Loading AI tools
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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).
The second citation argues the idea that neoliberalism developed Trumpism.
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)
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)
According to Peter J. Katzenstein, Trumpist ideology is held up by the pillars of nationalism, evangelical Christianity, and an emphasis on ethnic identity, each of which is deeply rooted in the traditions and history of the United States. [2]
Trumpism differs from classical republicanism in many ways; for instance, regarding free trade, immigration, equality, checks and balances in federal government, and the separation of church and state.[3]
For example, in his speech accepting his nomination as the Republican presidential candidate on August 28th 2020, Trump claimed he passed Veterans Choice, when in fact Obama signed the law in 2014; or he claimed that Democrats wanted to open the borders, when in fact, the Democrat presidential nominee and his party clearly support controlled immigration. [4]
References
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |hive-date=
(help){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link)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)
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)
- Definitions
Some of descriptions and definitions for the term "Trumpism" include:
- An early definition from when he was still running for office comes from political scientist David Edward Tabachnick:
- celebrity, specifically celebrity from a television program where he played a "tough decision-maker",
- nativism and "birtherism" (the belief that Barack Obama is not a US citizen because he was not born in the United States, later disavowed by Trump),
- anti-establishment outsider leadership,
- populism made up of a "mish-mash of overt patriotism, economic nationalism, along with a vague commitment to the middle class and an aggressive but indefinite foreign policy".[1]
- Shortly after his election Newt Gingrich gave a speech on "Understanding Trump and Trumpism",[2] which he explained as "kicking over the table" (of establishment politics); "draining the swamp" of politically correct government; speaking directly to voters through twitter.[3]
Later on during his administration other descriptions included:
- What President Trump "believes on any particular moment on any particular day about any particular subject", rather than a thought out, consistent ideology or point of view. (Republican analyst Ron Christie, who worked for the George W Bush administration);[4]
- the undoing of "anything that seemed to be a signature Obama-era policy - health, climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, better relations with Cuba". (BBC editor Jon Sopel)[4]
- Opposition to crime, illegal immigration, “Sanctuary” state or city policies. (Republican strategist Jen Kerns)[5]
- "Political phenomenon" whose most important feature is the leaders (Trump's) efforts to escape from "the irksome constraints of values and norms and institutions" of American democracy, using the "generalized distraction and noise" of "disinformation" to wear out and disorient those keeping track of him or opposing him. (journalist Joshua Yaffa)[6]
- A cult (Dan Rather,[7] Anthony Scaramucci);[8][9]
- Cult expert Steven Hassan argues Trumpism resembles a cult since Trump “employs many of the same techniques as prominent cult leaders and displays many of the same personality traits”; namely a belief that he is "the only one with the answers, the only one who can fix things", a "deep need ... to be the center of attention ... to control others", a lack of empathy for them, and propensity to "lie without hesitation". Trump is supported in the conservative and religious media by a cult-like "black-and-white, all-or-nothing, good-versus-evil, authoritarian view of reality that is mostly fear-based", and by denial of facts that do not "protect the image of the leader." Growing up Trump was influenced by the beliefs of his father and Norman Vincent Peale’s church "that the only sin is doubting yourself", but if you avoid that sin "magical things are going to happen".[9]
- Professor of journalism Peter Beinart, predicts that once Trump is out of office, Trumpism will become "a term of abuse", like McCarthyism, rather than any sort of political philosophy.[10]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Bidenism for the stub article. (Needs a lot of work). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 @Tataral:, 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)
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 {{sfn}}
) goes after 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)
|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 <ref>...</ref>
must be inside a citation template, but that's not the case. In this case, it's just moved from <ref>{{cite news |... |quote=Page numbers correspond to the ePub edition.}}</ref>
, to <ref>{{cite news |...}} (Page numbers correspond to the ePub edition.)</ref>
, 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 {{sfn}}
or some other method, and of course they were, so I uncommented that. My bad! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
|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.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Louis P. Boog:, 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. @SMcCandlish, Czello, Neutrality, Davide King, and Arms & Hearts: 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 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)
References
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: 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:
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: 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 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)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: 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)
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)
References
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)
This is because a person's thinking may change. [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Trumpism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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"...
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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
Block evasion by Alfred the Lesser. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
![]() | This edit request to Trumpism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
(Lenin:) The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skillful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly considerable period of time and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to help the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power.
Workers of the world, unite! — Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible, first in several, or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.
J JMesserly (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
@Benicio2020 and Czello: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)
Currently, the proposals are:
J JMesserly (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
@-A-M-B-1996-: 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)
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)
Would Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also fit alongside examples of leaders who exibit these authotitarian tendencies? Bashereyre (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This edit request to Trumpism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
In Edit 09:27, 12 October 2021 @Michael.alexander.kaufmann: 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 thenorm 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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This piece in the Guardian today may be of use for this article: Smith, David (May 28, 2022). "Republican primaries offer look into future of Trumpism without Trump". The Guardian. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
“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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
as an ideology, but rather as a complex of
political ideologies, social emotions, style of governance, political movement, and set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping control of power. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request to Trumpism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "very fine people" to "very fine people on both sides." Mayonnaiseholidays (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
the "very fine people" among the "neo-Nazi protestorsto
the "very fine people on both sides" among the "neo-Nazi protestors. 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)
@Mureungdowon: 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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.