Talk:Trumpism/Archive 2

Adding Template:Fascism to the page
The page has very many sources that back up the claim that Trumpism is a form of fascism. As such I think the template should be added to the page. I know that it's controversial because it's partisan, but there is consensus from experts that it qualifies as fascist. The page also mentions the word "fascism"/"fascist" 88 times, all in reference to Trumpism. Here are some of the sources: As such, I think that Trumpism should be added to the template, and that the template should be added to the page. I will make a WP:BOLD edit and add it. If you disagree, please discuss it here. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3025-trump-fascism-and-the-construction-of-the-people-an-interview-with-judith-butler
 * https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/26/11/2020/noam-chomsky-trump-has-revealed-extreme-fragility-american-democracy
 * https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/04/06/why-trump-is-reliant-on-white-evangelicals/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20210118223527/https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/10/08/features/all-elements-are-place-american-style-fascism-says-cornel-west
 * https://theintercept.com/2020/09/27/trump-supporters-fascism-election/
 * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21521958/what-is-fascism-signs-donald-trump
 * https://www.vox.com/22225472/fascism-definition-trump-fascist-examples
 * https://theintercept.com/2020/06/04/is-this-trumps-reichstag-fire-moment/
 * https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652
 * Connolly, William (2017). Aspirational Fascism: The Struggle for Multifaceted Democracy under Trumpism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-1517905125.


 * None of those articles explain how "Trumpism", a form of right-wing populism, is "fascist". They use it more like a political adjetive rather than analysing and comparing it with Gentile's ideology Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the comparison between Trumpism and Fascism is nothing short of insane. Biden's ideology is closer to Fascism than Trump's ever was. bree Breeboi 12:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Concurring with how ludicrous the comparison is, I went ahead and reverted the template additions. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're simply wrong in saying that the sources don't explain how it fits the definition of fascism. That's literally the entirety of what the sources are. They also explain how scholars of fascism pretty much agree on the usage of the term. Removing it because you personally disagree with the sources and think that "Biden's ideology is closer" is biased editing, simply put. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making any argument about Biden. I'm pointing out that none of the sources make any effort to align what they call "Trumpism" with fascism as Gentile originally defined it. You can't simply call any little thing under the sun "fascism" without backing yourself up, as none of these so-called experts even attempt. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A comparison to Gentile isn't necessary for a source to be valid. The scholarly consensus is clear, regardless of your opinion. Not citing Gentile doesn't invalidate the sources or their claims. And the sources clearly do back up their claims. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Gentile quite literally wrote the book on fascism. It's certainly not our fault if a few coastal blowhards choose to ignore the rules and slap an increasingly impotent label on whatever so much as annoys them. A consensus formed by ill-faith players is not the gospel truth. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with the scholarly consensus doesn't make it any less true. Your opinion is irrelevant here. Just because you disagree doesn't make the experts "blowhards" or "ill-faith players". You're the one arguing in poor faith by declaring all sources you disagree with invalid because they don't cite Gentile. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what makes them invalid, or at least highly dubious. If you assign a label to something even if it doesn't fit, that's what's defined as being wrong whether or not you're a "scholar" or "expert". Several such wrongs do not equal a right, and we in building an encyclopedia ought to strive to be right. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Except the label does fit, as the sources clearly indicate. If you were right in your assessment that the sources don't make any valid comparisons then you would be in the right here, but the sources clearly indicate that it fits the definition quite well. These aren't just random people declaring something is fascism because they don't like it, they're experts who have studied fascism declaring something is fascism because the glove fits neatly. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Also, regarding your claim that an we "ought to strive to be right", I suggest you read WP:VNT. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing, and their word that "the glove fits" should be taken with a grain of salt. The conspicuous absence of such citation in these sources puts their credibility in question (to say the least) as far as the fascism claim goes. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're going in circles. Your argument hinges on the idea that Gentile is the only authority on fascism, which is blatantly false. I'm going to start an RfC to get this over with. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that argument would fall apart quickly in an RfC. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  02:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The page also mentions the word "fascism"/"fascist" 88 times Boy, that's an unfortunate number. — Czello 12:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Western scholars who don't regard Shinzo Abe as a fascist but Donald Trump as a fascist are biased. South Korean scholars see Shinzo Abe as a fascist and Donald Trump as NOT fascist. Trumpism is not associated with Nazism or Italian fascism. However, Shinzo Abe is a Japanese fascist who inherited Kishi Nobusuke's fascist tradition. Unlike Abe, Trump is not an ultranationalist. Although it follows tradition, Abe is the heir to fascist, but Trump is not fascist. Donald Trump is not a fascist, and Shinzo Abe is a fascist. Shinzo Abe has a legacy of war crimes in World War II. Donald Trump has no such legacy. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A comparison to Shinzo Abe is completely irrelevant and an example of Whataboutism. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not Whataboutism, but a lack of consistency. Currently in Wikipedia, there is no fascist category in Giorgia Meloni and her party. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Far right and fascism must be distinguished. Of course, there are scholars who see Donald Trump as a fascist, but there are many who do not see him as a fascist. A key element of fascism is ultranationalism. The United States has never had a government in its history that supports this ideology. The criticism that Trump is a fascist is because he is a populist. Abe is accused of being an ultra-nationalist because he is more far-right than Trump, but Wikipedia does not classify him as a fascist category. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Trump is described as a nationalist by reliable sources, and he even embraced the term himself. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  02:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is a nationalist. But not ultra-nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Lee Jae-myung
One editor keeps adding Lee Jae-myung as an example of a Trumpist. Is Lee Jae-myung really a person who can be seen on the same line as Viktor Orban, Shinzo Abe, or Yoon Suk-yeol? South Korean liberals' nationalist attitude toward Japan is related to decolonism and partly to the issue of compensation for victims of war crimes by the Japanese Empire during World War II, which survived in South Korea. Japanese conservative media rarely take a neutral view in South Korean politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any reasonable sources to support your claim. Bloomberg and Nikkei Asia are recognized as reasonable sources on Wikipedia. However, the basis for you reversing my editing is nothing more than your political claim.Jeff6045 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some media compare Lee Jae-myung to Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but that's because he is literally a [liberal] 'populist' politician. We can find countless sources comparing [liberal] 'populist' Volodymyr Zelensky to Donald Trump in the past. (Of course, those sources are almost all pre-2022 sources.) But it would be a ludicrous argument that Zelensky is a Trumpist. No source describes Lee Jae-myung as Trumpism or Trumpist. 'Donald Trump' and 'Trumpism' are not synonymous. See WP:SYNTH. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will report you to the Wikipedia administrators for violating the WP:3RR policy. Also, if your logic is correct, why are Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo on the Trumpist list? The sources about them seem much weaker than those about Lee Jae-myung. Additionally, neither of the sources are directly describing Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo as Trumpists Jeff6045 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No need for the duplicate effort, I'm in the process of reporting both of you currently. :-) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Yoon Suk-yeol is described directly as "K-Trumpism". While Yoon Suk-yeol is a right-wing politician, Lee Jae-myung is a liberal politician. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a qoute realated to your statement. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake while editing as well. I apologize for my inappropriate behavior. If I have done something wrong, I will take appropriate action to rectify it.Jeff6045 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted Hong Jun-pyo and Yoon Seok-yeol from the list of figures related to Trumpism
I removed Hong Jun-pyo and Yoon Seok-yeol from the list of Trumpism-related individuals. The sources linking them to Trumpism were from The Korea Herald, which is perceived in Korea as a media outlet with a specific political color. Additionally, in Korean politics, opposing sides often attack each other by accusing them of being like Trump. Based on these points, if a Korean politician is included in this document, it could threaten the neutrality of Wikipedia. Therefore, I have made my edit like this. If you have a different opinion, please feel free to respond. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are approaching that list as though it's "the list". The lead (the top part of the article) is only a summary of the rest of the article. You repeatedly added a name to that list that isn't in the rest of the article and have now repeatedly removed two names that are in the article. Again, this is not a definitive "list of figures related to Trumpism" but a summary of figures covered in the article which have been connected to Trumpism. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your edit. Can you point out which part of the source relates Hong Jun-pyo or Yoon Suk-yeol to figures related to Trumpism? Jeff6045 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. It seems that you only included the individuals in the article who have explicit mentions of their connection to Trumpism. Jeff6045 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point out which part of the source relates Hong Jun-pyo or Yoon Suk-yeol to figures related to Trumpism? - We have an entire article about it: K-Trumpism, and the section about it in this article reuses some of the same sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I got it. Thank you for your reply. Jeff6045 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:BALANCE

 * ″Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.″

Now, I haven't looked at the reliable sources list lately but unless things have changed beyond recognition, there are still classical liberal, moderate, and conservative reliable sources out there that have addressed Trump's ideological motivations without coming to the conclusion that it's 'proto-fascist' or the like. Not all seventy-four million Americans who voted for Trump are likely to have voted for fascism or been deceived into voting for fascism. Maybe some of those editors who pride themselves on achieving Wikipedia's mission want to stay compliant with it will look for some of those lonely positive analyses of "Trumpism" and add them to the article in a proportional way. Just one piece of advice: Don't search for them under the name "Trumpism" any more that you would look for positive reviews of Biden's ideological motivations under "Bidenism." —Blanchette (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comment might be more persuasive if you identified and linked to reliable sources that mention or contain "positive analyses" of Trumpism. Carlstak (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, Carlstak. I'm not (or no longer) an editor of political articles, just an occasional reader, but you could start here: [Https://www.hoover.org/research/victor-davis-hanson-case-trump https://www.hoover.org/research/victor-davis-hanson-case-trump] and then branch out with little effort. I was surprised to see that "Trumpism" is actually used there without a sneer, like so:
 * At home, Trumpism is populist free-market capitalism—part traditional conservative economic doctrines of deregulation, tax cuts, and private enterprise boosterism, mixed with the doctrine of “fair” rather than “free” trade, in that Trump uses taboo tariffs to force allies and enemies alike to agree to symmetrical trade, while not letting the market entirely adjudicate social policy, as he sought to stop offshoring and outsourcing and maintain entitlements for the middle classes.
 * — Blanchette (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to make your case, it's up to you to find reliable sources that support your contention. Looking over the ref list of the article, I see a preponderance of academic sources cited. It's hardly surprising that someone writing on the Hoover Institution's website might view "Trumpism" favorably, considering that "[t]he Trump administration maintained close ties with the institution and multiple Hoover affiliates were assigned top positions in government...", as our WP article on the Hoover Institution says. Your one source doesn't pass muster. Carlstak (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to make your case, it's up to you to find reliable sources that support your contention. Looking over the ref list of the article, I see a preponderance of academic sources cited. It's hardly surprising that someone writing on the Hoover Institution's website might view "Trumpism" favorably, considering that "[t]he Trump administration maintained close ties with the institution and multiple Hoover affiliates were assigned top positions in government...", as our WP article on the Hoover Institution says. Your one source doesn't pass muster. Carlstak (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding The Philippines to the list of countries under "Beyond The United States"
I'm surprised there's no section for the Philippines in this article under the Beyond The United States section. Can we please have that in there? 2600:1700:12F0:2370:E004:4C4D:FDE4:F063 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What reliable sources on Trumpism in the Philippines would such a section cite? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/09/trump-ferdinand-marcos-philippines-lessons-democracy/ This is one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:F9EE:A83A:86E2:E7C1 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added a short section citing this source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fifth Avenue" quote
