This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trumpism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The issue of whether non-academic sources should be removed from the infobox and lede was the subject of a formal Request for Comment and a consensus was reached at this discussion to oppose their removal based on their being reliable sources. If an editor thinks they've noted a specific instance pertaining to WP:BESTSOURCES where they believe non-academic sources have been preferred over academic ones, then this can be discussed below. Please do not reopen the discussion unless new and significant information is available.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep redirect, 2016 November 10, see discussion. redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump, 6 December 2016, see discussion.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Politics: American Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Conservatism Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States High‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States 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.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Ashley Rindsberg (October 29, 2024). "Wikipedia Editors Officially Deem Trump a Fascist". Pirate Wires. Brady Knox (October 29, 2024). "Musk calls Wikipedia 'broken' after page resurfaces defining Trump as 'fascist'". Washington Examiner. Ashley Rindsberg (October 3, 2025). "How Wikipedia made Trump an 'authoritarian'". Fox News. Retrieved November 18, 2025.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Trump has blown up the world order - and left Europe's leaders scrabbling (Allan Little, BBC News)

Section sizes Section size for Trumpism (56 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 15,529 15,529 218 218 Background and context 4,546 4,546 287 287 Themes 5,925 26,741 210 1,565 Grievance 586 586 75 75 Vagueness 3,177 3,177 149 149 Right-wing authoritarian populism 7,684 7,684 452 452 Gender and masculinity 6,089 6,089 528 528 Christian Trumpism 3,280 3,280 151 151 Methods of persuasion 4,972 41,336 321 3,140 Money-Kyrle pattern 2,384 2,384 138 138 Trump rallies 3,229 3,229 418 418 Rhetoric 4,480 4,480 480 480 Branding 1,304 1,304 183 183 Appeal to emotions 2,414 2,414 186 186 Emotion, trust, and media 6,733 6,733 861 861 Falsehoods and misleading statements 15,820 15,820 553 553 Social psychology 24 22,055 0 2,510 Dominance orientation 5,167 5,167 571 571 Comparisons to animal social behavior 3,036 3,036 420 420 Collective narcissism 6,156 10,577 768 1,246 Conspiracy theories 4,421 4,421 478 478 Cult of personality 3,251 3,251 273 273 Relationship with media 30 15,540 0 1,526 Culture industry and pillarization 5,014 5,014 458 458 Profitability of spectacle and outrage 2,554 2,554 321 321 Social media 7,942 7,942 747 747 Similar movements, politicians and personalities 260 39,168 0 2,009 Historical background in the United States 8,821 8,821 443 443 Parallels with fascism and trend towards illiberal democracy 25,970 25,970 1,119 1,119 Rush Limbaugh 1,989 1,989 228 228 Future impact 2,128 2,128 219 219 Policies 13 7,068 0 469 Economic policy 845 845 86 86 Foreign policy 3,819 3,819 254 254 Religious policy 2,391 2,391 129 129 Beyond the United States 60 29,922 0 1,466 Argentina 3,391 3,391 57 57 Australia 1,314 1,314 45 45 Brazil 802 802 75 75 Canada 9,375 9,375 393 393 Europe 2,590 2,590 116 116 India 1,458 1,458 35 35 Iran 1,255 1,255 95 95 Japan 4,255 4,255 144 144 Nigeria 2,821 2,821 347 347 Philippines 625 625 70 70 Russia 992 992 68 68 South Korea 984 984 21 21 Public opinion 1,088 1,088 27 27 See also 1,159 1,159 0 0 Notes 1,005 1,005 0 0 References 33 33 0 0 Bibliography 19 194,546 0 114 Books 35,461 35,461 0 0 Journal articles 44,992 44,992 0 0 News articles 114,074 114,074 114 114 Total 399,736 399,736 13,331 13,331

Donald Trump is often labeled a “democratic authoritarian” due to his use of democratic institutions and processes to consolidate personal power, thereby undermining the very democratic principles those institutions are meant to uphold. This approach is characterized by the centralization of authority, marginalization of dissent, and erosion of checks and balances within a democratic framework.

One significant example is Trump’s extensive use of executive orders to bypass legislative processes. Upon returning to office, he issued numerous executive actions aimed at rapidly implementing his agenda without congressional approval. These actions included deploying troops to the southern border, reinstating the “remain in Mexico” program, ending birthright citizenship, and withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. While executive orders are legal instruments, their overuse can concentrate power in the executive branch, diminishing the role of the legislature and upsetting the balance of power essential to a healthy democracy.

