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.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Trumpism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Trumpism at the Reference desk.
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
All 5 of the sources backing the use of "authoritarianism" in the intro are opinion pieces that fail to draw a clear correlation between Trump's policies or supporters and authoritarianism. I think the editors are playing a bit fast and loose here. Do we really want to claim here on Wikipedia that the ideology of Donald Trump and his supporters is authoritarian? That just seems so removed from reality and I'm wondering if we're not saying this in bad faith here.
Not done No, strong oppose. Strongly references. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late. Andre🚐20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article, particularly that all-important first paragraph, suggests that the tens of millions of people who support Trump's candidacy are authoritarians, without giving any early consideration of the people who support Trump without supporting the radical ideas laid out here.
If the term "Trumpist" is going to be used, there ought to be an early disclaimer that not all who vote for or support Trump believe in the abolition of the rule of law and the Constitution, or these other extreme positions that are labeled as "Trumpist." In other words, it'd be helpful to provide an early distinction between those who support Trump over his opponent in our current political climate as compared those who actually believe this radical ideology. 2601:5C4:C500:6F30:83D5:F6EC:DFDC:EE94 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Andre. The claim that Trump is authoritarian is backed up by a ton of sources from both sides of the pond and various ideologies. pbp05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritarianism is quite a loose term and, at least in this case, depends on perspective. One can be seen as authoritarian in some ways (e.g., mask mandates, vaccination mandates, government confiscation of resources (through taxation that takes the majority (ie over 50%) of some people’s earnings), forcing audits and creating government mandated impositions of high burdens of proof (via tax audits) of individuals who express political views contrary to those who hold federal power (e.g., Tea Party), establishment of government/central authority defined rules of what it means for corporate boards (private business entities) to be “diverse” and penalizing large corporations for not aligning with such subjective interpretations of ethics. Forcing private places of business (even in cases where said business is entirely owned and run by a single individual or a family) to serve (e.g., waxing/massage services) any and all potential clientele based on those clientele’s own self-identification, versus the business’s right to refuse service to anyone for absolutely any reason. Imposing that all schools federally must teach potentially subjectively perceived materials (regarding homosexuality, transgenderism, etc) with a partial approach versus allowing local parents to review and perhaps amend or exclude the content of such subjective/opinionated studies from their children’s mandated, taxpayer funded curriculum.. In these ways and many more, one could argue that Trump and his followers’ policies may actually be seen as anti-authoritarian. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued that Trump’s current policy on abortion is arguably “less authoritarian” in some ways than that of most Democratic politicians and many Republican politicians. Roe v Wade asserted, through central, federal power of the judicial branch, that abortion cannot be effectively outlawed by a smaller, more local government (e.g., the states). However by encouraging Roe v Wade to be overturned, one can argue that now the power is left to the states (thus *removing* authority from the federal government). Trump has actually argued for allowing abortion in the case of exceptional circumstances, and is not supportive of a national ban, as many Republicans are.
Has he evolved on this issue? Maybe, or maybe it’s a calculated shift, but we have to judge political candidates on their most current stated platform, otherwise we would have to judge candidate Joe Biden as being a segregationist with respect to schools.
That is definitely much more defensible wording than what stands on this page right now. Thank you. Can we change the wording to "Trumpism is frequently seen as authoritarian," or even "Trumpism has frequently been seen as authoritarian"?
If you leave this intro as is, you might risk alienating and at least 'being seen' as validating unfounded beliefs by a large chunk of the 40-45% of American voters who voted for Trump, who might say that sources like Wikipedia are fundamentally biased and run by 'globalist elites' (their words, not mine) who only pretend to be objective, but are willing to give up their honesty due to personal gripe and/or political viewpoints. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andre, if the goal is neutrality, can you please back up the statement (if it is not an opinion): “Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late.”? Trump’s stances on several issues (COVID vaccines (strongly encouraging people to have them, but against government mandates); abortion (coming out against any federal ban or ruling)) can arguably be called compromises towards moderation. 100.38.103.114 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more accurate wording would be "labled as authoritarian." Apart from rhetoric, there is little evidence that Trump's policies and actions have in fact been authoritarian. 72.234.113.204 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, Wikipedia should be a nonpartisan place. We can't be promoting one ideology over another. Maybe capitalists are authoritarian, maybe they're not. It's not our job to say. Politicalfactchecker99 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, those authoritarian supporters of freedom of speech and the market and freedom-loving Marxists with critical theories, political correctness and paternalism. Did Trump commit totalitarianism in his last term? No, not a single prediction of the left has come true, which is not surprising. But conspiracy theories with Russian interference are popular here, and from the research results only a comment from Russia, really random comments changed everything SO much, yeah. What kind of political bias is there? 81.24.93.89 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an easy way to prove how biased this article is. Type "What is Trumpism?" into Google and read the top results from reliable sources such as The Hill, BBC, The Atlantic and others. None of these reliable sources mention authoritarianism or fascism as a main characteristic of Trumpism. They talk about nativism, populism, nationalism, industrialism, tribalism, and identity politics. And yet this article leads off with authoritarianism and fascism. This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources. The resort to Irish Times is just one indication of this. Westwind273 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This article is seriously out of sync with the mainstream of reliable sources."
