Talk:Trumpism/Archive 1

OR, SYNTH, gross misrepresentation of sources
Pretty much what the section title says. Most of the fanciful claims made in the text were not actually supported by the sources provided. Someone wrote an article about what *they* think this "Trumpism" thing is and then tacked on a whole bunch of sources which did not support the text to make it look legit.

I cleaned it up. There's probably some POV problems left, mostly POV-through-omission. In particular any negative descriptions of "Trumpism" from the sources provided appear to have been purposefully omitted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also a bunch of ridiculous nonsense - the "teachings and theories of Donald Trump"? Seriously? And this survived in the article (unsourced, of course) for a full week? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Trumpism is about what sources say Trumpism is about
Re with the edit summary "This article is about his political beliefs. It is not about things he has said,".

The source literally says "the "controversial and outrageous" remarks made by, Donald Trump". You can't argue with the source, especially when it is the only source being used which actually defines the term.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is defining two entirely different meanings of the word Trumpism - as dictionaries often do. One (1.) is a political ideology, as in "These are the principles of Trumpism". The other (2.) refers to a particular thing he has said (comparable to a Bushism): "He came out with a classic Trumpism today". This article is about the first definition, the political ideology. It is not about "here's another Trumpism", i.e., something cute or controversial or false or however you are defining the remarks that qualify as a Trumpism. A typical Bushism would be "Is our children learning?" A typical Trumpism might be "You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy." A totally different subject from what this article is about. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this is a new word I don't see why we should choose one definition over the other. Time will tell which definition ends up being more relevant, but for now, for us as encyclopedia editors to pick one over the other is essentially "original research" (i.e. "this is the important meaning in the source, this other part of the source, I don't like, so it's not important"). I think that the article "Trumpism" is also about controversial things he said. Why not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could add a separate section on "Trumpisms" to this article, but I'm not sure what it would be based on; I'm not aware that any outside source has published a collection of "Trumpisms". (Unlike "Bushisms", which were the subject of multiple books and other aggregations). And without any outside source having collected them and identified them as Trumpisms, our section of this article would be based on Original Research. The fact is that if a word has multiple meanings we don't have to accommodate all the meanings in a single article; in fact we rarely do. We very commonly have different articles about the different meanings of a word; that's what DABs are for. This article is about the political philosophy. An article about "Trumpisms" in the other sense could be created, if there are sources to support it. In the meantime, since there is nothing about the second meaning of Trumpism in the article, we can't include it in the lede - especially if putting it there gives the impression of conflating "Trump's political philosophy" with "controversial things Trump has said".  --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't have to have a collection of "Trumpisms". What we do need to have is a definition of Trumpism that is actually provided by the source - "controversial things he said". If a word has multiple meanings, according to sources, we most certainly do need to add least mention these multiple meanings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's not conflating anything if we're explicit about the fact that there are two different meanings. That's why we use the word "or".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump "explicitly" considers women and blacks subhuman
This material, sourced to a Guardian editorial, is ridiculously UNDUE and adds essentially nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Just for starters, Trump has never "explicitly" said anything of the kind. You might want to calm down and consider the wise words of Scott Alexander, who endorsed "anyone but Trump" during the election: "What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn't go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans? We might want to use words like 'openly racist' or 'openly white supremacist' to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted 'openly white supremacist' on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying 'I love Hispanics!'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a basic question as to whether "Trumpism" is an encyclopedic subject or if it's just a neologism. If the latter, it shouldn't even have an article. But it does. And this Guardian source is one that has been repeatedly trotted out to support the idea that "Trumpism" deserves an article of its own. So if you're gonna make the argument that "Trumpism" is encyclopedic because the Guardian writes about it you... sort of have to actually use the source.
 * Given the paucity of sources that actually discuss "Trumpism" as it was a thing, the Guardian source is not in the least bit undue. This appears to be nothing more than just some WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part.
 * I don't see what Scott Alexander has to do with diddly here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the "explicitly" sentence as an outrageous and largely false charge, sourced only to one obscure (no Wikipedia article) op-ed writer. I am considering whether this article actually has any merit, or if it exists only to criticize Trump (note that the lede sentence says it is about the CONTROVERSIAL remarks of Trump, in other words, singling out the bad stuff). There was very little definitive or factual information even before the massive deletions by User:Volunteer Marek. Possibly this title would be better off as a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Let's not do anything now while I think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take this article to AfD. I don't think it has any merit. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has no merit and should be deleted. BUT - you can't decide that a claim should be removed because you personally feel it's "outrageous and largely false" when it's an actual reliable source saying it. Is it an opinion piece? Yes, yes it is. But so is every single other source which has written anything about "Trumpism" (aside from the dictionary definition - please actually check that ). You can't pick and choose - oh, this opinion piece in a reliable source is ok, but this opinion piece in a reliable source is "outrageous". Especially since we're talking about the Guardian here.
 * Now of course - and I whole heartedly agree - if an entire article is based on just opinion pieces, then we really shouldn't have that article. It should be deleted. And thank you for nominating it there. BUT if somehow this article is retained there is no reason to exclude that quote and even there's all kinds of reasons (due weight, npov) to include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Come on, VM, you know better than this. There is not "an actual reliable source saying it." Yes, the Guardian is a Reliable Source in its news reporting. But the fact that an opinion piece is printed in the Guardian does not give it any credibility. Opinion pieces are written (naturally) by opinionated people. There is no editorial oversight, no fact checking, no sources to back up what is said in an op-ed. We can cite them for opinions; we cannot cite them for facts. Fact: we have never seen any EXPLICIT comment from Trump, or a Trumpist politician, saying that women or people of color are less than fully human. That claim is not even a distortion or exaggeration of something he has said; it is made up out of whole cloth. --Melani[eN (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, first, the title of this section is false. The source and the text do not claim that Trump "considers women and blacks subhuman", the source and the text claim that Trumpism does so. These aren't the same things.
 * Second, like I said, yes, it's an opinion piece. But so is this (explicitly labeled "Post Opinion") which you just restored to the article. And that one is an opinion piece in some small town newspaper. You can't remove an opinion piece from the Guardian because it's an opinion piece but add an opinion piece from "Salisbury Post". I mean, how does that logic work?
 * This is also an opinion piece (explicitly labeled "Opinion")
 * This is also an opinion published on a blog.
 * This is also an opinion... from the freakin' John Birch Society!
 * This is also an opinion piece, although a very in depth one.
 * And this is also an opinion piece.
 * Basically, this entire article is based on almost exclusively opinion pieces. So why remove one but not the others? In fact, that very same Guardian opinion piece is used in other places in the article but you seem not to object to that.
 * So we either remove *everything* cited to opinion pieces or we keep the Guardian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you are seriously arguing to restore this to the article. Show me anyplace (other than this op-ed) where such a statement was ever made by anyone in the name of "Trumpism". The guy states "Trumpism has two main ingredients. The first is the notion that people of color and women are less than fully human. This idea isn’t new to the Republican party – far from it. But Republicans usually prefer to be a bit less explicit in their reliance on racial hatred and misogyny." He has NO sourcing, no quotes, nothing to support this claim that Trumpism is explicitly based on this; he just says it. The rest of this article, even if based on op-eds, is pretty innocuous. This is an A-bomb, an explosive and vicious charge that MUST have better sourcing than one obscure writer. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this article will get deleted and this whole discussion will be moot. But the point remains - if you're going to base an article on op-eds you can't cherry pick only the op-eds you like and leave out the ones you don't (still don't see how a Guardian op-ed is "UNDUE" but an op-ed from small town newspaper which - no offense to that fine institution of quality journalism that is the Salisbury Post - no one heard of, is not). And you can't cherry pick the parts of an op-ed that you like and leave out the parts that you don't. That Guardian op-ed is used throughout the article!
 * As to the content of the quote, it's actually not that unusual and that point has been made throughout the election, , .Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is plenty of evidence and coverage that Trump is perceived as appealing to racism, i.e., bias or even repressive action against people of color. That could be included here, if sourced to "trumpism", and it is included in other Trump-related articles. But there is NO evidence, except for that one unsourced claim from that one op-ed writer, that he "explicitly" says "women and people of color are less than fully human". That is the outrageous, made-up claim I deleted, for many reasons. 1) "biased against people of color" is not equivalent to "believes them to be less than fully human." Not even close. Nobody can reasonably put that kind of words in his mouth. 2) Although Trump is prone to sexist talk that seems to objectify women, he does not seem to promote bias against women. 3) He makes his racist comments indirectly, not explicitly. That's why I "cherry-pick" this one comment as inflammatory and having no basis in fact, while leaving other more innocuous op-ed comments. I truly can't believe you can't see the difference. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The constant use of subjective phrasing and terms in the article
(This dispute deals mainly with the absence of attribution and subjective language presented in the Wikipedia voice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements

There is a consistent use of subjectivity in the article with peacocking terms, along with abstract and ambiguous citations.

The short description is inaccurate and somewhat generalized. The sources cited, Peter J. Katzenstein and David Lebow, actually contradict that Trump "developed" Trumpism. The first citation states that Trumpism has always been present in American history (see right-side note of first page of the paper linked).


 * In fact, the paper says that Trumpism "is deeply rooted in the traditions and history of the United States." It is true that Trump did not "develop" Trumpism. This wording has been removed. Instead, I adapted the wording to reflect the meaning defined in the Cambridge dictionnary and in the paper of Peter J. Katzenstein. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The second citation argues the idea that neoliberalism developed Trumpism.
 * I just removed this citation. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

See the Ideology section. "Ideologically, it has a right-wing populist accent,[3] whereby Trump's political style also shows traits of authoritarianism." This gives two claims which aren't followed up with any information that supports this statement, such as a political analyst quote or mention of a credible source (X has compared Trumpism to Y, or X has stated Trumpism has Y). This is the same with the claim of what traits "Trump's political style" shows. This is subjective and needs to be quoted or referenced to a source making that statement. The article cannot itself present that statement as absolute fact. This goes against NPOV. The other statements in the section are just ambiguous and do not explicitly state who stated what, instead it's again presented as objective facts when it should be sourced to an individual/platform.

In the contents section, "Trump has shown a disdain for Canada as well as the transatlantic partners (NATO and European Union), who have been considered the most important allies of the United States so far." Another subjective opinion presented as objective fact with no explicit referencing to who stated it. See "Another characteristic of foreign policy is a sympathy for autocratic rulers,", as well, as it doesn't give reference to where that statement comes from and presents itself (again) as objective fact.

The article is primarily peacocking and needs to be rewritten in a NPOV manner, that references sources instead of presenting subjective opinions as objective facts, and that doesn't use biased/opinionated/editorialized language. SubjectiveStopper (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The dogma being forced upon this article is excessive and damaging to Wikipedia. I agree with you in that the article is innately subjective and borderline-heretical due to its partiality. I have tried to improve these issues, particularly the ones that you mention, among other issues of the article, yet, other editors have reverted en masse edits without stating a cause. These issues among other concerns must be addressed prior to any further editing. Blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:QUO, and WP:IRI, must be rectified. The article alone should be a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump, which it was at one point, yet, I believe the participants of the discussion could not and did not foresee the dogma and lackluster quality of the article that it would become. The article is clearly invoking Trump's policies as president, yet, with reception and reactions of such policies by journalists, news organizations, etc., is clearly dogmatic and redundant to Wikipedia. This necessitates a redirect to the appropriate article at this point. Aviartm (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this page should redirect to Trump's political positions. This point of this article is to explain Trumpism, a political style, not Trump's political positions. Trump popularized this style, hence why it's named Trumpism. SubjectiveStopper (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is a political style without political positions? And what style of marketing of a politician for convincing voters necessitates its own article? Which, to fulfill successfully, would require the citations and sources that are currently presented to be presented differently, which is your issue of "subjective phrasing and terms". There are various pages with presidents and their last names with -ism that redirect to their political positions or the president: Reaganism, Tylerism and Kennedyism. Grantism is a notable exception showing the negative elements of the Grant Administration; Clintonism is the type of page that this article should become; and Wilsonianism discusses the foreign policy of the Wilson Administration. Yet, to have a simplified, basic version of Trump's politics is redundant as we already have the main page for it. If Trumpism ought to be like Clintonism, every section of the article should be removed except Contents, which should be renamed to Characteristics, and be presented as such. Aviartm (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't fully comprehend your reply, but I'd like to answer your question of "What is political style without political positions?" A "political style" refers to how one does something, rather than what they think about politics or policy. Someone's political positions may describe their ideology, which may influence their political style. But the political style has nothing to do with the political positions themselves. Simply put, political style refers to the technique, mannerism, and expression of politics, not the politics themselves.
 * My question was more rhetorical, implying the innately difficult separation of political style and political positions. Yet, as I said earlier: "And what style of marketing of a politician for convincing voters necessitates its own article?" And with the vast, vast majority of reporting that uses the term "Trumpism", it is implying the politics and policies of Trump and his tenure as president thus far, not how to apply it and advertise it. Aviartm (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless if your question was rhetorical or not, it is not "innately difficult" to separate political style and political positions. I've clearly stated what the difference is, I even cited you a peer-reviewed academic political science journal on JSTOR that defines the term. If you would like to argue what the definition is, I suggest you find a source and create a citation (as I did) that supports your argument. However, in this matter, I have doubts you will find a source more reliable that a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that's been published for almost 115 years. Also, I have been looking into the recent changes being made on the article page. There are massive amounts of Original Research. For example, in the section "Ideology", "It attempts to mobilize the disenfranchised" is given with the citation of a page 83, table 4.1, of the book "Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Trump and Twitter". This is a stated opinion for two reasons. Firstly, this has nothing to do with "Trumpism", but rather Trump himself. The table citied is simply a table of percentages of who voted for Trump. Secondly, stating "It attempts to mobilize the disenfranchised" is inaccurate because this chart says nothing of what Trumpism "attempts" to do, it's simply a recording of an exit poll of what percentage of people voted for Trump based on a certain category. A more accurate statement would be "Certain categories voted in higher percentages for Trump than for Clinton". However, this statement would (as before) have nothing to do with Trumpism, but instead with Trump directly. Furthermore, this chart is given a citation on the bottom to "http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0", making this a primary source. Because the editor gave an analysis based on this primary source, it falls under Original Research, which is not allowed. I will be making major changes to the page in the following days as there seems to be no change to the NPOV guidelines, that were is original research being made on the article page, and that claims are being made with citations to sources that either contradict or are irrelevant to claim itself. SubjectiveStopper (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are of edits implemented by others. I have tried to rectify this among other issues of the article, yet they are reverted en masse without basis. Your concerns mentioned are completely valid and need to be addressed. And the definition of "political style" is right. However, the fundamental subjectivity of how Trump convinces, markets, expresses, addresses, manipulates, persuades, induce, sway, etc. is the issue here; WP:NOTOPINION) and WP:OR. Further, the absolute historicity of this article has stated and/or implied "the policies", "ideology", "political ideology", etc. of Donald Trump since its creation. Political ideology is not political style if what is and has been discussed and implemented is since day one political ideology of Donald Trump. The fact that this article has tried to express Trump's political policies and ideology makes it ever more rational to redirect the page to Political positions of Donald Trump at this point. My recommendations is to either: redirect the page to Political positions of Donald Trump or: only discuss, very briefly and concisely, the characteristics policy-wise (like Clintonism) of Trumpism, as that is how the term has been used by news organizations predominately. One more thing. – "On Political Positions of Donald Trump", there is a political affiliation and ideology section and a "as described by others" section, which renders the valid existence of this article to nothing at this point. Aviartm (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. So the neutrality of this article is disputed. Howerer, it is my intention to create a neutral encyclopedia article explaining the topic of Trumpism. Can we discuss what needs to be changed so that you can agree to the article?Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You may follow along with the current discussion and address any of the concerns mentioned thus far if you will like. Aviartm (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just did - you reverted my edits. Is there any objectve reason to remove the following passages? This is important content that characterizes Trumpism as an ideology. Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As we are now at a standstill until consensus is reached, per the Administrators' board on edit warring, we must resume on such measures. My objective reasons to counter your edits were stated in my edit summaries: "Reverted back prior to notices; Donna Brazile is not a good authority on the distinctions of Trumpism and Lincoln Republicanism (hence, it was removed); moved Katzenstein assessment to "International reception"" and "Reverted good faith edits by Michael.alexander.kaufmann (talk): Concensus is still being built; Katzerstein is under International Reception; do not need duplicates in header. (TW)". And if you noticed, I did retain some of your edits and fashioned them more appropriately to the article, yet, you undid what I did for you. It is counterproductive to undo several of my different edits, pertaining to different parts of the article that you have not thus far edited, just because an edit of yours was removed. Such actions inhibit the general progress of any article. The issue is either irrelevant, poor, and/or misplaced information. I hope we may be able to reach a consensus in addition to 's inputs and anyone else. Aviartm (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Trumpism really conservative?
Is Trumpism really a form of conservatism? Is not his whole idea to shake the political establishment by triggering the emotions of the voters, and to change what was done by the previous adminstration into something new? Trumpism does not seem to promote fiscal conservatism, so the main correlation with conservatism is that Trump appeals to conservative voters. Trump is far from tradiotional. I would consider Trumpism to be more of a polpulist approach lacking a traditional ideology, and I have heard it described as "national-collectivism". Tradition, limited government and free trade are (were?) important american conservative values, but none of those seem to be valued by Trumpism. Trumpism is constantly shifting, and unpredictability seems to be a negotiation strategy (internationally at least) - which I would claim is opposed to conservatism. Trumpism supports american exceptionalism and (currently) rule of law, but is that really sufficient to classify Trumpism as Conservatism? American conservativism and european conservativism may be drifting apart so that Trump is still conservative in the eyes of americans. (?) In my view Trumps unorthodox style does not become conservative even if his voters consider themselves conservatives. Markuswestermoen (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ultimately we have to go by what the sources say; in this instance, it is described as a form of conservatism. — Czello 15:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I must be overlooking something then, as I fail to see which sources that claim that Trumpism is a form of conservatism. The german source claims that mainstream conservatism and neo-conservatism has been "swept away" and changed by Trump. The next source claims that Trumpism is based on neoliberal reason. Further down sources argues that he is more of a plutocrat than a facist. The latter two are hardly american conservative values, and everything prefixed "neo-", to put it oversimplified, is new and thus not conservative. (Here in Norway we actually have a Trumpism-party called "The Alliance" which is basically a right-wing nationalist anti-EU party. They got 639 votes (of 4199382) in the 2019 election.) Markuswestermoen (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitions
Below is a definition section deleted by admin User:MelanieN, with the summary: ''Reverting good faith addition. We could use a better definition, but these "definitions" are mostly non-neutral and are the opinion of various individual writers. Discuss on the talk page to figure out what kind of "definitions" should be included.'' With the exception of the New Yorker article, they all come from searching the term "trumpism" on google, though, of course, google is biasing its searches towards what it thinks I would like to see. Other editors please add definitions, though I doubt you will find many that are not "opinion of various individual writers". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * References

