Talk:Trumpism

RFC: Should the fascism template be included in the article?
User:Cat's Tuxedo and I have a disagreement on whether it is appropriate to include the fascism template at the bottom of the article. My argument is that, since there are multiple sources in the article that indicate that many experts consider Trumpism to be a form of fascism, and the article indicates as such, it should be included. Their argument is that the sources are all invalid because they do not cite Giovanni Gentile specifically or make comparisons to his works. According to them, quote, "If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing".

So I would like to ask, should the template stay or go? Please reply with keep template to indicate that the template should stay, or remove template to indicate that it should not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Poll

 * Keep. Elements of fascism are part of Trumpism according to many of our sources. The fascism connection is discussed in the article in multiple places. Of course we keep the fascism navigation footer template. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Relevant to the article. Andre🚐 03:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Many reliable sources indicate Trumpism is a form of fascism. I know this might upset his fans but I don't see how this is controversial.RKT7789 (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How is Trump fascist? Accepting the moniker of fascist because “many sources” say he is seems fascist is fascism. Was he fascist when he let governors handle the Covid response?  I just don’t see the elements of fascism. This site is tainted with mistruths and bias. No wonder it can’t be cited for an academic paper. 73.86.172.182 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Accepting the moniker of fascist because “many sources” say he is seems fascist is fascism. No, that's not what fascism is at all. Ultimately though the rest of this argument is WP:OR. We go by what sources say. — Czello (music) 16:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove If Trumpism should be considered fascism, too many articles would have to be classified as fascism. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * Such a limit does not exist. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  08:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, if I or any other user tries to classify 21th Japanese nationalist politicians as 'fascists', it will attract opposition from conservative or Japanese users. Donald Trump is much less often referred to in the media as an ultra-nationalist, unlike Shinzo Abe. This is a matter of equity. Fascism must presuppose ultra-nationalism. Donald Trump is not an ultra-nationalist. Donald Trump is nothing but a violent right-wing populist who doesn't really have a fascist tradition, unlike Giorgia Meloni or Japanese nationalists or Iranian conservatives. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * This is, ultimately, all WP:OR. We say what the sources say. What other articles do doesn't matter. — Czello 08:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Does Donald Trump insult WW2 victims? Does Donald Trump glorify WW2 totalitarianism? Donald Trump doesn't, but almost every conservative politician in Japan does. I don't think Donald Trump is a fascist compared to the Japanese LDP. Even those in South Korea who do not think Trump is a fascist would refer to Abe as a fascist. Mureungdowon (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * Keep As sources describe it as such. The argument by Cat's Tuxedo is WP:OR. — Czello 08:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Just follow what the majority of reliable sources say. BogLogs (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numerous extremely high-quality sources say that Trumpism contains elements of fascism, and that coverage is significant enough (and central enough to the topic and its notability) that it ought to have the categories and template. A fourth of the lead and the main paragraphs of multiple sections are heavily devoted to discussing this. --Aquillion (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Carlstak (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the counterargument is a no true Scotsman fallacy. On Wikipedia we describe things as they are described by reliable sources, and numerous sources describe Trumpism as [a form of] fascism; the navbar should stay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove. After looking at the sources used to support the claim that Trumpism is fascism in the lead, I'm not convinced that they give enough weight to classify it in this way:
 * Foster (2017): Editorial published in a magazine
 * Butler (2016): Primary source interview of a gender studies philosopher
 * Badiou (2019): Reliable source
 * Giroux (2021): Editorial published in a journal
 * Traverso (2019): Opinion in a book published by a questionable press
 * Tarizzo (2021): Reliable source
 * The Chomsky, Husser, Ibish, Cockburn, and Drutman sources do not support the claim that Trumpism is fascism (and are all editorial/opinion).
 * Furthermore, it's trivial to produce sources that argue the opposite or give a more nuanced perspective, both in academic and journalistic outlets:
 * Harris, Davidson, Fletcher & Harris (2017)
 * Jackson (2021)
 * McNeill (2020)
 * Evans (2021)
 * Bell (2020)
 * Kellner (2018)
 * Weber (2021)
 * Goldstein (2021)
 * Chotiner (2016)
 * Riotta (2016)
 * Matthews (2020)