Additionally, Trump’s rhetoric and actions have often been described as authoritarian. He has openly expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders and has employed harsh rhetoric against political opponents, which scholars argue poses a threat to democratic norms. His approach has been characterized as right-wing authoritarian populism, with a focus on strongman tactics and undermining democratic institutions.

Furthermore, initiatives like “Project 2025,” associated with Trump’s agenda, have raised concerns among democracy experts and political scholars. Critics argue that such plans could undermine the rule of law, the separation of powers, and civil liberties, potentially leading the United States toward autocracy. The project’s intent to abolish federal departments and agencies is seen as an effort to destroy the legal and governance structures of liberal democracy and create new bureaucratic frameworks to support autocratic rule.

In summary, Trump’s actions and rhetoric reflect a pattern where democratic mechanisms are utilized to concentrate power and suppress opposition, aligning with the concept of a “democratic authoritarian.” This strategy not only threatens the foundational principles of democracy but also sets a concerning precedent for the future of democratic governance in the United States. Hectordej7544 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that support this label? — Czello ^(music) 13:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/01/21/theres-a-term-for-trumps-political-style-authoritarian-populism/

https://newrepublic.com/article/190446/trump-inaugural-speech-history-authoritarian-tactic

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/trump-second-term-new-age-authoritarian-capitalism-china-musk/ Hectordej7544 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only skimmed the first couple of pages so far, but I found an article written by a couple of scholars who use the term "competitive authoritarianism". It's not exactly the same as Hectordrj7544 described, but I'll dig into it more tomorrow.

CplKlinger (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

democratic authoritarianism would be the most accurate claim to use, and yes i think those three sources are accurate, i also think trump could be classified as a state-capitalist Robloxgamer469 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State capitalism? Unless I am missing something here, Trump has not introduced that kind of economic policy: "A state-capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation" Dimadick (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive authoritarianism is already covered on the page for Hybrid regimes 2601:486:100:9780:F861:7E9F:388E:8C69 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Democratic authoritarianism" is not a thing. There are the concepts of hybrid regime and anocracy, which include illiberal democracy and managed democracy. There's serious debate over whether these regimes count as authoritarianism or not. Trump has turned the United States into an illiberal regime, which is sometimes considered the 21st century version of fascism. Trump himself is more often described in academic literature as either a fascist or, less commonly, simply a straight-up authoritarian rather than a democratic authoritarian. 2601:486:100:9780:F861:7E9F:388E:8C69 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of random news opinion in this article. We have so very many academic sources regarding Trumpism that I question the value in maintaining such a comprehensive set of the uneducated opinions of the American press. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your complaint as actionable unless you list the supposed "uneducated" sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm saying is that we should go through and remove opinion pieces from random journalists. If a news article is reporting on the opinion of someone with a notable opinion this is fine. But there's too much newspaper cruft here. But before such a major overhaul I'm coming to talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again please tell us which sources you are referring to. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want a list of sources just go to the references list-- more or less everything published by a news organisation that is cited here is written by a political editor/ reporter. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:49BF:2D50:CC95:9BC6 (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that we should remove "opinion" is faulty when the writer is a journalist describing what they have seen while researching the topic. That's not opinion. And in any case, Wikipedia articles are based on WP:SECONDARY sources including a wide variety of authors who have examined the topic. The removal of SECONDARY sources should be based on specific problems found in the published piece, not just a blanket removal of journalists that you decide are "uneducated". Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to base this article on opinion news then it ought to be balanced out. Many of these people are simply styled as "reporters", somehow I think you'd object to including rightwing reporters' opinions and observations. If someone is not a political scientist, their views should not be included. Claiming that these are sufficiently valid sources because they've "examined the topic" is ludicrous. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:49BF:2D50:CC95:9BC6 (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what :9BC6 means by "opinion news", as the two words are contradictory. Reading through this article's descriptions, I see very little that is actually "opinion", and the apparently opinion content is placed in context by reciting the source, observing WP:WIKIVOICE. The descriptions are generally neutrally stated, seemingly painstakingly so, given the emotional reactions that people have to the described facts about Trumpism. We don't need to "balance out" articles if it violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. —21:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC) Regarding "rightwing reporters", see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for which sources, and on which topics, the Wikipedia community at large has come to consensus on which are reliable and which are unreliable. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I meant 'opinion piece'-- why are you being so pedantic? I'm genuinely trying to improve the article and you've completely ignored my point on the endemic use of these sources in the lede and infobox. Both these things should be summaries of the article. I am not attempting to get the article to say a specific thing as you suggested in your reply to my post below. Please see WP:Lede and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:999:BDBA:DD3C:8B49 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being pedantic. Because of the huge number of footnotes, I can't be sure, but my general impression is that it's just as reliable to cite CNN's quoting of an expert (distinguished from an "opinion piece"), as it is to find a more obscure or nonexistent publicly available writing of that expert. That search would have to be tackled on a footnote-by-footnote basis, which is impractical timewise. The important thing is progress in the discussion below re a possible new "Background and context" section. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 67.20.1.236 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the Trump regime obviously won't admit to it, it is no longer up for debate whether this movement is fascist and the page should reflect this. Anything else is dishonest and it is important we be objective. Rangooner (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been paying close attention to the academic literature on this subject and, as far as I can tell, you're right. Papers published within the last few months have begun to form a consensus on this subject.