Any definitions we use should be serious or scholarly - not just some journalist's or politician's opinion. Even you must recognize that most of these citations are not "definitions" in any valid sense; they are just the person's opinion of Trump. And any description that includes verbiage like "mishmash", "irksome complaints", etc. is not a serious attempt at defining his philosophy. But, Wikipedia works by consensus; let's see if we can get some more people into the discussion and see if we can reach a consensus on whether to have a "definition" section and/or what should be included in it. IMO the whole article is already an attempt at a definition and we may not need a separate section. Certainly not by stringing together every offhand comment somebody has made on the subject. (BTW when I edit here I am not acting as an administrator, but as just another editor, per WP:INVOLVED.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither historian- scholar Anne Applebaum, nor social psychologist researcher Bob Altemeyer regard Trumpism as an ideology, or coherent set of beliefs. Applebaum (who has previously written on "Putinism") associates the term with the individual claiming Trumpism is something like gilded age apolitical, amoral self dealing: "All three [Pence, Pompeo, Barr]] are clever enough to understand what Trumpism really means, that it has nothing to do with God or faith, that it is self-serving, greedy, and unpatriotic." Atlantic article  Altemeyer on the other hand associates the term with the followers, the so called "Trump base", and believes what binds them is psychological predispositions for particular social orders, which can fairly accurately be measured by the social dominance or RWA scales. He describes the analysis in non academic form in a book he co-wrote with John Dean "Authoritarian Nightmare" on page 108 (passage here).  The views of both these scholars are controversial, though the social psychological perspective on Trumpists is far less unflattering as that of the picture of them as comparable to Vichy collaborators.  Both of these sorts of non ideological definitions of the phenomena are in the literature and deserve some mention in this article, or one related to it.  J JMesserly (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal- Social psychology material be moved to its own section
The material is out of place in the "reception" section. The phenomenon of trump followers has been a focused area of research since prior to 2016. J JMesserly (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Non english Citations.
I have found english translations for 3 or 4 of the german articles, and am working on the others. Some of these are good articles but my feeling is that we have comparable articles in english and should phase out any non english sources unless they are non replaceable. In the case of Dr. de Nève's brief article for hessenschau.de, the link was dead, so I looked it up on archive.org. I am not seeing that this supporting citation cannot be easily replaced with something from one of the many other sources already given. If someone feels differently, here is the archive.org link. Perhaps it would be useful for the De.wikipedia.org article:   de Nève's article    J JMesserly (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral/ subjective templates
This article has been substantially upgraded since these two templates were added to the article. I was on a long hiatus from WP editing while these controversies erupted, but I am unaware whether anyone presently viewing the article believes these two issues still require attention. If no one can come up with any specific work items that need to be undertaken related to these previous deficiencies, then it seems to me that it may be time for the templates to be removed. J JMesserly (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , for what is worth it, I agree; so I say go ahead. Davide King (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request
Given today's results, I hereby move we write that Trumpism is a "discredited" political ideology, much like Nazism, Fascism, and its other intellectual forebears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a substantial number of observers who do not regard it as an ideology but something else (take your pick from the alternate descriptions in the article). Further, I am very skeptical that any academic journal in the near future would provide citable passages supporting such a partisan and historically premature assessment.  I am sure you will see many editorials from reputable sources in the popular press supporting such a statement, but if the consensus is that it is best we limit ourselves mostly to citations to academic sources, then I would not favor such a statement.  J JMesserly (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly a biased request. — Czello 17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Template Essay like?
On 2 Nov, the Template “Essay-Like” was added to this article, with no explanation. On the editor’s talk page, I have requested they post on this page suggestions for how the article might be improved regarding whatever essay like qualities they feel are present. If anyone has any specific examples of where the article is “like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay”, then it would be helpful to list them here so that these deficiencies may be addressed. Thank you. J JMesserly (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently there are no specific reasons for adding this tag, and so the presumption will be that the tag was added needlessly. J JMesserly (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you ping the editor? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do it now. Sup, . — Czello 12:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry about the delayed response. I initially added the tag because I felt like certain sections of the article - particularly the Non-ideological aspects, Social psychology, and Reception sections - seems to read like a compendium of opinions from experts rather than a more generalized explanation of the subject. I acknowledge that since this is a relatively recent political phenomenon, there is a dearth of reliable sources, so leaving in the authors might be apposite. If other editors find the tag unnecessary, I completely understand. Appreciate any input. Dosafrog (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a tough situation for the reason you state. Because there does not appear to be a unified "generalized explanation of the subject" we are stuck with providing readers with a survey of the various perspectives, and each section is presenting that diversity of viewpoint at varying levels of quality.  My view is that the survey structure does not make the article "a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay".    Since  has kindly offered to be amenable to removal of the template, I will state my view is that this particular quality template is inappropriate.  Interest in this conversation appears to be lagging and since no one appears to have a position in the negative- so unless anyone objects, I will omit the flag in some future edit in the coming days.  I'm in no hurry though so if people thinks there are specific work items that need to be performed prior to its removal, then by all means, it would be a service if they could be enumerated in the interest of improving the quality of the article.   J JMesserly (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dosafrog's observation that the recent and multiple radically different uses of this term makes this article more difficult to develop. Reading the prior controversies on this talk page, I think one admin accurately summed up the article as necessarily a collection of different definitions of what Trumpism is.  A "generalized explanation of the subject"- meaning some sort of authoritative statement of what the term does and does not mean- is therefore not realistic, but this does not mean that a wikipedia article is impossible.  There are many articles on controversial subjects, and I agree with the prior concensus that policy positions belong mostly in the article on political positions of Donald Trump.  I also agree with MelanieN's perspective that we should mostly rely on citations from academic sources, not those in the popular press pushing particular partisan points of view. For this, there is a large body of material in the academic world.  Scholar.google.com and various online sources of dowloadable papers and books have been invaluable.  Our article is now is far more robust in the number of citations and diversity of bibliographic sources- some from the 19th century.
 * So my view is that the article is best presented as a survey of perspectives. For example, even the view that Trumpism is an ideology is disputed.  - for example by pulizer prize winning historian Anne Applebaum who thinks it is better viewed as a set of political mechanisms, and that ideology is secondary to Trumpism- that as with what (in her view) are similar autocratic movements- it really is primarily about staying in power, and that principles are only employed when they are useful for rationalizing an action. She is not alone in her analysis, but I have declined to add material from her book on the subject yet due to the heightened emotions following the recent collapse of the Trump presidency.   Even in the social psychology section, there is no consensus.   I have given some small coverage of academics from the empiricists following Adorno's line of analysis, but have not had time to summarize a counter view from those covering the social identity theorist perspective.  There is a similar balkanisation of analytical perspectives in the political science field which are barely mentioned in the article.
 * I think it is fair to say that some of these perspectives paint the movement in a positive light while others paint it in a less complimentary fashion. To this end, the summary topic sentence is presented as a list, and I think we editors ought to make special efforts to reach common ground on neutral language.  For example- there have been numerous edits removing the term  "illiberal democracy", but one definition of the term is the populist sense, that any democratically voted on policy should be allowed, regardless if it does not adhere to norms of pluralism or multiculturalism.  This dispute about liberal democracy's principle of putting checks on majoritarianism is a very very old one, and those who promote the non liberal view have a great deal of company with respected political thinkers stretching back to the dawn of democracy.  So "illiberal democracy" is not an insult, though unfortunately it can be taken that way.  In this case, the term is compact and economically gets the idea across, but in the atmosphere of high emotions, there seems to be eggshells scattered everywhere on the ground, so even simple term choices like this can drain editor attention in needless edit wars.  I have invited discussions on the talk page to such anonymous editors, but have gotten no takers as yet.
 * Anyway, are people ok with presenting the subject as a summary of the literature on the subject? If so, which areas are weak, and can we break them down into a set of concrete categories?  J JMesserly (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is ideologically biased against Trump
For example, when it gives the opinion of Mr. Katzenstein, that Trumpism rests on "three pillars": nationalism, race, and religion. This is utterly false and is meant to imply the false narrative that Trumpism is just another form of white nationalism. Anybody of any race or religion can support Trump. Yes, we are nationalists, but we are not racists, we are not theocrats, we don't believe in any form of ethnic nationalism. ANYONE, and I mean, ANYONE, is welcome in our movement. There are PLENTY of black, gay, hispanic, Muslim, and etc. supporters of Trump. And Trump supports them! The reason why this looks ideologically biased is because this article fails to represent our viewpoint, it only gives the viewpoint of one side which is inaccurate and quite clearly meant to be polemical, and so it is no objective, it obviously is meant to be framed against Trump and attempt to falsely label him as "racist". He's not. We're not. There are also numerous other examples of this article's bias, too many to point out now, and I have already provided an example. It is quite sad really, it's just more confirmation of the overall left leaning ideological bent of Wikipedia in general. This is why nobody trusts you, this is why nobody trusts the media anymore. You don't represent these things accurately, you simply give your ideological opinions on them. This is why we're at war with you, because actually you're at war with us and you started it. Don't like it when we respond, huh? --71.234.217.123 (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all I suggest you relax a little; this isn't a "war", it's just a Wikipedia article. But more specifically, Wikipedia operates via reliable sources, not our own personal opinions -- we simply represent what other sources do. To dig deeper into the quote you mentioned: we've even made clear that is a person's view (Peter J. Katzenstein). In the past this has been changed to simply say "Trumpism rests on three pillars", rather than "Katzenstein believes Trumpism rests on three pillars". We're making it clear that these are the views a specific person (albeit an expert who knows what he's talking about). Simply wanting to delete things that are sourced because they conflict with your worldview would not be neutral. — Czello 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The post was helpful. Perhaps the article does not give sufficient attention to the importance of self- categorization.  There are some mentions of the intensity of Us-Them framings, and some relevant passages around where Reicher is cited as well as the rhetoric material regarding wrestling staging.  They indirectly mention how crowd/ fan loyalties and self categorization is intensified- but it seems to me that these ideas and related social media mediated parasocial interaction is not very explicitly described in a focused way.  The social identity folks write about it a lot when looking at trumpism/ trump follower phenomena, but I have not had time to get it into a concise enough form. If anyone wants to follow up on it, Reicher vaguely refers to it in one of the cited articles as Trump being an entrepreneur of identity- the term comes from Michael A. Hogg's "Social Identity Theory of leadership" published in European Review of Social Psychology 23 Nov 2012.  J JMesserly (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Bringing this up to a higher level
Trumpism is not a clearly defined ideology in terms of WP:COMMON, that is common usage for the term Trumpism varies widely, and the article as it stands attempts to create that definition. This is absolutely unacceptable. I am going to demote the existing content to a section, and place a more generic definition of Trumpism according to common sources, at a higher level so that this point of view stuff gets framed for what it is - an attempt to create a definition. Keizers (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP common redirects to Ignore all the rules. I don't understand what wiki principle you are citing.  J JMesserly (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point that the article attempts to create a definition was the subject of extensive prior discussion. I was not party to the disputes, but the consensus position was not to attempt to create a definition, but to provide a survey of the diverse perspectives on what the term means.  The summary that you removed lists in compact forms the different kinds of usages of the term, and replaces it with the notion that Trumpism is about the ideas of Donald Trump.  Neither the authoritarian theorists or the social psychologist academics agree with this view.  Many of the former think that ideas are of secondary importance- that they are only useful to the authoritarian so long as they have the desired effect of drawing masses to the leader.  The latter group largely believe the phenomenon has to do with a predisposition for dominance narratives in the followers, or alternately that it describes a particular form of collective identity that coalesces around a leader.   There are citations in academic literature which are amply provided in the article supporting these particular perspectives on trumpism, so the substitute summary of the ideas of Donald Trump constitutes a false statement.
 * Your citing of popular press support for your definition goes against the general perspective that we ought to rely on academic sources for the reasons stated above by MelanieN in the Talk:Trumpism section. The BBC quote for example cites Ron Christie, who is providing a partisan definition (trump supporters would call him a never trumper) that is pejorative- that Trump's ideas are the product of momentary whimsy. So your substitute quotations from popular sources are unsatisfactory for reasons amply explored in the above disputes.
 * Placing the current summary statement within the Right wing conservative ideology is a misunderstanding about the content of the summary. The mechanisms for acquiring and retaining power have nothing necessarily to do with right wing conservatives.  As Lowenthal points out in prophets of deceit, they are techniques used by left wing agitators as well.  The authoritarian theorists will point out the same.  So if you are going to attempt a new summary, I think you ought to understand the content of the article better.
 * We can iron out these deficiencies, and I can go along with some good ideas in your substitute statement, and restructuring the summary sentence to more clearly represent it at as a list of interpretations of a polysemous term. But let's come to a consensus on that new summary instead of unilaterally altering a summary sentence which has been in place for How does that sound?    J JMesserly (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that proposal. I am not sure I have the energy and time to effectively advocate for a revised structure. Also, I find trying to understand what you are saying, as well as what is in the article, quite daunting. I have a master's degree, but academic use of language, even in your comments above (e.g. "dominance narratives"), requires research for me to understand it, let alone for the average reader. Let me try to explain, in my layman's terms, what needs to happen to the article. It needs to reflect first and foremost the term in common usage WP:COMMON. While academia may have defined a range of ideas called "Trumpism", I am not sure that that is a commonly accepted definition of what Trumpism is. If "Trumpism" in common usage is either the ideas of Trump, or what Trump says in the moment, or loyalty to Trump, then that must be explained in one section. And practically the whole content of the article as it is now, needs to be demoted one level under a heading "Academic definition of Trumpism" or some such. I am, frankly, intimidated from trying to create that now due to the quality and academic nature of the material written thusfar. Keizers (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no common definition, neither of the academic or non academic "commonly accepted" variety, as summarized in September by MelanieN in the Definitions section. You seem to think that WP:Common has something to do with common usage.  Can you please read what WP:Common actually states?  It is about ignoring the rules (use common sense is where common came from, not "Common use" as you seem to suppose).  And please consider MelanieN's excellent point (see Talk:Trumpism section) about not relying on citations from the popular press.  There is wisdom there.  I am sorry that a rigorous consideration of Trumpism can involve unfamiliar phrases.   Many in the popular press were shocked and remain baffled by the rise of Trumpism and its ability to capture a near majority of a well educated democratic nation, but for many in the academic world who have been studying this sort of phenomenon since Le Bon in the 19th century, it came as no shock.  Comprehending these kinds of deep ideas, and clearly communicating them to the wider public is what Wikipedia is about.  To answer your query, "dominance narratives" has to do with the social psychology or rhetorical (literary sort of) analysis.  The former have links in the social psychology section.  Lowenthal is linked to in the article, and his 1949 book is online (referenced in articles).  He calls them themes.  Many of the early thinkers were studying how the nazis radicalized german voters, but I think it is needlessly incendiary to bring that up in the article because it is misleading.  Le Bon predated the events in germany and at that time the great fear was of the irrational mob revolting against the ruling elite.  As explained in part in the article on Social dominance theory, the term granularity of narrative extends from the highest level (dominance of the in group over the outgroup) to middle level personal myths (positive thinking of oneself as a successful smart dominant, or submissive inferior) reaching the lowest level of behavioral scripts or schemas for particular dominant-submissive social situations.  I am not a particular partisan of any of these academic views.  My personal point of view is that the mechanisms used by Trumpist type movements are profoundly effective and deserve better comprehension by the general public if modern liberal democracies are to survive.    J JMesserly (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your motivation for writing the article and am starting to digest the content. However, Wikipedia is not the place for us to express out motivation for democracy surviving, but rather providing a description of "things"; which you are doing in any case. I would comment the following:

1) I meant to quote WP:COMMONNAME, which says articles must use the most common term as their title. it is not stated explicitly, but a logical conclusion of this is, that in case of multiple common meanings, the term must be defined. So this really needs an intro section covering the fact that Trumpism is most frequently used in a more general sense or no specific sense at all, i.e. undefined as to whether it means simply supporting Trump, supporting his main ideas, or as BBC said, supporting whatever the heck he happened to tweet (I don't mean that as a joke... part of the "platform" or ideology IS CHAOS and Trump's moods/instincts/randomness. The press is an important source to gauge this usage of the term. Simply stating what academics define as Trumpism, is not complete and in fact it is one-sided (even though perhaps intellectually superior). 2) It would be great if the article could be revised to use as much plain language as possible. Keizers (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, I wanted to make it clear that I am not particularly inclined towards any of these various perspectives described in the article.
 * Just to be clear, regardless what you think is a logical inference about a statement made in WP:Article titles guidelines, the naming of titles policy section linked to by wp: Commonnames says nothing about definitions.  If it is your feeling that there is some unwritten WP policy regarding definitions as you have stated above, then the correct place to argue what I believe is dubious logic of your inference is on the talk page of WP:Article titles. I would suggest though that any such guideline on definitions would best be added on a policy regarding article content, not article titles.
 * One approach earlier taken is that there be a definitions section (see talk section on deleted definitions section above). Perhaps you have a view on that dispute.
 * You wrote, "Simply stating what academics define as Trumpism, is not complete and in fact it is one-sided." I don't comprehend this statement.  Academics from the string theory perspective on Quantum physics have a "one sided" view by definition.  It doesn't mean that their perspective should not be mentioned in the quantum physics article, regardless whether we do not know which perspective is the more correct one.  WP's role is not to arbitrate in a hotly contested disputes on what is the correct and incorrect ways to think about a given contentious subject.  I think the best approach is to clearly describe the perspectives as best we can relying on authoritative sources.  That seems to be the approach of prior editors and I agree with it.
 * The general consensus as I understand has been that quotes from the popular press generally should be avoided in this article for the reasons stated in many of the disputes listed on the talk page (eg "Recent Removals", "subjective phrasing", and so on some of which ignited edit wars). I happen to agree with the decisions made, but the matter is not closed and I was not party to those discussions or disputes, so perhaps,  or  might comment further on what the common ground is.   Perhaps there is a better approach regarding definitions, so you would like to enter into dialog on a different approach in the relevant talk page sections discussing them.
 * I do agree with your point that the intro is deficient in that it omits the fact that the term refers to a range of different perspectives. "Populism" is a similar term which many in political science believe is virtually meaningless in common usage because it is used is so many different ways.  We should say something about this polysemy in the intro.  J JMesserly (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, I mean no disrespect but to be honest it's absolutely exhausting reading the way that you write. I'm not sure if you're of "putting me on", but I will assume you write this way because you're an academic. Yes, I think that a deifnitions section should be added and it should be noted how the term is used (imprecisely and with wide conflicting meanings) in press and popular culture. Not because those definitions are correct per se but because those meanings are "out there" employed by the 99% of the population which is non-academic, which makes them impactful. In other words, write about HOW the terms are ACTUALLY used in popular usage. Not because they're necessarily right but because how they are being used is an important subject. Keizers (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled why it is relevant, but no, I am not an academic. You appear to have conceded that there is no Wiki policy backing up your position- I have pointed out above the WP:articles policy says nothing about common usage definitions. You wish to include a definitions section- an issue discussed on this very talk page in August-September with the conclusion to omit it and rely mostly on academic sources.  You appear to disagree with this position, so the correct place for such arguments is above on that discussion on this talk page. I would be happy to enter into dialog on this difficult problem, but will mostly replay the arguments from that discussion which I believe decisively rebut your rationale.  Perhaps if you read the other editor's rationales for excluding the section, this exercise might be avoided.  The section even includes the very citation you included above.  J JMesserly (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, you are not speaking in certain terms and I don't know what you mean when you say that my argument was already made on this page. Are you talking about "Trumpism is what sources say Trumpism is"? If so, I clearly see personal points of view defining the entire article. This is clearly WRONG. The majority of the population could not say what Trumpism is, yet you are defining it here according to academics only, and refusing to concede any space to a section where it is stated that the definition is not commonly used or understood! It is pushing that "academic" point of view and is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Keizers (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Beginning Bidenism
See Bidenism for the stub article. (Needs a lot of work). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Does Trumpism exist?
Hi, I've just made an edit with quotes from Vox and National Review, which no doubt will be reverted and the academics will continue pushing for their "exclusive" definition of Trumpism. But I need to state again that 1) it is widely debated that Trumpism even exists (as per National Review and Vox) and 2) if it exists, what Trumpism is! You cannot just have an article with this name and state that the academic definition is the ONLY definition of this! I suppose I can expect that it will take a lot more work than one "be bold" edit to get this heard, but I am hoping that the majority of evenhanded editors will pile onto this issue, as it is truly absurd to let this article stand exclusively with this so-called academic definition. Keizers (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you realize that the Vox and National Review articles were both written by the same person? Further, that both those sources have published multiple articles using the word Trumpism as a meaningful term?  I am aware of some sources that say the sort of thing your are getting at.  Some authorities have the perspective that Trumpism should be not be valorized as a sui generis term.  For example a couple historians appear to consider it as a kind of latest rebranding of a set of attitudes that date back to Jacksonianism.  It would be interesting to find out what the author of your Vox/National Review articles thinks now after so many others are now using the term.  Others have the perspective that there is no coherent policy or ideological perspective as is the case with terms like Jacksonianism or Reaganism.  But those sorts of skeptical views belong in the sections corresponding to the particular sense of the term it applies to, right?  J JMesserly (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing in an easier style. I do see your point, though I have my reservations about the authority of academics to define a term as such, to me they are only one of many stakeholders in a consensus about what a term that is currently in the process of definition, means. In any case, we are not dealing with (to quote you) "some authorities" saying the term should not be valorized "sui generis", my point is that the vast majority of the public and press use the term Trumpism to mean a wide variety of things, and this should be established in a section of the article, and this should also be reflected in the lede. The lede needs to tell the reader that the term is used widely in popular culture (i.e. 99% of the population and in most of the press...) in differing and conflicting ways, nonetheless academics define it as... and then go into the current content. Keizers (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you incorporated my ideas into "Reception" and I believe the point is worked into the lede, although not explicitly stating that the term is ambiguous in popular use, which I believe IS a point in itself... but anyway quite a lot of progress in noting "my take" (not that this is about me). That's great. It can be much better, of course. I'll see if I can round it out going forward with RS talking about HOW the term is used in different ways and if I can find it HOW you never know what a person means when they use the term Trumpism.Keizers (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your citation of vox would be better if you used the sfn and cite news templates as is the convention in the article.  "How you can never know what a person means" is a generic sort of skeptical point of view you can employ in any subject and regards semantics and personal discipline regarding use of terms.  More disciplined writers use the term in at least 4 different distinct senses, and perhaps the article could inch its way towards describing whatever consensus definitions that may exist for those particular senses.  It is probably premature, but if one of them in the coming decade or so emerges as the dominant sense, then this ought to be elevated in importance in the introduction.  Right now, it seems proper that the article avoid giving undue weight to any particular sense.  Regarding the question of mostly relying on academic sources, I was drawing on arguments which I think were convincing made by editors prior to my contributions to the article's development.  Apparently you did not understand which sections of the talk page I was referring to, so I shall independently post in those sections to mark them.  If you wish to pose counter arguments, then please do so.   J JMesserly (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent removals
I think Czello is right to restore the materal removed in 2601's two edits. The nature of this article is such that it will inevitably feature a lot of opinions and interpretations and probably fewer statements of fact. This isn't a problem in itself, though it's of course important to limit ourselves to opinions of accredited experts and not give undue weight to marginal positions, nor to present opinions as though they were facts. It's probably not viable to try to centre this article around "stated and affirmed political positions" for the simple reason that we have another article that does that, Political positions of Donald Trump. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I agree. Just to make everyone aware, this edit was also made, removing two other sources because AirmanErik believed the was "no proof" backing up the claims (I assume this is the same user as the IP, given the similarity in edit summaries). I didn't revert this one, however; while I disagree with his logic (it's not up to us to decide how much proof is behind a source), I chose to leave it as it was as they were both newspaper opinion pieces -- which are generally seen as unreliable. I was tempted to revert this edit for the reasons you said above, however, so I can't say I'd oppose re-inclusion. — Czello 12:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought about them being newspaper sources; also that there should probably be in-text attribution (i.e. "Lee Drutman, Larry Diamond, Joe Goldman have said..."); and also that I'm not really sure what either the Times or Post is trying to say about Trumpism (each only really uses the word in passing) in relation to authoritarianism, and I don't think "Trump's political style also shows traits of authoritarianism" is a good summary of it. I expect we could find much better scholarly sources on that connection, e.g., , , just from the first page of Google Scholar results. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this section as others nearby, there are several arguments regarding definitions, sources that I mentioned have been the subject of prior controversies. In this section, the case is made that the article ought to avoid merely enumerating the multitude of personal opinions about Trump by various individuals in the media.  MelanieN makes the point below that "Even you must recognize that most of these citations are not "definitions" in any valid sense; they are just the person's opinion of Trump."  Czello expresses a skepticism of the reliability of newspaper opinion pieces.  Subjective Stopper above argues that the article should not descend into peakcocking of political positions that editors favor, and that the article should reference sources that do not present subjective opinions as objective facts.  Do you disagree with these any of these three sentiments?  Arms and Hearts and others express the sentiment that scholarly sources are higher quality and should be relied on where possible. Agree or Disagree?   Regarding need for an explicit definitions section, MelanieN makes the point below that "IMO the whole article is already an attempt at a definition and we may not need a separate section."  Apparently you disagree?  Where is Melanie mistaken?  Although not referenced by you, there appears to be general agreement with  Aviartm's remarks regarding material enumerating policies, specific political positions- that because inclusion here is redundant to WP articles on political, economic, and foreign policy positions of Donald Trump- such discussion should redirect the reader to those articles.  Are you on the same page with that?  My view is that not all material should be excluded.  For example, some cited author may need to illustrate Trumpism's continuation of jacksonian attitudes towards isolationism and trade protectionism by referencing specific cases.   J JMesserly (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to even start describing how insanely biased this page is
This article uses sources written almost exclusively by people who opposed Donald Trump...obviously it's not possible to look at all of the attempted edits and addition of opposing viewpoints in the history of the article, but regardless of whether they're being suppressed or just don't exist, their commission demonstrates the antithesis of encyclopedic information... Briandrewdrew (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you or anyone else who feels the article is giving an unfair treatment of this subject do become aware of peer reviewed articles which you believe ought to be incorporated into the article, please list them here. I for one am interested in reading and summarizing viewpoints for WP articles regardless whether I agree with them. Wikipedia articles benefit from more diverse perspectives from such sources if they do exist.  Obviously if "opposing viewpoints... just don't exist", they can't be included in the encyclopedia. As argued elsewhere on this talk page, the article should avoid simply cataloging people's personal perspectives expressed in the multitude of Op-Ed articles available on the internet.  For this reason, we have endeavored to restrict ourselves to higher quality sources- the gold standard being peer reviewed articles.  Scholar.google.com is a good place to look for such high quality potential citations.  You will be able to read at least an abstract of the article.  If you find something promising but cannot get access to the full article please list here anyway, many WP editors can get copies due to their access to university libraries.  I can usually find a good number of such articles and will endeavor to do so.   Thanks in advance for any pointers to such material you might provide.  J JMesserly (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Op-Ed's and other low quality citations for Trumpism article
As admin MelanieN wisely stated in an earlier post, "Opinion pieces are written (naturally) by opinionated people. There is no editorial oversight, no fact checking, no sources to back up what is said in an op-ed. We can cite them for opinions; we cannot cite them for facts." Since it is not practical to catalog the opinions about Trump, inclusion of citations from an op-ed for this article should be the exception subjected to special scrutiny. Similarly, I don't see there is any need or place in this article for citations to state owned news sites and similar sources with dubious editorial standards like AlJazeera.com and RT (TV network). I deleted a cite today from AlJazeera.com. It was a good faith addition by, and I think the material from the article was probably supportable, but did Al Jazeera subject the article to the kind of scrutiny it would get if published in the Economist or the Financial Times? The Qatar government has intense interest in US politics for understandable reasons, and so relying on information they provide is risky at best. For this particular WP article, if anyone disagrees with this approach towards such citations, please comment. J JMesserly (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I never much care for that being cited (except where actually necessary, e.g. as the primary source that confirms what someone claimed Al Jazeera wrote is actually quoting or paraphrasing it correctly). In this case, it appears to have been a completely redundant pile-on citation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Misused citation parameters, etc.
Folks, please review the citation template documentation. I saw all kinds of wrong things being done, like using page and pages at the same time; putting the title of the work (same as website, journal, magazine, perodical) wrongly in via or publisher; abusing the quote parameter for editorial annotations (nothing should ever be in that parameter but the quoted material, without quotation marks since they'll be auto-generated); and so forth. There were also two cases of job titles wrongly put into first or last. Things like this cause incorrect citation metadata to be emitted, among other problems, and waste a lot of other editors' cleanup time. The citations were also an inconsistent mess in other ways, which I cleaned up. (And I just trimmed a lot of fat, like unnecessarily long variants of parameter names, unnecessary state/country names for globally recognizable cities, empty parameters unlikely to ever be needed, and so on. Plus I normalized randomly mismatched date formats to DMY style, and expanded US state abbreviations, which WP does not use, to full names.)  Another citation point: the [1] (whether created with ref or with ) goes  terminal punctuation.

One possible problem which may be unresolved is that it looks to me like in at least a few places someone has wrongly used pages to provide a count of the total pages in the book, not the page or pages being cited. That parameter is never, ever to be used for that purpose, as book length is not source-citation data at all, but library-style bibliographic catalogue information which WP has no use for. Misusing the parameter in that way basically falsifies the citation by providing invalid page numbers that do not verify the claims in the article said to be verified by that citation. I'm not certain which sources are affected, but the most suspicious ones are those that use pages (plural) but with a single page number, especially if it is in the hundreds.