 * We should mention the comparisons to fascism a few times in the body where appropriate (and possibly in the lead), but we should not do anything to suggest that this is an agreed upon fact or even that it's widely accepted in the academic community, because it is not. If I can add my personal opinion, Trumpism is its own beast, and it's important to recognize it as such. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of these sources talk about whether Trump is or is not fascist, not whether Trumpism, as a movement or tendency, has fascist elements. That's quite different. Neutralitytalk 22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is different, and that's the problem. Nothing about this discussion hinges on whether Trumpism has "elements of fascism". We're talking about whether sources consider it to be a type of fascism. The sourcing does not broadly support the claim that it is. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources contrasting Trumpism with Fascism only strengthen the case for inclusion of the template.  The standard for inclusion is relevance per RS, not equivalence. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove - Agreeing with @Thebiguglyalien and along the same lines, fleeting comparisons is not enough to tack under the Fascism template in my view. It would make sense if this was a majority accepted opinion to have it but it is not, even in the lead it states that it is debatable (and even more confusingly that seemingly everyone has said this is what the majority of reliable sources say when it is not said case?) ~ Tweedle (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient academic sources say that Trumpism has fascistic elements. William E. Connolly, a distinguished political theorist, argued this in Aspirational Fascism: The Struggle for Multifaceted Democracy under Trumpism (2017) is an example. The book was favorably reviewed by other political scientists, e.g., Lebovic 2019 and Isaac 2018. Neutralitytalk 22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The relation between Trumpism and fascism has been the product of significant coverage that has been published by multiple reliable sources. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep without making a definitive statement, and if reliable evidence to combat this claim exists, that evidence should be listed as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove It is a violation of NPOV. -- 2804:248:FBEE:1900:126:2EAA:925F:7102 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would only be a violation of NPOV if the term was used as a derogatory statement, not as a legitimate label. In this case we are discussing if Trumpism is, legitimately, a form of fascism. That is a matter of categorization, not point of view. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't, "Trumpism" (if it can even be called a coherent political ideology) has few elements in common with fascism, those comparisons are usually meant to be derogatory. 2804:248:FB5C:1600:29A8:E502:F000:A04E (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, One often sees that positive use of "fascist" as a descriptor. 2601:285:C001:4D0:38AE:9B1A:A0A8:4FC (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, including the template doesn't mean wikivoice is equating trumpism with fascism. But discussion of the latter is clearly involved in the coverage of the former in RSes.   Feoffer (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove, Donald Trump is not a fascist, nor is the ideology fascist. Fascism is based on these principles:
 * characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
 * Well, these don’t fit. Donald Trump is not a dictator. Trumpism is not autocratic. At no point did he suppress political opponents. He and his ideology don’t believe in a natural social hierarchy. At no point has Trumpism attempted to subordinate individualism. And Trumpism is supportive of limited government and business, whilst fascists heavily regiment the society and business.
 * Even if these are reliable sources (which is highly questionable, as people like Chomsky, cornel west, etc. are obviously going to be opponents of his ideology anyway), none of Trumpism’s characteristics fit fascism. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Replace with Neo-fascism, but otherwise Keep per others. –Vipz (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it's necessary to link sources stating Trumpism has been likened to Neo-fascism, but putting a template for it is pretty uncouth for a wikipedia page as Trump has completely denied that he is. Also politicians that have been labeled Neo-Fascist have overwhelmingly said that they aren't remove template 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E7B2:A08C:F1D0:6B82 (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What on earth does them denying have to do with anything? That's irrelevant, other than that we document they deny. That doesn't mean they are being honest, are innocent, or whatever. See WP:MANDY. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 06:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove per criteria set forth by The Hammering Hammer.--FeralOink (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep template. If it's covered in the article and in WP:RS then the template should be on the article. TarnishedPath</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Why on earth is this rfc still open? It was started a year ago, nearly to the day. Zaathras (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I listed the discussion at WP:CR. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  03:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove I understand people don't like Trump, but per Thebiguglyalien a fascism template doesn't belong here. Fascism is widely used when discussing modern politics in the United States. It's like the sophisticated version of Godwin's law. The sources may mention fascism, but they do not broadly support the claim that it's fascism. Arguments not addressing this distinction should be discounted. - Nemov (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as this is still open, may as will chip in. The fascist elements of Trump's belief system are readily apparent, and supported by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zaathras. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead
The lead section of this article is well-researched and contains a great deal of relevant information. To me, it seems like too much detail for the lead. I also found it confusing and a bit scattered. Would other editors be open to a revision/reduction of the lead along the following lines?


