  He called radical left thugs vermin, which is pretty nasty language on Trump’s part.  I suppose maybe the “vermin” might apply to stuff earlier in the sentence, it’s hard to tell.  But even if so, he wasn’t calling all of his opponents vermin.  I have no objection to using the longer quote which includes more context in this BLP, so long as we don’t suggest he generally called his opponents vermin.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. the communists, marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country. Notice the "and"? His Veterans Day speech in New Hampshire is on C-SPAN. This is a transcript of the last minutes of the speech, starting at 1:45:00. The text of the TruthSocial post is in green.

We are a failing nation. We are a nation in serious decline, and now these radical left lunatics want to interfere with our elections by using law enforcement. It’s totally corrupt, and we will not let it happen. If you want to save America from "crooked Joe" and then get every, you have to go out, you have to really do it. We have to do it. You know, the one way we win like you’ve never seen before, we have to slam it on Election Day. We have to come up with votes because there’s a point at which they’re cheating, can’t get it done. We, there’s a point at which the cheating can’t get it done. So get every patriot, you know, and get them out to deliver a massive victory in the primary but honestly more importantly in the election, the primary, let’s get the primary done first. We’ll be back here many times, but we gotta get the primary done first. So join our campaign by visiting … or text Trump … OK? 2024 is our final battle. With you at my side and you’ve been on my side from the beginning, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel, we’re going to expel those horrible, horrible war mongers from our government. They want to fight everybody, they want to kill people all over the place, places we’ve never heard about before. Places that want to be left alone. We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists, marxists, fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will route the fake news media until they become real. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House and we will finish the job that we started better than anybody has ever started a job before. The great silent majority is rising like never before, and under our leadership, the forgotten man and woman will be forgotten no longer. You’re going to be forgotten no longer, and with your help, your love and your vote we will put America first, and today especially in honor of our great veterans on Veteran’s Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible. They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream. The real threat is not from the radical right, the real threat is from the radical left, and it’s growing every day, every single day. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not gonna want to play with us, and they didn’t. Despite the hatred and anger of the radical left lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will make America great again!