All that said, I'm impressed by the overall quality of the sourcing! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about the paramount importance of accurate page references. Regarding the misuse of quote- I see the fix  put in, but I chose not to do it that way because most will not see it- well at least those who use hover the foot to popup the sfn, then in turn hover the abbreviation to display the the biblio reference popup. I would presume this is the common usage for readers serious about citations because it is time wasting, unnecessary and context shifting to scroll down or jump then scroll back up to the foot and biblio sections.  The note that page references correspond to the epub version no longer appears. Is the notation in the title that it is an epub version enough to telegraph to the interested reader that they should be cautious about potential pagination mixups? Does the reuse of the quote field really mess up any templates or metadata? I don't see the downside.  SMcCandlish, I think your motivation was good but you did not respond to this on my talk page, so I presume you may go along with my restoration of my (re)use of the quote field for this purpose.  I will hold off for a while in case you or anyone else voices their objection here.  J JMesserly (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quote parameter is only for quotations (and it auto-formats them as such, which will produce a weird and confusing result that indicates to the reader that your editorial note isn't a WP editorial note but material taken verbatim from the source). The ePub-related notes are still in the material, and in the citation, just not inside the template, since it doesn't have a param. for free-form commentary. There's a mis-belief that everything inside a  must be inside a citation template, but that's not the case.  In this case, it's just moved from , to  , and it still shows up in the text of the rendered citation.  I had commented out one of these notes, because that citation had no page numbers cited.  But I didn't think to check whether they're cited in  or some other method, and of course they were, so I uncommented that. My bad!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have any suggestions for how I can get it into the biblio popup window? If the notation is is not in the template, it is not in that window.  It seems weird to append it to the epub edition parenthetical, but that appears to be the only option if I don't re-use another field. J JMesserly (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those pop-ups are an optional feature and only available in some skins, and not for zillions of citations that don't use citation templates at all; it's not part of the core functionality of the site or the citation system. And any reader actually intending to verify these sources is going to have to look at the full bibliographic citation at least once, to fully identify and track down the source. And since we're stating in edition that it's an ePub (or whatever) version, there is no risk of them mistaking them for page numbers in some other edition. Lot of books have been published in two or five or 23 paper editions, and multiple (HC, SC, etc.) versions within the same numerical edition, so people have to figure out exactly which version of the book, from which publisher, in what format, and issued what year. They already cannot trust that page numbers in that one will match those in a different one.  So, this has all the earmarks of a solution in search of a problem. :-)  Normally we would not even include these notes about pagination-and-edition correspondence at all, because the matter is already implicit (in all citations in all works, not just on WP). If you're convinced the citation templates need a feature for this, you could propose addition of one at Help talk:CS1 (where all citation template maintenance is consolidated).  One could either propose a generalized notes parameter, or something highly specific like pagination.  I dimly remember previous proposals of something like notes (I think one of them was my own).  Yet with WP about to reach its 20th birthday, we still don't have that, so presumably there's concern that people would jam all kinds of crap into this.  On the more specific one, I think people will raise all the observations I just did above.  A third, also specific, possibility would be something like hover-note, specifically for annotations that are intended to be visible in the hovercard (the "biblio popup window"), i.e. something quite important to the reader, not just random editorial "noise".  That might have better chance of being added as a parameter.  But you'd probably need to come up with a more compelling case than edition–pagination annotations, which are something WP does not normally use at all.
 * They may be optional but my view is that enabling the popup functionality enhances the quality of a wiki article significantly for serious users. Your guess is as good as mine how aware WP readers are of the issue- that editions in the same year from the same publisher can have different page numbers.  Since you think the warning is not that important in the popup, I can go along the way you did it.  J JMesserly (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Op-Ed's revisited. Is the Goldberg/ George Will material WP:BESTSOURCES?
, in regards to the paragraph you added today: While I find the analysis of Michelle Goldberg and George Will incisive and thought provoking, neither are experts on fascism. Given that there is no shortage of such experts providing peer reviewed analysis making the kinds of points about Trumpism and Fascism that Will and Goldberg are making, they are not WP:BESTSOURCES, and I propose that the two sources be replaced by the most reputable authoritative sources available on fascism. Perhaps other recent editors and talk page commentators on this recurring issue might wish to comment on this. I would be willing to look for sources drawing similar comparisons from experts on authoritarianism/Fascism. Fair warning though- it probably won't be as crisp as Goldberg's and G. Will's way of presenting it. I can see a George Will quote linking Trumpism/Fascism as the reason for his departure from the GOP (if any exist from him or other prominent former republicans), as having a place in the article, but I don't think WP should be in the business of cataloging Op/Eds on Trumpism. J JMesserly (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but as with science topics we may need to base our main gist on "hard-core" material, then use secondary "popularization" sources for quotable ways of saying it that more readers will understand. In this kind of case, we need not lose Goldberg and Will if we cite academic political-science people leading up to this.  That is, say it in a technical-leaning way, with those kinds of sources, then in plainer English with sources like Goldberg & Will.   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is lighting the way forward. So in an article quoting an op-en from a prominent commentator presenting an analysis that Libertarians are actually visitors from Vulcan, the rationale for reverting is not that the source is an op-ed, but that the material of the op-ed was not supported by authoritative sources quoted in the article.
 * The Goldberg material is well supported by sources already in the article, and I can add a quote or phrase in there here and there to link them up. That is true of some of the Will material excepting some of his more colorfully expansive sociological observations, but I will have a crack at finding sources supporting those as well.  J JMesserly (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Christian Trumpism section
I thought one of the huge deficiencies in the article was coverage of Christian Trumpism, so the last week or so I have been doing research for the new section added last night. Any suggestions for improvements? Should it go into more depth on the Pro side? I gave Jeffress a lot of attention, but could do the same for a few others? Any suggestions for those talking about stuff Jeffress does not cover? It is a huge, ideologically diverse, and complicated area and so I attempted to confine my coverage to topics and authors making a direct link to Trump or Trumpism. However, the preaching of fear rather than hope, nostaglia rather than actual history, and the Christian nationalism linkage are still weak in my view. J JMesserly (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some possible sources:      -Aquillion (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * - Thanks for your list- I will take a look at those. More broadly, I think the article is still very weak in that it does not give the reader any "walk in their shoes" insight into the Trumpism weltanschauung- the felt reality- any comprehension of what Trumpism looks like from the inside.  I have been attempting to reach out to editors (apparently coming from that perspective) who have attempted to correct this weakness but have failed to do so with citations and from an NPOV perspective.  None of these editors have responded so far.  I live in NZ and run into Trump supporters at the Anglican church I attend, and my wife runs into the same at the Russian Orthodox church in far greater numbers. (It is quite an anomaly- maybe this is not just a passing for curiosity for US political observers).  Anyway, for that inside look of the religious as well as non religious supporters for the past weak I have been reading and mulling over the book "Strangers in their Own Land- Anger and Mourning on the Americna Right" by Arlie Hochschild  (american pron. "Hoe Shull" a crude approximation of the german: CH as in Bach- HoeCH Shilled).  She does immersion sociology by getting in with a community and interviewing lots of individuals.  To comprehend the odd paradoxes of Tea Party supporters, she moved to Louisiana and over 5 years compiled thousands of pages of interviews.  The book came out in 2016 with insights from her observations as the Tea party from her perspective morphed into Trumpism.  Weltanschauung is probably the wrong word for what she is trying to get at, because that term is more cognitive than the kind of emotional gestalt she says she is interested in.  To get through the kind of empathic wall she thinks progressives have trouble getting beyond in comprehending such followers, the final chapters of the book discussing what she calls their shared "deep story" were especially illuminating.  Vox and the Atlantic have recent interviews of her that tie her book into this deep read of Trumpism.  Interestingly, she sees resonance from the themes she hears with those described by journalist W.J. Cash in the thirties in his book "Mind of the South".  Perhaps that rebellion against modernity and the acceptance if not valorization of income inequality has commonality with European versions of Trumpism because of the felt morals that bonded the post feudal tenant farmer (US sharecropper) idea that they had a shot at becoming a plantation owner, or at least escaping their poverty.  As Hochschild quotes Cash, "The poor white did not see himself 'locked into a marginal life' but as 'a potential planter or mill baron himself.'"  That escape from oppressive poverty by remaining patiently in line and not making waves against the privileged may in some part get at the global pervasiveness of these themes.  J JMesserly (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Disinformation as a foundation of Trumpism
There ought to be at least some mention that disinformation is an important part of Trumpism. I'd argue there should be a whole section about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.25.207.93 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more that it is crucial. I saw your addition to the summary which was reverted because you did not provide citation support for it.  Some authorities argue just as you do.  Currently the ideas of disinformation, distraction and the kind of political bait and switch (the particular variety that Thomas Frank describes in his What's the Matter with Kansas) are laced into several different subsections, but these strands could be drawn together in its own subsection as you propose.  The important question for editors is, which are the experts who give insight into the dynamics of this communication phenomenon as it relates to Trumpism?  One popular explanation is that the supporters lack the capacity for discernment necessary to detect the deception, but it runs aground on polls that show that followers comprehend very well, and even admire that the white house occupant is an unparrelled BS'er.  Does the article give good coverage of explanations of the stunning anomaly that 42% of Americans still support Trump?  How is it that they are easily duped by disinformation in other persuasion contexts, such as from a real estate or car salesman?  For example, some right wing opinion personalities floated surprisingly implausible disinformation that it was Antifa infiltrators who were responsible for the mayhem at the Capitol this week.  Will that sort of information be spread, or will it be reject and why?  What academic authorities have looked at these sorts of examples related to Trump and explained why such disinformation is eagerly consumed?  The differing explanations are complicated, voluminous and have a long history, with a big surge in the 20th century from many very motivated intelligent researchers examining why Germany went so wrong in the 30s.  The article attempts to give highly compressed summaries of the relevance to Trumpist disinformation of Frankfurt school authors and research derived from it- Adorno/Altemeyer, Löwenthal, Hofstadter, Money-Kyrle and so on.  There are some references the idea of Post truth politics, but not covered are some ideas I have come across other authors that this is less post modernity than pre- modernity, something more akin to how Trumpification can be seen as persuading people to become willing Sancho Panza participants in what they think of as a great adventure and morality play in real life.
 * Anyway, it would be possible to create such a section and I would be willing to assist, but I think the greatest weakness is lack of description of what Trumpism looks like from the inside as I described a few days ago in the prior note above. J JMesserly (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Trumpism in Canada
I created the article Trumpism in Canada based on the content I added to this article. There is too much content and too many RSs for this section—a separate article was created.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting phenomenon. Here in New Zealand there was a demonstration in the capitol outside the parliament building "beehive"- only about 150 demonstrators- many sporting QAnon and Trump clothing or flags- and I can attest that there are plenty of Trump supporters in this country the US far right regards as nearly communist.  I think it is really odd- because the individuals we know with these views are nice, kind people-  one is a tutor to two of our children.  The source supported material on NZ is not enough for an article like yours, but it would be nice to have an article where it could be mentioned, something like "Trumpism outside of the US".  On the other hand, I suppose there is a possibility the movement is widely discredited and abandoned.  It doesn't appear likely, but then again, I would not have thought I'd see rioters bashing doors trying to penetrate barricades around the hall to the Speaker's office.   At the beehive, a man with an axe broke the entrance glass windows yesterday.  Not sure if he was with the Trumpists outside.  J JMesserly (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

this article ought be either deleted or rewritten from the ground up.
The entire page is enthused with extreme bias against the idealogy of Trumpism constant parallels with fascism and white nationalism including promoting extremely questionable views, such as the idea that trump is a fascist. we do not quote David Icke on the holocaust page for good reason. all "expert" opinions are negative with none that are postive or even neutral. even the images on this page enforce a negative view of the idea.

entire paragraphs seem to have no purpose except to make nebulous claims connecting trumpism to a cult or to nazism by the slightest of threads like a conspiracy theorist's picture wall. there are about six times more paragraphs on "collective narcissism then there are on foreign policy. on my many years using this platform this by the far the most partisan page I have ever seen it does not even attempt to hide it. 150.107.172.195 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Everything we include in an article has to be based on reliable sources. You're right, we wouldn't quote David Icke -- because he's not reliable on any subject (except maybe football). The sources we've included here all appear to be reliable to me; if there are any you feel aren't, please list them and we can discuss them individually. — Czello 08:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

my issue is not with the reliability of the sources used but on the selection of exclusively anti-trump opinion sources of varying relevance to present a negative image of trumpism. little outside material on trumpism invokes nazism but his page does every other breath, why is that? almost the entire page relies on opinion pieces rather than expert evaluations. 150.107.172.195 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by contributors, so by all means please help improve/rewrite this article. If there are sections that require better balance, please Go for it, and make your improvements.  It is true that your changes will likely be reverted if unsourced, but if you have high quality peer reviewed papers {the gold standard}, your changes will in all likelihood be retained.  Opinion pieces, such as those by George Will can be included if there are academic sources which back up the points made.  This can be time consuming and difficult, but I'd be happy to be of assistance.  There are many many right wing oriented research institutions with conservative academics writing papers supporting their views.    If you believe there is such an academic article regarding trumpism whose views ought to be expressed in this article, please list it here, and I shall endeavor to acquire the paper and assist in upgrading the article.  My interest is that all sourced perspectives on Trumpism be expressed.  Regards, J JMesserly (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Representative image of Trumpism
I have never been comfortable with any of the sidebar material because they tend to give undue weight to a particular view of Trumpism which is only one of many. For example, some like Bolton, George Will, members of the Lincoln Project or David Brooks rail against the idea that Trump has anything to do with conservatism.

The edit summary replacing the Capitol storming image today advised editors to "just stick to images directly about the person behind this subject". From this perspective, the McCarthyism article's headline image should be Joe McCarthy, not a flyer illustrating the redbaiting that defined McCarthyism. I stated in the summary reverting it that the article shows that there is not just one person behind the subject, but millions of persons who in sum make up a particular cultural perspective that have been described in a wide variety of ways that the article surveys. I think the preponderance of authorities referenced in the article take a view like that commonly expressed about populism- that what the "leader" says more follows what the audience wants to hear. The lies told by the leader are only those that best mirror the truths that the base prefers over reality. From this perspective, all the populist leader is doing is holding up a mirror. So do Trumpists best represent Trumpism or does Trump? The contrary view is that Trump is in control, and that the crowds will robotically do whatever Trump says. If the consensus is that this sort of position is representative, then Trump must be in the image, and the Capitol storming image should be used elsewhere.

Trumpism has been in the news recently, triggering nearly an order of magnitude higher pageviews per day. The image of Trumpist demonstrators at the Capitol can be viewed either positively or negatively, for example, a recent poll by Newsweek found that 68% of republicans did not believe the storming of the Capitol building represented a threat to democracy with a full 45% approving of the storming itself. Newsweek polling data here Were the image representative of some radical fringe of the movement, then I agree it is unsuitable for the main article image. However, the supporting statements of encouragement given to the Trumpists at the rally minutes prior correspond to the wide reports of the event as a phenomenon of Trumpism. I agree the image is provocative but does it push a perspective? A large percentage of conservatives view the action as good, and so the image is positive to their POV- (from the perspective that the election was stolen, and so norm breaking tactics of emphatic protest were justified to defend democracy.) From the POV of more progressive viewers, the image is pejorative- a sort of night of broken glass (Kristallnacht), carried out by idiosyncratically dressed modern day brownshirts. So while I agree it is a provocative image, it can be viewed as negative or positive about Trumpism. Does the article require a separate section of coverage on the relationship of the event to Trumpism? Or does the image deserve only a less prominent place in the article? Anyone interested, please post your views and let's reach consensus. J JMesserly (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the image is not representitive because it shows a small period of what Trumpism has been so far. Something that displays the populism Trump enjoyed over the past four years would seem to be much more accurate, which is why I vastly prefer the previous photos at rallies. Those arguably are also more neutral: not all Trump supporters support the capitol building storming, an event often even likened to terrorism, while probably a vast majority supports him campaigning, which generally has been way less controversial even amid COVID.--95.90.245.161 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except the Trumpists in the Capitol photo look not like terrorists but typical suburbanites like that veteran lady who died; and as I related earlier, except that a substantial majority of conservatives don't view the protestors in such alarmist terms- 68% think they posed no threat to democracy. From that perspective the image is sympathetic to views currently widely held by Trump supporters (only 29% of republicans think that Biden rightfully won the election, according to a recent reuters poll.  So that particular image neither pushes the sympathetic nor the pejorative perspective.  I understand your point about the rally pictures and have held it in the past.  I have put up some of those Trump with crowds photos myself, but have since had second thoughts about it (EG: once the head image was the one now in the communications section with Trumps arms outstretched, and the one of him with the Atlanta Georgia crowd).  I think we can do better than these images which are generic and sedate, because they fail to capture the enthusiasm and passions of Trumpism, focusing instead on the man.  Stuff that focuses on the individual should go into the article on the individual.    But what you say about particular pictures of supporters is correct, because it is so that the Trumpist movement is diverse, so that for example pictures of Trumpists at the Jericho march are not reflective of more agnostic/ atheist libertarian Trumpists.  There are some colorful photos of Trumpists in crowds at rallies that convey the passionate support, but they often have idiosyncratic / carnivalesque costumes or behavior, which not reflective of Trumpism's support among "silent majority" type conservatives who don't attend rallies or wear their political views on their sleeves.  While it is true the political rhetoric has gotten heated about the Capitol event, stuff said at the rallies have also been referred to in similar hyperbolic fashions.  Is the picture of Trump pointing to a protestor at a rally and suggesting that he be "roughed up" and that he would pay the legal costs non representative, or is it indicative of a common trope of suggested violence in Trumpism?
 * One common ground approach I thought of (haven't made up my mind if it is a good idea or not yet)- Given than any graphic at top may give undue weight, maybe just eliminate the first picture and have the Sidebar on populism or Conservatism be at the top right?
 * A second approach would be to have a grid-montage of say 4 thumbnails like that used for subjects for which any single image would not do justice to the breadth of material covered- eg the Conservatism sidebar montage of multiple personages or the World War II article's sidebar. Images of trump and crowd and different depictions of supporters or themes of Trumpism would be included.
 * - any views on this? J JMesserly (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if Trumpism is more about the idea of just following the leader than any specific policies of Trump, I still feel the best way to depict it as the lead image is to show Trump in some kind of rally setting. You could depict his supporters but then you get into personality rights issues unless their faces aren't really part of the image. In any case, not only is this tear gas image from the Capitol riot not a great encapsulation of this article, it's a completely unremarkable photo of tear gas being used. Looks more like the smoke from a Trump supporter cookout to me. A montage is not a bad idea... an image of Trump, an image of crowds...Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, unless anyone objects in the next few days, I will put together a grid of images one of which is a rally trump view, another the Capitol event. Typically these montages are done as static images,  but that would present a barrier to editors who want to switch one or two images.   I am confident the wiki engine can handle it done as a table, I just wonder what a table with graphics would render as on a phone.  J JMesserly (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can use multiple image, like the infobox of the storming article is. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 05:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This mockup is not indicative of images to be used, only the layout. I'd like to instead have some decent depictions of themes and supporter passions. Unfortunately the Template does not respect users image size preferences, so they are stuck with the widths set by it. Captions are too bulky, but much material could get buried in NoteTags. Anyone have a comment about how well that renders on phones? Btw there are not a lot of great Creative commons license images of the actual invasion of the Capitol building available. The current one does give a representation of resistance from the authorities, and has actually been used by a few commercial online magazines, so I am inclined to use it until something better comes along. Also, btw the content of the article excludes Trump policies because those already have entire articles devoted to them- the particular WP articles are linked to by template:further in the relevant sections. I would hope that it would be hard to read the article and conclude there is one sole or dominant idea of what Trumpism means... only the Trumpism-as-a-cult idea is similar to the representation that it means "just following the leader", and actually the Lifton sort of perspective is more nuanced. J JMesserly (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Regarding your image substitutions in this edit:
 * The Proud boys image: In terms of visual language, it communicates nothing visually other than there are people who display the US and Trump flags together.  The information that the individuals are proud boys is cognitive, not visual, and the article viewer only knows the protestors are proud boys on the authority of the individual who took the picture.  Further, even if it communicated anything more than a random group of people with trump and us flags,  are you arguing that the the proud boys are reflective of the 42% percent of US citizens who polls show consistently support Trump?  If so, you would need a citation to show that any authority believes that is so.
 * The Trump top image does not indicate the massive size of Trump rallies, and so is a poor visual representation of the crowd theme, or the massive reach of Trumpism. What does it say visually?  The generic scene of 6 people listening to a politician posing in front of a large US flag, and  that Trump has something to do with Trumpism?  Is that the best we can do?  I think not.
 * What is your rationale for removal of the storming of the Capitol image? Many sources have remarked that the event may signal the climax if not death of Trumpism.  I don't know if either of those views are true, but there are substantial sources to support the perspective that it is a widespread view.  Is this in dispute?  If not, then why exclude a storming the capitol image?
 * Why is the person praying at a Trump rally excluded? There is a substantial section describing the Christian Trumpism phenomenon, and the image clearly represents the interplay of politics and faith that some authorities believe is good, and others believe is bad.  The titling of that particular image is of course pejorative and unsupportable, but substance of its assertion does not appear in the article.  So why exclude this one?
 * What does an image of Chris Christie visually indicate anything about what the Trumpism article discusses?
 * I am not comprehending where the common ground is regarding image selection given the choices you made, so if you could perhaps say something about that, then we might better reach consensus. As I have intimated, I think the rationale for head images in WP articles is that they should be an effective visual communication of some aspect communicated in the article, and (if a group of images) should not give undue weight to any particular theme.  We have 3 images here about the racism theme.  That submerges the other themes which have substantial material devoted to them. Lastly, I would argue that no single image should have double width prominence.  Many argue that Trumpism will far outlive Trump by even decades, an image of him should not enjoy any special weight, as was the case in the McCarthyism article which does not lead with an image of Joe.  If there is a strong argument that Trumpism is mostly about Trump the man, then I could go along with prominent placing.  But there are substantial references in the article that dispute this viewpoint. J JMesserly (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made my thoughts known on the tear gas photo - it sucks. It looks like smoke from a barbeque. There are hundreds of better options from the same event, but I replaced it with an image of flags from the storming, many representing the demographics of his base. The image of Christie shows at least one politician who debased himself in support of Trump and kissed the ring, but I was more focused on showing a frenzy of supporters at the RNC (and my preference would be not to spotlight non-public figures like random supporters). I don't have the time to address each of your concerns, but I think you are overanalyzing everything. I'm trying to balance high quality images, with those representing the type of people who support him, and depicting rally settings. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry? You had time to make the edits, but no time to explain your rationale?  Your substitutions do not communicate visually, and therefore your claim that they are "quality" images is puzzling.  If you have no arguments to confront the Christie and Proud boy objections, they will have to be replaced.  Proud boys image on left is especially dubious because the assertion of the affiliation of the individuals is significant but only supported by only by the claim made by a WP contributor, but not a published source.   How is that "overanalyzing"?  I am just trying to make the visual communication of the article be as strong is it can be. The difference between a quality image and a lesser quality image is that they show rather than tell.  That is, if there is a prerequisite to have a lot of cognitive support for a particular interpretation of an image, then its not the image that is speaking, but the interpreter "telling".   For example, the meaning you interpret from the Christie image is dependent on a lot of cognitive backstory- the relationship of Christie to the President, his political dance around him and so on- which is 1) completely unexplained and therefore lost to readers of the article nor is the iterpretative meaning you give supported by citations, and 2) the phenomenon of enablers of the president is not even discussed in the article and probably outside its scope, so how is it reflective of its content?   The Rally image you chose is low quality because it does not indicate the massive size of crowds, and I propose to switch it, also making it the same size as others.  The praying image will need to be restored or one similar replacing it because it is a particularly strong visual communication of the theme in the Christian Trumpism section.  I can go along with one image on the pro side of the racism theme, and maybe the confederate flag one with one individual with a proud boy motif on his shirt is a strong candidate.  The others look like a generic protest at the capitol or are tight shots and it is not clear there is any struggle or violence.  I also can go along with a better image depicting the storming of the Capitol, but if one exists, I have been unable to find it.  If you think the yellow smoke of tear gas on the famous steps of the Capitol looks like a cookout, then perhaps you can suggest a better substitute?  If not, I shall restore it along with the other changes described unless there are objections voiced.  J JMesserly (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your Edit today- I think the problem here is that we do not have common ground on what a "quality image" is. My view as expressed earlier is that it communicates visually some theme contained in the article. Neither the Rally image you prefer nor the storming of the capitol image do this. I have made the objections regarding both, but you chose not to make any objections to my proposed changes, or responded to my solicitation of finding common ground on images choices. Seeing no objections from you or other editors, I made the upgrades after waiting. We appear to have reached common ground on a few items, 1) that the proud boys images could not be used, esp. due to the unsourced assertion they were proud boys. 2) that no one image should be be prominent above the others, and that 3) the prayer image, F* Your Feelings, and Charlottesville replacement of your confederate flag image are acceptable.  If this is not the case regarding these points, please state any objections.  The following 2 issues are the only ones remaining I know of:
 * The capitol image replacement is generic- perhaps you think it is "quality" because it more clearly reminds us what the Capitol building looks like? That is an emblematic use of images.  The violent nature of the storming is not conveyed.  What is different about Trumpism versus other culture war movements?  As documented in the article- according to many of the authorities cited, it is the acceptance of the idea of violent domination of other groups in a democracy.  It's what characterizes the definition of fascism from mere authoritarianism.   Your picture differs little from any generic protest shot.  What was different about the storming versus some Tea party demonstration?  The conflict.  The beatings of Capitol police guards, the smashing of windows and vandalization.  You claimed there are hundreds of quality images of the storming.  Where is the conflict in your replacement?  Do you see what I mean that the image does not hook up visually with the article content?  To be clear- I can probably go along with a substitute of your choice which visually communicates some level of the violent nature of the storming of the capitol.  I have spent hours looking for one better, and have found none.  Perhaps in time there will be new additions which have acceptable licensing for use in WP.
 * Re- the Rally image. Rather than respond to objections, or propose a new choice that addresses the objections, you simply reiterated your preferred Rally image which has only 6 supporters visible.  You remark that Trump's face is not visible which is true, but it is clearly Trump.  I did look for a large crowd image with Trump frontal view clearly identifiable  (more than a spec in a wide shot) but after a few hours found none on commons.  There is a crowd shot from india meeting that criteria but it is not a Trump rally.  Which is kind of amazing given how many shots there are on commons of Trump rallies.  Try googling trump rally site:commons.wikimedia.org  Anyway, your choice is a generic image of a politician in front of a flag.  Your point seems to be that it is important that the reader be reminded what trump looks like, even though there are multiple examples in the article already.  The size of the crowds, the emotional connection at the rally, the crowd sharing of strong passions, the forceful theatrical gestures from trump- If a substitute you come up with conveys some of these visually, I think I could go along with it.   The image you deleted visually conveys strong emotion and character (Trump's signature fist pump) and bond with audience- which is a key theme discussed in the article.  Your image communicates the generic message that there is a politician that likes to speak and pose in front of an American flag.  Virtually nothing distinctive about the content of the article on Trumpism.  That makes it a low quality choice.  J JMesserly (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09156 (50826223403).jpg, no response. If there are no objections the assumption will be that the two problem images listed above will be restored to the prior rally version which depicts a crowd.  The Storming the Capitol picture which currently illustrates no violence, chaos or intent will be instead replaced with with the image to right, which appears to meet the technical composition objection against the tear gas image used before.  It could be montaged with one of the wide shots to visually depict the context.  Because there has been no interest in dialog to reach consensus, I propose the following in order to avoid editor wars or continuation of the current impasse. After these proposed restorations it will be assumed that for the following 30 days, consensus on future changes will be required before switching these main images.  I will be on wikibreak for several days, so this ought to provide sufficient time for anyone to comment.  If there are objections, such a temporary requirment would not be in force.  If anyone else can suggest a different solution to the impasse, please suggest an alternative. J JMesserly (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