 * Trumpism consists of the political movement and political ideologies that are associated with former U.S. president Donald Trump. Trumpists and Trumpians are terms used to refer to those exhibiting characteristics of Trumpism.


 * The precise composition of Trumpism is disputed and is sufficiently complex to overwhelm any single framework of analysis. Trumpism has been referred to as an American political variant of the far right and the national-populist and neo-nationalist sentiment seen in multiple nations worldwide from the late 2010s to the early 2020s. However, some commentators reject the populist designation for Trumpism, viewing the phenomenon as a new form of fascism or authoritarianism. Trumpism has also been described as a cult of personality.  Though not limited to any one party, the Trumpist faction became the largest faction of the Republican Party in the United States in the late 2010s.


 * The label Trumpism has been applied to national-conservative and national-populist movements in other democracies. Several politicians outside of the United States have been labeled as staunch allies of Trump or Trumpism, or even as the equivalent to Trump in their respective nations; among them are Jair Bolsonaro, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Viktor Orbán, Jacob Zuma, Shinzo Abe, and Yoon Suk Yeol.

MonMothma (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am a bit curious about the supposedly recent rise of neo-nationalism in the United States. I was under the impression that American nationalism was already thriving in the 2000s. Per the main article on American nationalism:


 * The September 11 attacks of 2001 led to a wave of nationalist expression in the United States. The start of the war on terror was accompanied by a rise in military enlistment that included not only lower-income Americans but also middle-class and upper-class citizens. This nationalism continued long into the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War. " Dimadick (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose trim. Isn't it interesting that election season starts to creep up and people want to trim? Now is not the time to trim. Andre<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%);">🚐 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Andre, I assure you that there is no connection between election season and me wanting to trim a lead section that isn't very well written. If you have a reason for your opposition to the proposed edits, please state it. "Now is not the time to trim" is not a reason. Thank you. MonMothma (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I reverted the removal of "Never Trumpers" from the lead. I also reverted the removal of Nixon, Ford, and Bush from the Republican Party page. Why are we memory holing these things? Let's not. Andre<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%);">🚐 05:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andre, I am seeking consensus for proposed revisions to the lead section of this article. Issues with other articles can be discussed elsewhere. I am fine with retaining a sentence on the Never Trump movement in the lead now that you added sources for it. Do you have any other issues with my proposed revision? MonMothma (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the proposals one at at time, but all together I oppose the proposal 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%);">🚐 21:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's start with the intro sentence. In its current form, it contains so many terms--many of them obscure--that it doesn't really mean much of anything. I would revise it and simplify it to read as follows: "Trumpism consists of the political movement and political ideologies that are associated with former U.S. president Donald Trump." Thoughts? MonMothma (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Trumpism consists of the political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance, political movement, and set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism that are associated with 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his political base. I agree with you that " and set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism" is a bit awkward and unwieldly, and a little too technical for the first sentence, so I'd support moving or rephrasing that. I took a first stab at decomposing the sentence into two here 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%);">🚐 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Andre. That helps, and I appreciate you working with me on this even though we have disagreements. I would propose that the "set of mechanisms for autocratization and authoritarianism" clause be moved down into the body of the article (or, alternatively, removed altogether). I find it confusing. More importantly, though, putting this language in the lead makes the reader expect that the article will explain what those mechanisms are--but it really doesn't. Would you be OK with that? MonMothma (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think something about that should be in the lead, so I don't want to remove it altogther, but I'm definitely agreeable to rephrasing it or softening it. I'm not wedded to "mechanisms of" "autocratization" but I do think "authoritarianism" clearly does belong. Andre<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%);">🚐 00:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am fine with mentioning authoritarianism in the lead. Authoritarianism is amply mentioned and sourced within the article body. The mechanisms and the autocratization are not. So I think we are in agreement here. MonMothma (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andre, I would like to go ahead and remove this sentence from the lead. The lead mentions authoritarianism elsewhere, and we agree that the rest of the sentence isn't helpful. Are you OK with that? MonMothma (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't support removing it altogether. Per WP:PRESERVE we should find a way to move or preserve it and refactor or change it. I'm supportive of that, but I don't think we agreed on removing it. Also, there's WP:NODEADLINE to make these changes. Andre<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%);">🚐 17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andre, I have taken a shot at revising the sentence. I believe my revisions are consistent with our discussion. See what you think. MonMothma (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Thanks. 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%);">🚐 05:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Trim I don't think trimming the lead has anything to do with the election or politics. The lead is obviously too long and scattered. I think it should be reduced to a maximum of 2 paragraphs. Actually, one paragraph should be enough to cover what Trumpism is and include a few thoughts from commentators who are for it or against to keep it more neutral.
 * Frankserafini87 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose the new lead's redescription of Trumpism solely from one particular analytical framework until there is broader academic concensus to frame it that way. To date, there is no such concensus.  The current lead misleads the reader into thinking that the stated particular perspective is not strongly contested.  Within the article, there are ample citations from academic sources  demonstrating contrary frameworks such as one which regards it is mistaken to view Trumpism as an ideational rather than an affective phenomenon, let alone a political "movement".  That is, that it is more of a collective emotion as sociopsychology and other disciplines are cited as describing it.  Though not a citable academic, George Will encapsulates this perspective this way:  "Trumpism, too, is a mood masquerading as a doctrine, an entertainment genre based on contempt for its bellowing audiences.  Still others view it as a political technique that agree is reliant on many such non political science factors such as basic drives some of which are held in common with many other species.  However, the sections of the article discussing the link up with mass communication (EG Fox and use of social media) theorize that Trumpism should be viewed as a communication / collective consciousness (Le Bon derisively termed "Mob mentality") phenomenon.   So while I agree the former wording was perhaps needlessly complex, it did accurately summarized the diversity of dominant views on what constitutes Trumpism.   If no rewording is proposed that captures the dominant competing frameworks for explaining Trumpism, I shall do so.   I am also not averse to restoring the original lead with adjustments to reduce its complexity.  Any thoughts on this?  J JMesserly (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The current lead misleads the reader into thinking that the stated particular perspective is not strongly contested. Lol, no.  Obviously the Trumpists object, but per WP:MANDY, that isn't terribly relevant. The lede is fine as-is, you're trying to dredge up a months-old discussion that settled the matter. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Authoritarianism, really?
All 5 of the sources backing the use of "authoritarianism" in the intro are opinion pieces that fail to draw a clear correlation between Trump's policies or supporters and authoritarianism. I think the editors are playing a bit fast and loose here. Do we really want to claim here on Wikipedia that the ideology of Donald Trump and his supporters is authoritarian? That just seems so removed from reality and I'm wondering if we're not saying this in bad faith here.