 * They removed a few sentences from the speech, including the one I bolded. It says that the real threat is not from the radical right. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ”Joe owned three cats and two dogs that barked constantly.” That doesn’t suggest cats bark!&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. You're only exclusing excluding barking cats because cats usually don't bark. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  16:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Fixed typo.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  16:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it doesn’t, ”exclusing” is not a word, and I gotta go. Have a good day.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Joe owned three poodles and two bulldogs that barked constantly." - It's less clear when both are things that bark. --Onorem (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, it’s less clear.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing “exclusing” to “excluding.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See C-SPAN link, above. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * this discussion is unimportant because it doesn't matter who he called vermin. the point is he used dehumanizing rhetoric against adversaries, whoever they may be, and the effect is to reduce them to a subhuman level so not-so-smart people might kill them. this is how genocide starts. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a wild assertion. Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope editors can remain focused on the subject of this thread: rhetoric. I am not calling him a fascist or a genocidal maniac. perhaps some of the resistance to inclusion stems from a failure to draw that distinction soibangla (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So we should discard your proposal that we say Trump “echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler”? Okay.  Keep in mind that Trump has been the target of dehumanizing rhetoric too.  For example, Jim Acosta of CNN called him a “snake in search of a sewer”.  . Truman said Eisenhower “doesn’t know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you get from what I said to So we should discard your proposal that we say Trump “echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler”? This is not the BLP of Acosta or Eisenhower. soibangla (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that you’re “not calling him a fascist or a genocidal maniac.” As for Acosta, he’s a CNN reporter describing the subject of this BLP, so of course it’s relevant to this talk page discussion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote soibangla (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And didn’t you also propose that we say Trump “echoed dehumanizing rhetoric of white supremacists and fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler”?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * there is nothing contradictory in what I've proposed here. I recommend you and I disengage here soibangla (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Acosta didn't call Trump a snake. He said he was "Like A Snake In Search Of A Sewer". Truman didn't call Eisenhower a pig, and neither one wanted anyone to be rooted out or crushed. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  19:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comparing Trump to a snake or Eisenhower to a pig was dehumanizing, but no reason for Wikipedia to classify those speakers with Hitler and Mussolini, or to give undue weight to people who do make that very offensive comparison.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It matters that he called, per the TruthSocial post your Hill cite cites, e.g., Judge Engoron a "Radical Left Trump hating judge", later mentioning "crooked Joe Biden ... & all of the other Radical Left Lunatics, Communists, Fascists, Marxists, Democrats, & RINOS, who are seriously looking to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY." And what are the "Radical Left Lunatics"? Vermin, according to the above transcript and TruthSocial post. Yeah, kind of SYNTH at the moment and I oppose inclusion in this article until further notice, BUT that clearly puts Engoron, Biden, James, etc. in the vermin category he intends to root out. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  19:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources show that he calls all of his critics, Republican opponents, Democrats, government officers and civil servants -- and any others whom he feels are adverse to his interests -- words from America-hating radical socialist communists to vermin, rapists, etc. Not all at once. The targets change from day to day, appearing and receding with the tide. The reason it's significant for his bio is that it's apparently about conversion of official governmental power to serve whatever crosses his mind.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Would be better placed in his 2024 campaign page. Afterall, weren't we trying to make his BLP shorter? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the reasons you state.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello I’m an member of dispute resolution who will try to get and/or keep this conversation civil and on topic. I would also like to disclose my opinion on this I think we at this point should not use fascists any where in the article as that would spark more. Controversy  •C y b erw o l f• talk? 20:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cyberwolf. I also contacted administrator to monitor the entire discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is around 2.5 decitomats so I may have missed something, but I've reviewed it and don't see anything standing out as requiring an administrator. Is there something in particular I should be seeing? Right now looks like it's a not-particularly-heated-for-American-politics discussion that's headed for an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's my hope that administrative actions won't be required. That being said, I hope you'll continue to monitor the discussion, considering its topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * please note there is no proposal to call Trump a fascist. rather, there are multiple reliable secondary sources and multiple subject matter experts that report his rhetoric echoes that of fascists, and those sources explicitly cite Hitler and Mussolini. I do not believe this encyclopedia should shy from including this simply because it is distasteful to some. Godwin's law is not at play here. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm calling for a somewhat stronger proposal: discussing the subject-matter experts who have described Trump as a fascist, with appropriate attribution of course. There is no need, in my view, to dance around the matter. As for Godwin's law, note what Godwin himself says about Trump: If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, Godwin's law is settled. Lets make sure we don't run afoul of the Cute cat theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Never! Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Cute cats scenario.jpg
 * Not to be a smart a$$ the article literally states
 * In December 2015, Godwin commented on comparisons being made between Hitler and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician." In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social media with respect to the two previous days' Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, endorsing and encouraging comparisons of its alt-right organizers to Nazis.
 * So I guess another source
 * So godwins law is at play kinda •C y b erw o l f• talk? 02:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law has never really meant that you shouldn't compare things to Nazis. It is reminding people that you need to be careful and make sure that there are actual similarities involved, don't just call someone a Nazi because you disagree with them. If you are dealing with someone who says and does things that really are like what the Nazis said and did, then the comparison is appropriate and the need to make it increases. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Posted at NPOVN
I have posted a request for participation at NPOVN.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-posting break
I don't have this page on my watchlist, was just summoned by the posting on NPOVN. But I will say that I still stand behind everything I said back in February 2021 at Talk:Fascism/Archive 53. Indeed, the number of mainstream subject-matter experts who freely use the term "fascist" to describe Trump or Trumpism has continued to grow, and with good reason. This article needs to go with what the best of these say, focusing on concrete aspects of his politics which qualify as fascist under the various overlapping definitions that are considered mainstream. For example, as SPECIFICO points out, Robert Paxton (by far the most celebrated historian who has written a monograph specifically aimed at defining fascism) had for a long while resisted using the term to describe Trump but made a dramatic about-face after the January 6th 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. That short opinion piece is definitely worth reading. Note why he changed his mind, and why he thinks this is significant, why the label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The call for participation was unfocused. Are we being asked if Trump is a fascist? (Yes.) Or is there a content question? Sennalen (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we are not arguing whether Trump is or isn't a fascist. This is about whether or not we should characterize his remarks as fascist. Cessaune   [ talk ]   08:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify my statement above: we should be discussing what subject-matter experts have said –– some of them characterizing Trump's words (and deeds) as fascist, some disagreeing with this characterization –– and in each instance giving proper attribution, i.e. "So-and-so argued that..." per WP:YESPOV. That Trump's remarks are fascist is clearly not a ubiquitous enough position for us to state it in Wikivoice. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, do you haave examples of expert credible dissent to the effect that Trump's current agenda and pronouncements are not fascist, totalitarian, extra-constitutional, Unamerican, or similar bad news?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's too many things to have a real discussion about. We should be more precise than that. And I haven't been keeping up with the current crop of positions on the matter. But here, for instance, is Richard Evans in the aftermath of January 6th arguing that while Trump is very bad news indeed he shouldn't be called a fascist: . Note that my opinion, as stated in that archived thread at Talk:Fascism is otherwise: I find figures like Paxton and Timothy Snyder more convincing. But Evans is a big deal, and so are some of the other holdouts (Samuel Moyn is another example, see ). Generalrelative (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave that long list of words because I don't see much expert dissent from the many mainstream assessments that his recent posture and intention is to govern as a totalitarian. Also, this discussion is about his recent extension and amplification of his authoritarian proclivities. So post jan-6 is not what this is about. Note that this article did not call him fascist in 2021. So I wouldn't consider Evans a counterpoint to recent assessments and reporting about his current active recruiting/vetting of accomplices.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Would you like to propose some text to be added to the article? (Apologies if you did so above and I missed it.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Remarks are a dime a dozen. I would lead with Paxton's assessment that January 6th was a fascist turn, and any commentary on remarks can buttress that. Sennalen (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with you there. To call Trump himself fascist requires more than a single source, or two, or three. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This way of framing the question appears to miss the point of WP:YESPOV. We shouldn't be calling him anything. That's an entirely different question to whether we report what experts say on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I assumed that was implied. Obviously we aren't calling him anything. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, so can you explain the issue then? Have folks not provided enough high-quality sources in your opinion? Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No they really haven't. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced of any of these arguments to include the proposed paragraph, in this BLP. Forgive me, but I keep picturing Scarborough's over the top dramatics on Morning Joe, a few days ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there a proposed paragraph? Or just a general idea that something should be said? Without concrete language to discuss (and sources attached to that language), I'm afraid that this conversation will keep on going around in circles. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid this will spiral into many weeks if not months of worthless debate Or a possible policy •C y b erw o l f• talk? 17:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's rather pessimistic for a member of dispute resolution, no? I think we're better than that, though I'm also prepared to be proven wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As step 1, I would bring this directly over to the January 6th section of this page. Sennalen (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I typed in "trump fascist" to scholar.google.com and there's a lot of hits. Some that jumped out to me were but I have no idea if they're the best on offer. Has anyone been collecting these? I see a list of news opinion sources in the archives. No telling what might be tucked away around other talk pages in the topic space. Sennalen (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise against explicitly labeling him a fascist soibangla (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm just talking about what sources exist. Sennalen (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * that's fine, but you might winnow down the search results with trump fascist rhetoric  soibangla (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not about 2023 rhetoric, but I think the best approach to the first introduction of "fascism" on the page is with more established material, namely Paxton's assessment. It has stood unchallenged on the January 6th page for a long time, and one of the sources I found today adds secondary support. The journal article by Dennis Tourish would be usable for other things probably too. I propose to add the following to the end of the January 6th section of this page:
 * Sennalen (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * the reliable sources and subject matter experts of this month make clear this is about his most recent rhetoric. efforts to label him a fascist will almost certainly fail to achieve consensus at this time. I discourage going that way. soibangla (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just speak for yourself. Consensus will reveal itself. Sennalen (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking for wider context and contesting claims that might expand the treatment. There are some significant dissenting voices. Forgive me if I'm retreading old ground.
 * This has an interesting claim about the increased use of the word "fascist" in media after January 6th.
 * This names some experts who continued not to think Trump was fascist after January 6th: Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat
 * It looks like Ben-Ghiat flipped due to the recent rhetoric. (probably not RS)
 * This... I read it three times and can't figure out whether Feldman was saying yes or no.
 * Sennalen (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Feldman is supporting the fascist label (Monday’s actions, at the very least, smacked of radical-right extremism, if not full-blown revolutionary nationalism — that is, fascism.), but I do admit there are multiple later paragraphs that read like he's walking back that claim a little (But is “it” fascism? Granted, the Trump administration increasingly walks and quacks like a duck. Perhaps the answer no longer matters; or rather, it is not urgent enough now. Whether fascism or merely ‘illiberal democracy’, what Trump is unleashing is deadly, both for constitutional freedoms as well as for ethnic and religious minorities in the US.). It's definitely not the clearest argument. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will begin drafting an RFC to solicit wider participation and focus centered on this question: should this BLP include that by 2023 Trump's rhetoric echoed that of fascism? soibangla (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why RfC? That text has not met much objection.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I seek to establish firm consensus to avert a contentious edit war, and to ensure the focus is limited to rhetoric rather than to a label soibangla (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Politics rfcs tend to attract less informed editors and diffuse unsourced views.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with SPECIFICO.
 * Before we think about RfCs, people should start drafting their own paragraphs. Maybe an alternate wording is all it takes. Cessaune   [ talk ]   04:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that mindful editors and admins would corral others from wandering into the wilderness in such a contentious matter, but call me naïve. We should test this. soibangla (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not test this. History speaks for itself. Cessaune   [ talk ]   04:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what that means. The matter is deadlocked in extensive discussion and a focused RFC is now warranted. Is this not the way it's supposed to work around here? Or are we to just argue each other to exhaustion until everyone just walks away with nothing gained? soibangla (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just go back to my original point—let's solve the whole thing now, instead of dragging ourselves into a month-long process that will only solve half of the question. Cessaune   [ talk ]   05:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * we've tried that to no avail. there is now a deadlock that should be resolved by a focused RFC to resolve the whole thing now by a formal process. this is what we do here, is it not? soibangla (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a deadlock. The only people who are directly opposing any sort of characterization of Trump's comments as facist are Anythingyouwant, and GoodDay (only for this article).
 * Propose a new wording. Cessaune   [ talk ]   05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In this discussion, there are some who seem to object to labeling Trump a fascist, when that has not actually been proposed, and others who would prefer that characterization.
 * Propose a new wording I said I would begin drafting a focused RFC tomorrow, that I hope will not go off the rails into diversions. I remain optimistic in how this project should work. soibangla (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of confused. Can you explain what you mean when you say "focused RFC"? Thanks. Cessaune   [ talk ]   05:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow I will begin drafting an RFC to solicit wider participation and focus centered on this question: should this BLP include that by 2023 Trump's rhetoric echoed that of fascism? soibangla (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to your having an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be wanting to architect a planned consensus as a moat against edits that haven't even been proposed yet. I don't think that would be helpful. Just say what you, as a solitary person, think content should look like. Sennalen (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to disengage from editors who use the term you soibangla (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll say it differently then, because I get your point but Sennalen brings up a good point herself—draft a wording. Let's solve the whole thing now, instead of dragging ourselves into a month-long process that will only solve half of the question. Cessaune   [ talk ]   04:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * draft a wording is exactly what I said I would do, to avert a protracted dispute and resolve the issue soibangla (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, we've seen RfCs fail before. The best-informed participants of the current group decline to repeat themselves, a few newcomers arrive from their talk-page invitations and shoot from the hip - failing to review or understand the considerable thought that's already been presented - and a month later some well-meaning closer may or may not make sense of it all. I think you and Sennalen are on the right track and can quickly agree on acceptable article text. It won't preclude adding more in the future, but we have a core of agreed points that can be included now.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)T