and any other editors interested in the first cluster images used: As described last week, this is the proposed new multiple image set using the candidate collage. Both are used in for the 2021 Capitol storming articles first image, and so meet the criteria of a quality image. The current image visually conveys a group of individuals indistinguishable from a generic demonstration as so poorly communicates themes in the article. The substitute above depicts Trump supporters involved in violent action, violent hyberbole if not violent intent- all themes conceptually communicated in the article.

The example also illstrates restoration of the Trump Rally image which was rejected earlier by Y2k, who objected in the edit note that: "if we're going to depict Trump, show him from the front rather than behind in silhouette. also this Capitol storming image is much better compositionally and actually shows more Trump supporters than the previous image."

The premise of this objection is that it is important to depict Trump and not the interaction between large numbers of supporters with their autocratic leader. The bulk of the article on Trumpism regards supporters of Trump and their rationales, not the individual- for information concerning the individual there are many other WP articles. The individual may fade from view, but according to many authorities referenced in the article, Trumpism will not fade so fast due to the the large masses of supporters behind the movement. For this reason, some image with large numbers of Trump supporters and their bond to their strongman must lead the multiple images. I have no strong preference which, but all those currently on commons with identifiable frontals of Trump invariably show tiny numbers of individuals as is the case with the current image preferred by Y2k. As stated in prior notes, I have no objection to a frontal of Trump and if their are any found that have at least hundreds of supporters depicted cheering him, I likely would have no objection. J JMesserly (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposed changes. I think you are too focused on having each every element of every image convey specific points that you are losing sight of some simple things. If you're going to display an image of the person who gave birth to this ideology, then clearly depict him - don't choose a silhouetted image from behind simply because it shows him gesturing to a crowd. It's a disservice to the reader to not have an image that shows what Trump looks like. If you want to use a similar image of him from a front angle, great! There are probably many possible choices on Wikicommons that could be selected among the thousands of photos of Trump. Secondly, I strongly oppose the proposed images from the Capitol riot. The tear gas photo conveys almost nothing to the reader because it just looks like a smoke cloud, and it's hard to discern the context of it - there's no rowdy people emerging from it or anything like that. It could be the smoke plume announcing a new pope for all we know. Also, the gallows photo, in my opinion, is inappropriate to use as a primary identifier of Trumpism. Let's be clear, no one was hanged at the riot and no one attempt was specifically made to hang someone. And I'm not aware of any Trump supporter hanging another person. Using that image is tantamount to implying that Trumpism specifically endorses hanging people, which is a big leap to take and probably violates WP:NPOV. If you can find some other image demonstrating violent behavior, then great. But I think an image of the crowd storming the Capitol (whether the one I chose or another similar one) illustrates the point perfectly fine. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I can go along with your demand that trump's image be more prominent in a rally image, so would it be acceptable to have a big crowd scene with an inset image closeup of Trump at the podium? Eg. picture either of these two with an oval inset with closeup with Trump at the podium occupying a lower corner of the image.

The gallows image appears as a headline image of the September 6 Storming the Capitol article, so is there an implication that supporters assaulting the Capitol specifically endorse hanging people or that any people were hanged at the event? Of course not- you are engaging in reductio ad absurdum. Your objection does not apply to that article nor should it apply to this one. Violent hyperbole, intent and action is associated with trumpism as well documented in the article, yet we have no images in the headline visually communicating violence- whether intent, aftermath, or actions. There is nothing complex in what I am advocating. I am simply trying to correct that deficiency and am attempting to find common ground with you.

This must be visually be depicted, and it is insufficient to "know" that an image is of the storming of the Capitol, or to "know" that many acts of violent supporters occurred at that event. We need images that show that rather than tell something cognitively. Do you understand the visual language distinction I am making? The only images you have allowed are those where no violence act, intent or aftermath is visually evident. Would you be ok with the collage with the gallows be placed in a less prominent location than the upper right, and that it be made smaller through addition of other aftermath of violence images such as these pictures of a glass pane broken and a door shattered? Hopefully this would diminish any suggesting that Trumpism involves the endorsement of vandalisation of government buildings.

By the way, though I am willing to go along with your demand, your rationale stated advocating Trump's frontal image is in conflict with much of the content of the article. First off, few authorities regard trumpism as an ideology. Is this not clear in the Ideology section? If not, it requires some more work. The characteristics of the mass of supporters, not the replaceable standard bearer is the focus of the Trumpism article. The article confronts the paradox that if it is true that Trump is essential, then there would be no Trumpism existing in countries where the Trump like figure is someone other than the former president, and why it is said Trumpism existed before Trump came on the scene. Anyway, the explanations the authorities cited in the article differ in some respects, but the general line of thinking held is similar to the point of view that there would have been a Mussolini like figure in Italy, as there would have been a Franco like figure in Spain as there would have been a Hitler like figure in Germany even if Hitler any of them died prior to their ascent to power. Lowenthal for example describes how the agitator is more a slave than a leader, following the crowd's passions whereever they lead- the agitator simply doles out more of what gets the most passionate responses. So if this is true the particular figurehead is secondary- the only requirement is that they powerfully mirror back to the mob what they feel. If true for Germany, any of the other SA brownshirts who were agitating crowds in the thirties would have instead been the name we remember, or in the case of Italy any other charismatic Italian blackshirts would have sufficed. From this tolsoyeskque point of view, the figurehead is not crucial to the movement- instead its the masses of people who commonly hold what George Will aptly describes as more of a mood, and certainly not an ideology. Does this "Trump-as-a-follower-not-a-leader" phenomenon need to be expanded more on in the article? If so it ought to be spelled out more in the article. There are places where the authorities cited make mention of it. But I digress and other authorities like the Great-Man-of-History sort of trope, so in any case I don't care if Trump's image is or is not more visible. What say you to the proposed common ground on the two images? J JMesserly (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC) J JMesserly (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think if you kept the current Trump image and placed Trump MAGA rally in Greenville (1).jpg next to it, that would make a first good row. As far as the need for images that represent the violence inherent in Trumpism - look, I hear you. I understand what you are aiming for. But I think having the gallows image is too hyperbolic. Regarding your other suggestions: the smashed glass is not very easy to make out in that photo, especially at small sizes (mostly you can just see the dark wood), and it's not self-evident what the significance of the broken white wood/window is or from where it is. A scene from the storming of the Capitol, an iconic moment for Trumpism, not only is appropriate on its own but also can communicate that violent theme (seeing as how it is now known as a violent event). In place of the Capitol storming image currently in the article, this is another good option. Or if you want a shot with the Capitol dome, something to this effect is an option. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

and any other editors interested in the first cluster images used: I found an image with Trump frontal view with large rally crowd. Perhaps if this is satisfactory we can compress the two on a row idea to this one. I prefer one, but can go along with your two on a row proposal. Regarding the Capitol hill storming image we are still far apart but in the interest of time I have a compromise proposal that we use whichever capitol storming image you prefer with an image on the same row visually communicating violence or violent intent by trump supporters- to me, it is of secondary importance that it be related to the Capitol event. It would have been nicer to have a single image that communicates both, but the Storming article's Tear gas image is unacceptable to you, as was the collage, as was the inclusion of other images to reduce the weight of the gallows image, so here we are. So how does this alternative sound? J JMesserly (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no further objections (or are there? ), in a few days I will replace the current multiple image collage at the head of the article with the set which appears immediately above or to the right of this post.  In the interest of avoiding editor wars or continuation or repetition of such impasses, I propose as I did before that after these proposed restorations it for the following 30 days, consensus on future changes will be required before switching these agreed on main images. J JMesserly (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like your previous suggestion of a rally crowd image more than the new suggestion to be honest. As far as the 'File:Trump MAGA rally in Greenville (8).jpg' image goes, I'm not opposed to that, as it looks good and consolidates what was previously two images basically into one. I'm just wondering about the proportions of it if it's the only image on the first row, and it might throw the collage off a little. I'd like to see an example of how you think everything could be oriented first. I would also like to get some other people's feedback as well, since it's just been you and me weighing in. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I can go along with any of those, so your preferred image is fine with me. If I understand you correctly, this is our common ground candidate. From the Pageviews count, it appears that people other than us have seen this discussion but had nothing to add. I shall ping recent contributors to the article and talk page to verify, that is unless there are any other improvements we need to discuss. So this candidate is satisfactory to you, correct? J JMesserly (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your input on the following question is being solicited due to your interest in the Trumpism article. The proposal is that the multiple image collage immediately to the right (or above, depending on device) to this note replaces the current multiple image collage and that for the next 30 days that changes to the multiple images not be made until consensus is reached.  If you have any comment, please make it.  This has been discussed for the past two weeks with Y2kcrazyjoker4 with no expressed interest from other viewers of the talk page.  Presumably the readers can go along with these re-arrangements but although we two have reached common ground on this proposal, it is unclear whether the silence implies consent or if there are objections from other regular editors.  There have been many editors to the article, and I apologize for omitting any who ought to have been notified.  If there are any who you think might wish to have input on this proposal, please direct their attention such as via template:Ping. J JMesserly (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a picture from Charlotsville?
Trump denounced the protests/rally as soon as it was over, and besides, white supremacists like those who attended the rally make up a very small amount of Trump supports. It would be akin to showing a picture of ANTIFA vandalising buildings on the front cover on an article on 'Bidenism' (such an article doesn't exist, but imagining it did exist). Alfred the Lesser (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A picture of anti fascist graffiti would be appropriate for an article on Bidenism if there were any significant numbers of academics drawing some relationship between the two. The difference is that there are none at this time.  There is little evidence that there are any reliable sources that think that there is even such a thing as Bidenism that deserves scholarly attention(only 8 hits on scholar.google.com at the time of this writing), let alone any that draws a connection between it and Antifa.  Compare with the volume of scholarly sources discussing both "trumpism" "charlottesville".  Type it into scholar.google.com for yourself:  478 hits. That's approaching 10% of the total items mentioning Trumpism.  Out of these, consider the argument from this academic which appears in that hitlist.  The rationale for the image choice is stated in the caption that the rally is "considered by some academics to be an example of the white victimhood[6] or white grievance theme which some argue is central to Trumpism."  Maybe there is no such thing as white victimhood, and maybe these particular academics are wrong that the Charlottesville rally is emblematic of it.  It is part of the controversy and deserves mention because the Charlotteville rally is constantly cited in articles discussing Trumpism.  We cannot know, nor are we entitled to arbitrate on the question of which of these academics are correct.  The fact remains that the event along with the Capitol storming event had important impact on the way Trumpism is viewed.  It should not be taken as emblematic of Trump's views (there are many other articles on that, and explicitly explain the former president's views on the event).  This article focuses as do most of the academics cited in the article on the views of Trump supporters, not Trump. Nor do examples of the Multiple image collage imply that they represent all of Trumpism.