Please remove or back it up with actual examples of policies that are unambiguously authoritarian. 24.20.252.82 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ No, strong oppose. Strongly references. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late. 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%);">🚐 20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This article, particularly that all-important first paragraph, suggests that the tens of millions of people who support Trump's candidacy are authoritarians, without giving any early consideration of the people who support Trump without supporting the radical ideas laid out here.
 * If the term "Trumpist" is going to be used, there ought to be an early disclaimer that not all who vote for or support Trump believe in the abolition of the rule of law and the Constitution, or these other extreme positions that are labeled as "Trumpist." In other words, it'd be helpful to provide an early distinction between those who support Trump over his opponent in our current political climate as compared those who actually believe this radical ideology. 2601:5C4:C500:6F30:83D5:F6EC:DFDC:EE94 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andre. The claim that Trump is authoritarian is backed up by a ton of sources from both sides of the pond and various ideologies.  p  b  p  05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't seemed to be backed by many. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It'd be helpful to distinguish Trump's beliefs and ambitions from those of the bulk of his supporters instead of implicitly lumping all of his voters/supporters under that single label of "Trumpist." 2601:5C4:C500:6F30:83D5:F6EC:DFDC:EE94 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism is quite a loose term and, at least in this case, depends on perspective. One can be seen as authoritarian in some ways (e.g., mask mandates, vaccination mandates, government confiscation of resources (through taxation that takes the majority (ie over 50%) of some people’s earnings), forcing audits and creating government mandated impositions of high burdens of proof (via tax audits) of individuals who express political views contrary to those who hold federal power (e.g., Tea Party), establishment of government/central authority defined rules of what it means for corporate boards (private business entities) to be “diverse” and penalizing large corporations for not aligning with such subjective interpretations of ethics. Forcing private places of business (even in cases where said business is entirely owned and run by a single individual or a family) to serve (e.g., waxing/massage services) any and all potential clientele based on those clientele’s own self-identification, versus the business’s right to refuse service to anyone for absolutely any reason. Imposing that all schools federally must teach potentially subjectively perceived materials (regarding homosexuality, transgenderism, etc) with a partial approach versus allowing local parents to review and perhaps amend or exclude the content of such subjective/opinionated studies from their children’s mandated, taxpayer funded curriculum.. In these ways and many more, one could argue that Trump and his followers’ policies may actually be seen as anti-authoritarian. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be argued that Trump’s current policy on abortion is arguably “less authoritarian” in some ways than that of most Democratic politicians and many Republican politicians. Roe v Wade asserted, through central, federal power of the judicial branch, that abortion cannot be effectively outlawed by a smaller, more local government (e.g., the states). However by encouraging Roe v Wade to be overturned, one can argue that now the power is left to the states (thus *removing* authority from the federal government). Trump has actually argued for allowing abortion in the case of exceptional circumstances, and is not supportive of a national ban, as many Republicans are.
 * Has he evolved on this issue? Maybe, or maybe it’s a calculated shift, but we have to judge political candidates on their most current stated platform, otherwise we would have to judge candidate Joe Biden as being a segregationist with respect to schools.
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-abortion-brags-about-role-in-overturning-roe-v-wade-urges-gop-caution-on-issue/
 * https://apnews.com/article/abortion-federal-ban-trump-gop-2024-20586bbb64a511030ef58290e98f99f0
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1021626 100.38.103.114 (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of Trumpers label themselves as libertarians. I think it would be helpful to put, Trumpism has frequently been seen as authoritarian 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:9D91:E9F0:4C38:E3 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is definitely much more defensible wording than what stands on this page right now. Thank you. Can we change the wording to "Trumpism is frequently seen as authoritarian," or even "Trumpism has frequently been seen as authoritarian"?
 * If you leave this intro as is, you might risk alienating and at least 'being seen' as validating unfounded beliefs by a large chunk of the 40-45% of American voters who voted for Trump, who might say that sources like Wikipedia are fundamentally biased and run by 'globalist elites' (their words, not mine) who only pretend to be objective, but are willing to give up their honesty due to personal gripe and/or political viewpoints. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Andre, if the goal is neutrality, can you please back up the statement (if it is not an opinion): “Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late.”? Trump’s stances on several issues (COVID vaccines (strongly encouraging people to have them, but against government mandates); abortion (coming out against any federal ban or ruling)) can arguably be called compromises towards moderation. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more accurate wording would be "labled as authoritarian." Apart from rhetoric, there is little evidence that Trump's policies and actions have in fact been authoritarian. 72.234.113.204 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Irish Times
Really? This is a great source on AMERICAN Politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:7557:CF07:746:75D9 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is an easy way to prove how biased this article is. Type "What is Trumpism?" into Google and read the top results from reliable sources such as The Hill, BBC, The Atlantic and others. None of these reliable sources mention authoritarianism or fascism as a main characteristic of Trumpism. They talk about nativism, populism, nationalism, industrialism, tribalism, and identity politics. And yet this article leads off with authoritarianism and fascism. This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources. The resort to Irish Times is just one indication of this. Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources."
 * Is that discounting the 2-3 dozen, or so, reliable sources already in the lead? DN (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of "reliable sources", like Irish Times. The question is which ones are more toward the mainstream and which ones are at the fringe. The problem with this article is that it relies heavily on fringe reliable sources that are at the liberal end of the spectrum. Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing bias/sensationalism accusations & article length
A few users have accused the article of bias, most without much sourcing. I think however there may be some elements of the article that aren't neutral and may be biased. There are also elements of sensationalist language that cut against the article's neutrality.

Couple of examples below.


 * 1) The inclusion of Jane Goodall's quote comparing Trump's style to the dominance displays of apes. Jane Goodall's work is in primatology and animal conservation. For a persuasive journalistic work (the Atlantic article in Fallows 2016), including a quote from Goodall is a great idea because she's a famous (and generally very smart) figure whose opinions align with the author's own. But this wiki article is supposed to educate us on Trumpism from a neutral point of view, and the Goodall quote comes across as a personal opinion from an individual without relevant academic research in the subject. This is at the very least unnecessary and uneducational.
 * 2) Under 'Falsehoods', McManus calls Trump a 'bullshitter'. However this is written in Wikipedia's voice, without quotes. Sensationalist at least, and probably biased. As a general note, I recognise it's tough to write neutrally about a person whose primary mode of speech is telling fictional stories, but we need to find a way to do it. Lines like "Trump's lies are egregious" written in Wikipedia-voice is below-standard in my view.
 * 3) The Mark Milley 'wannabe dictator' quote. Similar to Goodall, while Milley is more relevant as a former JCS Chairman under Trump, the quote doesn't get us any closer to understanding Trumpism as an ideology. The quote itself is only notable on its own because of who said it. If such a quote were to live in Milley's own Wikipedia page, sure, but here all it does it colour the viewer's opinion rather than get the user any closer to understanding the ideology (especially since it's already stated that Trumpism is largely viewed as an authoritarian movement).