It might be worth an RfC so that this can be brought into an ongoing discussion and we can hash it out, but it might be worth waiting a few months first to avoid jumping the gun. Scholarship moves slowly and it would be a shame to push this before it's consolidated because it might make users hesitant later when the consensus is clearer. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never too soon to start reviewing good sources. What are you seeing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search gleans this study from March.

I'm sure there's plenty out there and more to come given that his actions are objectively fascist in nature. To be honest, I don't think it'd be jumping the gun here at all. Actually, it's surprising to me that the fascist nature of his actions is still mentioned here as if it's up for debate when Wikipedia should be unbiased and objective. The more accurate assessment would be that his actions and words are inherently and objectively fascist in nature, but he and the rest of his movement continue to deny it. I'll be keeping an eye out for any research regarding this. Rangooner (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, broken link. Study can be found here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159 Rangooner (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror link:

https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159 Rangooner (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the Republican party was synonymous with American fascism since at least the Patriot Act (2001) and its authorization of indefinite detention without trial. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an academic consensus require scholars who have already stated their views in opposition to change their minds/ vacate their position? Has Trumpism changed so significantly that these academics' views are no longer valid? I'm not sure it has. From what I can see, this paper explicitly mentions that a polarised debate is ongoing. This appears to be a good source though so it should be added to the page on the debate. This would be an excellent paper to quote in the note to summarise the debate.

Abstract:

• This debate has unfolded in stark binary terms of presence or absence. Alarmists argue that Trumpism bears all of the hallmarks of fascism and should therefore be labelled as such. Sceptics suggest that this conclusion is premised on shallow historical analogizing that mistakes form for substance.
• This article makes an intervention into these debates, interrogating Trumpism through the prism of...
• although Trumpism does not conform to inter-war European iterations of fascism, and while the conditions under which they emerged are strikingly different, Trumpism nonetheless exhibits fascistic tendencies that have intensified in recent years. We refer to this as 'proto-fascism', and suggest that neoliberal capitalism has been centrally implicated in its emergence.

Joko2468 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent, yes. The consensus has yet to form. Although it looks like it's beginning to take shape, it's too early to call yet. That being said, many scholars are already flipping from not-fascist to fascist, such as Payne and a few others already noted on the page. However, I suspect Griffin, for example, might never fully endorse the fascist view because he has some stake in pushing his own definition of fascism, but he doesn't need to any more than every creationist had to accept evolution for evolution to be the consensus. I think waiting for a more concrete poll or meta-study to show the numbers is reasonable. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing the word debated too, yes. It would simply be more accurate without it. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have I gone backwards in reading comprehension? The source provided literally says that this is currently being debated. Joko2468 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to before, there are increasingly more sources which acknowledge fascism in Trumpism. To equate both sides of the debate would be WP:FALSEBALANCE EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up this claim? If that is accurate then there should be a pro-fascism academic that incorporates this into their argument. Joko2468 (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's more research that directly identifies Trump as fascist:

https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150231210732 Rangooner (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And third source directly and correctly referring to Trump's fascist politics as fascist:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.07.004 Rangooner (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources do not make a consensus. Please provide a quotation from an academic source that says something in the vein of: "most scholars now agree". For the record, you can find more academic sources affirming the classification in the neo-fascism note (I added them). Joko2468 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it unlikely that someone would claim "most scholars agree that..." when it would require they gather a consensus from every single scholar on the planet? I just don't think it's likely we'll see that exact wording despite the fact that research backs up the common sense observation that he is fascist/neo-fascist/proto-fascist. Rangooner (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Research consistently* backs this common sense observation up, particularly from scholars who study fascism and authoritarianism. Rangooner (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need exact wording but one of the sources you've provided explicitly portrays this debate as ongoing. Reaching something approaching a consensus among scholars on classifying Trumpism as fascist would be monumental and I would very much expect that to be covered by reliable sources. Joko2468 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article states that the use of the word "fascist" is debated by "skeptics" rather than "scholars," which could refer to the general public, with that opposition likely only coming from his cult followers. They take the stance that his regime is proto-fascist/in the early stages of fascism. The other two journals I've presented to not use any such wording and directly refer to his politics as fascist. Rangooner (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that they're covering this in an academic context. "Alarmists" vs. "sceptics" divides the scholars into two camps. Regardless the link I provided on the main article better illustrates my point. Joko2468 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and suppose we can't firmly say they're referring to the general public or other scholars given the ambiguous wording. And the link you provided highlights outdated research from before he came into office in 2025 and began acting as a fascist authoritarian. Rangooner (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more sensible to say that, unless there is research that indicates Trump is not fascist, there is a consistent consensus from scholars that he is in fact fascist. Rangooner (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is such research: see Donald Trump and fascism#Criticism of the comparison where the academic debate is covered. Joko2468 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these source appear to be outdated and published in 2024 or earlier, before Trump even came into office and started exhibiting objectively fascist behavior. Rangooner (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please invoke an RfC to discuss this further. There's too much editorial judgement in your reasoning. Joko2468 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the same about your arguments as you haven't been able to produce any updated research on the contrary. Rangooner (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's important claims here are verified and that we can't necessarily just call a spade a spade without evidence to prove it is a spade. But when we don't see any trustworthy, up-to-date research that indicates Trump is indeed not a fascist, I think it's dishonest and violated the integrity of Wikipedia's mission to provide factual and unbiased information rather than leaning into the uninformed opinions of skeptics. At the same time, if I told you the logo for Wikipedia is supposed to be a globe and provided ample verification of this, and you you disagreed, would we not be able to refer to it as such because skepticism about whether or not it's a globe exists? Alright, I'm done. Rangooner (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that it isn't appropriate for two editors' views to hold so much weight on such a controversial matter. You can invoke a Request for comment to invite more editors to discuss this towards a consensus. See the one I invoked above on academic sourcing.

I'm not sure I understand your last point, I'm not disagreeing with you on the definition of "sceptic" but scholars will often seek to assign technical names to different camps in an academic debate. For an example, see how Ivan Gomza characterises the debate of the fascist classification of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (I worked on this content). Joko2468 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides whether the research is sufficiently up-to-date? Journalists and celebrities are not the only people saying Trump is not a fascist. Some scholarly sources from the last couple of years do, too, as already mentioned on the page. We use polls and metastudies to show consensus on, for example, the Copenhagen Interpretation. The social sciences are also much less likely to form consensus, being softer on defined terms and peer review than the hard sciences. I agree that it's clear that most recent studies present Trump as a fascist, but it could simply be a wave that's yet to be met with resistance. It's a difficult subject to tackle with more nuance than you might expect. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we have to go off the sum of the evidence based on reliable sources and I've provided high quality evidence that this change wouldn't be appropriate (see my reply from 11:05). Editors' meta-analyses are sometimes used to build consensus but only when there is no other alternative. Joko2468 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I would like to add this quotation from the provided source to the neo-fascism note: "This debate has unfolded in stark binary terms of presence or absence. Alarmists argue that Trumpism bears all of the hallmarks of fascism and should therefore be labelled as such. Sceptics suggest that this conclusion is premised on shallow historical analogizing that mistakes form for substance... although Trumpism does not conform to inter-war European iterations of fascism, and while the conditions under which they emerged are strikingly different, Trumpism nonetheless exhibits fascistic tendencies that have intensified in recent years. We refer to this as 'proto-fascism', and suggest that neoliberal capitalism has been centrally implicated in its emergence."