 * This principle is the same as with collage illustrations for articles on abstract subjects such as Christianity, where there is an image from the main mormon tabernacle in Salt Lake city, and another of those practicing an Egyptian coptic rite. Neither are representative all christians,  nor is it possible that any individual image could possibly represent the wide variety of views about Christianity or within Christianity.  Your claim is that the rally represents an extreme minority within trumpism.  The Charlottesville protest against removing confederate statues was for many conservatives about just that, and it is a position with wide support.  71% of Republicans say they should remain standing.  The themes of the confederacy, of white victimhood, or of fascism are strongly documented in the article, and if there is another image that better illustrates these themes, then I'd be ok with switching it.  It is hard to find non copyright images which succinctly illustrate multiple themes in a single image as this one does, but it is possible some may exist on flickr which have wikipedia compatible licensing.  If you find any, please post links here, and I can assist in uploading them to commons.wikimedia.org.  J JMesserly (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It is more objective/NPOV to say that a source "says" or "asserts" something than to say he/she "thinks" something.
This is because a person's thinking may change. &#91;&#91;User:Rickyrab2&#124;Rickyrab (2nd account)!&#93;&#93; &#124; &#91;&#91;Talk:Rickyrab2&#124; yada yada yada&#93;&#93; (old page: &#91;&#91;User:Rickyrab&#93;&#93;) (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it is preferable where the source makes a concise summary of the view being stated. Wikipedia like other encyclopedias must often condense the position being advanced by a particular source into a more compact sentence or set of sentences.  This article in particular has entire research papers condensed into such sentences, and entire books reduced to a few such summary statements and quotes.  There is little semantic difference between saying a source thinks or asserts x or y, or that "their perspective" or "from their view" is x or y.  Your complaint applies to any condensation, does it not?  Of course I agree the gold standard is to include a summarization in a direct quote any time they are available.  Very often I have found especially on controversial points that no such quote is available (possible due to the scholar's typical reluctance to make broad statements or nutshell encapsulations of their work). I think it is acceptable for an important source to include multiple quotes or sentences which less briefly state the point, but oftentimes this space cannot be justified.  Perhaps you would prefer "view as stated in paper x", and similar such phrasings?  I also note that objectivity is by no means guaranteed by direct quotes.  Who is deciding that the quotes are representative?  Are the selections fair to the source's work?  How do we know?  So presenting quotes exclusively introduces cognitive load on the reader, while achieving only an illusion of "objectivity."  It is out of scope for WP editors.  We must be rigorous with our citations for such summaries and quotes.  Interested readers must access the cited documents and judge for themselves. J JMesserly (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021
Please remove semi colon after photo caption in box at top of page. It’s the caption for the final image. In fact, entire caption needs clean up. 2601:84:8880:5E80:304E:91C0:89FE:94CF (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I removed the semicolon, but other than that it is not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the other specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gaioa  (T C L) 10:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , In case you did not see it, there is a request that you mention specific changes you think are needed to the caption for the Trumpism article.}}J JMesserly (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Czello is evidently demonstrating bias enforcement with regard to the multitude of issues in this page.
Czello has demonstrated no interest in addressing any well founded and informative issues users have brought up within this article, and has shown they only have an interest in communicating with small posts that hold little substance. I here by call for Czello to have their interaction with this page revoked and an audit done into the biases of the user.

Furthermore I call into question the statement of Czello as to the validity of "reliable" sources within this page, as many of said sources have demonstrated bias and partisan disinformation. As well as evident financial support from those who wish to push the "Trumpsim" narrative, despite "Trumpism" having no validity as an ideology as it is only those with clear bias against Trump that wish to push the narrative, there are little to none who support Trump that refer to themselves as "Trumpers/Trumpists/or support Trumpism"

Wikipedia used to be a non bias none partisan place to get information, but has evidently become a political tool to further disinformation against those they do not agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.34.193 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you search on foxnews.com, you will find that you are mistaken about usage of the term "Trumpism". There are many right wing commentators in conservative media who use the term to describe the movement and supporters of it, including Newt Gingrich.  Whether we agree with such characterizations or the movement or not, I think we probably have common ground that the movement is important and it deserves an extensive article which gives the fullest possible description of perspectives on it from reliable sources.  Many conservatives, including George Will, Beth Moore are cited in the article as are conservative supporters of the former president such as Robert Jeffress, with a sympathetic portrayal of Trump supporters given by sociologist Arlie Hochschild:

"their patience in waiting in line in scary economic times, their capacity for loyalty, sacrifice, and endurance", qualities she describes as a part of a motivating narrative she calls their "deep story"...


 * Further, if you perform a search on Trumpism on scholar.google.com, you will find over 5800 hits from academic sources most of which are suitable for articles excluding perhaps some whose authors are making claims outside their area of expertise.


 * I am not claiming the article is perfect or will make anyone happy who has a singular view of the movement (either favoring it or against it)- There are many glaring deficiencies I am aware of, and I have a TBD list that will require months of additional work researching. If the coverage is not sufficient in your view or balanced, I extend an offer to assist.  My view is that articles should be balanced so if there is an authoritative source or sources making a positive (or in your view more accurate) statement about Trumpism, I encourage and support any efforts to including the point of view in the article.  I can sympathize that it can be time consuming to find and develop these sources into a form suitable for an encyclopedia article, but I am willing to assist.  If you become aware of peer reviewed articles stating viewpoints which you believe ought to be incorporated into the article, please list them on here, or on  my talk page.  I will develop a summary of them and provide all the stuff that makes the citation footnote work in the article.  You then can go ahead and rephrase anything you feel I summarized incorrectly.  How does that sound?  I understand how it can seem that the mass media and other trusted sources of information are out to deliberately mischaracterize Trump supporters and/or the former President.  This article for example has assertions made by particular experts that Trumpism is a cult.  But other sources also quoted say it is not a cult.  Both cannot be correct, but we don’t take sides.  What we do is summarize all sides of a subject from reliable sources.  An example of recognized authorities are those who are able to have their perspective published as a peer reviewed article.  There are plenty of extremely conservative individuals who are scholars and write for peer reviewed articles.  Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and other right wing think tanks have a number of such scholars.  One way to find articles expressing viewpoints more in line with yours would be to methodically go through those lists of academics and using scholar.google.com to search for their name and “Trump” or “Trumpism”.   I for one am interested in reading and summarizing viewpoints for WP articles regardless whether I agree with them. Wikipedia articles benefit from more diverse perspectives.  Regards, J JMesserly (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's a good job I happened to discover this thread by chance. Just so you know, it's good practice to tag someone when you're talking about them. It seems that the crux of your complaint rests on the fact that you believe the sources that are included aren't reliable, or that reliable sources are being kept out of this article. If you want to discuss any sources in detail then be my guest -- the problem is a lot of editors aren't doing this, and instead are making vague statements about being unhappy with an apparent bias this article has. I can't do much about that given that Wikipedia operates on reliable sources, if people won't be clear about which sources they think are introducing bias. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 07:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tyler Merbler-JesusMagaHatPosterAtCapitol.jpg

Trumpism a passing fad?
It is impossible to say in the moment what the relevance of the content of this article will be in a year or a decade's time, but I would encourage editors to consider the article in the Atlantic today by Yasmeen Serhan. If she is right, this phenomenon will have long legs, and will need to be understood better by the general population. The article is inadequate in several areas, and more effort is required. My view is that this is going to be a long march. J JMesserly (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead is a joke
Gives no actual description of Trumpism, just throws around the words  far-right  and  fascism  despite the latter being completely irrelevant to Trumpism. Prins van Oranje 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "trumpism" is used in many ways, and the article summarizes the different senses of the term as used by authorities, such as Trump and academics from multiple theoretical and political/ cultural perspectives. Multiple academics do see parallels with fascism and other right wing authoritarian trends governments around the world, but others believe such labels distract from what they believe is its true sociological/ spiritual / psychological/ social media and/ or commercial nature.  The article does not claim that any of them is more or less correct than others.  Particular authorities are quoted for their perspectives, but perspectives from opposing sides where identifiable are also covered.  If you believe that some theme has receieved undue weight or that other academic sources ought to recieve more attention in the article, please list those articles or books here, and I shall endeavor to locate copies and provide some coverage in the article.  Wkipedia is a collaborative effort and you are welcome to help improve it.  I am sincere in my offer- it doesn't hurt to list some academic papers that you feel deserve coverage.  Even if you think it risky that I might unfairly summarize the article(s)/ books you list, you can always edit my summary to suit and we can come to a common ground wording.  How does that sound?  J JMesserly (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
Change the author of this from baked communist intellectual to a fucking objective person not frothing at the mouth about how Trump is a fascist despite letting states decide their own policy most of the time. 118.148.101.68 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 02:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Trump's long quote of his one-off definition of what Trumpism is
This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's a long quote that is essentially propaganda. It's not a reliable source SAYING that's what Trumpism is, or even "Trump defined Trumpism at CPAC as..." - rather, it's just a straight transcript of his speech at CPAC. Including the quoted passage is WP:UNDUE and probably WP:SYNTHESIS as well. That's why I removed it. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, then by your rationale, the Leninism article should delete the following long quotations by Lenin, with the rationale that it is straight out of a manifesto, that it is propaganda, or that it gives WP:Undue weight to Lenin's particular views on a particular point? If not, then can you help me understand what principles make it acceptable while Trump making a statement about a movement that bears his own name does not?

J JMesserly (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're comparing Lenin to Trump in terms of the weight their own words have had throughout history, I think you'll find little support for that. You don't understand my rationale at all. My rationale is that no reliable secondary source has reported on that definition of Trumpism. It's just a transcript that you cited. Without some source reporting on it as "here's Trump's definition of Trunmpism", you don't have due weight to put it in the article. I'm removing it (again). Benicio2020 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that you would be satisfied if there was a reliable source that stated "here's Trump's definition of Trunmpism", is that correct?J JMesserly (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if there was a reliable secondary source that said "Trump defines Trumpism as x, y, and z", then a statement summarizing that would be acceptable within the article. Isn't that basic Wikipedia? Benicio2020 (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to reach agreement. I have provided a reliable source that states "here's Trump's definition of Trumpism"  J JMesserly (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Blurring the Jesus MAGA hat
This seems like a totally unnecessary blurring. How, exactly, is there a "copyright concern" that necessitates this edit? Benicio2020 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging as I'm curious about the copyright concerns here too. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I originally uploaded the cropped version of the image myself, so I was disappointed when Commons copyvio folks pointed out at the nomination page how strict the rules are about protecting copyright of composited works, whether or not they are displayed publically at demonstrations. If you think you can win the argument with them, go ahead and try and I will reverse my agreement to delete the unblurred image. J JMesserly (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the case, we're better off just not including that image in the composite. Seems like a long way to go to include it - you're blurring one image, then including another which is "hey here's something that's just like the thing in the unblurred image" - is the Jesus in a MAGA hat so important to Trumpism that all of this Byzantine image manipulation and relativity NEEDS to be there? I think not. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I don't think there's any problem with the image. As you pointed out on the deletion page, the original (uncropped) is still alive and well on Commons. There's no registered "copyright" on the image that's on the placard. I understand the copyright rules are strict on images but I don't think there's any rule that makes this one illegitimate. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to argue that on the deletion nomination page, where they do provide the rationale for deletion but I note you have not done so, nor have you made a keep recommendation. J JMesserly (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw your argument on Commons but I don't think you should underestimate how serious the administrators there are about enforcement of rules, and though there are lots of docs on them, there is a steep learning curve for the rules for acceptable images at Commons. To start off, copyright notice is not required since 1989.  The Berne convention rule is that any new creation is copyrighted with or without notice.  If you consider Commons:Anonymous works you will read that "detailed author information must be provided when uploading images to Commons, and claims of the anonymity of an author must be verifiable with reliable sources."  You might have some chance of winning the argument that the derivative work's alteration of the painting do not meet the threshold of originality, but you would still have to ascertain the original artist of the Jesus painting, and you can't simply assert it is pd-old as I did in my earlier rebuttals which I deleted from the commons delete nomination page (see history for the contents).  I guessed it was 16th century, but guesses don't count.  You'd have to identify the painter or the date of creation.  If it is a painting more recent than 1932, the painting must be blurred.  If authorship of the painting is omitted and remains unblurred, they will be forced by the authorship statement rule to delete it on that omitted information detail alone.  Maybe it could be uploaded to Wikipedia as Fair Use and you are welcome to try that, but if you peruse the rules, you will find that the criteria for those is a mine field as well.  I don't mean to rain on your parade, and I encourage you to go for it if you are ok putting in the time on it.  My view is that it is more worthwhile to bypass such tar-babies wherever possible and focus effort on researching the literature for pertinent articles on Trumpism.   J JMesserly (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your fear of "the administrators there" is, I'm sure, well-founded in your own experiences with them, although I tend to believe that just because a person knows the Byzantine rules and regulations better than I do, it doesn't necessarily mean that their opinion is correct every single time. I'd take another look at your vote - you seem to have jumped rather quickly to "delete" just because one other person made an erroneous error in judgement. Others seem to agree that there's no copyright violation. It's not a reproduction of the image that's being used - it's a photo of someone carrying the image. EVEN IF that image was copyrighted (highly, highly doubtful), Commons still allows photographs of people carrying copyrighted images. Even the nominator was really stretching to find justification for deletion -"Derivative work of a copyrighted banner"? There's no "banner" involved. The deletion request should have been denied based on that error alone. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to restore it, but this is not fear, but simple factual analysis of what Berne says and stated policy on Commons. The "no copyright notice" argument simply won't fly because it is a baldface contradiction of stated policy.   So looking at this practically, the first policy point not complied with is that they will delete simply because the artist of the painting is not identified.  So I did some exhaustive research on the the Jesus painting and unfortunately it is bad news.  The artist is Peter V. Bianchi, and was painted in 1959 (example here), so since that is well past the 1923 cutoff for PD-US, any reproduction or derivative work is a copy violation.  This means it is hopeless.
 * I have another solution which is possibly more desirable if others here agree- see subsection on the alternative below. J JMesserly (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Just a hint: the place to get help with image copyright issues is WP:FFD. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Don't blur the placard image. There's no need to do that for copyright purposes or for censorship. The claim about copyright is nonsense, unproven. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with this. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternative to blurring and inset facsimile
I uploaded the cropped photo we originally had in the article and would have liked to keep it but it looks hopeless now due to the discovery that the painting is from 1952. I still would like to keep some version of it for the article and am going to some lengths to make that happen because I think this intersection of Christianity QAnon, and Insurrection makes Merbler's photo such an excellent exemplar of concepts described in the article. I could create copy of the cropped image just as I originally created, but instead of blurring, the original placard is overlaid with the facsimile which is perspective altered so that it appears to be held by the QAnon supporter. The facsimile would has some improvements, such as the tag reduced in size, and robe color altered to more closely match assumed unfree Jesus painting. The Caption would note that the placard is a facsimile with a footnote explaining the replacement and giving a link to the Flickr Original which has the actual poster. How does that sound? Alternative2 is to use the Facsimile only and reference that a similar composition was used at the Capitol insurrection, citing the Flickr photo by Merbler. J JMesserly (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks hopeless? It's not a picture of the painting. It's a photograph of someone holding a modified version of the painting. That's not a copyright violation. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I really wish what you are saying could be true, but that's not how copyright law works with derivative works. You will note that blurring of posters in various scenes are SOP on Commons for this very reason. Example: Author blurs potentially copyrighted poster in background of this photo File:MovilTvPúblicaArgentina.JPG  Regarding authorship of the painting, as a long time commoner I am honor bound to notify others of my discovery in the Commons deletion nomination discussion even though I believe it is fatal to the chances of my uploaded image being retained on Commons in unblurrred form.  J JMesserly (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * derivative works: "The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright." Adding a MAGA hat via Photoshop is substantial? No. Does the derivative work "bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original"? Since there's about a thousand versions of a Jesus with a MAGA hat around, no. By Wikipedia's own definition of "derivative works", that JESUS MAGA thing doesn't even come close. Benicio2020 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if that argument wins on the Commons nomination deletion page, great. All will be well and the image blurring can be reverted.  The image or facsimile of it is a powerful illustration of a number of themes in the article and in my view the article is better off with any of the alternatives.  The base image was by Peter V. Bianchi, and though painted in the fifties, it is conceivable that he released it into the Public domain either while alive or in his will.  But proof would have to be provided.  In any case, we have not yet reached consensus on the replacement, so your deletion of the facsimile version shall be reverted. Your deletion was precipitous and you have not yet made any comments on the two alternative proposals, nor have you made an argument about why the article is better with no Qanon jesus image.  It only serves to sweep the Qanon / religious fanatism / Capitol attack relationship under the rug.  J JMesserly (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, let's be clear - I'm not trying to "sweep the Qanon / religious fanaticism / Capitol attack relationship under the rug". I think we should use the original unblurred image because it exists on Commons, and the new blurred image/inset mess is ridiculous. No offense. I know you did work to create that but that's not a reason to keep fighting to include it. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the proposals are: J JMesserly (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I create copy of the cropped image just as I originally created, but instead of blurring, I could perspective distort it so that it appeared to be held by the QAnon supporter.
 * 2) Facsimile image only  (improved from current facsimile)
 * 3) Use the original wider shot that has the unblurred Jesus Maga Hat.  Since the placard is not the central subject of the photo, apparently commons rules allow it.
 * 4) Improve the composition of the current (blur with Facsimile) image. Improvement to be specified by interested editors.
 * 5) Claim Fair Use for the unblurred photo and load it to wikipedia since that argument is allowed there. (Commons forbids Fair Use claims).
 * J JMesserly: Commons allows the original unblurred image, as the placard is not the central subject of the photo. So I'm curious, why are you even proposing using the blurred image? Why not just use the original? Benicio2020 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying, "My preference is option 3?"
 * In answer to your question: Before yesterday, I didn't think it would be an option. My presumption was that they would mark the merbler original photo for deletion too- an inconsistency you also noted.  But no one has done that since this annoying detail issue came up in February, something I chalked up to inattention, but all those concerned read the note of the inconsistency since then and it occurred to me after reading the odd reference to "being the central subject of the image" that maybe this is why the source image is not regarded as having an issue sufficient for deletion.  So maybe it shall survive this scrutiny.  For the record, I did note on the nomination page the authorship of the underlying image, so the interested parties are now fully informed.  J JMesserly (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, but... AGAIN... literally one person nominated the cropped photo for deletion. That doesn't mean it violates copyright. It means one person thinks it did. He's wrong. Benicio2020 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay,I just noticed you deleted the cropped image yourself. Fine, whatever. I'm not even sure that was proper procedure, because the file nominated is no longer the one with that name - I presume you cropped and uploaded, then replaced it yourself? I'm pretty sure that once you uploaded the cropped work to Commons, it wasn't yours anymore, it was everyone's, so replacing it was probably wrong. But who cares. Yes, use the wider shot. The new jumble that you uploaded is ridiculous. Benicio2020 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But you prefer the way it was, right? I mean that is a possibility too, using Fair use.  I am not advocating any of the options at this point, including the wider shot.  To be clear there are five options, the fair use one mentioned earlier but I neglected to include in the list above (now updated). So before resorting to the less desirable options, we could try keeping the unblurred shot I originally uploaded to Commons, only upload it to wikipedia with the Fair Use template.  There may well be a dispute, but we may prevail since there is no possible substitute in the public domain.  By the way, the unblurred shot on Commons is not deleted, and yes it is the proper procedure.  You can look the Commons guidance policy for allowed updates of Commons photos, and it specifically mentions updates to obscure potentially unfree content.  You can view the original image in the history, and people who dispute the update may revert it to its original state. 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit to the Trumpism article removing the blurred image, I wholeheartedly agree the original unblurred version was vastly preferable. There are five options for replacement of the blurred image. Perhaps you can provide some valuable guidance on how good our chances are at the Fair Use argument.  The image is a powerful visual expression of the confluence of 3 central themes in the article, so it merits some attention.  J JMesserly (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the problems in this thread came from negative reactions to your blurry image. Replacing that image with the original is "vastly preferable", as you say. There's no need for further discussion; all we have to do is drop the blurry stick and move on. No more proposals and useless discussion, wasting the community's time.
 * If for some reason Commons gets rid of the original photo, then we can revisit this issue. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ok with that strategy. Presumably, is just as eager as I am to exit this annoying issue.  Just for the record, The "original" version of the unblurred image used in the article was added by me, and all the blurring kerfuffle was an effort to retain the image in some form acceptable to commons policy.  The Jesus image is still prominent in the Merbler wide shot and was painting in the 50s and so is not PD-Art.  But I am a big fan of letting sleeping dogs lie. J JMesserly (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough already. Leave it the way it is right now. There's at least myself,, and that are done with this. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Trumpists has been nominated for discussion
Category:Trumpists has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Kylie Bax photo
Regarding your edit reflecting the view that the sports illustrated swimsuit edition featured supermodel Kylie Bax is not the person in the picture with Trump and Clinton, she in fact was identified in similar photos of the same event by reliable sources. Please see other commercial photos from different angles at the same event, or this NZ Herald photo and article. The article is already burdened by an extensive list of citations, so I hesitate to add another for such a minor detail. J JMesserly (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to correct series
Why is this under conservatism? It should be under Nazism, there's a Nazi flag in one of the article pictures and Trump has repeatedly been compared to Hitler, with some stating that Trump's actions are worse than anything Adolf Hitler had ever done in his time as leader of the Nazi party. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Last paragraph in intro
Would Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also fit alongside examples of leaders who exibit these authotitarian tendencies? Bashereyre (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, he is briefly mentioned in the article, so maybe, but I'm leaning no as currently written. But I see another problem with the names here. Apart from Bolsonaro, none of them are mentioned in the body of the article, so including them here fails WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sång's comment but encourage more in depth additions elsewhere in this article if pertinent or in the Authoritarianism article. Throughout the literature I have read on the subject, I think it is fair to say that many scholars have the view that Trumpism is a global phenomenon though they often differ substantially on perspectives regarding its nature.  Some pieces I have read made attempts at identifying global commonalities, but as of today this article does not give a great survey of such material. Perhaps it is a little too early. But if you have some good articles that assert a Trumpism connection with a non US figure or movement, please contribute, especially for a section discussing trumpism-as-authoritarianism or the subsections mentioning non US versions of Trumpism.  In my reading I have often seen Erdoğan and several other names come up- some with fairly detailed comparisons in scholarly articles depending on the lens the authors view Trumpism by.  So far I have not devoted much time to them due to other areas of weakness in the article I have wanted to focus on.  So this has a place in the article but until we see some consensus on what Trumpism's fundamental characteristics are, I think Sång's comment about not putting it in the lead is correct.  Many scholars do characterize Trumpist leaders and movement in democracies and quasi democracies as essentially a flavor of authoritarianism.   Other scholars disagree and think the authoritarian- strongman characteristics are second order symptoms and that some other first order dynamics are in play- such as those described from a social psychology- (eg. SDT or Lacanian analysis) or some other sociological phenomenon such as hostility to outgroups as the societies are forced to become more heterogeneous to globalization of information and economics. Anyway, good luck with any new material you view as helpful.  I think examination of global trumpism has areas needing improvement in the article, so if you have some good scholarly citations supporting your contributions, I encourage you to make your additions.  If there are disagreements on merit or placement, we can iron out those differences later. J JMesserly (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"See also" bloat
MOS:SEEALSO states The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. I'm seriously doubting that the links to Big lie, Civil rights movement, Cult of personality, John Birch Society, and Reality distortion field really have to do with this topic enough for see also links. Not going to remove these immediately as this is likely a controversial page, but this really seems bloated and a few aren't even that closely related at all. These should probably be removed unless a strong verifiable connection can be made. Hog Farm Talk 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article requires further development to make the linkages clear. Trumpism from some of the perspectives expressed by academics cited in the article is very much related to the rhetorical device of the Big Lie, as a cultural/ tribal reaction to the civil rights movement, the "alternate truth" phenomenon of reality distortion field, can be viewed as an instance of extreme right wing emotions expressed by the John Birch Society.  From what I have read, they all deserve wikilinks from the article.  However, in the interest of conciseness, I intentionally muted elaboration of nearly every facet of points scholars were making in their thoughtful papers published in peer reviewed journals.  Whether they have the status of See Alsos, I do not have strong views except perhaps with big lie, because the device was so frequently employed and is discussed in the literature.
 * If further elaboration is necessary on each of these, I will direct myself to making them more clear. It would be helpful if you identified what required clarification.  Such as, "I see how use of falsehoods is incorporated into the rhetorical strategy of trumpists, and how Big Lie is used as an epithet by opponents of Trump, but I do not see that any expert has made a serious connection with the technique described in Mein Kampf and what Trump was doing..."
 * I can go along with edits that demote most of them from see also to wikilinks incorporated to their respective areas of relevance, but cannot go along with removal of any of them from the article. They are pertinent to the subject matter, some centrally so.  The trick is to know where the make the elaborations, due to the perspectives on Trumpism being simultaneously heterogeneous and intermixing.  I was hoping that there would be more of a congealing of perspectives in academia on the phenomenon- at least a congealing of a taxonomy of these perspectives, but we may have to wait a few more years for that.  News media and opinion pieces continue to use the term either extremely vaguely, or as a banner term (pro or con) without much regard to what it means as either an epithet or a remark of admiration.  Some of the more careful commentators have clearly read some of the scholarly sources referenced in the article but there seems to be waning interest and a desire to move on rather than reflect on the anomalies of the former administration. J JMesserly (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of lines quoting Jane Goodall
I know this isn't a semi-protected page, but I think it would be inadvisable to change it without consultation. It seems the Jane Goodall quotes about primate behaviour do not have any established link to the policies of Donald Trump. They do not seem to add any explanatory value to the previous research comparing his followers' behaviour to that of silverback gorillas either. It should therefore be removed, or be clarified with a citation. DhruvPanday (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Citing the analysis of primatologists on any subject is often misunderstood as having pejorative intent, for understandable reasons. If there is any insinuation that the phenomenon of pecking orders and dominance displays have to do solely with people of a particular political point of view, the article must be improved to remove any such impression.   First off though I must emphasize the article is not about the policies of Donald Trump.  There is a separate wikipedia article for that.  What is confusing about the term is that while most -ism suffix words in a political context connote a system or ideology (eg Leninism, fascism), there is almost universal agreement in academia it is a social phenomenon, not an ideology or system of political policy in any coherent sense.  This use of -Ism is more akin to its use in the social sciences- behaviors like chauvinism, sensualism, egoism.  It is difficult to summarize the wide varieties of perspectives in academia, but I would hazard the observation that Trumpism from their perspectives has more to do with the followers rather than its current leader.
 * If the tie between primate behavior and the social phenomenon was unclear, perhaps you could elaborate on the ties you think weren't fully explained, or unsupported by the citations. I thought it was clear enough, but I will make every attempt to clarify the linkage in the article if I can get a better idea of what you think was not fully spelled out. J JMesserly (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Vi q vc estava interessado neste artigo. Você acha q nesse momento cabe uma traduçao em pt-br? att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:FC54:A505:2752:5C7F (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021
I can't believe this is Wikipedia. It appears to have been written by a biased 12 yr. Old .snarky and unfair throughout. This is what is wrong with America 50.108.42.79 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken edit regarding frameworks of analysis being overwhelmed by the complexity of Trumpism
In Edit 09:27, 12 October 2021‎     states: " The cited source (Gordon 2018) does not imply that the exact term "overwhelm any single framework of analysis"." The results of the edits state that Gordon is making the case that there are different definitions of the term Trumpism.

