Jump to content

Talk:Trumpism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeff6045 (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 14 April 2023 (→‎Deleted Hong Jun-pyo and Yoon Seok-yeol from the list of figures related to Trumpism: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Change "very fine people" to "very fine people on both sides." Mayonnaiseholidays (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting changing the "very fine people" among the "neo-Nazi protestors to 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)[reply]

Adding Template:Fascism to the page

The page has very many sources that back up the claim that Trumpism is a form of fascism. As such I think the template should be added to the page. I know that it's controversial because it's partisan, but there is consensus from experts that it qualifies as fascist. The page also mentions the word "fascism"/"fascist" 88 times, all in reference to Trumpism. Here are some of the sources:

As such, I think that Trumpism should be added to the template, and that the template should be added to the page. I will make a WP:BOLD edit and add it. If you disagree, please discuss it here. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles explain how "Trumpism", a form of right-wing populism, is "fascist". They use it more like a political adjetive rather than analysing and comparing it with Gentile's ideology Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the comparison between Trumpism and Fascism is nothing short of insane. Biden's ideology is closer to Fascism than Trump's ever was. bree Breeboi 12:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring with how ludicrous the comparison is, I went ahead and reverted the template additions. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply wrong in saying that the sources don't explain how it fits the definition of fascism. That's literally the entirety of what the sources are. They also explain how scholars of fascism pretty much agree on the usage of the term. Removing it because you personally disagree with the sources and think that "Biden's ideology is closer" is biased editing, simply put. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): I'm not the one making any argument about Biden. I'm pointing out that none of the sources make any effort to align what they call "Trumpism" with fascism as Gentile originally defined it. You can't simply call any little thing under the sun "fascism" without backing yourself up, as none of these so-called experts even attempt. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison to Gentile isn't necessary for a source to be valid. The scholarly consensus is clear, regardless of your opinion. Not citing Gentile doesn't invalidate the sources or their claims. And the sources clearly do back up their claims. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): Gentile quite literally wrote the book on fascism. It's certainly not our fault if a few coastal blowhards choose to ignore the rules and slap an increasingly impotent label on whatever so much as annoys them. A consensus formed by ill-faith players is not the gospel truth. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you disagree with the scholarly consensus doesn't make it any less true. Your opinion is irrelevant here. Just because you disagree doesn't make the experts "blowhards" or "ill-faith players". You're the one arguing in poor faith by declaring all sources you disagree with invalid because they don't cite Gentile. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): That's precisely what makes them invalid, or at least highly dubious. If you assign a label to something even if it doesn't fit, that's what's defined as being wrong whether or not you're a "scholar" or "expert". Several such wrongs do not equal a right, and we in building an encyclopedia ought to strive to be right. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the label does fit, as the sources clearly indicate. If you were right in your assessment that the sources don't make any valid comparisons then you would be in the right here, but the sources clearly indicate that it fits the definition quite well. These aren't just random people declaring something is fascism because they don't like it, they're experts who have studied fascism declaring something is fascism because the glove fits neatly. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Also, regarding your claim that an we "ought to strive to be right", I suggest you read WP:VNT. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing, and their word that "the glove fits" should be taken with a grain of salt. The conspicuous absence of such citation in these sources puts their credibility in question (to say the least) as far as the fascism claim goes. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're going in circles. Your argument hinges on the idea that Gentile is the only authority on fascism, which is blatantly false. I'm going to start an RfC to get this over with. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that argument would fall apart quickly in an RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page also mentions the word "fascism"/"fascist" 88 times Boy, that's an unfortunate number. — Czello 12:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Western scholars who don't regard Shinzo Abe as a fascist but Donald Trump as a fascist are biased. South Korean scholars see Shinzo Abe as a fascist and Donald Trump as NOT fascist. Trumpism is not associated with Nazism or Italian fascism. However, Shinzo Abe is a Japanese fascist who inherited Kishi Nobusuke's fascist tradition. Unlike Abe, Trump is not an ultranationalist. Although it follows tradition, Abe is the heir to fascist, but Trump is not fascist. Donald Trump is not a fascist, and Shinzo Abe is a fascist. Shinzo Abe has a legacy of war crimes in World War II. Donald Trump has no such legacy. Mureungdowon (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison to Shinzo Abe is completely irrelevant and an example of Whataboutism. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Whataboutism, but a lack of consistency. Currently in Wikipedia, there is no fascist category in Giorgia Meloni and her party. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Far right and fascism must be distinguished. Of course, there are scholars who see Donald Trump as a fascist, but there are many who do not see him as a fascist. A key element of fascism is ultranationalism. The United States has never had a government in its history that supports this ideology. The criticism that Trump is a fascist is because he is a populist. Abe is accused of being an ultra-nationalist because he is more far-right than Trump, but Wikipedia does not classify him as a fascist category. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is described as a nationalist by reliable sources, and he even embraced the term himself. [1] ––FormalDude (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump is a nationalist. But not ultra-nationalist. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nationalism