I recognise this is a contentious topic especially for Americans, and that news outlets in the US strongly influence the conversation about it. Ultimately we should ask the question of this article: "Is this educating us about Trumpism, or telling us that it's dangerous/bad without showing why?"

Sidenote: I also agree with other commenters that this article is far too long. Cutting out the more sensational elements may go some way to reducing this length, but we should also consider the possibility of repetitious statements as well. That's beyond the scope of my post though. Cheers RichardThePeterJohnson (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If we were to make this Trumpism page have less bias, it would read like the French article. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:E7B2:A08C:F1D0:6B82 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fundamental claims – that Trumpism is a nationalist authoritarian movement that has been widely compared to contemporary fascism – these are all verifiable and well-supported claims. Documenting them here does get readers closer to understanding Trumpism as a movement and ideology. If those facts make followers of Trumpism or conservatives in general uncomfortable, I understand, but true statements are often uncomfortable without becoming less true.
 * It's the additional guff around those factual statements, examples above, that make the article more biased. Trim those and stick to statements that are relevant/informative, and you have a good article. RichardThePeterJohnson (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this article draws from reliable sources that are at the extreme end of the spectrum. This is easily shown by typing "What is Trumpism?" into Google and reading the top results from reliable sources such as The Hill, BBC, The Atlantic and others. None of these reliable sources mention authoritarianism or fascism as a main characteristic of Trumpism. They talk about nativism, populism, nationalism, industrialism, tribalism, and identity politics. And yet this article leads off with authoritarianism and fascism. This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources. To expose my bias, I am an American, and I hate Trump; I wish he would disappear. But this can only happen through the dissemination of truth. Gratuitous attacks on Trumpism using words like fascism do not serve this purpose. The true nature of Trumpism has a lot more to do with desired policy changes and resentment at the inability of Washington to implement them. There is also reaction to change, as America moves to a country that is less than 50% White. Here are two sources that get closer to the heart of Trumpism than the current Wikipedia article. Neither of these sources uses the words fascism or authoritarianism. https://democracy.psu.edu/poll-report-archive/americans-not-only-divided-but-baffled-by-what-motivates-their-opponents/ https://www.npr.org/2021/07/11/1015120444/study-looks-at-what-motivates-trump-supporters --Westwind273 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's necessary to put in how Trumpism has been linked to Fascism—but there may be issues with editors putting in semantics that make it seem objective. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:1DA:6FA5:6F6A:CC71 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Excessive length etc.
The article is too long to be comfortably read at 320,425 bytes. I will look up in WP:MOS about excessive article length to be certain. Also, I noticed that over half of the article content is written by a single editor. (55.9% if I read the chart correctly.) That fact would tend to support allegations of bias; i.e. concentration of content from a single person is more likely to have a single POV. I haven't read enough of the article to express an opinion regarding bias or lack thereof. FeralOink (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Inflammatory image in the heading.
I do think this image should be removed and replaced because its obviously Inflammatory and is meant to paint some kind of cultish image of the movement. I personally wanted to remove this image a long time ago but I was inexperienced with editing on Wikipedia. @User:Valjean says removing this image is whitewashing. I do think keeping the image is a violation of NPOV. The image file is literally called "Fascism Worship". Sources do state there are similarity's with Trumpism and Fascism. but that can be summed up as Fascism and Trumpism are inherently National Populist ideologies, and that they are right-wing movements. The image also doesn't adequately represent the movement like the other images in the heading. Another concern I have about this image is if it was uploaded with negative attentions. why do I think this? Because the file is called "Fascism Worship" and Trumpism is a Contentious subject. thank you, I'm going to bed and will be back tomorrow afternoon Zyxrq (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If sources do state there are similarities between Trumpism and Fascism, what precisely makes it an NPOV violation? Would it be more appropriate for the Christian Trumpism section? DN (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are going to keep the image I would agree its more appropriate for the for the Christian Trumpism section. Though I would say that there are plenty of images that would give a more arcuate representation of the movement when talking about the Religious section of Trumpism. I think a images like the ones seen on the websites I just linked would be a big improvement. [] [] [] [] I will go and look for better images. Zyxrq (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically a image with a Trump flag and the Christian flag would be a good image to upload. Christian flag.svg Zyxrq (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since there are essentially two images of the St. Johns photo op (one is the promo video), I would propose moving it down and replacing one of those with it, if there is consensus. DN (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Zyxrq (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That flag is commonly used with Protestant Christians, is it your intention to target them or do you wish to include Catholics? Sindenheim (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sindenheim  See WP:NOTFORUM DN (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The importance of whether or not to address conservative Catholic support of Donald Trump, I think, Is relevant to this article. Sindenheim (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sindenheim That was not your question. Your original question about whether they will be "targeted as well" seems to imply general bad faith assumptions, does not specify any requested changes in particular or point to any specific citations or context. Catholic support of Trump is only relevant to this article in the context of Trumpism. DN (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I regret my use of the word target, as it seems rather aggressive which was not how I wanted it to come across. I was saying whether they were using the flag to "target" protestant christians, as in making a point to exhibit the overwhelming support of Trump in (southern) protestant communities, or if they wanted to exhibit general christian support, in which the flag could be misleading. I didn't put forth a specific change in my post because we were having a discussion about a certain change and whether we would support it, and I was clarifying some information about it. It wasn't my intention to put forth any new material to that specific edit prospect. Although my wording wasn't perfect, you misunderstood what I said and tried to accuse me of violating talk page rules. I would appreciate if you repeal that statement, thank you. Sindenheim (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply made an observation about the language you were using, which you seem to regret, but have yet to repeal or strike. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I think you have confirmed why that misunderstanding may have happened. DN (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I figured it was evident you were implying that I was violating the specific talk page rule you linked. Sindenheim (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support leaving the image as is. The naming of the image as "Fascism Worship" refers to the name of the image on the Flickr page where it comes from in order to provide attribution of the image to the photographer. The name does not represent the bias of a Wikimedia uploader deciding to rename the image. Furthermore, this page does include several sources that describe Trumpism in relation to a "cult of personality," so it is not out of place and inflammatory, as it relates directly to the content discussed in the page. However, I also agree with Zyxrq that adding in another image to the Christian Trumpism section would be helpful. Currently, we have a video of the St. John's Church photo op and a picture of Trump holding a bible from the St. John's Church photo op in the same section. We can remove the video (more relevant to the page on the actual event) and add in another one of the images you linked to Zyxrq, as I think they do a better job of conveying the sense of the section. BootsED (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @BootsED I know I wasn't referring to a "Wikimedia uploader". I was referring to the "Flickr page". Yes Trumpism has a cult of personality element to it but its not big enough or influences Trumpism enough in the way the image is portraying to warrant being included in the heading. It would simply be violating Undue weight to keep it on the heading. Zyxrq (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @BootsED My apology's for not being specific. Zyxrq (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Zyxrq, I was tempted to say something the first time but figured someone would point this out, but it hasn't happened, and now it's happened again. You use the word "pacific" twice when you mean "specifically" and "specific". It's not a biggie, since typos are a dime a dozen around here, but this is not a typo and should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Zyxrq (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean Stop being so Atlantic. XD. DN (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. It was funny while it lasted.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was funny lol Zyxrq (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"January 6 hostage crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_6_hostage_crisis&redirect=no January 6 hostage crisis] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