I don't see a consensus for the latest addition, concerning this topic. Yet, it's been added (then re-added) to this BLP anyway. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest a edit freeze on the facist part until this dispute is concluded •C y b erw o l f• talk? 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think handling of January 6th should be decoupled from handling of 2023 remarks. The latter is what an RfC would be about, to my understanding. Sennalen (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

, IMHO WP:ONUS calls for the addition-in-question to be reverted, in this situation. What say you? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus new material should not be added. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The proposal attracted no response by the time everyone involved had made other comments, so consensus was presumed. It became contested at the moment GoodDay reverted. After that, ONUS applies, reversions should stop, and we should discuss the edit rather than meta-discuss the merits of discussing or not. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD too, the addition should be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also per BRD you should explain your reasons to revert. That's where the discussion starts. Sennalen (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did explain my reversion, in my edit summary. There was no consensus for your addition. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per brd you actually have to explain on the talk page  •C y b erw o l f• talk? 18:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So I shall. The addition was done without a consensus to do so. This topic being contentious, the addition shouldn't have been made. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, you have been all over this thread, despite a statement you were quitting it and despite a visit to an Admin's page that resulted in their coming here unable to see why you were so agitated. You are welcome and urged to state a reasoned, sourcing and policy based view concerning article text, but several editors have asked you to refrain from empty nervous comments that are not constructive. On some pages, unconstructive comments are removed on sight. Sounds severe, but it's worth considering.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's still in the realm of procedural meta-reasons. If no one has something specific to say against the actual edit, then it has consensus. Read WP:DRNC for explanation. Sennalen (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then, we'll see if anybody elese does or not via comments or reverts. If nobody else 'reverts' your addition, then so be it. I'm certainly not going to revert it (every 24 hrs), only to have that revert undone. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose this text very, very strongly. You can't mention one person's opinion without mentioning the opposing opinion, which is not WP:FRINGE or anything. Cessaune   [ talk ]   15:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The following language has been repeatedly inserted and removed from this BLP: “Robert Paxton, a historian of fascism, marked the January 6th attack as the turning point of Trump's movement away from democratic norms and toward fascism.” It was properly removed, for several reasons, including the following. It is very one-sided, as another editor has already explained (“some experts who continued not to think Trump was fascist after January 6th: Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat”). If we are relying upon Trump’s recent comment about “vermin” then we ought to say so, and also quote how he used that word (i.e. to say that certain “thugs” are vermin). I will say in passing that I believe thugs have rights too, but calling them “vermin” is not something that upsets me at all. A further reason to support deleting the proposed language is that it’s very tangential to fascism. Fascism is primarily about action or proposed action, and not so much about how Trump or some foolish blowhard chooses to exercise his right of free speech. A recent essay by historian Christopher Browning stated. “I still deny that Trump’s presidency was fascist—but I’m concerned that if he wins another trip to the White House, he could earn the label.” There is no current scholarly consensus that Trump deserves the label at present, and anyway it’s much better for us to report what Trump has said or done and let readers evaluate it, instead of us essentially engaging in name-calling. It’s not fascist name-calling, but we should avoid any kind of name-calling.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * once again, and again and again, this discussion is not about labeling Trump a fascist, nor is it limited to his vermin remark:
 * soibangla (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s labelling his language, and labelling his language implicitly labels him. I think you’re referring to a speech in Dubuque, Iowa where he said this: “We're taking people in, from prisons, we're taking people in, from insane asylums…. we're bringing in terrorists. That's what's happening. That's so accurate. That's so accurate and it's happening now. But it's going to happen more so and more so. But we'll stop it for the most part. Look, there are 15 million people. That's a lot. But we'll stop it one way or the other. We're going to stop it. What they're doing to our country is they're destroying it. It's the blood of our country. What they're doing is destroying our country. Not one more innocent life should be wrecked by Joe Biden's open border agenda.”  If you want to suggest an edit that discusses this, then go ahead, I think it would be better in a sub-article though.  There’s no question that a country is made up of its people, and the greater the ratio of bad people or unworthy people to good people or useful beneficial people, the worse off the country is.  The lifeblood of a country is its people.  This is especially true in a democracy, where the people rule.  Trump obviously was not speaking about racial or ethnic groups, he was talking about mentally ill people, criminals, and terrorists.  That’s the exact opposite of discriminating based on race or the like.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? There is no evidence that the immigrants are mentally ill people, criminals, and terrorists. These are labels that he has applied to immigrants who are Hispanics. This is racism in its purist form. As he said once before, "We should have more people from places like Norway", one of the whitest of countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s no question that a country is made up of its people, and the greater the ratio of bad people or unworthy people to good people or useful beneficial people, the worse off the country is.
 * "Comparing Crime Rates Between Undocumented Immigrants, Legal Immigrants, and Native-born US Citizens in Texas," Trump DOJ, December 2020:
 * soibangla (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to have Wikipedia demonize a presidential candidate, by implying that he’s a fascist like Hitler and Mussolini, you cherry-pick a speech in Dubuque to do so, but that speech clearly shows the opposite. Trump in that speech was not being racist, he was concerned about other countries emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States, along with a large proportion of military-age young men including many on terrorists watchlists.  Maybe the benefits of having other people come to the USA outweighs the downside of immigrants who are felons, mental patients, and terrorists.  But Trump was clearly not speaking about race.  Hitler was all about race.  You want this BLP to imply he’s another Hitler, and you have expressed no willingness at all to let our readers know that Trump wants to screen out felons, the mentally ill, and terrorists.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide a source that backs up this claim. Cessaune   [ talk ]   02:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I quoted the Dubuque speech at length above, and also specified multiple historians who disagree with characterizing Trump or his rhetoric as fascist.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You quoted a speech, then applied your own reasoning to it. Provide a source that agress with your viewpoint. Cessaune   [ talk ]   02:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I specified multiple historians who disagree with characterizing Trump or his rhetoric as fascist. Another editor cherry-picked the Dubuque speech so I added more of it here.  It speaks for itself. Feel free to point out to me the part where he endorses anything that Hitler endorsed.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't speak for itself, because you spoke for it! Everything you said above about the Iowa thing besides the quote doesn't seem to be sourced. Provide a source verifying your claims, and if you've already provided it, provide it again. If Trump obviously was not speaking about racial or ethnic groups (emphasis mine) it shouldn't be too hard to find sources, right?
 * Is Trump a fascist? Some people seem to think so. Many don't. And I don't think that there is anywahere even remotely near a strong enough consensus among RSs to directly call him fascist, or to even state that he has been described as fascist. However, quoting soibangla, "once again, and again and again, this discussion is not about labeling Trump a fascist."
 * You take issue with the idea of labeling Trump's remarks as fascist, since doing that implies that he is a fascist. (If I am characterizing your opinion incorrectly, please correct me.) I very strongly dislike this idea that labelling his language implicitly labels him. By that standard, we can't ever report on anything that RSs characterize negatively without applying the entire label to the person. At least to me, it is obvious that someone can say something sexist and not be a sexist, and the idea that we shouldn't include it simply because it implies that he is a fascist... that speaks to the type of man he is, I guess, since people are so willing to make that jump, but what does that have to do with Wikipedia? We should report the dominant RS opinion, and nothing more. What the dominant RS opinion seems to imply is irrelevant. Cessaune   [ talk ]   02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * is there actual evidence that other countries [are] emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States, rather than just the rhetoric of one man? soibangla (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here’s a small sample: NYT: “many detainees are too mentally ill or mentally disabled to understand anything.” Politifact: “CBP reports that so far in fiscal year 2022, which ends Sept. 30, officers at ports of entry have encountered more than 15,500 foreign nationals who have criminal convictions or are wanted by law enforcement.”  NBC News: “So far in fiscal year 2023, 160 migrants whose identities match those on the [terror] list have been stopped trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, compared to 100 in 2022.”  I have much else to do this evening, thanks for the discussion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links? That would make life easier. Cessaune   [ talk ]   02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, what? As long as no source explicitly says that other countries [are] emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States, we can't say it on Wikipedia. Cessaune   [ talk ]   02:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have argued here to exclude new content, not arguing to include anything. I think you know that.  Anyway, as I said, I have to go now.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * all that is a digression, a diversion, a red herring, that does not present evidence other countries [are] emptying their prisons and mental hospitals into an unvetted flood of migrants to the United States as Trump has asserted, and I recommend we focus on what the man has actually said about "poisoning the blood." this is not a discussion of immigration policy. soibangla (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Old news and/or missing context and/or cherry-picked. Many detainees are too mentally ill or mentally disabled to understand anything is from a 2010 article. The mentally ill/disabled weren’t people who were caugbht crossing the border. Some of them were people who legally lived in the country for years or decades, had families, and came to the attention of authorities for minor infractions. Politifact: Most of the apprehended "criminals" were repeat crossers "but agency data doesn’t yet provide the full picture." NBC report: "The number of border crossers on the watchlist was higher in fiscal year 2019, at 280. A DHS official told reporters that the increase from fiscal 2022 to 2023 is consistent with the overall increase in migrants crossing the border and the rising number of migrants coming from areas of conflict." (Also doesn’t say how many turned out to be mistaken identities.) Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What? This is such a fundamental misreading of the statements made I don't even know where to begin. Ill refrain from actually speaking on the issue, since I'm too lazy to look for sources. Cessaune   [ talk ]   01:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a long list of experts who say Trump is fascist, but they do so by way of splitting hairs, so what they mean is that it's more precise to call him authoritarian, narcissistic, or kleptocratic. If editors feel it's unbalanced to only quote experts that say fascist, we could provide some of these others for contrast. Sennalen (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * as I said at the outset, many reliable sources have long refrained from characterizing his rhetoric as fascistic, but only in recent weeks have they deemed it crossed the line such that they can now report it as such. I still find it astonishing that after all this time, this article hardly hints at his authoritarian rhetoric, instead characterizing it "right-wing populism," which certainly at this point constitutes passive POV by omission. soibangla (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Another reference Wapo today<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue forever about the "perfect" edit, what about one sentence in the 2024 presidential campaign section that says Trump's campaign has been noted to feature increasingly violent and dehumanizing rhetoric against his political enemies. His comments have been compared to echoing the rhetoric of fascist dictators. and use | this NY Times article as the source. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By simply adding the attribution to Paxton, an agreeably reputable source, we can conceivably forgo a drawn out RfC. DN (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d like to add there’s been two more articles that came out today that I think could also be used as sources for the page. This one from the NYT and this one from CNN. Both detail Trump’s increasingly anti-democratic rhetoric. BootsED (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