This is incorrect. Gordon does no such thing. Nowhere on this page does he list different definitions. Instead, he lists different lenses of analysis with which Trumpism is viewed. Each has partial truth, but is insufficient. Kaufman is correct that Gordon does not imply the statement. He literally makes the same statement. I quote at length from page 67-68. We pick up from his discussion of the inadequacy of social psychology analysis (outlined later in Wikipedia article) and proceeds into poli-sci ideological historical analyses... ".. Trumpism is not anchored in a specific species of personality that can be distinguished from other personalities and placed on a scale from which the critic with an ostensibly healthy psychology is somehow immune. Nor is it confined to the right- wing fringe of the Republican Party, so that those who self- identify with the left might congratulate themselves as not being responsible for its creation. Nor can it be explained as the Frankenstein’s monster of a racism once deployed cynically as a dog whistle by both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and now expressed openly, without embarrassment, with plainspoken American candor. Most of all, Trumpism is not the mere upsurge of an angry populism that has taken elites by surprise. We have difficulty recognizing this inconvenient and unsettling fact, that much of Trump’s appeal was utterly unexceptional. Those on the left who cling as a matter of principle to socioeconomic explanations often prefer to interpret Trumpism as a kind of misplaced “protest” against the inequities of global capitalism, but in doing so they neglect an overwhelming statistical truth, that the greatest share of Trump voters were not disaffected members of the downwardly mobile white working class but lifetime Republicans, members of the broad and suburban American middle classes who voted for Trump simply because he was the Republican candidate. Trumpism is not a social pathology but another instance of the general pathology that is American political culture.

'''Trumpism is sufficiently complex as to overwhelm any single framework of analysis.''' Theories that see it as a departure from the norm may explain some aspects of the phenomenon, and each may hold a special appeal in some precinct of criticism…."

I can sympathize with the editor's desire to provide a more concrete definition for Trumpism, but this has been elusive for analysts as Adorno scholar Peter E. Gordon explains. The difficulty is that definitions given by different types of analysis cover elements of the phenomenon but are incomplete and often contradictory. Gordon summarizes the inadequacy of particular political science and social psychological analyses in the above passage and gives coverage to that of other disciplines in that chapter. Gordon did not imply, but literally stated, and provided support for his statement that Trumpism is sufficiently complex as to overwhelm any single framework of analysis. It is an excellent summary of this conundrum in academia regarding providing a single coherent description of trumpism and for this reason I am reverting Mr. Kaufmann's mistaken edit.

My view as I have stated multiple times on this page is that without a concensus in academia about definitions for the term, for the lead to suggest that there is any such agreement will leave readers with a false impression. It is incorrect to hoist the Ideological- historical analysis to the lead even though we may think it is a persuasive analysis. Sources quoted elsewhere debunk the analysis that it is an ideology, and other analysts view the efforts by Bannon to valorize Trump as a Jacksonian as cheap political hackery. My view is that wikipedia cannot take sides in these political and academic controversies over definition. We should list each perspective in an impartial and succinct way, and refrain from elevating one or the other as being the dominant perspective. Perhaps given time a consensus will emerge in high quality sources. J JMesserly (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action, Students for Trump, and Turning Point Faith
Is there a space here for activist Charlie Kirk and his businesses, including Turning Point USA and the Professor Watchlist, Turning Point Action, Students for Trump, and Turning Point Faith? If so, where should they appear? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Caso queira traduzir fique a vontade. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:580D:6779:DD26:2B43 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is kind of biased
I do Think this article is kind of biased. I do see a trend in this article that makes Trumpism look like its extremally far right. From calling Trumpism Authoritarian, To calling it or making a suggestion that's its a form of Fascism, when its really non of these things, This Article even uses a photo called Fascism worship which is the photo with the trump cape and photos like that could be easily faked. It even look's fake to me, but I could be wrong. Another problem is that this article seems to link Trumpism with white supremacy. The reason this shouldn't be done is because of Trumps and republicans growing minority voter base. Manly Latinos, Hispanics, and even some blacks.

I think y'll should rewrite some of the sections. I do think This article dose good in some places and bad in others. --Zyxrq (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC) 11/20/2021