A Note About The Sources
It seems that many of the sources cited to justify Trumpism as “fascist” or “authoritarian” contain heavy bias against Trump and his supporters. Many of these articles approach and address conservative beliefs as monolithic, though in reality, as most things tend to be, they are not. As stated by others, these articles have trouble connecting fascist ideas, like autocracy, to Trump’s actions. Instead of blindly applying predetermined notions, we, as logical editors and readers of the Wikipedia community, should analyze this article’s bias and inaccuracies with an open mind. Hopefully, when we do that, we can see that the information present here can be greatly condensed or removed to improve Wikipedia and report from a neutral standpoint. As always, discussion is welcome and encouraged! Wranlo (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The sources cited are deemed reliable by the Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, head to the reliable source noticeboard. Zaathras (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Zaathras! It’s not so much that I have a problem with the sources. More that I think we should treat certain cases individually instead of relying 100% on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources. While I agree that many of the sources cited by this article can be reliable, I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces. Thanks for contributing! Wranlo (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Bias in sources is not a problem—see WP:BIASED. If you have a problem with a source, start a discussion about it. We are not going to dump notionally biased sources if they are generally reliable for facts. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, Binksternet! I agree that bias of the sources is not the issue, but it is our duty to make sure we transfer it to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner. Perhaps, rather than saying “Trumpism is an authoritarian movement,” we can say “Trumpism has been regarded as an authoritarian movement.” Thanks! Wranlo (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No. The statement is attributed to over twenty citations. This is an unusually high number for a single sentence, and it was done to forestall these very types of pointless arguments. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Zaathras, I understand, but this argument does have merit and should, in my opinion, be revisited in the future (Perhaps after the 2024 election and Trump’s legal issues.) I will be taking a backseat in this discussion from here on out. Please feel free to continue sharing your perspectives! Wranlo (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wranlo, you're right when you say: "I don’t think that we should disregard blatant bias, whether we agree with it or not, especially in opinionated pieces." Per NPOV, we should be neutral by not removing that bias. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I second this. Well said, Valjean. Carlstak (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * These are largely opinion or editorial pieces, or “news analyses0 that masquerade as unbiased news pieces. The New York Times and Washington Post are notoriously left biased. 2600:1016:B07F:DB24:F1E4:94F4:9AFC:6D0F (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Zaathras (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , thats your opinion, and not everyone holds that same belief. 74 million people voted for what you call “dangerous authoritarian values.” The article should be rewritten in a more neutral manner with more neutral sources. It is not our duty to judge the beliefs of others. 73.150.197.202 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Define neutral sources. Sindenheim (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In saying that do you not think you are revealing a personal bias? Many conservative opinion columnists are employed in both of those news organizations. And even so, would you as an individual like your work disregarded simply because the person who disregarded it has different views than you? Put simply, I believe if a cited source was biased on the right you would argue it had no bias. The New York Times and The Washington Post are both highly credible and distinguished newspapers, therefore we must, in a way, assume their biases more well founded than you, and other random people on here. Sindenheim (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV?
I am concerned that this entire article doesn't conform to NPOV standards. From the start, the first sentence says that is is authoritarian in nature. I do agree on that, but I'm concerned that the entire article is written from an leftist point of view. ONE RING (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.
 * "Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.
 * Per NPOV, editors should be neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else who be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.
 * Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I second this, too.;-) As you say (again;-) too many people think NPOV means to present "bothsides" as having equal weight. Not so. The weight is determined by what reliable sources say. Carlstak (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @CandleGuy1111 you are 100% correct. Best to just step away from this page. It is, in essence, a dumping ground for all complaints about Donald Trump and his followers. That's why the article is so massive! In contrast, the Trump derangement syndrome article is tiny. This is the wrong place (as is most of politics-related Wikipedia) to look for balance or a neutral point of view, especially given that the vast majority of conservative secondary sources are marked as unreliable or outright banned. Mkstokes (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they lie, and it can be demonstrated. Carlstak (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And there you have it. Most conservative secondary sources lie, most liberal secondary source don't lie. Nothing to see here. No bias. Furthermore, in order to keep things in check, primary sources can only be used if cited by "reliable" secondary sources (i.e., liberal sources). @CandleGuy1111 the entire article is political opinion, with few if any facts provided. Looking for WP:NPOV in an article that is strictly the opinion and indeed the creation of leftists is a fools errand. The first paragraph, exclusively citing leftist secondary sources, is the template for the entire article. Mkstokes (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't blame Wikipedia for the fact that Republicans have become like that. And this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire article is a forum. As for blaming Wikipedia, that's just silly. Wikipedia is just a technology stack for storing and presenting data. I'm merely saying in contrary to the topic of this section, WP:NPOV is irrelevant for this article because the article is merely a storage place for anti-Trump screed. Mkstokes (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You beef is with reality, which has a well-known liberal bias. Not with the Wikipedia, nor its editors. Your comments above do nothing towards the aims of article improvement or editing, and instead foster a battleground mentality. Actions like this become evidential should you one find oneself before a place like WP:AE. Just an FYI. Zaathras (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ALright. Let's stop this discussion before flame war starts. ONE RING (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Tag rationale per WP:DRIVEBY
The presentation style and overall tone, and perhaps the use of images, compare very unfavorably with every other article we have about other right-wing or far-right ideologies. It is immediately obvious to an uninvolved observer that the article is written in a polemical, albeit thoroughly cited, fashion.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Generalized complaints are nearly impossible to fix. Please make clear the changes you are requesting. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