New resource
Chock full of RS analysis relating to this issue in The Atlantic]'s current issue about Trump's revelations of his plans for his second presidency.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The analysis seems solid, but I'm not sure that's really the issue. Without an overwhelming mainstream consensus, we shouldn't state Trump's "fascistic sentiments" as evidence thereof in wiki-voice, or, without providing properly detailed context and attribution per BLP. Such mainstream consensus usually only appears to be appropriate in hindsight, with undeniable evidence after the fact. DN (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's after the fact of 1/6, Lafayette, etc. etc. and his current campaign promises and staff vetting are in that vein. There has been wide mainstresm coverage of these developments.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Just attribute opinions and supplement with evidence. There is likely enough stuff on this topic there and elsewhere to justify an article: Predictions about a second Trump presidency. There is plenty of writing on the wall. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 05:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If you’d like to add this Valijean I’d like to encourage you to do so. I don’t have the necessary permissions on Wikipedia yet. BootsED (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus and NYT
There seems to be scholarly consensus that Trump has sometimes used language that sounds like fascists, but no consensus that he actually is one. Using fascistic rhetoric does not imply that someone is or is not a fascist. According to the New York Times, scholars are undecided about whether Trump's "rhetorical turn into more fascist-sounding territory is just his latest public provocation of the left, an evolution in his beliefs or the dropping of a veil." Because being a fascist is a lot worse and a lot more notable than sounding like one, I continue to think this subject should remain in the sub-articles only. If there’s consensus to include it in this main BLP, then it would have to be crystal clear that there’s a difference between the two things.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the promised RFC, on this entire topic ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP length concerns?
In the RFC below (Abraham Accords), arguments are being made that the proposed addition of said info, goes against attempts to shorten this BLP. If that's a concern? Then we can simply delete the Fascism/Vermin content. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * THis is in truth an unrelated issue, and should be a whole separate topic, this is not tit for tat. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't use the too long/too short arguments, concerning both topics. I mention this 'here', because it's been brought up in the Accords RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Time for an article on Trump's alleged authoritarian inclinations and statements?
This subject has been getting tons of attention from reliable sources over time and I fully expect that to continue. A quick look around did not reveal an article on this specific topic. At the risk of pouring gasoline on the fire, is it perhaps time for this to get its own page? Thoughts...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign? It seems kind of POV-forkish to have a separate article.  Especially since we’re still at the “alleged” stage.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The level of attention this subject has been getting and the amount of material to work with might exceed what could be effectively covered in an already fairly large article. But if the sense is that we are not yet at that point, well, that's why I'm asking for input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think we're at that point yet. It can be covered in this article, or the Presidency of Donald Trump article (which already covers it to a mediocre extent). Cessaune   [ talk ]   19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Donald Trump explicitly stated he would be a dictator on live television in direct response to a question asked by Sean Hannity as to whether he would abuse his power and be a dictator as his opponents allege; and Trump said he wouldn't, except for Day 1. Therefore, Trump explicitly stated that he would be a dictator. He even made clarifying comments after the fact where he affirmed what he said. There is no "debate" over whether he really meant it or not. Trump is an ex-President and current Presidential candidate, who stated on live television that he would be a dictator on "Day 1." This has made the rounds on every single reputable newspaper in the country. There has never been a President in the history of the United States that openly admitted that they would be a dictator, and refused to walk it back. There must be an article on Trump's authoritarian inclinations and statements. Even if its very small, there must be a mention of this statement on this page. If there is not a mention of this statement on this page, this would be clear bias. This is a newsworthy event. Here's an article in the New York Times for those unfamiliar with this most recent statement. BootsED (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you draft potential section headers for what such an article would look like? Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pertaining to what he said, that statement alone does not deserve its own article, at least not yet, and I think that most if not all people on this talk page would agree with me. Cessaune   [ talk ]   18:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Trump did not say he was going to be a dictator. Let's be caution, not to put words in his mouth. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a good idea, too much recentism Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose creating such a page, per WP:RECENTISM & also, the US Constitution safe guards against 'unlimited' presidential powers. IF any place? put that info in Trump's 2024 campaign page. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Unlimited" is a red herring. RS documentation of the pledges of Trump/Patel/Bannon/Miller, et al make clear that there are plans actively pursued, dating back to the time of the first impeachment, to implement authoritarian agenda, utilizing a combination of proscribed but feasible executive powers, plausibly deniable misrepresentations of law (as in 2020-21) and mass extinction of the nonpartisan apolitical civil service that is typical of all Western democracies for the past ~200 years.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not convincing me of your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made no argument. I have stated facts about which, it appears, you have absolutely no knowledge.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