 * Everything in this article is well sourced. If you think there are any issues with specific sources then please list them. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 19:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Zyxrq, I have reverted your edits. Changes that are not based on RS, that remove RS, that replace RS with unreliable ones like Fox News, and otherwise try to make the article seem "neutral" are not proper. NPOV refers primarily to EDITORS. They are supposed to be neutral in their editing, whereas sources and content need not be neutral, but should reflect the biases in the RS used. Editing should not twist or neuter what RS say. Read NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Also, Fox News is not considered a RS for political content, especially its opinion articles. See their listing at WP:RSP.-- Valjean (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Fox News' reporting on science is also considered questionable, so careful with sources the network is quoting. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:RSP and it says fox news is a reliable source, because of that I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and say yall made a mistake, also me saying 'seem neutral' I meant I edited it to be more neutral, which this article clearly isn't neutral as I talked about in the main paragraph. If we are going to make this article more neutral I suggest we start by putting up a NOPV disputed warning at the top of the article. I am happy to continue this conservation. :] Zyxrq (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) 8:09
 * What part of "Fox News (news excluding politics and science)" (bold added) do you not understand? Note that "excluding".
 * What do you mean by "to be more neutral"? What policy(cies) are you using to back up that idea? Note that NPOV does not mean "no point of view" or a balance between opposing POV. It is editors who must be neutral, not the sources or article content. Articles should reflect the biases in the sources, so of course an article will not look neutral, especially on controversial topics.
 * Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and an article about a pseudoscientific topic (see List of topics characterized as pseudoscience), conspiracy theories (see List of conspiracy theories), or the Big lie (see Big lie) will reflect that mainstream RS consider such things to be garbage and dangerous. Is that "neutral"? Of course not, and that's the way the articles should read. The bias found in mainstream reliable sources and science is definitely toward facts and truth, not nonsense and propaganda. We expose such things here, and those who find their favorite delusions described here with negative terms do not like it and they attack Wikipedia and its articles for not being "neutral".
 * Above I provided you with a link to an essay that explains NPOV and how it applies to how we should deal with biased sources. You need to read that before you continue, as you're editing with a misunderstanding of what "neutral" means here (very different than elsewhere) and the meaning of the NPOV policy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Trumpist" vs "Trumper"
Is there a difference between these two? The article uses Trumpist consistently but "Trumper" seems more common in everday use. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The confusion is understandable because many including those in the media use Trumpist as an adjective form of Trump rather than an adjective form of the Trumpism phenomenon that has been the focus of many investigations in academia. In usage, there are two senses.  One is indeed a synonym of Trumper as described in sense 1 in the wiktionary entry on Trumpist.  Another usage, the second sense in wiktionary, commonly appears in more rigorous publications where what is being referred is the phenonomena of Trumpism including descriptions of similar phenomena in other countries (See "Beyond America" section).  For example, consider articles on Brazil's slide to autocratic rule such as the Economist or America's Quarterly:  "While the Trumpists around Eduardo Bolsonaro consider it a key element of Brazil’s automatic alignment with Washington, both the generals and the neoliberals are dismayed." or "Eduardo Bolsonaro is probably the most influential adviser to the president-elect along with Paulo Guedes, and Bolsonaro himself is at heart a Trumpist."  Is the meaning the author intends the adjective form of Trumpism describing some characteristic described in the article, or that these individuals are devoted to Donald Trump?   J JMesserly (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Incredibly partisan and biased article…
Trumpism has nothing to do with authoritarianism. Donald Trump and his voters have not demonstrated any authoritarianism. I would like to see true examples of authoritarian actions or policies enacted by Donald Trump. 76.64.245.134 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "Authoritarian" is a well-sourced description. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources which dispute the association between authoritarianism which some but not all academics make, then please direct us to these sources so that these counter arguments may be expressed in the article. Better yet, improve the article by contributing to the article and citing your sources.J JMesserly (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Trumpism in the Philippines
Where's the section about Trumpism in the Philippines? It's really big over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:7C8B:AAFB:A28D:C48 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Excessively verbose
I don't think I've ever seen a wikipedia article that manages to say so little with so few words. It talks about everything from religion, to leave it to beaver to chimpanzees to the kitchen sink, yet it fails to say anything that wasnt already neatly summarized by Umberto Eco. We have a name for this phenomenon/ideology, it's called Fascism. What's the point in reinventing the wheel? The article doesn't really achieve anything besides obfuscatie the obvious, whitewash the ideology of trumpists, and advertise trump to people who more or less agree with everything listed here. Just call a spade a WP:SPADE. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I think this misses the point. The issue that this article discusses is that a simple label of fascism is disputed by various reliable sources, and isn't as clear-cut as some might suggest. The fact that some call it fascism is in fact mentioned in the lead, but we must also acknowledge that debates on the subject are more complex than that. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not missing the point, I'm pointing out that none of the complexities illustrated by the article are foreign to various definitions of fascism. Pick any characteristic of trumpism, and you will find that it will neatly fit into one of the 14 characteristics of Ur-Fascism. If the debates on trumpism are complex, it's for the same reasons the debates on fascism are complex. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. Other contributors favor other reductions, such as, "this is just more of the same Jacksonian democracy thread in US politics".  Though I personally view the "new fascism" label as useful, the article must mention those who dispute or view the fascist label as non central.  Some examples of those who do not accept the "fascism" reduction:  1) Theoretical thinkers such as Chomsky reject the Fascism label, preferring instead authoritarian.  2) Historians and political science scholars who point out the significant differences with the fascism of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.  3) Those who make a social psychological reduction, for example Social Dominance Theorists who have the perspective that political science mechanisms are a secondary phenomenon, so that in principle you could have a Trumpian individual who attracted large number of followers, but espoused a  non fascist political order which instead denigrated all who disputed the virtues of multiculturalism. In this general area are also primatologists cited in the article.  Do we think that Goodall would claim that the dominance behavior of hominids is fascist?  4) Sociologists have a wide variety of perspectives, but as an example, Hochschild's claim is that the primary phenomenon is not a political but a social emotions phenomenon- that the alienation between the political perspectives is due to what she calls an empathy wall.
 * Now, you might point out that all of these perspectives can be subsumed under the fascism label. If you have an scholarly source you can cite making this claim, then by all means add it to the article in a section listing controversies.  However, until there is some dominant consensus in the academic world, Wikipedia ought not take sides with any particular reduction.   J JMesserly (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling Trumpism simply authoritarian is an even bigger reduction, because fascism is more specific, and while trumpism is inherently authoritarian, that's not it's most defining characteristic. Rather, as I stated before, all of trumpism's defining elements listed in this article can also be found under Umberto Eco's concept of Ur-Fascism, which I already linked to above. Yet for some reason, every time I link to that article, it flies over people's heads completely. Umberto Eco and Ur-Fascism cannot possibly be this obscure. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the article could be reorganized and succinct if there was wide agreement in the academic community that Umberto Eco's concept of Ur-fascism is the clearest way to describe Trumpism. Until you can show with citations that there is any such a consensus, Wikipedia can't take any sides in the debate about which organizing principle is the best way to comprehend it.  Umberto Eco's framework is already described in Wikipedia and I agree that it does have significant descriptive power.  If there are good citations backing up the view that his framework is best for understanding Trumpism, then why not make a mention of this in the article with a link to the section of the Fascist article describing Eco's contribution?   J JMesserly (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I recall Eco tweeting about it a few years ago, and the context made it obvious he was referring to trump and trumpism. That's probably not enough though. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Best would be from a peer reviewed source. It is your choice, but to get at the heart of Eco's perspective, I would think the mention of Eco would best fit in the article's sections describing spectacle and the literature of politics rather than those explicitly taking the poli-sci perspective.  Otherwise readers my get the mistaken impression of the heart of Eco's work.  There are many such english language mentions which may be found by searching "Trumpism" and "Umberto Eco" from scholar.google.com.  This one,   by Dr. Maria Brock is in a juried academic journal is not the highest quality, since it is a commentary, but might provide useful support for contributions to the Trumpism article if you cannot find better sources.  You might also Log into Wikipedia and establish an identifiable name so others do not have to refer to you by your IP address. J JMesserly (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone
In addition to what's been said about the partisanship that is so blatant in this article, the tone of the article is not appropriate at all. It reads like an opinion piece from NBC or CNN, not an encyclopedia entry. Statements such as "Nostalgia is a staple of American politics but according to Philip Gorski", "Historian Stephen Jaeger traces the history of admonitions against becoming beholden religious courtiers back to the 11th century", "Sociologist Arlie Hochschild thinks emotional themes in Trump's rhetoric are fundamental" all read like they're trying to turn the article into a holistic evaluation of recent American politics, rather than explaining the subject matter of the article. There's absolutely no need for such lengthy quotations of so many people's random opinions. As a result I'm slapping a tone label on the article. See also WP:NEWSSTYLE FAISSALOO(talk) 13:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is able to have articles on controversial subjects by adhering to standards designed to insure that the substance of controversies are expressed. For example, in the article Abortion debate, the argument is presented that unborn fetuses without human consciousness cannot be regarded as persons.  The source for that point was a noted philosopher who has written about the moral questions surrounding the abortion issue.  However, the article also presents opposing views from equally high quality sources.  That article has been at times been elevated to high quality rating, even though some of its content might read like an opinion piece from MSNBC, and in other places like information presented by Fox and Friends.  We all would like to improve the article on trumpism.  In the case of Gorski, what is being advocated?  That the article no longer mention the analysis that the religious right and trumpism are linked in the way he describes?  Why should we hide that perspective?   Gorski is a Yale sociologist whose views on the role of the religious right in trumpism are no doubt unpopular in many communities.  But this fact does not bar us from making the reader aware of it anymore than the abortion debate article should be barred from expressing views similarly unpopular in the same community.  Robert Jeffress and and Richard Land do not agree with Gorski's perspective and these views are no doubt similarly unpopular among those who opposed Trump, yet they are also included in the article.  The analysis of Jeffress and Land are representative, not random views.  Nor is Gorki's analysis.  Other equally qualified sociologists see the linkage he describes.   Gorski's analysis was published not within editorials, but within a juried paper in a book from Springer- a well established scholarly publisher.  If there are similar scholarly publications publishing an analysis contrary to Gorski on the particular points he makes, please do the research and make a contribution to the article.  If you do not have the time, please give a pointer to the juried scholarly papers or other high quality source and I will endeavor to express the contrary views in a balanced way. Other contributors of course are free to correct the summary if it is too lengthy or unbalanced.  Our goal is not to push a particular perspective on Trumpism.    It is to illustrate the wide divergence of views on its nature.  There is not a lot of agreement in the field on whether it is primarily a phenomenon of history, collective psychology, theology, political science, or sociology.  Experts from all these fields are represented in the article, and all tend to think their field is the correct one for analysis of the topic.  They can't all be right.  Are we saying that the article should not describe these competing and multivaried perspectives?  If no specific changes are listed or there is no consensus that such changes would improve the article, I propose that the maintenance template be removed and that the Controversial template be added to the talk page in its place in two weeks.  I agree that any material outside the scope of Trumpism ought to be removed.  Many may feel that the impact of Trumpism has altered American politics in fundamental ways, but I agree with Faissaloo that the article should not be a "holistic evaluation of recent American politics".  If there are specific items that ought to be struck as irrelevant to the topic, please propose specific changes to specific passages so that the article can be improved.    J JMesserly (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this article to be in the same vein as the abortion debate article, since the abortion debate article by nature is the discussion of a discussion, and so various views are mentioned from the perspective that they're opposing belief systems as opposed to people disagreeing on particular events. If this article were something like 'Trumpism debate in American politics' I might be more receptive to such quotes. To be clear I don't believe analysis of the link between the religious right and trumpism should be removed and I don't think Robert Jeffress or Richard Land should be mentioned either, but it should stick to what there is some semblance of consensus on and avoid mentioning things that are simply the opinions of singular sociologists. The article seems to have prioritised quantity over quality, which makes it exceedingly difficult to read for very little benefit. FAISSALOO(talk) 09:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Polling data
I'm struggling to see the relevance of the two paragraphs of polling data in the Future impact section. Neither of the sources specifically connect the findings to the phenomenon of Trumpism, and neither set of data seems significantly more important than the rest of the vast amount of election polling and approval polling asking about Trump or his campaigns. The second paragraph of the two is also not exactly lucidly written, though that could be fixed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Trumpism without Trump
This piece in the Guardian today may be of use for this article: – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit / grammar request
“Discussing the statistical basis for their conclusions regarding the triggering of such waves present the view that "authoritarians, by their very nature, want to believe in authorities and institutions; they want to feel they are part of a cohesive community.“

There are missing words and a missing comma here, should likely read: “Discussing the statistical basis for their conclusions regarding the triggering of such waves, Haidt and Stenner present the view that…”173.56.203.56 (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Spain and Vox
Should Spain's Vox be mentioned alongside Bolsonaro or Salvini? They are usually mentioned alongside, for example in the Spanish version of this article or in the Steve Bannon one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.170.117 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Are they mentioned in connection with Trumpism in reliable sources? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson
Australian senator Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party have been compared with Donald Trump in many articles. She supports white supremacy, admits to racism, hates all Muslims, opposes COVID-19 restrictions and vaccinations, and in this ongoing election, she posted a video that attacks others, and made comments on election fraud. She is a Trumpist, and Australia's face of hate. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:18DB:C6BE:F1CE:F19F (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could link some of those articles? I agree that Hanson could be worth mentioning in this article (though not precisely in the terms used above), but would be interested to know what sources we could cite on the connection. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple of citations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Vacant0 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another source, which states that Hanson is staunchly anti-vax, and has spread false information about COVID-19, despite her testing positive last week like Trump did in October 2020. The link also shows her support for the mostly neo-Nazi Convoy to Canberra, and rejects climate change actions. And while not in the article I showed, I have heard rumors that Canberra may place extra security around Parliament House to avoid a repeat of the January 6 terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. from supporters of Trump and One Nation in the aftermath of the ongoing election. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:C89B:CA27:9E01:58A9 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention to the last sentence of the lede, citing this article, which seemed best as it makes the conection to Trumpism, rather than just Trump, especially clear: "While Trump has undercut Australia's US alliance in Washington, Trumpism is undercutting the political establishment at home.... Perhaps the most obvious mimicry of Trumpist populism is Pauline Hanson's embrace of the anti-Muslim agenda." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article for "Trumpism in Australia", named after Hanson: Hansonism. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:8422:E091:4411:722D (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We could add a link to Hansonism under "See also", but that section's overly long as it is and I'm sceptical of the value of a link in the absence of prose making the connection clear. Another possibility would be to add a new subsection on Australia to the "Beyond America" section, building on the Hartcher article and probably citing some of the other sources linked above. If you wanted you could draft that here and I or someone else could add it to the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To build one isn't going to be simple. Some of these sources along with a few others unlisted require paid subscriptions. To expand on Hansonism/Trumpism in Australia, I'll list a few more. Former senator Fraser Anning engaged in white supremacy and victim blaming, supported the White genocide conspiracy theory (Hanson does, too), and had a short-lived far-right group with ties to the United Patriots Front and Blair Cottrell, a neo-Nazi. Also, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings, celebrated Trump's victory in the 2016 election. George Christensen also promoted conspiracy on the storming of the Capitol and mocked the #illridewithyou hashtag. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:F830:30D:F8E2:CF67 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources requiring paid subscriptions can be requested at WP:RX (there are also some browser extensions that can be good for that). The connections you mention seem likely to be relevant, but bear in mind what I said above: we're looking for material on Trumpism, the movement/style/strategy associated with Trump, and that means whenever possible we want to cite sources (like the Hartcher article) that make that connection explicit; apparent similarities to Trump on matters of policy aren't necessarily sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hanson/Mrs. Trump also hates Indigenous Australians. And sadly, on this link, she has supporters, some of whom are pro-Proud Boys. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:A0B5:BAA3:6CF7:52BF (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Extreme Ideological Imbalance
I have read over the article multiple times and there needs to be some serious work. I agree with @Faissaloo about how the tone is akin to an opinion piece found in places like Salon and Huffpost. I am also disgusted by the extremely unbalanced perspectives that is on display. The first section has 4 paragraphs

- The first gives an extremely broad perspective that can loosely be applied to anyone who voted Republican. This is not concise to my liking.

- The second has this line "The exact terms of what makes up Trumpism are contentious and are sufficiently complex to overwhelm any single framework of analysis". This to me is just an excuse to use any fringe thinking, or an individual grievance as a mainstream representation. The 3 "characteristics" listed need to be worded differently, especially to something that can be compared to American politics more than international variants; I suppose you could make the characteristics American-focused.

- The third paragraph is a one sided ideological swamp. "Others have more mildly identified it as a specific lite version of fascism in the United States" gives off the belief that this is a rational thought. This paragraph in particular needs to have a pro-Trumpism balance. Perhaps 4 different opinions, one harsher criticism, one "milder" criticism, and the other two being opposites of this.

- The forth paragraph should not be there, perhaps somewhere deeper in the article. I strongly believe this should be a more American orientated; a senator from Queensland, Australia shouldnt be that high, especially as unlike Trump, doesn't work with a party that has come even close to forming government.

I would like to try and rewrite this page over a period of time. I don't want to post any changes until I believe it is satisfactory and until I get some feedback. I will endeavor to make a sandbox article for this very purpose. Its current state is abhorrent IMHO and needs some substantial changes, especially with the removal of this stupid quote. (This is not a rational quote or is made out in fact. Media intimidation and Court packing has been certainly more on the other side of the asile; voter suppression and mass propaganda is a bipartisan thing and "armed paramilitaries" is not in any reality.)

"the election of Donald Trump constitutes perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There is a real and growing danger that representative government will be slowly but effectively supplanted by a populist form of authoritarian rule in the years to come. Media intimidation, mass propaganda, voter suppression, court packing, and even armed paramilitaries – many of the necessary and sufficient conditions for an authoritarian devolution are gradually falling into place." Titaniumman23 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you miss how the January 6 attack consisted of armed groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers invading the US capitol and threatening the peaceful transfer of power with political violence? I don't agree with your analysis or the comment you referenced from 5 months ago either. There are probably improvements you could make to the article, and you should make them incrementally, in small pieces, not in a big bang release. That is unlikely to work well. 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%);">🚐 05:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While we all work in different ways, redrafting the article in toto doesn't strike me as necessary, or as the best way to make large-scale changes if such changes were needed. There's a risk that you'd end up putting in a lot of work on changes that wouldn't have a consensus in favour. I agree with Andrevan that incremental changes in a WP:BRD manner would probably be the best approach.
 * Your third point also seems based on a misunderstanding of the article and the perspectives it summarises: to say that Trumpism is proximate to fascism is a descriptive statement; while "fascist" obviously typically connotes "bad" it's also possible to use the word in a way that doesn't entail a value judgement—so an attempt to add a "pro-Trumpism balance" would be a solution in search of a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Titaniumman23, you will encounter resistance if you try to modify the article to your "liking", or to remove the quote of Gorsky that you don't like, e.g., without gaining consensus here. WP articles are not written, or shouldn't be, to your liking, or anyone else's, and any substantial changes or additions must be supported by reliable sources, as I'm sure you know. Carlstak (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll use articles in accordance to the reliable sources page on Wikipedia. I've tried to change the rating of the Daily Wire on that page.
 * I'll follow all rules, so don't you worry ;-) Titaniumman23 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the linking at all, because fascism requires a large government apparatus with government regulations and Trumpism is not that. It's a misrepresentation that can allow the reader to assume that because Fascism requires a dictator, that Trump was a dictator.
 * The question regarding the use of fascism is why not communism or socialism? What difference exists between fascism and the other two that they didn't use that word.
 * At this stage, ill probably balance it with something along the lines of "supporters have praised the decentralization of the federal government. Titaniumman23 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Trump was said to have admired dictators, and aspired to become a dictator by overthrowing the peaceful transfer of power. Trump embraced authoritarian leaders throughout the world and inspired, and was compared to, such figures Viktor Orban and Rodrigo Duterte. There are many believers in fascism in countries that don't have dictators, and there are fascist leaders who aspired to authoritarianism - they were still fascists before, or if they never achieved it.
 * Communism and socialism are entirely different, so I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thinking. Communism is generally considered a far-left ideology, while fascism is a far-right ideology, and they are opposed. Corporatism is on the road to fascism, and fascism doesn't do away with oligarchy and wealth, fascism can have state-owned or state-run companiess, see I.G. Farben for example or Volkswagen.
 * By contrast, state socialism tends to nationalize free market corporations, dissolve them or run them in a centralized way for the benefit of public projects - in communism, theoretically, they are dissolved and replaced by something like stateless classless society. Stalinism, while brutal, genocidal, and a totalitarian authoritarian police state dictatorship, still had soviets and an economic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks weren't going after and demonizing minority groups (not until later at least, certainly not between 1917 and 1929), they were collectivizing kulak farms.
 * I didn't see any evidence from the Trump administration that they decentralized the government - citation needed, please. 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%);">🚐 01:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "Trumpism" is a prejudicial straw man representation.
As an ideology, so-called "Trumpism" is non-existent and for that reason the term doesn't belong an encyclopedia as if it actually exists.

The political left characterizes "Trumpism" as an ideology of Trump's own making that his "followers" mindlessly believe. One would have to be intellectually dishonest to believe such a misrepresentation. The truth is the other way around. Donald Trump subscribes to the values and principles that the 74 million Americans who voted for him in the last election hold to -- or better put, Trump and conservative Americans have common interests. Neither one is following the other. Rather, they speak the same language. 2600:8801:BE31:D300:85D:896:A272:C46B (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You appear to be here to right great wrongs, which is inadvisable. Best to be specific about constructive improvements you want to make instead of soapboxing on your politics. 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%);">🚐 21:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't refer to Trumpism, but rather as a complex of . – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022
Change "very fine people" to "very fine people on both sides." Mayonnaiseholidays (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting changing to . That doesn't make sense as neo-nazis were only represented on one "side" of the Charlottesville events. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Japanese nationalism
Thanks for your explanation for removing the hatnote link to Korean nationalism here. Your edit also removed the link to Japanese nationalism, though, and you didn't mention this in your edit summary. Was this deliberate? If so, what was your reasoning? It seems like a useful link to me. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not deliberate editing. Looking at what you said now, I thought it would be better to separate the session into two. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me (with this slight change I've just made). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)