MAGA
The MAGA movement is synonymous with Trumpism. Is it not? If so, maybe you should leave it in the hat note. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The MAGA movement is thoroughly Trump related, but I believe it involves not only trump but a plethora of far-right politicians and ideas who believe that only that kind of conservatism will, “Make America Great Again.” It just so happens that the Trump campaign coined the phrase and popularized the sentiment. Whereas Trumpism is the specific cult like following that almost support only him as a person rather than his morals or even policy decisions. Sindenheim (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Political Bias
This entire article is blatantly misleading and characterizes the “Trumpism” movement in an inaccurate way. Hopefully someone with editing powers can correct this to something more accurate and useful. The article conveys a severe lack of understanding and is extremely politically charged in one direction. 2600:6C63:427F:A528:3CE3:12CE:F670:BD67 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. the entire thing is just a hate article making trump and all his followers out to be these horrible evil people with no morals. Where is the Bidenism article so we at least have one for both sides.  Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration with this article, even if I might not share your point of view. Even though I lean left politically myself on many issues, I can readily observe and concede that many of Wikipedia's editors are extremely biased on certain topics, in a way that is not reflective of humanity as a whole or the total corpus of useful published information. That, in turn affects their judgements about what to say, what not to say, and how to say it; what sources to cite and what sources to ignore. That is a problem, and even people who do not like Donald Trump should be able to concede that and work to remediate it.
 * If you want to have a hand in contributing to the article, a good first step would be to look for reliable sources that are not currently cited in the article. I have no doubt that they exist. Google Scholar might be a good place to start. I see that the very first article listed, "Dysfunction by Design: Trumpism as administrative doctrine", is not cited in this article, and I suspect that there are many other academic articles that are uncited, also. You may be surprised to find that scholarly literature is often critical of & more nuanced than popular journalistic coverage, reflecting the fact that scholars are usually much more educated on the topics they discuss than journalists and newspaper writers.
 * As for your remark about "Bidenism" - I know your comment was mostly an expression of frustration about this article, but there are actually quite a few reliable sources that use the term "Bidenism". There may be enough to create an interesting and informative article about the term. If you are interested in looking further into that, you can leave a message at my talk page and maybe I can help you.
 * I hope that your frustration about POV issues don't deter you from learning how to contribute to Wikipedia effectively. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Beyond the United States
I believe the section mentioning world leaders similar to trump should be redone completely or removed. It’s kind of flawed (such as adding two politicians for the Philippines whereas the others had one) and there is evidence for some politicians that were added. Firekong1 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Firekong1, the lede section you edited was to replace well-sourced commentary on world leaders with unsourced ones not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Per the request in both reverts of your edits, please add reliable sources to the leaders you want to add and reasoning for removing leaders with reliable sourcing on the talk page (you can also add reliable sources that dispute the comparison into the article). Superb Owl (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Only one of the additions had sources, and I personally think there are other Spanish politicians comparable to trump. But I will add sources, just please do not revert them immediately. Instead I prefer if you’d let me know which ones are and are not appropriate for Wikipedia’s standards. Firekong1 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Neo-fascism template
Why is there the template "neo-fascism" if Trumpism is not mentioned in it? 93.38.68.62 (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * presumably because there are 21 sources saying Trumpism incorporates neo-fascism Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, but it needs to be mentioned in the template. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Trumpism is included under the Varieties section of the template. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * feel like whatever section the page using the template is in should be toggled on show automatically Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The New Propaganda War
These are excellent articles (a MUST read!) dealing with MAGA's war against truth, freedom, and democracy. It is carried on by elements of Trumpism (MAGA, GOP, Trump) and Trump's autocratic dictator friends.
 * "The New Propaganda War"
 * Oliver Darcy's commentary about it: "Journalist sounds alarm on dangers of propaganda, calling it 'one of the worst crises for American democracy this century'"