THis is not a forum to discuss if this is possible. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for creation of a stand-alone article on Donald Trump and Authoritarianism, though not as an excuse to purge such material from the main. Few topics in the history of media have ever received as much scholarly and media coverage as this, and rightfully so. Such a proposed topic clearly meets notability standards, as it has been extensively covered in reliable sources and is inherently notable due to the unusual nature of a U.S. president openly supporting authoritarian rule. Relatedly, I have opened a discussion in Talk: Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign as to whether a new section on Trump's plans for a "dictatorship" (the term our sources use) should be added to the article, and would value the contributions of any editors from the main Trump page to this ongoing discussion. I have also added a bibliography of 75 reliable sources on that talk page regarding Trump's plans for a dictatorship, which should help provide references both for a section on Trump's plans for a dictatorship in 2025 in the campaign article, as well as this new stand-alone article on Trump and Authoritarianism. Thank you, comrades. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Trump didn't say he was going to be a dictator. Let's be cautious, that we're not putting words in his mouth. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Has any dictator in world history said he was going to be a dictator? This is about scholarly analysis, not Trump's choice of word. All we have to avoid is wikivoice; i.e., we would have to use attribution. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to be caution on these matters. News media tend to over-react, on anything this former US president says. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We can cautiously talk about things like authoritarianism and, yes, even "dictator", with sufficient sourcing including scholarly sources, and with attribution. You're not "cautioning" us about anything we don't already know. Anyway, it's at least as much about his actions as his rhetoric. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But does it actually warrant an entire new article? Methinks not. Cessaune   [ talk ]   21:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems as significant as many of the other Trump sub-articles, such as Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (which, btw, survived AFD with a SNOW keep). Which is more significant in your view, his alleged proclivity for abusing females, or his alleged desire to break down American democracy as we know it? Seems a no-brainer to me, no offense intended to the allegedly abused females. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a large article to justify its creation (and frankly I'd prefer a hundred smaller, narrowly focused articles over five huge ones). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Methinks not" as the sole basis for your position does not contribute to the discussion. Provide reasons please if you're going to dispute the importance of this topic. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Will there be a page created (I presume going the draft route, would be proper)? I don't know. Either way, I won't exhibit any Morning Joe hysterics over it ;) GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's astonishing this BLP has never mentioned his authoritarian rhetoric going back years, and we can't agree to include his more recent fascist rhetoric that has been widely reported.. This BLP ignores the elephant in the room. I recommend we start there before moving to a new article. Much as a lead summarizes an article, this BLP should include a brief discussion of his rhetoric that a standalone article can elaborate on. soibangla (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per summary style, I think you've got it backward. The only time the main article content comes first is in a spin-off situation, and this isn't that. If the proposed sub-article creation fails, then we should be talking about content here and/or in an existing sub-article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with soibanga that we must first expand our coverage of this topic in the main. It is absurd that the article fails to properly discuss one of the most notable aspects of Trump, his authoritarianism. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but you're both at least off topic in this thread. It's not about new content in this article, and it doesn't help to send discussion in multiple directions within the same thread. Try your luck in a separate thread. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "A quick look around did not reveal an article on this specific topic. " We have an article on Trumpism, which clearly specifies that it is an authoritarian political movement and a new variation of fascism: "Some commentators have rejected the populist designation for Trumpism and view it instead as part of a trend towards a new form of fascism or neo-fascism, with some referring to it as explicitly fascist and others as authoritarian and illiberal." Dimadick (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem, please do; I'll help if I can find the time. This talk page can't give or withhold permission for that, and any relevant content can be separately added to the 2024 or Presidency articles; Trumpism is about the movement, but we could have a long article about Trump and authoritarianism, with extensive scholarly sourcing (search terms: authoritarian and democratic backsliding combined with Trump), as well as normal RS (non-opinion) sourcing that would be uncontroversially used if it were any other topic. This won't "pour gasoline"; it'll clarify what reliable sources have to say on the subject, and make it more accessible not just to readers but to editors. DFlhb (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for coming here was mainly to gauge community sentiment on a touchy subject that is obviously also a major BLP issue. That said, I have generally avoided directly editing articles relating to Donald Trump as I have periodically had to use my admin tools on this and related pages. WP:INVOLVED can be a gray area sometimes, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. So, while I lean towards supporting the creation of a page on this topic, taking great care with respect to BLP, I will not be the one to create it and I will most likely not edit the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No comment in three days; is this going to die for lack of interest? For God's sake will somebody please start the article (others can help flesh it out once the basic framework is in place). Not I, article creation is not my forte and I've never created one in my life. I also lack sufficient, nay, any familiarity with the relevant sources. If there is going to be an AFD challenge, the sooner the better. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hie thee to a library. A dozen+ recent books are a trove of RS information.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the sources exist. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No doubt, such a page will 'eventually' be created. Just a matter of someone starting it. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be so sure. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the creation of an ancillary article about his authoritarian rhetoric can be justified without first noting it in the BLP. Gotta have a hook to hang that hat on. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the hook is the sub-article and the hat is the main article content. See summary style. You might have better luck selling main article content if there's an article to summarize. At best, the sequence of events isn't really important. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * creating a new article is premature if we cannot even establish the phenomenon exists soibangla (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have more than enough sourcing for an article. So you start the article and see if it survives AFD (I'd give it a 90% chance per my 23:27, 7 December (UTC) comment above). &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If We have more than enough sourcing for an article then we should have more than enough for a simple BLP inclusion. soibangla (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That is not an argument against a sub-article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against a sub-article soibangla (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are. At least you were a few minutes ago. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * nope soibangla (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Can't believe we're actually doing this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "without first"
 * "premature"
 * not a definitive rejection
 * gonna hat this soibangla (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * With 10.5 months to go until the next US prez election. There'll likely be multiple new pages created, in relation to the former (potential future) US president. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

soibangla (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also very explicit enumeration of characteristics of the blood-poisining immigrants - insane, sick, criminal, etc. - at this evening's campaign speech in Nevada.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain how the related-RFC will conclude. But should consensus be for 'inclusion'. Will you be presenting some write-up examples, to propose? GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So, now that Donald Trump's rhetoric has been approved, should the BLP still exclude any mention of his authoritarian rhetoric? Any at all? Really? soibangla (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume the RFC on this topic, is gradually formulating an answer. GoodDay (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * what does that even mean? I am reaching the conclusion it means WP:IDONTLIKEIT soibangla (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The only answers that RfC is formulating are that (1) editors generally don't like vague, open-ended RfC questions, and (2) one doesn't need permission to propose specific content. I suggest cancelling the RfC (the fastest way to do that is a withdrawal-closure by the OP) and getting started workshopping some specific content options in a new thread. We're wasting time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * there's just no way to do an RFC right without someone saying it's just too broad or it's just too narrow, to thus nullify it. the RFC asks only if any mention of fascist rhetoric should be included at all, the qualitative aspects to be determined in subsequent discussions. as things stand, the BLP makes no reference to it at all soibangla (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, see my preceding as to the pointlessness of the current RfC.A new RfC with three specific options couldn't possibly be called too broad. As for too narrow, I think any such arguments would be in a small minority and easily ignored. I would certainly help defend such an RfC if necessary, as would others. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ...the qualitative aspects to be determined in subsequent discussions—that's the exact issue. It's too vague of a question. An answer of yes leads to another month of deliberation, and that will only start after the RfC is done, which it won't be until well past Christmas. We'll be sitting here come early February talking about a topic that started mid-November. That's a quite annoying thought, at least to me. Cessaune   [ talk ]   07:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * absolutely, it's a very annoying thought. I hate it, and I don't wanna even deal with it, in fact. but I won't look away from including it because Santa is coming soibangla (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Leave the current RFC run its course. If it ends with a consensus to 'put something about Trump's rhetoric in his BLP'? Then go to the next phase - propose a written out sentence or paragraph, to be included. GoodDay (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You will never reach agreement with maga. The facts should be written. 82.9.195.40 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hat & manually archive
Seeing at the Rhetoric RFC has been closed as "malformed". Perhaps this entire discussion should be hatted & archived. This BLP's talkpage is getting rather long. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree GoodDay - this all should be closed and archived. Since there was no consensus, the status quo remains, per WP:NOCON, but discussion can continue and new proposals for new discussions and RFCs and proposals may be drafted. Righto? Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree and would like to add one rfc is enough for one article and due to politics there is no consensus without bias (in my opinion 😂)  •C y b erw o l f• talk? 16:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