I think this is simply an improvement but does anyone object? Joko2468 (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be controversial unless an academic source is provided to support the FALSEBALANCE claim above. If someone disagrees, please revert this and we can discuss. Joko2468 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"neoliberal capitalism has been centrally implicated in its emergence" Sure, blame neoliberalism for this mess. But Trumpism is a reaction against neoliberalism's main doctrine of free-market capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this is interesting but please see WP:NOTFORUM. Joko2468 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion is not fact. And applying labels such as “fascist” “Nazi” and “authoritarian” to innocent people or his supporters should be considered a violation of Wikipedia rules. This is incredibly dangerous and could potentially lead to furthering political violence. It has already lead to innocent people being murdered, harassed, stalked, assaulted, doxxed, etc.

Your personal bias is not a fact. It is opinion. And it must remain that unless it is fact.

Please refrain from making such accusations in the future on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) as it is a call to action that has real world consequences for innocent people. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore- let that be considered a final warning to anyone here. Such calls to action and misappropriation of such labels with the intention of making a tongue and cheek call to action against people- will be handled appropriately. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening editors is inappropriate and could result in a ban. See WP:HA and WP:FAITH. I can guarantee you that whatever concerns you have about the encyclopedia, behaving in this authoritarian manner will achieve nothing. Joko2468 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this. The only people who should "handle appropriately" anything are admins. Slomo666 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under “Falsehoods” in the “Methods of Persuasion” section, there are four images with captions that seem to carry a lot of tangential and subjective information sourced from opinion pieces that do not relate to much or any of the information presented in the following body of text.

The image and caption (“Google Trends topic searches for "Gaslighting" began a substantial increase in 2016, at the time of the campaign for the U.S. presidential election.[193]”) should be removed because it is tangential and misleading for the following reasons.

• There is no record of Trump ever using the term “gaslighting”. The inclusion of this may mislead readers that he uses or even coined the term in 2016.
• Comparison between Trump’s rhetorical style and gaslighting is briefly mentioned in the main body text of the section with better context. The point being made compares Trump’s style to Soviet propaganda and the inclusion of this graph does not aid in understanding it.
• Knowledge of the change of prevalence of the term “gaslighting” does not help the reader understand or have more information about Trump’s falsehoods. It is entirely tangential to the purpose of the section.

The image and caption (“ Google Trends topic searches for "Fake news" began a substantial increase in late 2016, about the time of the U.S. presidential election.[194]”) should be removed because it is misleading.

• Trump did not coin the term “fake news” or use it during the 2016 campaign (source: Fake News Timeline). In fact, it was coined by most often used by journalists and his political opponents (source:BBC: How to tackle the rise of fake news). Its rise in prevalence in 2016 was not done directly by him. It wasn’t until after the election when he began using the term and its meaning shifted to be just a smear. The inclusion of this graph will mislead readers into believing that the term was used in this way during 2016 instead of its sociological meaning, as well as suggesting that Trump coined the term and made it prevalent, which is false.
• Since “fake news” was never mentioned in the main body of text under the “Falsehood” section, the change in prevalence of this term aids in no way to understanding the point of the section.
• The source [194] is a permanent dead link.

The image and caption (“ Though Trump repeatedly promoted his 2024 victory as a mandate—to inflate the actual degree of voter support—he failed to receive 50% of the popular vote.[195] His 1.5 percentage point margin of victory in 2024 (shown in chart) place it in only the 20th percentile of presidential elections since 1828.[196]”) should be removed because it is incorrect, biased, misleading, and tangential.

• A mandate, in terms of political legitimacy, has no objective criteria and is instead something subjectively perceived by the people who are governed by that politician. The question of whether a mandate exists or not is a matter of opinion, and it is biased to try to present one side as objectively correct and the other as objectively incorrect.
• The only source used to claim that the “mandate” is a falsehood is explicitly an opinion column and the columnist of which does not try to present his opinion as fact. He is trying to sway his readers to reject the idea of a mandate, not that one does not objectively exist.
• There is nothing in the main body of text which mentions a “mandate” from the 2024 election, and it does not aid whatsoever in understanding the points of the subsection.

