Talk:Donald Trump and fascism
Latest comment: 4 days ago by Simonm223 in topic Isn't this a bit out of date?
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donald Trump and fascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | This is not the place to talk about deletion of the article, please see the WP:Deletion policy for information about the deletion policy. |
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Queen of Hearts talk 02:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that multiple members of Donald Trump's former staff have called him a fascist?
- ALT1: ... that JD Vance once compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/16/jd-vance-political-views-trump
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dog (2nd nomination)
- Comment: I'm fully aware that this will be a very controversial topic, but I think the article covers it from a neutral perspective.
Moved to mainspace by Di (they-them) (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 25 past nominations.
Di (they-them) (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC).
- Comment is this not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Trumpism? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Trumpism is specifically about the political movement associated with Trump and his followers, while this article is specifically about the phenomenon of comparisons between Trump and fascists. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Note: I became aware of this nomination from a Discord post.) Regardless of whether this article should exist, I am highly skeptical that any hook could pass WP:DYKBLP, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." Note that that is undue relative to the person, not relative to the article, so the fact that this article is about Trump and fascism would not justify a hook about that topic, unless that is due focus for Trump. The article Donald Trump only uses the word "fascism" or "fascist" once, regarding Trump's rhetoric during his current campaign. Given that DYKBLP sets a higher bar for due-ness than standard editorial guidelines, I just can't picture any hook that would work, other than something completely tangential to what the article's about. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and mark this for closure, concurring with Tamzin's rationale. Considering the deeply polarized nature of American politics, the upcoming election (meaning this couldn't run immediately anyway), and DYKBLP concerns, the article seems like a bad fit for DYK regardless of hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, thanks. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The lead image of this article has been changed a couple of times. Can we choose one to settle the case? These are some that I found looking up "trump fascism" on Commons, the two first have already been inserted by other editors on this article. In my opinion, the black-and-white one with column the of the Trump International Hotel painted with the words "Fascist Int. Hotel" would be the best choice. Badbluebus (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I like the old lady photo the most (second picture). It doesn't promote a specific website (1), mentions both Trump and Fascism (4 and 5 doesn't), and it is not overdramatized (3 and 4). Ca talk to me! 00:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Bollox to the lot of you whiners, complainers and liars 2001:1970:519D:CA00:1543:E8E0:3255:A846 (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually on further examination, number 5 does mention fascism in an implicit way by depicting Trump as Hitler. I also support the 5th picture. Ca talk to me! 23:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the old lady is the best image. Simple and clear in its presentation, and doesn't promote a website as previously stated. BootsED (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I vote for the last photo:
JacktheBrown (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also vote for the last image, it does a great job of exemplifying the entire community involved in this concept Artem...Talk 23:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS concerns in Internment Camps section
editHi, I have recently started following this article. I think it is a very good article. I have concerns about the Internment Camps section. In my opinion, the Trump administration family separation policy led to very serious violations of human rights. And the detention facilities may well be an indication of fascism. That being said, it seems to me that the Internment Camps section contains some WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." T g7 (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- More specific? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The premise of including the "Internment camps" section in this article is that Trump's use of internment camps is evidence that he has fascist tendencies. But only one of the sources, the one by Nathan Robinson (last reference in the section), states this. Most of the other references are describing the camps. Internment camps are not unique to fascist governments, as one of the references points out. Most of this section on internment camps amounts to the making of the logical argument that because Donald Trump advocates internment camps, and fascist governments use internment camps, this is evidence that Donald Trump is fascist. This argument is not made by any but the Robinson reference, so most of the section is synthesis. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original logical arguments. I think this section should be substantially cut down. In my opinion, the sentence containing the Robinson article should remain, as well as one or two sentences and references for context, but the rest is not relevant to this article. There are other Wikipedia articles that describe the camps and these may be linked. T g7 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Only need the one source to tie it together for it not to be synth. Could be compressed, but enough background is needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are we not supposed to give relevant weight to sources used for an argument? One source seems hardly enough to justify such a lengthy inclusion, making it feel very much like a synthesized argument Artem...Talk 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty sure more than one source calls these internment camps fascist. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are we not supposed to give relevant weight to sources used for an argument? One source seems hardly enough to justify such a lengthy inclusion, making it feel very much like a synthesized argument Artem...Talk 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Only need the one source to tie it together for it not to be synth. Could be compressed, but enough background is needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The premise of including the "Internment camps" section in this article is that Trump's use of internment camps is evidence that he has fascist tendencies. But only one of the sources, the one by Nathan Robinson (last reference in the section), states this. Most of the other references are describing the camps. Internment camps are not unique to fascist governments, as one of the references points out. Most of this section on internment camps amounts to the making of the logical argument that because Donald Trump advocates internment camps, and fascist governments use internment camps, this is evidence that Donald Trump is fascist. This argument is not made by any but the Robinson reference, so most of the section is synthesis. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original logical arguments. I think this section should be substantially cut down. In my opinion, the sentence containing the Robinson article should remain, as well as one or two sentences and references for context, but the rest is not relevant to this article. There are other Wikipedia articles that describe the camps and these may be linked. T g7 (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Defining Facism
editSo much is political today, so we have to be cognizant of what information we are taking I when looking for answers and definitions. Most mainstream inter web actors such as Wikipedia are some of the worst purveyors of dis and misinformation. Here are the facts. FACISM: the term was first coined by Benito Mussolini who before he uttered this word was a dyed in the wool Socialist and named after a liberal Spanish leader and so in spite of the scholars, political scientists and frauds Wikipedia refers to when defining Facism it quite obviously is a left wing ideology born of a socialist leader. Period and it doesn’t take a university education to figure this out. However it doesn’t take take being objective and a hunger for the truth. Thank you my name is shamus Shoop and I will be glad to debate anyone that disagrees. 2601:447:C088:DAE0:6CE1:C6A2:C4C1:1B05 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Facism it quite obviously is a left wing ideology
. It is not recognised as left wing at all by academics and historians. — Czello (music) 08:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this a bit out of date?
edit"Donald Trump is a fascist" is yesterday's ad hominem attack, and starting to look a bit discredited and long in the tooth.
Surely this article should either be deleted or merged with a new article called "Donald Trump and the oligarchy"?
Here's a start for you democrats:
https://newrepublic.com/article/188467/trumps-musk-oligarchy-corruption
I'm sure someone could hash something up in a couple of hours? I'd hate for Wikipedia to miss this opportunity. BOOBOOBEAKER (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The existence of articles calling him an oligarch doesn't undo the other citations calling him a fascist. Additionally, I'm not sure the argument that it's out of date can wash when we have an abundance of sources from 2024. — Czello (music) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also there is a preponderance of good quality, up to date, peer reviewed, academic work on Trump and fascism. A link to the Atlantic is not going to over-weight that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)