keeping the bots away?
would the page benefit from a formal block of IABot so we don't have to do edits like this once every month or so? thought id bring it to discussion rather than just doing it. would be the one to use, acording to the bot documentation. ValarianB (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead content
I think that the intro paragraphs need more info on his presidency and policies. Its very focused on his post-presidency and various scandals. Do not delete this talk section without a consensus on this issue. 68.234.168.25 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Do not delete this talk section without a consensus on this issue. sounds like something a frequent disruptive presence would say. What other IPs have you edited under? As for the intro, no. Donald Trump is a 77 year-old man, 4 years of which were spent on a singular term in office. The amount of the intro dedicated to presidency and policies is sufficient. Further detail can be found in the article body and in related articles. Zaathras (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lets hear what others think before you delete or archive this. 68.234.168.25 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please justify your response beyond simply saying "is sufficient" and attacking my inquiry as "disruptive." 68.234.168.25 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Donald_Trump/Response_to_claims_of_bias. The lead has three paragraphs on Trump’s presidency, including the paragraphs on his refusal to concede, January 6, and the impeachments. The third paragraph mentions his presidency, as well — promoting conspiracy theories and making many false statements. Unless you have a specific, policy-based suggestion for a change to the lead, we have no basis for discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Why there are a few authors who seem to make an extremely disproportionate amount of edits to this article?
If you look at the article edit history, you will see extremely disproportionate amounts of edits made by specific users, despite the fact that Trump is known worldwide and is an iconic figure of the last 20 years. Why do some users such as "Space4Time3Continuum2x" appear so frequently in the edit history, is it related to the padlock on the article?220.245.249.73 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Unsure what value this has, but I will give a partial answer. To a degree yes, the Padlock stops new accounts for editing, but that does not help explain why older accounts do not. But it is also not really relevant, as any experienced user can edit here, so you would need to ask them why they do not, on their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do editors edit or don't edit certain pages — a matter of personal interest in and knowledge of the subject? This page is protected due to vandalism and edit-warring problems, and editing is restricted to administrators and extended confirmed user accounts (at least 30 days old with at least 500 edits). Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (It doesn't really matter but I don't understand how the dispute resolution principle you're quoting applies here.) Levivich (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's good general advice for any talk page discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the 80-20 rule applies everywhere. For any given article, most of the article is written by just a few people. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2024
Hi, I would like to edit your information on Donald Trump, I found that some of the information was not correct and I would like to add some things to it myself so please let me edit. GDWBOOM123 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ If you have spotted something that is incorrect or feel something should be mentioned, please mention it on the talk page in an edit request. We do not change the protection settings on the page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to tell us what it is, or ask for page protection to be removed here WP:RFPP. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Noninterventionist doesn’t mean isolationist
I object to this edit, because the cited source says Trump is “noninterventionist” and says nothing about isolation, isolationism, or isolationist.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "semi-isolationist"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * that's literally isolationism dude. ValarianB (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, there’s nothing pejorative there, whereas “isolationist” (like xenophobic) is a pejorative. There are reliable sources that characterized his 2016 campaign positions as isolationist, but the source we cite isn’t one of them, and there are reliable sources that instead use the word semi-isolationist, such as the sources that were removed in this edit.  Here’s another one: Denton, Robert.  The 2016 US Presidential Campaign Political Communication and Practice, p. 296 (Soringer, 2017): “Trump's 2016 messages drew heavily on his personal image enhanced by media exposure. His positions were right-wing populism-nativist, protectionist, and semi-isolationist and differed in many ways from traditional conservatism.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source may not use the exact term but it describes Trump's proposed and later executed isolationism. "Pejorative"? How so? Merriam Webster: isolationism - a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations; xenophobia - fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Problem is it does use is, as I quoted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It using is — are you referring to one of the two sources Anything added in the edit I reverted? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term semi-isolationist" is sourced to this [] Slatersteven (talk)
 * Editing conflict - correcting my previous post. It using is — are you referring to one of the two sources in Anything's edit which I reverted? Anything proposes to change long-standing material. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 15:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. I am pointing out the objected-to content is actually sourced, using the actual term, We do not need to go into definitions. 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * No. I am pointing out the objected-to content is actually sourced, using the actual term, We do not need to go into definitions. 15:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

We’ve been discussing the article body, but there’s also a corresponding undue weight problem in the lead, which says, “During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist.” Why should we give a list of policy adjectives for his 2016 campaign even though the adjectives changed and evolved for his presidency, his 2020 campaign, and his 2024 campaign? I suggest that if we give only one list of policy adjectives in the lead, it should be for his presidency, not for his three campaigns, much less his first one only.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This leopard has never changed his spots. The descriptions are adequate. Zaathras (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Zaathras, the leopard changed his spots quite quickly: Watson, Kathryn.  “Trump's shift away from ‘America first’ stance polarizes supporters”, CBS News (14 Apr 2017): “These actions, which came as the White House weighs what to do in the event of a North Korea nuclear test, clearly pivot from Mr. Trump’s previous, semi-isolationist stance. Mr. Trump on the campaign trail espoused his ‘America first’ philosophy, saying he would beef up America’s military presence, but avoid tumultuous areas like the Middle East to focus on American interests.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A brief blip of get-your-war-on in a 4-year presidential term is like when Trump said "go peacefully" once amidst his J6 insurrectionist rhetoric. His foreign policy stance was still primarily isolationist, just as his January rhetoric was primarily incitement. Zaathras (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

”Isolationist” is pejorative, and we cannot fling this epithet around without any reliable source, especially given that it’s disputed by scholars, and also by the BLP subject. Here’s what the body of this BLP says: Trump questioned the need for NATO and espoused views that were described as isolationist, non-interventionist, and protectionist.
 * Do any of the sources currently in the article actually use the term isolationist? Cessaune   [ talk ]   00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An interesting answer is that there's over 800 citations, 200+ more than the second highest, Biden, and for only one term. DN (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2016 source just cited does not mention isolationism, it does not cover one minute of his presidency, and even if it did both of those things, the rest of the sentence in our article body (which I’ve just quoted) does not adequately summarize the main article which says this: As president, Trump described himself as a nationalist while espousing views that have been characterized as isolationist, non-interventionist, and protectionist, although the "isolationist" label has been disputed,      including by Trump himself,  and periods of his political career have been described by the alternative term “semi-isolationist.”

&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While the term is a pejorative, that's not a claim we are making in wikivoice, it's attributed to other notable sources. DN (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We misattribute it, which is worse than using wiki voice.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at the Isolationism page, and it appears that while that article does call it pejorative, I had no idea why. When I checked the sources include The American Conservative and American Enterprise Institute...Seems dubious on its face. DN (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn’t mention anything about that Wikipedia article. The word “isolationist” is “the most feared epithet in the U.S. foreign policy establishment”.  It’s an “odious epithet” having “pejorative connotations”.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree it may be used pejoratively in certain context, but to try to limit its general use to that context seems prejudicial and POV. We say "described as" or "characterized as", so how is it misattributed? DN (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I’ve said, the source we cite doesn’t mention the word. Plus we don’t mention that various experts disagree, or that Trump himself denies it.  Nor does the cited source support our implication that this stance of Trump continued into and throughout his presidency.  In other words, the source we use, and how we use it, are pathetically inadequate.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with Trump being characterized as either a noninterventionist or an isolationist. The terms are roughly synonymous and both are supported by sources.  p  b  p  23:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is okay with me. But note what our Wikipedia article on non-interventionism says: “Non-interventionism or non-intervention is a political philosophy or national foreign policy doctrine that opposes interference in the domestic politics and affairs of other countries but, in contrast to isolationism, is not necessarily opposed to international commitments in general.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * is not necessarily opposed to international commitments in general.... Well, as the man has frequently threatened to not support America's traditional allies and seeing how Congress had to protect our NATO membership from his threats to withdraw, we can kinda plainly see that "non-interventionism" does not apply to Donald Trump. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was about money. He was happy to maintain costly alliances if the costs were fairly shared.  None of his financial demands led to ruptures during his presidency, and there is scarcely any sourcing that the U.S. was already paying no more than its fair share when Trump made his demands.  Do you have sourcing for that User:Zaathras?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can work it that way. As far as I'm aware, none of the sources in the article actually use the exact term 'isolationist', so it is simply untrue to state that he/his policies have been characterized/described as isolationist. It implies a broad agreement between reliable sources, one that simply does not exist per the above sources provided by Anything. Semi-isolationist? Maybe. Cessaune   [ talk ]   03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No editor gets to make an interpretation that's not explicitly stated in the source. No editor gets to apply labels that are not found in the source. Period. The fact that experienced editors are trying to get away with this is disappointing, especially since there are plenty of sources that can confirm this fact explicitly. This is a CTOP article, and divergence from best practices is particularly inappropriate here. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. Status quo is untenable. However, I would oppose merely adding a footnote, that would not properly summarize the main article.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Cessaune   [ talk ]   13:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you're saying this is purely an editorial description and not an attribution to sources? DN (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * your list of sources supports "isolationist". You object to the cited source? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know that it supports "isolationist". That's why I linked to it and said can confirm this fact explicitly. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