The image and caption (“ Trump's opposition to wind power involves repeated claims that "windmills" "kill the birds".[197] However, cats in the U.S. actually kill about 10,000 times as many birds as wind turbines.[198]”) should be removed because it is incorrect, misleading, and tangential.

• It is not literally false that windmills are killing birds and is backed up by the two sources provided as well as being the only claim that Trump made in the sources [197], “The wind, it kills our birds. If you want to see a bird cemetery, go under a windmill sometime”. The Mashable article itself being used as a source does not even make the claim that Trump lied.
• There is no record of Trump ever comparing human-related bird deaths as a result of cats and windmills, mentioning human-related bird deaths as a result of cats at all, or that windmills are a main cause of bird deaths. Bringing it up will mislead readers into wrongly believing that he did make these claims.
• The body text of the subsection does not mention windmill related claims whatsoever, and it does not aid the reader in understanding Trump’s falsehoods as no source provided claims that Trump lied or quotes a lie by him. Achthal (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

I am not even going to try to make sense of this gigantic lap of text right now.
Please, consider that the people who respond to WP:edit requests are just humble volunteers. This is why edit requests must be concise and specific. (You can write a detailed description and explain why the edit is necessary separately) It’s not very nice to make them try to read through paragraphs upon paragraphs just to find what you mean.

I have changed the template you used to the correct (semi-protected) one and set it to answered. You can set it back to unanswered after you provide a clear “X to Y” description of your suggested change. You can also just ping me and I can take a look if you want. Your text also looks fine if you just want to keep it as a discussion topic.
Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia. Good luck and happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed issues Achthal (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From charts' uploader: new user Achthal wrongly removed four charts. File:1828- Margin of victory in US presidential elections - popular vote.svg and File:2017 Human-related causes of bird deaths (US).svg show specific instances of Trump falsehoods (falsehoods being integral to Trumpism). The Google Trend charts show how he, or the backlash he has caused, have influenced issues of "gaslighting" and "fake news", making them used in common parlance. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my points above. The old adage “correlation does not equal causation” applies here. Trump did not coin or use the term “Fake News” in 2016. Trump has never used the word “gaslighting”. Please provide sources for why these are relevant. Achthal (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— You are engaging in an WP:EDITWAR (no, we don't need 3 reverts to call it an edit war).

— First, you ignore the fact that File:1828- Margin of victory in US presidential elections - popular vote.svg and File:2017 Human-related causes of bird deaths (US).svg show specific instances of Trump falsehoods. They are specifically sourced. There is no hard and fast "rule" that the narrative text must explain each image (it's a formal guideline only), but if you want to add more text for the obvious, feel free.

— Obviously Trump used "fake news" early on, as this December 2016 article relates, and the video of Hilary Clinton in that article says the term was used "over the past year" (2016). So your claim about "2016" in particular is not only irrelevant; it is factually wrong.

— More generally, it's not necessary that Trump himself used the term, but also that others used the term about him; it works both ways. For example, Gaslighting#In_politics cites several sources showing how Trump gaslights. Countless sources, such as Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us, apply the term to his technique.