There are hundreds of "reliable sources", like Irish Times. The question is which ones are more toward the mainstream and which ones are at the fringe. The problem with this article is that it relies heavily on fringe reliable sources that are at the liberal end of the spectrum. Westwind273 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this image should be removed and replaced because its obviously Inflammatory and is meant to paint some kind of cultish image of the movement. I personally wanted to remove this image a long time ago but I was inexperienced with editing on Wikipedia. @User:Valjean says removing this image is whitewashing. I do think keeping the image is a violation of NPOV. The image file is literally called "Fascism Worship". Sources do state there are similarity's with Trumpism and Fascism. but that can be summed up as Fascism and Trumpism are inherently National Populist ideologies, and that they are right-wing movements. The image also doesn't adequately represent the movement like the other images in the heading. Another concern I have about this image is if it was uploaded with negative attentions. why do I think this? Because the file is called "Fascism Worship" and Trumpism is a Contentious subject. thank you, I'm going to bed and will be back tomorrow afternoon Zyxrq (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to keep the image I would agree its more appropriate for the for the Christian Trumpism section. Though I would say that there are plenty of images that would give a more arcuate representation of the movement when talking about the Religious section of Trumpism. I think a images like the ones seen on the websites I just linked would be a big improvement. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] I will go and look for better images. Zyxrq (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are essentially two images of the St. Johns photo op (one is the promo video), I would propose moving it down and replacing one of those with it, if there is consensus. DN (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of whether or not to address conservative Catholic support of Donald Trump, I think, Is relevant to this article. Sindenheim (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sindenheim That was not your question. Your original question about whether they will be "targeted as well" seems to imply general bad faith assumptions, does not specify any requested changes in particular or point to any specific citations or context. Catholic support of Trump is only relevant to this article in the context of Trumpism. DN (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regret my use of the word target, as it seems rather aggressive which was not how I wanted it to come across. I was saying whether they were using the flag to "target" protestant christians, as in making a point to exhibit the overwhelming support of Trump in (southern) protestant communities, or if they wanted to exhibit general christian support, in which the flag could be misleading. I didn't put forth a specific change in my post because we were having a discussion about a certain change and whether we would support it, and I was clarifying some information about it. It wasn't my intention to put forth any new material to that specific edit prospect. Although my wording wasn't perfect, you misunderstood what I said and tried to accuse me of violating talk page rules. I would appreciate if you repeal that statement, thank you. Sindenheim (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply made an observation about the language you were using, which you seem to regret, but have yet to repeal or strike. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I think you have confirmed why that misunderstanding may have happened. DN (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support leaving the image as is. The naming of the image as "Fascism Worship" refers to the name of the image on the Flickr page where it comes from in order to provide attribution of the image to the photographer. The name does not represent the bias of a Wikimedia uploader deciding to rename the image. Furthermore, this page does include several sources that describe Trumpism in relation to a "cult of personality," so it is not out of place and inflammatory, as it relates directly to the content discussed in the page. However, I also agree with Zyxrq that adding in another image to the Christian Trumpism section would be helpful. Currently, we have a video of the St. John's Church photo op and a picture of Trump holding a bible from the St. John's Church photo op in the same section. We can remove the video (more relevant to the page on the actual event) and add in another one of the images you linked to Zyxrq, as I think they do a better job of conveying the sense of the section. BootsED (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED I know I wasn't referring to a "Wikimedia uploader". I was referring to the "Flickr page". Yes Trumpism has a cult of personality element to it but its not big enough or influences Trumpism enough in the way the image is portraying to warrant being included in the heading. It would simply be violating Undue weight to keep it on the heading. Zyxrq (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zyxrq, I was tempted to say something the first time but figured someone would point this out, but it hasn't happened, and now it's happened again. You use the word "pacific" twice when you mean "specifically" and "specific". It's not a biggie, since typos are a dime a dozen around here, but this is not a typo and should be fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all there is no evidence that this is a trump rally, there's also no evidence that this person is praying. so the current caption in this Wikipedia Article should be removed. Concerning the sensitivity of the subject we should use images that are actually explicit. the file name of the image is "Fascism worship" which gives no context and I think is also misleading. Zyxrq (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED Concerning the sensitivity of the subject we should use a image that's actually