, someone will be taking you to WP:AE if you do not self-revert, as you are ignoring the "wait 24 hours" requirement of this page. Calling someone isolationist is not like an ethnic slur, it is not a BLP issue, and your invocation of it is disingenuous and hurtful towards actual BLP issues. The word has also remained in the article the entire time this discussion has been ongoing. Zaathras (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

the status quo ante — until your edit, that is — was During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist. You removed "isolationist", were reverted, then replaced it with noninterventionist (new content), were reverted, reinserted it four minutes later because in your opinion the discussion has been going on too long? Seems like a double violation of the 24-hour BRD cycle to me. It's new content — we need a consensus to add, not to remove. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a BLP matter as stated in my edit summary. Moreover, the word noninterventionist was apparently objected to because I had included a hyphen after “non” so I reinserted without the hyphen.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Trump is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and as Thebiguglyalien stated, there are "plenty of sources." The sources would seem to meet WP:V and it is easily attributable to those experts and scholars that have used that term to describe his policies. Wasn't there a previous consensus? DN (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Chicago Council on Global Affairs
 * Dina Smeltz
 * Ivo Daalder
 * Craig Kafura
 * Karl Friedhoff
 * Results of the 2017 Chicago Council survey of American public opinion and US foreign policy (under Introduction) "To many observers, the “America First” plank in Donald Trump’s campaign described a policy vision that would overturn decades of bipartisan US foreign policy. President Trump outlined his vision for America First in his inaugural address: “Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.” This position has been interpreted by some as a return to isolationism that could radically reorient America’s foreign policy and by others as a rejection of America’s traditional security alliances, long-standing commitment to trade, and major international agreements."
 * Richard H.K. Vietor
 * "This strategy of isolationism was first advocated during the interwar period (1918-1939), when depression, fascism and communism set the stage for the Second World War. These isolationist measures by the Trump administration has reduced American influence and power throughout the world." RCCHarvardexe.com
 * Charles A. Kupchan
 * Isolationism: A history of America's efforts to shield itself from the world (p. 4, 1st paragraph) "Trump generally delivered on an America First approach to foreign policy that was decidedly isolationist, unilateralist, and protectionist in tone and substance."
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Isolationism was a movement in the 1930s that advocated the U.S. have no treaties or cooperation with other countries and take no military actions overseas.
 * Trump kept the U.S. in the UN and Nato, did not dismantle overseas bases and was even praised by Democrats for bombing Afghanistan. Furthermore he renegotiated Nafta.
 * Trump draws on many of the themes of isolationism, including the slogan "America First," and appeals to actual isolationists. That should be in the article. But calling him an isolationist is an opinion and the article should not report opinions as facts.
 * TFD (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the conflict lies. "During the campaign, his political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." This doesn't seem factual according to the cited references above? It doesn't say "Donald Trump is a populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist." in wikivoice. DN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality concern over ranking
In the opening, there is discussion of how scholars rank Trump poorly as a president. Considering there’s a very good possibility he could become president again this November, should we remove this section until perhaps after the election if he loses? My main concern is that this disturbs the neutrality of the article and the fact that he’s a candidate right now, which would almost make that part of the article seem like an anti-endorsement. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * no, this has been discussed in the past. it is well sourced and we do not take into consideration current political activities. ValarianB (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And you could make the same argument about every Trump-negative thing in the article. No, we're not going to remove any of that because he's running in 2024. That's not what "neutrality" means at Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If elected, he'd only become president on 20 January 2025. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As he is a candidate for high office, the general public is best served by leaving well sourced material about experts' opinions on him and his presidency in the article. If the vast majority of experts consider him to have been a poor president, that is something important for the public to know when making their decisions as to whom to vote for. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "My main concern is that this disturbs the neutrality of the article" Your idea of neutrality is hiding inconvenient truths? In the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, the cited historians have ranked him as having the 45th position in the background rankings (indicating his family, education, and experience), the 43rd in the imagination rankings, 45th in the integrity rankings, 45th in in the intelligence rankings, 44th in the rankings for the ability to compromise, 44th in the rankings for executive ability, 43rd in the rankings for leadership ability, 43rd in the rankings for communication ability (his skills in speaking and writing), 43rd in the rankings for overall ability, 42nd in the rankings of the presidents' relationship with Congress, 43rd in the rankings of his court appointments, 41st in the rankings of a president's handling of the U.S. economy, 45th in the rankings of executive appointments, 43rd in the rankings of a president's domestic accomplishments, 45th in the rankings of a president's foreign policy accomplishments, and 43rd in the rankings for a president's ability to avoid crucial mistakes. The 45th position is reserved for the worst president in the cited poll. Trump is ranked below Andrew Johnson in several of these rankings. Dimadick (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutrality means reporting RS without expressing an opinion on them or choosing some over others according to any editor biases. Neutrality does not mean writing an article that fails to report significant criticism (or praise). Rankings of presidents by presidential historians are significant, so it's NPOV to include them, whatever their general conclusion. If there is a lot of controversy in the rankings or significant criticism, then report that as well. But Wikipedia can't just get rid of it, because that would be the opposite of NPOV. JM (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"...which many of them then attacked,..."
If you have 500,000 items and you detach 5,000 of them, is that "many" or is that "some"? WithGLEE (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From the lead of January 6 United States Capitol attack:Considering that "entered the building" was illegal and required crossing police barricades, I think all 2,000 can fairly be said to have "attacked" – regardless of whether they committed any violent acts outside or inside. The force was constituted in their overwhelming numbers. If only 100 committed violent acts, few of them could have done it without the presence of the other 1,900, who served to keep law enforcement largely at bay. So the 1,900 were complicit in the violent acts simply by being there.And 2,000 is "many" any way you cut it. This was a far higher proportion than the one percent in your analogy; there weren't anywhere close to 200,000 protesters at the Capitol.