You've reverted my removal of this material without providing an explanation. Could you clarify why you think this belongs in the article and why you don't share the concerns raised in my edit summary? Let me know of course if you'd like me to explain my thinking in more depth. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You're the one who reverted my addition, it's up to you to explain why. Why is it not relevant when the topic is about the blind devotion of Trump followers? Synotia (moan) 07:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's up to all editors to explain their edits, especially when reverting one another; that's why I did this in the edit summary linked above, and why I'm asking you to do the same. I'm happy to clarify any aspects of that edit summary, but in case it's not obvious the relevant policy is WP:SYNTH: we have sources saying Trump said this, and sources saying dominance orientation is a feature of Trumpism, but (to my knowledge) no sources connecting the two. As such, we can't connect them ourselves by including the quote. Your version also contradicts MOS:BQ, the final sentence of which describes the use of pull quotes as a form of editorialising. So I can't really answer your question, as I'm not arguing that that the material is, but rather that it (much more concerningly) contravenes some of our fundamental policies and guidelines. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a pull quote? The fifth avenue quote is not used anywhere else in the article. Synotia (moan) 14:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes it worse, not better. The point of the guideline is that quotes should be coherently integrated into the article prose – a pull quote (or something resembling one) that doesn't even appear in the text is not preferable to one that does. You also haven't responded to the several other fairly incontrovertible reasons for not including this given above. I'd suggest that your best option would probably be to accept there isn't currently a consensus for this, and either try to build one or propose some sort of compromise that's in keeping with the relevant policies and guidelines. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the United States
The section "Beyond the United States" is quite problematic. It strains credulity to have a section on Japan (Abe), but no section on Hungary (Orban) or Turkey (Erdogan). In the case of Abe, what some have called his Trumpism can easily be characterized as simply conservative positions on foreign policy and defense. For example, Abe's policy of raising defense spending from 1% to 2% of GDP is difficult to call Trumpism, when the US spends 3.5% of GDP on defense (a policy that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans). Westwind273 (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism is a Cult, Not a Political Movement
Trumpism is not a political movement. Donald Trump's following emerged in the 1980s with idolatrous fans, before he went bankrupt 6 times in the 1990s. He didn't have political views at the time, just narcissistic claims about his personal greatness. Very little has changed since, other than Trump's adoption of some political stances promoted by other US entities, wrapped in his continuing narcissism. Currently, many of his 'fans' or so-called political followers believe that he is the 2nd coming of Jesus, or that he was anointed by god. That is not a political movement, that is a cult, as clearly as it has ever been. That's why he has articulated and believes that he should continue to be reelected past 2 terms in office, should he get that far. It is also a confirmation of his cult status. As his followers argue he is not a politician, he is anointed by god. Even his Energy Secretary (and former Texas Governor) Rick Perry publicly argued that. Trumpism is a cult, plain and simple, and was long before Donald Trump harnessed it for political gain. He used his cult worshippers for years for his own personal gain. So this article needs to be fixed to reflect the origin of Trumpism having originated from his cult following of 40 years and later fused with political issues. Otherwise, this Wikipedia article looks to be half-baked, largely by his cult followers. Donald Trump is simply a 21st century Jim Jones. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation style
The citation style used in this article has been a nuisance for some time. WP:CITESHORT is a smart approach when a small number of multi-page sources are cited multiple times; it quickly becomes unmanageable when lots of single-page sources are cited once or twice each. As could probably have been predicted, editors making new additions have frequently not followed it and instead have used a more conventional style. Editors removing material have also removed inline citations but left the associated full citations in the bibliography. This second problem is less noticeable, but has the unfortunate side effect of new editors adding sources to the bibliography that aren't cited anywhere, presumably mistaking it for a "further reading" section. I've reverted on this basis, but it's not the most convincing rationale when the bibliography has plenty of other sources that aren't cited anymore. As such, I'm raising this on the offchance that anyone's interested in tackling it – that is, bringing it into line with one style or another, probably the standard one – or if anyone has any other ideas for how it could be made more manageable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The deep causes of Trumpism