explicit. If you want a image that implies a cult of personality this isn't a good one. There is no evidence or citation, that they are "worshiping" or "kneeling in prayer" to anyone. Zyxrq (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Zyxrq (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit that added the image back but removed the word "prayer" from the description. The image source itself did not state the person was in prayer, although I can certainly see why it looks that way. I also added back in a description of another image that was removed. BootsED (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. but could you explain to me why a picture of a trump "supporter kneeling" and nothing else is appropriate to be in the heading? Its not showing an example of a "cult of personality" or "Religion". It simply doesn't add anything. This is why I'm so intent on adding a new image that's actually explicit. Zyxrq (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the image was showing an example of a cult of personality the other images arguably already are doing the same thing. I'm still arguing to replace it with an example of the Christian/Religious faction of the movement, which is also more prevalent. Zyxrq (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be available to continue this conversation tomorrow night/this afternoon in which I can also clarify some of my thoughts. Central Time Zone
I think the kneeling supporter image is appropriate. It evokes the idea of worship or religion, based on faith and obedience. This fits with several themes in this article. If we are going to get rid of one of those pictures, we probably could get rid of either the picture of Trump or the "feelings" picture at lower left. T g7 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the image is that its not actually showing worship or religion, based on faith and obedience. Its quite literally just a trump supporter kneeling. though the other images arguably already shows examples of faith and obedience to Trump. Again I'm still arguing to replace it with an example of the Christian/Religious faction of the movement which is also prevalent and lacking appropriate representation in the heading images. Zyxrq (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with the image. It shows very well how Trump inspires zeal in some followers. That's an important aspect of Trumpism. Very relevant, not to be removed. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I, also, see the image as proper, especially because of the neutrally descriptive caption "a supporter kneeling at a 2016 Trump rally in Tucson". Similar images are actually common in Trump's history, so it's neither misleading or inflammatory. —RCraig09 (talk)02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet Tg7 posted images that do a much better job depicting that Trump inspires zeal in some of his followers. Also to imply that this image is anything other than a trump supporter kneeling without any sources or evidence to the contrary is dishonest. You don't know what they are kneeling to or for so don't act like you do. this is a bad image because it doesn't add anything that's not already shown.
Your links contain images that cannot be used because they are not in the public domain. We must use images that are already hosted by WikiCommons. The main attraction of the disputed image is that it is strikingly composed—a standout example—especially considering that the small thumbnail size is just as compelling because of the single person wearing a Trump flag as a cape. The photos listed by T g7 are lacking in that department. Consensus here is clearly for retaining the image. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using those images I linked as examples on what kind of images can be used to replace the current one. Also I'm going to point out you ignored my concerns and made claims without sources just to Declare consensus yourself. If one of us locates and or uploads a image similar to the ones I linked would that make you happy? Zyxrq (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the only real argument you have for keeping the image is because it looks pretty. But yeah I'd respect a consensus. Zyxrq (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, these different images convey different messages and have different artistic value. The one with the woman in the cape is very good. There is some mystery to it. We know that someone kneeling like that must be feeling some emotion, but we can not see her face so we do not know what the emotion is exactly. Why is she on her knees and raising her hands? It could be awe or primitive religious fervor or euphoria or supplication or hope or relief. She could be praying or feeling an aura. What happened before and after that frame? Did she prostrate herself or just kneel there with her hands in the air? There is a timeless quality to it. Also the other people in the crowd appear to not notice her. They have their backs turned to her. What does that mean? In sum, the photo conveys that she has intense feelings about Trump, which likely include a religious type of feeling, but exactly what those feelings are is kept hidden from us in an interesting way. The other photos which more specifically reference Christianity are less visually powerful. They are less mysterious, and convey a less emotional and visceral, more cerebral message. Of the photos about Christianity, the one I find most interesting is the one of the men raising the giant cross. It conveys a feeling of power, strength, solidity. And it's interesting because the way they are erecting the cross is probably the same way the Romans did it 2000 years ago. Do they mean this cross to be a symbol of faith or an instrument threatening violence? T g7 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between left-leaning bias and flat lies.
This is incredibly misleading and does not represent at all what Trumpism is. For example, Trump supporters favor LEGAL immigration. That does not make them "anti-immigration". How is any way shape or form is he authoritarian? Trump supporters fully support the constitution- it is a flat out life.