 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall RS put it in the thousands (now not even tens of thousands. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is tricky. "Many" could mean a large proportion of the crowd, or it could mean a large group, regardless of what fraction it was of the crowd. Maybe we could reword to avoid the ambiguity.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reword how? "...which many of them then attacked, if you include all those who entered the building and consider 2,000 to be 'many.'" I don't think so. The dictionary definition of "many" says nothing about proportion, and we needn't cater to readers having a poor command of the English language; particularly when there is no reasonable way to do that. But I could be swayed by a reasonable specific proposal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How about "thousands" or "about 2,000 of them"? More specific, and verifiable per reliable sources. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really address an ambiguity objection, since it doesn't define "attacked". Remember, we're talking about the lead, and the lead can rarely fully cover all the nuance. Readers have to drill deeper if they want the full story. Put differently, readers who stop at the lead will be frequently ill-served no matter what editors do, here or anywhere else. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is 500,000 the crowd size Trump currently claims? Rally organizers had told the NPS that they anticipated 30,000 attendees, the Associated Press estimated the crowd as "at least 10,000. By 1:15 p.m., the procession was on the move." The crowd at the Capitol was estimated at "several thousand". An estimated 2,000 to 2,500 people entered the Capitol, more than 1,200 rioters have been charged, 750 gave been convicted so far. Many attended the rally, many marched to the Capitol, many entered the Capitol, many have been charged, many have been convicted. many: a large number of persons or things. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "many" is ambiguous and does have a sense of proportion. If you say many people are X, and in fact it's 2000 out of the population of Earth, that is a misuse of the term "many".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When someone refuses to defer to the dictionary on matters of vocabulary, that's when I stop responding. It's not unlike going to trial with two different versions of the law: there is little basis for debate. And a comparison to the population of Earth is hardly apt or helpful. After I pointed out that the OP's one percent is far too small, your analogy is now 0.000025%. I call that a big step backward. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 election
The lead says, "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump's campaign." This is a peculiar sentence because foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has happened a lot since the country was founded, including some foreign interference against Trump in 2020, so if this material about 2016 remains in our lead then it should be modified to say why it's significant enough for the lead. Most reliable sources say that it's unknown whether the Russian interference affected the close election outcome. Most reliable sources also say that the investigation(s) failed to establish Trump-Russia collusion. Of course, there was a ton of publicity about this matter during Trump's term of office, but most of that publicity was inspired by the idea that maybe he or his campaign had been complicit with Russia, or maybe Russia had changed our election outcome, but ultimately those things could not be established, so the result was kind of a nothingburger as far as Trump himself was concerned. I suggest either removing it from the lead, or instead clarifying, for example like this: "Russia and other countries interfered in the U.S. elections of 2016 and 2020 for and against Trump, but investigations failed to establish that Trump conspired with any of it, or that it affected any election outcome." According to WP:Recentism, "during a news spike...there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on." It's pretty obvious that the historical significance of this particular material would now be vastly greater if collusion by Trump had been established, or if it had been established that the election result was affected, but those things have not been established. Readers who just look at our lead will suspect that they have indeed been established, for otherwise the matter would scarcely be worth putting in the lead (keep in mind that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic"). &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * None of that invalidates the brief factual statement from the article that's bolded at the top of the paragraph.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to any of your proposals. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Before we discuss mentioning the alleged 2020 election interference in the lead, we need to discuss whether and, if so, how to add it to the body - I just reverted your edit. The difference between the two cycles of election interference: the one in 2016 was successful and thoroughly investigated by Mueller and the U.S. Senate after the fact, the one in 2020 wasn’t.  The cited sources are from 2019.  Also, what are the sources for both for and against Trump?  Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can agree that the Russian interference in our elections isn't significant enough to Trump himself to be in his lead, though it would likely belong in the lead of his presidency article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the predicate to much of Trump's victim narrative and slogans Russia Russia Russis No Collusion etc. I think the brief lead bit does relate to him personally. He didn't seem happy with the disclosures.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Russian interference definitely relates to Trump, but this article is already realllly long and will get longer with 2024 election and criminal trial results that will need to be in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We'll cross those bridges when we get to them. He didn't seem happy with the disclosures: not happy at all, on a personal level — see "Russia hoax" at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, Russia_investigation_origins_counter-narrative, and every campaign speech and most other speeches he has given since 2019. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 16:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mubs. that's a reasonable point, but there's an increasingly significant problem with it. Longtime editors on this page and STEWARDs such as SpaceX and yourself have tried to forcus on trump, cut NOTNEWS, resist being snookered by Trump's best-ever self promotion, etc. But time and again, less experienced editors (all good) come here and insist on this or that being added because..."obvious". Even on the current talk page, such discussions are evident. Because WP pages publish dynamically, it's not possible to address due weight and personal significance with a lexicographic ranking. Maybe we need to state a guiding prinicple to codify why newsworthy but not DUE content is regularly rejected by well-informed editors here?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, RECENTISM bias affects us all, some more than others. With time, we can apply the WP:10YT to help us decide what items we added in the past that can be cut. And we must remind all editors to keep the long-term encyclopedic view at hand. And that can involve cutting Russia/2016, especially since it's debatable exactly how much that helped him. Comey's late October announcement may have had a bigger impact, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead says, "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to favor Trump's campaign." Established should be changed to "concluded" in line with how reliable sources reported the conclusions of the Muller report.
 * Also the article uses a lot of innuendo to imply that Trump was more favorable to Russia than Obama or Biden. Instead it should directly address the question. Despite DNC talking points, most expert opinion is that Trump was at least if not more hostile in his actions toward Russia than Obama or Biden. TFD (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * his actions, or his State Department's actions? soibangla (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * First bit, good. Second bit, no sources for that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * most expert opinion is a bold statement requiring some RS. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 21:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See the article by Jeremy Shapiro in the European CFR: "In its details, [Trump's Russia] policy has broadly reflected the bipartisan consensus in Washington that Russia is a malign actor and a national security threat to the United States. Obama-era economic sanctions against Russia have remained in place and become even tougher. The administration has increased military assistance to Eastern Europe and sent arms to Ukraine. The most recent US National Security Strategy, released in 2017, identified Russia as a strategic competitor and a revisionist power that threatens the integrity of Western democracy."
 * Of course Trump, like other presidents, followed State Department policy. But as president it is his choice whether or not to follow it. I realize that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman devote their broadcasts to connecting Trump and Russia but it's a rhetorical device with no basis in fact. It's the DNC equivalent of tying Biden to cultural Marxism. TFD (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD, your cable TV habits are beside the point. And it's known to virtually every RS and to the likes of John Bolton and ninety-nine neocons that the 2017 Trump still had the likes of Tillerson, Gary Cohn, and other sorts who thought they could continue in the mould of Bush, Bush, Cheney, and Cheney.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say that Trump was as tough on if not tougher on Russia than Obama and Biden. His wording however was less belligerent and more like that of George W. Bush and Secretary Clinton.
 * While I appreciate that the party line is that Trump is a Putin puppet, that type of rhetoric belongs in our social media comments not in an article that is supposed to reflect mainstream assessments.
 * Speaking of Bolton, in the Trump-Russia article we use Trump's hiring of him as proof Trump was pro-Russia and now we use his firing as proof Trump is pro-Russia. Since we know Trump is pro-Russia, everything he does must fit into our conception. TFD (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Shapiro is one expert, and he says in the next paragraph that But all of this has been undermined by the president himself. Trump has treated Putin and Russia with rare politesse, even deference. Unlike virtually every other world leader, Trump has refrained from criticising Putin personally and sided with him over the US intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election. Bolton - which Trump-Russia article are you referring to? Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 11:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * " Unlike virtually every other world leader, Trump has refrained from criticising Putin personally and sided with him over the US intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election " for obvious reasons Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2024
I am adding this information from the final disposition of the NYC case.

"On Feb 2024, Judge Arthur Engoron hit Donald Trump with his biggest punishment to date in a ruling that fined the former president $355 million for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties. began developing real estate there."

From: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-civil-fraud-trial-decision-02-16-24/index.html Missbellanash (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This editor mis-placed my comment, there's too much stuff on this page.
 * This is my proposed add:
 * "Judge↵ Arthur Engoron hit Donald Trump with his biggest punishment to date on Friday, in a ruling that fined the former president $355 million for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties.
 * "Judge Arthur Engoron hit Donald Trump with his biggest punishment to date on Friday, in a ruling that fined the former president $355 million for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties. Missbellanash (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Last try!
 * Judge Arthur Engoron charged Donald Trump with his biggest punishment to date in a ruling that fined the former president $355 million for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties. Engoron found Trump liable for fraud, conspiracy and issuing false financial statements and false business records, and Trump is barred from serving as a director of a company in New York for three years. The judge did not dissolve the Trump Organization, Engoron issued a blistering 93-page opinion that painted the former president as unremorseful and highly likely to commit fraud again.
 * Judge Arthur Engoron charged Donald Trump with his biggest punishment to date in a ruling that fined the former president $355 million for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties. Engoron found Trump liable for fraud, conspiracy and issuing false financial statements and false business records, and Trump is barred from serving as a director of a company in New York for three years. The judge did not dissolve the Trump Organization, Engoron issued a blistering 93-page opinion that painted the former president as unremorseful and highly likely to commit fraud again. Missbellanash (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a bit unclear which one of the versions you propose to add. I've updated Donald Trump with a summary-level version. Space4Time3Continuum2x 🖖 14:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, yeah I was working on the Trump Organization page, the DT page needed updating too, good job! Missbellanash (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No references at top
The top of the article literally has no references and it’s mostly just criticism. Turtlepro22 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * please scroll up to . – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)