— I will not be addressing your numerous other points as they are riddled with misunderstanding of Wikipedia, questionable logic, and factual errors. It's late, so I won't be adding sourcing, but the decent thing for you to do to avoid prolonging an WP:EDITWAR would be to revert your most recent deletion. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this talk page precisely because I wanted to avoid an edit war and come to a consensus. If anyone is prolonging it, it was you by not addressing my points. I do not believe these images and captions should be restored until they have sources that do not contradict them or are changed so they do not contradict the sources.
• In regard to [image 4], the two sources you provided were a Mashable article and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service article. Neither of these sources provide evidence that Trump claimed that cats kill fewer birds than windmills or that windmills are the primary cause of human-related death for birds, which would be lies. Trump was only quoted once in either article, specifically in Mashable, and it is, “the wind, it kills our birds. If you want to see a bird cemetery, go under a windmill sometime”. The author of that article goes on to state himself, “yes, as detailed below, wind farms do inevitably kill some birds — all energy production carries costs. But wind turbines, which are cleverly designed from airplane wings, are not what's decimating bird populations in the U.S”. If you believe that Trump’s statement is a lie, then the author of this article must also be lying and should not be counted as a source. This statement of Trump’s may be construed as misleading because it does not account for greater context, but it is not a lie and by no means belongs under the subsection “Falsehoods”.
• In regard to [image 3], your sources were [a Washington Post column] and [a US Presidency Project article]. Neither of these articles present a “mandate” as something objectively measurable. The latter article defines it simply as this, “a common view is that a president's popular mandate, as measured by the size of his margins of victory in the popular and electoral vote, predicts the likelihood of him launching enduring changes in policy and politics.” It should be noted that the language here does not present this criteria as scientific or universal by introducing it with “a common view…”. Regardless, under this criteria, Trump would have a mandate considering he won the electoral and popular votes. However, you contradict this source and state in the caption, “though Trump repeatedly promoted his 2024 victory as a mandate—to inflate the actual degree of voter support.” The former source, which is an opinion piece written on 18 November 2024 before the final vote totals were released, also uses language that does not present a “mandate” as something objective and puts the word in scare quotes, “If we’re using vote percent as a proxy for ‘mandate’…”. Again, whether Trump has a mandate or not is unfalsifiable and claiming he does or does not cannot constitute a lie. For these reasons, your caption gravely misrepresents what the sources say and is extremely biased.
• The subsection “Falsehoods” of “Methods of Persuasion” should be devoted only to his lies and how they persuade his audience. You say that images 3 and 4 and their captions “show specific instances of Trump falsehoods. They are specifically sourced.” Their sources directly contradict their captions and neither of them present Trump lying. Trump’s quote about windmills is at worst gravely misleading, and the idea of a mandate is entirely a matter of opinion that can be neither right nor wrong. The quote in the body text about Trump claiming his father came from Germany is a good example because it is falsifiable and he actually said it as well as having a followup explaining why it is relevant. These two instances are objectively not lies and their being under the subsection “falsehoods” distracts from the point of the subsection and will mislead readers into believing things that are not true.
• In regard to [image 2], the prevalence of this term, in contradistinction to the phenomenon it represents, has very little to do with Trump’s falsehoods or how they add to his persuasion. If anything, the knowledge of the sociological phenomenon of “fake news” becoming more mainstream in response to Trump’s lies would detract from his persuasive abilities. The only source provided for this image and caption appears to be dead, and I cannot find the original data in the same quality.
• In regard to [image 1], the same principle applies in that the increase of knowledge and awareness of a sociological phenomenon in response to Trump’s exploitation of it would diminish his persuasion. Knowledge about the prevalence of this term does little to help the reader understand if or how Trump uses it and instead suggests some lingual connection between Trump and the word.

Achthal (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the status quo pending discussion as is proper. However I do actually agree with Achthal about some of these charts. Specifically the chart regarding causes of bird deaths and the two charts about google trends for gaslighting and fake news have not demonstrated relevancy to the topic in reliable sources. I would recommend cutting those three. The rest seem fine to me. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you Achthal mischaracterize what the charts actually show (strawman arguments), cherry-pick what sources say, and exaggerate what is required for inclusion.

1. Re bird deaths: Trump does not have to specifically say "cats kill fewer birds than windmills or that windmills are the primary cause of human-related death for birds" as you imply. The Mashable source makes clear that Trump's repeated claim re "windmills" killing birds are misleading misinformation. I've changed the section title to /* Falsehoods and misleading statements */ along the lines of False and misleading statements by Donald Trump; see #3 below.
2. Re mandate: It is irrelevant that there are different definitions of mandate. The Washington Post makes it crystal clear that Trump is claiming a mandate, and provides its own pie charts disproving his claim. The uploaded bar chart presents data based on a specific numerical listing in another source.
3. Re lies versus falsehoods and misleading statements: Clearly False and misleading statements by Donald Trump shows how a provable "lie" is not necessary for a claim to be notable for inclusion in reliable sources and Wikipedia. It is enough that Trump's claims are merely false or misleading.
4. Re "fake news" and "gaslighting" (Google trends): In the abstract it is true that coincidence is not the same as causation. But, again, you miss the point that the charts weren't offered to prove that Trump "coined" or "used" a term. Countless Wikipedia articles about "X" show the context ("fake news" usage by anyone) of X or the effects of X (accusations of "gaslighting"). I plan to add sourcing to prove the obvious connection. Or I will investigate doing Google Trends searches for "Trump fake news" and "Trump gaslighting" to focus more narrowly.
5. Re your hypothetical: Stating that "increase of knowledge and awareness of a sociological phenomenon in response to Trump’s exploitation of it would diminish his persuasion" is your personal hypothetical theory as an editor, having nothing to do with what the charts show or what sources state.
6. The original links to the Google Trends website (not the archive links) are not dead. Even if you don't use the links, you can reproduce the results updated data by filling in the blank at https://trends.google.com/trends/ .