I understand wikipedia has a left leaning bias and I am totally okay with that. But this article is just false. There is no other way to put it. It is not what Trump supporters believe. It is what the far-left labels Trump supporters. Wow - never seen such misinformation. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot- "heavily favors racist attacks"??? This is the most absurd statement of all time presented as fact. Please give one example. The implication is that roughly have the country supports racist attacks. I am in absolute shock that this is an actual wikipedia article. You can totally disagree with Trump, but this is misinformation regarding what Trumpism is and what him and his supporters believe. 207.237.76.147 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras The citation for the anti-immigration part links to a NY Times article in it Trump is claimed to have said immigrants were "poisoning the blood of the country" which he did say but if you hear all of what he said it can be easily understood that he was referring to illegal migrants and not immigrants in general. Being opposed to mass illegal migration isn't the same as being anti-immigration. The NYTimes article itself is misleading and stretches the truth. Therefore it cannot be a sufficient source to support the claim that Trump and Trumpism are anti-immigration. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two true statements here: 1) Wikipedia repeats what "reliable sources" say about Trumpism, and 2) the "reliable sources" do not accurately characterize what Trump supporters really think. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, this is a great article. But in terms of actually educating Wikipedia readers about what Trump supporters think, it's an awful article. @Listenhereyadonkey, are you the IP editor who started this thread? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal interpretations of what you think the sources say are irrelevant. This can be taken as a response to both of the users immediately above. Zaathras (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras The New York Times is known to have obvious left wing bias. Just like how Fox News has an obvious right wing bias. The New York times have even endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since 1960. You can't deny the New York Times' bias. If we can't have Fox News we sure can't have the NY times. Even the wikipedia article on NY times talks about its bias. 2601:548:8203:8C10:11C7:8B47:D244:2EA7 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there could also be 20 left leaning sources that say he is a fascist, but there could obviously be 20 right leaning sources that say he isn't one. The only way wikipedia can be unbiased is if they use unbiased sources instead of the left leaning sources they use today. 2601:548:8203:8C10:A031:E551:BD6C:DFA1 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely what I asked for. If someone wants to make the case the sources are unreliable then they need to list them and make a case for them (also, biased doesn't make them unusable). — Czello(music)18:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is without a doubt one of the most biased articles ever. "Trumpism" is a concept that is mostly used, mostly (but not entirely), by political opponents, activists and voters who are against Trump. This article makes it seems like Trumpism is an actual ideology, and the list of things it supposedly includes (not just things it is accused of being) is heavily biased and without a doubt comes across like the people who wrote this article loathe Donald Trump, it needs a complete overhaul, it absolutely is designed to paint Donald Trump in a negative light.
Consider rewriting the article starting with something along the lines of, "Trumpism is a term often used to describe beliefs about politics, government and policy as well as actions caused by their level of vigour of support, by supporters of Donald Trump", maybe a bit of a mess and not concise, but it's better than what we have now. 2.100.206.55 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Trumpism have to actually be "White Supremacy", "Fascism", "Christian Nationalism" and a "Disinformation Operation" for these categories to actually apply to this page, it would seem as if this page is saying that Trump is all of those things, or does a page have to be accused of being those things to be included, if it's actually saying Trump is those things not only is that extreme bias but it is also not true! 2.100.206.55 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a brief paragraph on Donald Trump under "Populism in the United States". It seems objective. Yet I found different categories and lots of paragraphs under "Trumpism" and Populist themes, sentiments, and methods. These categories and paragraphs also seem objective.
I believe a consideration should be given to merging the two in some way. The Populist themes, sentiments, and methods under "Trumpism" seem to naturally fit under Donald Trump under "Populism in the United States".
