User talk:50.233.7.26

December 2020
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Trumpism, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Trumpism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Offer of assistance
You wrote in your edit summary of the Trumpism article: The current synopsis of Trumpism is extremely biased (focusing on painting an unattractive portrait of Trumpism based of a few select sources) and does not give the reader any understanding of what political philosophies Trumpism actually promotes.

I am honestly confused what you mean about "a few select sources". Scroll down to the references and bibliography section. There are 137 citations and voluminous lists of books including conservatives like Jeffress, Johnnie Moore, historian Russell Mead, and so on. The topics you claim are not covered such as anti-elitism and populism are indeed covered- just search for those terms and take a look at the citations supporting those statements. For example, Andrew Jackson did indeed make anti-elitism a major theme, demonstrating the important history of this Trumpist theme.

Perhaps the coverage is not sufficient in your view or balanced, but I 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 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 the article’s talk page, 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 mischaracterise Trump supporters and/or the 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 authoritative 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) 21:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)