I think this article is good at describing what Trumpism is and how it operates. But in a lengthy article like this, I would expect it to go deep on what causes people to support Trumpism. Here the article seems disjoint and confusing. To be specific, I am thinking of a deep description of what causes Trumpism, akin to the five whys that Toyota uses to get at deep root causes. I think the article should cover the following valid viewpoint: Trump did not create Trumpism, rather Trumpism created Trump. So then the question becomes: What created Trumpism? Here I find it hard to get an answer by reading the article. I apologize for not having a lot of sources which I can point to, but I think there are at least some prominent sources that say the root cause of Trumpism is the inability of many Whites to accept the racial and economic changes that are taking place in America. There are parallels here with southern Whites in the 1850's, who could not accept the end of slavery and the accompanying change from slavery to free labor in the economy of the South. I really wish the article were heavier on what I describe above, and not so heavy on the actual mechanics of how Trumpism works. Westwind273 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Start searching for sources, because without them this is a non-starter. Good luck. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am. The reason I posted was because I am hoping some like-minded people are doing the same and we can share resources. So far I have found https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/activating-animus-the-uniquely-social-roots-of-trump-support/D96C71C353D065F62A3F19B504FA7577 Westwind273 (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is already quite a long survey of the literature. Regarding your interest area, much of the research that focuses on causes I was forced to condense into one or two sentences when at minumum a couple paragraphs were required to do justice to the subject.  In general, there are historical, political, social media, cultural and social psychology forces casaully at play here, and there is plenty of high quality citable sources sufficient to support an spinoff article in any of these areas.  There is much overlap between the causal explanations, but the emphasis is heavily skewed.  For example, a social dominance theory academic will typically make the claim that racial dynamics are simply derivative of the social dominance emotions in play- That is, given that the phenomenon is observed in many other countries gives support to notion that we are observing a phenomenon driven by social emotions shared by all humans, perhaps even extending to other species as suggested by Goodall.  There is a counter perspective of course, and not just one grouping of such reductions, and wikipedia should fairly represent them making no attempt to arbitrate or give favor to one version versus another.  As for the particular theme of your comment- it is indeed well represented in the literature taking a political science/ history of racism in america type analysis.  There are many academics who argue that it is a significant, if not dominant facet of american trumpism, but the tribal/caste "othering" takes other forms in other countries where trumpian dynamics are being observed. So this new article would need not be so narrow as to only cover american forms of racism, and caste. I might propose that you begin a candidate article as one of your user pages, and invite others to contribute.  Once it gets into a form suitable for a new article, it could go live then.  There are many subject matter interest groups on Wikipedia and possibly you could have some take a look and make suggestions about how to structure and improve it.  Or you could just Be Bold and create a new article if you think there is enough material for a quality wikipedia article.  I can tell you for every sentence I added to this article, there was several hours of reading published academic papers or books.  It can be a huge time committment.  J JMesserly (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed comment. I would like to suggest two recent sources that I think are approaching the heart of this matter. One is an opinion piece by David Brooks in the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/trump-meritocracy-educated.html The other is a conversation between David Brooks and anti-Trump evangelical leader Russell Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-Taa7zly0&list=FLJdCgYNucX-Nqmep9raFLjg&index=1&t=284s&ab_channel=ChristianityToday Westwind273 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous amount of bias?
I had to double-check multiple times that I was actually still on wikipedia. This article reads like it's describing a mental illness rather than a political ideology. Articles on Scientology and other controversial topics manage to be objective with little to no effort, so it's strange that, as stated by another user above, this article seems to approach the topic from an entirely adversarial starting point. It seems to me that there was a lot of political vitriol behind the creation of this article, especially given how new it is. 2603:7080:9AF0:7A60:DCA2:2FDD:2EC:9581 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You have an interesting perspective, but you'll need to come to the table with a concrete citation to a source, or a change you want to make to the article, and please consult the policies, guidelines, and FAQs. Andre🚐 22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You're soapboxing, IP, and have made no suggestions how you think the article could be improved. Your complaints remind me of Trump's endless whining about "fake news", which means news he doesn't like. Personally, I think the article is overly analytical, and ridiculously overlong at more than 300,000 bytes. It should be trimmed to around 100,000 to make it more readable and navigable. Carlstak (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's one suggestion: remove "authoritarianism" from the intro. That claim is totally removed from reality and the citations are weak at best. I can also attest - as a casual Wikipedia reader - that this article sounds deranged. Ultimately, I think it should be removed but I doubt that will actually happen.