The refs are fully usable as is. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I recently came across an opinion by another editor that historians, unlike Anne Applebaum, are not to be considered "experts" or historians, without certain accreditations such as a degree in history, which Applebaum has, and or publishing in academic journals. It's not my intention to hijack, so feel free to respond on my page. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a RS that's on-topic. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This, IMHO, is a textbook example of problematic sourcing methodology in that it quite openly seeks to co-opt selected RS (this status being determined by mechanically consulting the RSP color-coding rather than in full adherence to the PG&E on sourcing) opinion pieces to support a predetermined statement driven by specific editor-held views, rather than surveying the body of RS and distilling them into an encyclopedic format. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The body of reliable sourcing is in agreement on this. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" and all that. Zaathras (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While it’s extremely ironic that Colbert is being quoted here of all places, I don’t completely disagree. I just think that one or more major authors of this page and its lead clearly decided to give Trump the full-scale Antichrist treatment instead of discussing him with the sobriety that we accord to various people a whole lot worse than him.
 * Anyway, my concern was with tone and the GIGO (technical sense not literal) concerns about methodology that comments like Valjean’s OP naturally spark. I originally had jumped in because I’m watching this page for some reason I’ve half forgotten. And also because 1) I was in the mood that day to speak my mind frankly 2) it pisses me off when nonpartisan cleanup processes such as GOCE are interfered with, as they have been in the past 3) whenever there is an entrenched group of editors forcefully dominating a broad topic area (and ampol is the single worst offender as at least in PIA there are two opposing cliques and other geopolitical CT are typically almost pastoral by comparison if you’re not a citizen of a participant), that really pisses me off.
 * I don’t intend any incivility by anything above, but I’ve had a long day and I’m not feeling inhibited. Have a great night.
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After having written the above, I saw that the lead has been improved noticeably since I last read it several weeks ago. Cool. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @RadioactiveBoulevardier When you said "this...is a textbook example of problematic sourcing methodology", what are you referring to? Valjean's original post, or DN's remark? Could you please expand on your concern? Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Valjean’s remarks naturally. Why? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RadioactiveBoulevardier, fortunately I just happened to notice this. You should strike your comment above at 06:30, 12 May 2024, and maybe your subsequent comments, as they are grossly personalizing this and assuming bad faith. Comment on content, not editors. That source is not even (yet) used in the article and is provided as an excellent commentary and analysis. You don't have to agree with it, but you shouldn't poison the well here and assume bad faith in other editors. Remember that using an editor's political persuasion against them can be seen as a personal attack. Analyze the content in isolation from the editor, unless there is a clear pattern of violation of PAG and BLP. Then do it on the editor's talk page and try to peacefully improve the situation, not attack and start more fires.
 * My and others' political bent is irrelevant to this thread. Discuss the source. You claim you "don’t intend any incivility by anything above," but (that you say that reveals it can be understood that way) that's exactly what it is. Your comments are uncivil, personal attacks, and they assume bad faith by attributing to personal ideology what can be attributed to a million other innocent factors. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between left-leaning bias and flat lies.
This is incredibly misleading and does not represent at all what Trumpism is. For example, Trump supporters favor LEGAL immigration. That does not make them "anti-immigration". How is any way shape or form is he authoritarian? Trump supporters fully support the constitution- it is a flat out life.

I understand wikipedia has a left leaning bias and I am totally okay with that. But this article is just false. There is no other way to put it. It is not what Trump supporters believe. It is what the far-left labels Trump supporters. Wow - never seen such misinformation. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I almost forgot- "heavily favors racist attacks"??? This is the most absurd statement of all time presented as fact. Please give one example. The implication is that roughly have the country supports racist attacks. I am in absolute shock that this is an actual wikipedia article. You can totally disagree with Trump, but this is misinformation regarding what Trumpism is and what him and his supporters believe. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Those little numbers in brackets are citations. Click them. Zaathras (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zaathras The citation for the anti-immigration part links to a NY Times article in it Trump is claimed to have said immigrants were "poisoning the blood of the country" which he did say but if you hear all of what he said it can be easily understood that he was referring to illegal migrants and not immigrants in general. Being opposed to mass illegal migration isn't the same as being anti-immigration. The NYTimes article itself is misleading and stretches the truth. Therefore it cannot be a sufficient source to support the claim that Trump and Trumpism are anti-immigration. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two true statements here: 1) Wikipedia repeats what "reliable sources" say about Trumpism, and 2) the "reliable sources" do not accurately characterize what Trump supporters really think. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, this is a great article. But in terms of actually educating Wikipedia readers about what Trump supporters think, it's an awful article. @Listenhereyadonkey, are you the IP editor who started this thread? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Philomathes2357 no I am not the IP user who started this thread. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your personal interpretations of what you think the sources say are irrelevant. This can be taken as a response to both of the users immediately above. Zaathras (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism
I just read the Wikipeadia presentation. Amazing. Wow 207.171.252.110 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This Article is Utterly Misleading.
There is more 20 sources that claim that Trump is fascist, but there us also more that 20 sources that claim the opposite. Alexandernorman1245 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Present them. All 20. Zaathras (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fascism or Neofascism
It has already been decided that the fascism sidebar should be kept on the page as for RFC, but something that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the sidebar for fascism doesn't contain any mention of Trumpism, while the neofascism one does. Shouldn't it be neofascism then? XCBRO172 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
Please remove the errant ref tag here:

 

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ And I found a second one while I was at it. Thanks, and well-spotted. -- AntiDionysius ( talk ) 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)