You are new here, so it's best to take small steps rather than making huge deletions. To most editors, your first post above (especially) is over the top and counterproductive, and your personal theories are out of place. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't think Google trends mean much of anything at all. They're effectively cruft and poorly sourced. Your use of them is approximate to WP:OR. I do see you improved the citations for the birds chart and would want to re-review with the new citations. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded a new chart, File:2004- "Fake news" and "Trump fake news" - Google Trends.svg with two references in the caption placing the chart in context. All charts here under discussion have been tied to the content of the section, /* Falsehoods and misleading statements */. Simonm223, Google Trends provides neutrally presented data in the same manner as the National Weather Service provides temperature data; it's neither cruft nor "poorly sourced". I understand your concern WP:OR, but references consistently point to a connection between Trump and a term and the term's effects, so it's permissible to follow up with a neutral factual presentation of what the sources are talking about. It's obviously not mere "coincidence" that the charts explain what the references state. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a formal matter, I'm reluctantly OK with moving some of the captions to the narrative text, but I suggest we localize the captions & charts for purposes of this discussion. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At one time (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trumpism&oldid=1077498622), there was a section regarding the relationship between Male Bravado/Misogyny/ "traditional roles of women" and trumpism. Not a lot of academic study of the relationship of the so called "Manoverse" and Trumpism was available at the time and the section was progressively removed due to what I believe was the view that it was not recognized as central to the analysis of some rigorous academic perspectives regarding trumpism. I would propose that given the attention that has been paid to the phenomenon of the Manoverse and the Trumpism's conflicted views regarding the revelations of the Trump-Epstein revelations that an explanation of the perspective on Trumpism described section be resurrected in some part. J JMesserly (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it can be included but it should probably be placed in factions. ~2025-36440-88 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While many self proclaimed fascists and neo fascist speak personal support for Trump, “trumpism” is not an actual ideology nor is it a neo fascist ideology. Trump does not exhibit the hallmark traits of being a fascist and he was elected into power via popular vote by the people of the United States, meaning well over half of public voters- voted for him. He still follows the constitution of the United States, the governing system/checks and balances are still intact, and any accusation on Wikipedia of him, his supporters, etc. being fascists is unfounded and potentially dangerous and could lead to innocent people being harmed. It is not a light accusation to make and has already lead to multiple individuals being physically harmed, harassed, and even murdered. Calling someone a fascist and or a Nazi is a call to action against them.

Do Not Do This. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore- I would like to formally request that the neo-fascism label be removed because it is neither based upon fact nor reality. It is opinion based on personal bias. It is also incredibly dangerous and should not be accepted on Wikipedia. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically that is your own opinion based on personal bias. The reality is that there are many scholars that think so and it is being debated. The debate is objectively characterised in the note in the infobox. Readers can look at the content and make up their own minds, Wikipedia is WP:UNCENSORED. Joko2468 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to make formal requests. If you want to make an edit request you can, but not on a controversial change such as this one, certainly not if there is already a discussion on the subject ongoing. It would help you if you would lower your tone and act more civil.

Slomo666 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would mischaracterise the fascism sources-- they all say that Trump or Trumpism is fascist or fascist-adjacent and do not refer to a faction within Trumpism. Joko2468 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If so it’s probably high time we admit scholars just have their own biases. Again I can see a case for neo-fascism in the info box but if it’s not in factions it’s just a case of “everybody I dislike is a fascist” ~2025-38155-89 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise but it isn't practical to do that. If there's a wider systemic bias in academia, then there's not much we can do about that: see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Were Wikipedia to assume political neutrality as a principle, all hell would break loose. Your argument for including it as a faction just isn't valid and has no basis in the sources. Joko2468 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the List of ideologies list Neo-mercantilism or mercantilism since it alligns a lot with trump's trade views Robloxgamer469 (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a reliable source to add that (ideally an academic one), it's not mentioned at Economic policy of the second Trump administration. As editors we just collate sources and don't conduct original research. Joko2468 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]