 * Also, the Irish Times, really? 24.20.252.82 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, will never happen. Give it up. Andre🚐 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Trump effect" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_effect&redirect=no Trump effect] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Jackson
This article states that Jackson defied the Supreme Court but that order never required him to do anything, common misconception as noted on the article for Worscester v. GA. shouldn't the article be edited to reflect that? Emperor001 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023
Note 23 needs to be removed outright. That skull looks nothing like the Punisher symbol, it has a mandible just like a regular skull.

Additionally, the rest of the text from that section "Dominance imagery using the Stop the Steal conspiracy theme erected on the day of the Capitol assault. Three of every four Republicans believe the conspiracy theory with nearly half approving of the Capitol assault.".

IMO, text from "Three of every four" ought to be removed. Sample size on the second poll was only ~1500 from YouGov and CNN didn't even disclose sample size. "Three of every four" is misleading. AxolotlFridge (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024
Last paragraph of intro section says "Viktor Orbán of Hungry", should be "Hungary" 113.30.56.235 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for spotting this. Princess Persnickety   (talk)  19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Attributing expert political science opinions
Per @MonMothma, these statements are factual and not opinions. It is not an opinion that Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have determined to be dehumanizing and rooted in physical violence. WP:YESPOV Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Nobody in political science disagrees with this characterization of Trump's rhetoric, so for our purposes, it's factual. Andre🚐 23:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No, Andre. The disputed sentence reads: "Trump's aggressive rhetoric is dehumanizing and suggests physical violence". Your words above are: "Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have determined to be dehumanizing and rooted in physical violence". Your words are a factual assertion (although one that contains weasel words and includes the word "determined", which is problematic in this context). The disputed sentence is a statement of opinion, which is the reason why the sentence violates WP:NPOV and why the policy you cited is not applicable. Something along the lines of my proposed revision (which reads "In 2020, authors Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Yaeli Bloch-Elkon asserted that Trump's aggressive rhetoric is dehumanizing and suggests physical violence") is needed. As I noted in an edit summary, Whether or not someone's rhetoric is dehumanizing is a matter of opinion. In this case, I agree with the stated opinion, but that doesn't matter; it's still an opinion. The credentials of the individuals stating the opinion do not change the fact that it is an opinion.
 * As to your assertion that political scientists unanimously agree that Trump's aggressive rhetoric is dehumanizing and suggests physical violence: I have no idea whether that is true or not, but I somehow doubt it. MonMothma (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have determined to be dehumanizing and rooted in physical violence" - does that work? Andre🚐 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Andre. I think that is an improvement. However, the word "determined" is too strong and conclusive and should be changed. Also, the reference to political scientists creates a WP:WEASEL problem. May I ask why you object to naming the three political scientists? MonMothma (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you name any political scientists who disagree? If no, this creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. See MOS:CLAIM. "Determine" is good because it's conclusory and this is an acceptable conclusion by experts with no rebuttal. "Assert" will create doubt. Andre🚐 00:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andre, the issue is that the Perspectives on Terrorism article you cited doesn't support the claim your sentence makes. In that article, the authors say that Trump's rhetoric is aggressive, violent, etc. They do not say that all political scientists agree with them on this point. That is why I believe it is essential to name the authors.
 * I have a problem with "rooted in physical violence" as well, because I don't believe that reflects the source, either.
 * Could we compromise and go with the following? "According to political scientists Brigitte L. Nacos, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Yaeli Bloch-Elko, 'Trump’s online and off-line hate speech corresponded with his followers’ aggressive rhetoric, violent threats, and actual violence against Trump’s declared "enemies"'". MonMothma (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The part of the text unattributed is factually true - why do you think it needs to be attributed? I don't object to the formulation of the text, but we don't need to ascribe this to them, it's just plain true, because they're academic experts in this field, and nobody is rebutting or disagreeing in the field. Andre🚐 03:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Andre, would this work for you? "Trump uses rhetoric that political scientists have deemed to be both dehumanizing and connected to physical violence by Trump's followers". MonMothma (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that works Andre🚐 05:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. I have made that change. MonMothma (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Lightoil (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating the article
Should the mention of the movement as fascist merit editing into the article and updating it? Some of the wording below the header is somewhat confusing and possibly even conflicting. Firekong1 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)