So you don't see any of that mentioned in the body? It's a pretty significant and important topic that should be mentioned in the lead as it really defines Trump and Trumpism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I wonder if there is a line between Trump's thinking and rhetoric and Trumpism. He sets the agenda which his MAGA base follow, and that's all "Trumpism". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the citations aren't necessary for the body lead, I can understand why they may be there in an article such as this. FM's concern in regard to LEADFOLLOWSBODY makes sense, and we really shouldn't turn the lead into a list of descriptors. Would everyone agree it needs to explain the prominent aspects and try to use a bit less specificity? Let's stick with what is essential in the lead and put the rest back into the body via WP:PRESERVE. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ abAdler, Paul S.; Adly, Amr; Armanios, Daniel Erian; Battilana, Julie; Bodrožić, Zlatko; Clegg, Stewart; Davis, Gerald F.; Gartenberg, Claudine; Glynn, Mary Ann; Gümüsay, Ali Aslan; Haveman, Heather A.; Leonardi, Paul; Lounsbury, Michael; McGahan, Anita M.; Meyer, Renate; Phillips, Nelson; Sheppard-Jones, Kara (2022). "Authoritarianism, Populism, and the Global Retreat of Democracy: A Curated Discussion"(PDF). Journal of Management Inquiry. 32 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1177/10564926221119395. S2CID251870215. Archived(PDF) from the original on January 14, 2024. Retrieved January 14, 2024. The decoupling of the man from the movement suggests that authoritarianism can continue well beyond the authoritarian's rule. The most enduring vestige—apart from the democratic institutions attacked—is Trumpism. It has metastasized from Trump's delusional framing on his inauguration day in 2017—with the biggest crowds ever—to a widespread and ambient movement, amplified by disinformation and distortion, broadcast in social and right-wing media, aggressively militant, and framed with falsehoods.
^ abCite error: The named reference Shapiro-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Irwin, Douglas A. (April 17, 2017). "The False Promise of Protectionism". Foreign Affairs. 96 (May/June 2017). Archived from the original on January 27, 2024. Retrieved January 17, 2024.
This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its readable prose size was 14,815 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.
I think the section on Christian support for Trump should be spun out into its own article with a link to the new page where it is right now. There's a lot more on that subject to add that would make this page too long. This would drastically reduce the page size. BootsED (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article attacks Trump supporters and calls them things that they are not. The writer(s) are anti-Trump, Trump haters, who are racist, fascist, communist, and anti-Americans. "Trumpism" isn't a thing. This page should be taken down and the writer(s) should be banned from Wikipedia. Remington270ws (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:LEADCITE, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so sources aren't needed in the lead.
Having so many citations makes the lead much worse to look at and much harder to read. Move them into the body or delete them. If the lead summarizes the body, they're redundant. Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, keep. The material with cites is generally contentious and controversial and likely to be challenged; the governing cite in the article body will be hard to find in an article having >342,000 bytes. As WP:LEADCITE states, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations", and including or excluding citations is done by balance and consensus. —RCraig09 (talk)19:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section on right-wing authoritarian populism contains about 2 paragraphs on fascism, but fascism is also discussed in the section on "parallels with fascism". It seems to me that the discussion of fascism should be consolidated in one section. Comments? T g7 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, but a lot of context that is useful for that section is within those two paragraphs that would be moved. I'd keep it the same for the time being, but I'd welcome more discussion on this. BootsED (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the pages of Lulism and Kirchnerism have their own Political Party style infoboxes as they are often political ideology that shift away from the mainstream of the party are governing which is relevant given political ideology of Trumpism often somewhat differentiates from the mainstream of the GOP. Mhaot (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding direct quotes from Trump to illustrate some of the points better
For the Money-Kyrle pattern in particular I had a hard time understanding it from just the description, having listened to a lot of trump speeches the closest example I can think is him describing how America is being "ripped off on trade deals" and how only his hard balling with world leader (such as telling Macron he will "put a tariff on all french wine") can quickly solve the issue
For the conspiracy theory section, i'd like to add him trying to suggest that Ted cruz's Father was connected to the JFK assassination
Also something he repeated a lot post Roe v wade being repealed particularly in his last debate with Biden is that "everybody, conservatives and liberals, wanted abortion to returned to the states", this is a clear and objective lie, that he repeats forcefully and which somehow dodged any scrutiny, said to make an action that should require a nuanced defense that would alienate some voters no matter what argument he used appear unambiguously positive. I think that fits well in the rhetoric portion. Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources which define the topic. You are suggesting to use primary sources, which would be selected by you, presenting a personal viewpoint. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, we must summarize uninvolved secondary media sources, and if a few of them quote the same Trump comment, then we can be certain that the particular quote is part of the literature. The quotes must always be taken from media analysis. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah's choice of subjects, and I also agree with Binksternet that it's preferable(though not always required, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) to cite reliable independent sources that analyze Trump's statements as being lies or falsehoods and place them in context. —RCraig09 (talk)07:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's very long (and I will also contribute to that other article) but my concern is that its long and hard to digest, these are some very academic subjects that people may not see how they relate to Trump without an example. I also don't think it's balanced to have so many quotes of people talking about trump's rhetoric and so few of Trump's actual words. I know Bushism is a completely different thing but part of what makes that article both good and easy to understand is the direct quotes Ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarah (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Not done No, strong oppose. Strongly references. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian and this emerged even in more stark relief of late. Andre🚐 20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The redirect Trump's politics 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24 § Trump's politics until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)