@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)[reply]

It was not deliberate editing. Looking at what you said now, I thought it would be better to separate the session into two. Mureungdowon (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me (with this slight change I've just made). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should the fascism template be included in the article?

User:Cat's Tuxedo and I have a disagreement on whether it is appropriate to include the fascism template at the bottom of the article. My argument is that, since there are multiple sources in the article that indicate that many experts consider Trumpism to be a form of fascism, and the article indicates as such, it should be included. Their argument is that the sources are all invalid because they do not cite Giovanni Gentile specifically or make comparisons to his works. According to them, quote, "If a "expert" does not cite Gentile in assigning the "fascist" label to something, then the designation means nothing".

So I would like to ask, should the template stay or go? Please reply with keep template to indicate that the template should stay, or remove template to indicate that it should not. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Poll

  • Foster (2017): Editorial published in a magazine
  • Butler (2016): Primary source interview of a gender studies philosopher
  • Badiou (2019): Reliable source
  • Giroux (2021): Editorial published in a journal
  • Traverso (2019): Opinion in a book published by a questionable press
  • Tarizzo (2021): Reliable source
  • The Chomsky, Husser, Ibish, Cockburn, and Drutman sources do not support the claim that Trumpism is fascism (and are all editorial/opinion).
Furthermore, it's trivial to produce sources that argue the opposite or give a more nuanced perspective, both in academic and journalistic outlets:
We should mention the comparisons to fascism a few times in the body where appropriate (and possibly in the lead), but we should not do anything to suggest that this is an agreed upon fact or even that it's widely accepted in the academic community, because it is not. If I can add my personal opinion, Trumpism is its own beast, and it's important to recognize it as such. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these sources talk about whether Trump is or is not fascist, not whether Trumpism, as a movement or tendency, has fascist elements. That's quite different. Neutralitytalk 22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is different, and that's the problem. Nothing about this discussion hinges on whether Trumpism has "elements of fascism". We're talking about whether sources consider it to be a type of fascism. The sourcing does not broadly support the claim that it is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources contrasting Trumpism with Fascism only strengthen the case for inclusion of the template. The standard for inclusion is relevance per RS, not equivalence. Feoffer (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Well, these don’t fit. Donald Trump is not a dictator. Trumpism is not autocratic. At no point did he suppress political opponents. He and his ideology don’t believe in a natural social hierarchy. At no point has Trumpism attempted to subordinate individualism. And Trumpism is supportive of limited government and business, whilst fascists heavily regiment the society and business.
Even if these are reliable sources (which is highly questionable, as people like Chomsky, cornel west, etc. are obviously going to be opponents of his ideology anyway), none of Trumpism’s characteristics fit fascism. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jae-myung

One editor keeps adding Lee Jae-myung as an example of a Trumpist. Is Lee Jae-myung really a person who can be seen on the same line as Viktor Orban, Shinzo Abe, or Yoon Suk-yeol? South Korean liberals' nationalist attitude toward Japan is related to decolonism and partly to the issue of compensation for victims of war crimes by the Japanese Empire during World War II, which survived in South Korea. Japanese conservative media rarely take a neutral view in South Korean politics. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any reasonable sources to support your claim. Bloomberg and Nikkei Asia are recognized as reasonable sources on Wikipedia. However, the basis for you reversing my editing is nothing more than your political claim.Jeff6045 (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some media compare Lee Jae-myung to Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, but that's because he is literally a [liberal] 'populist' politician. We can find countless sources comparing [liberal] 'populist' Volodymyr Zelensky to Donald Trump in the past. (Of course, those sources are almost all pre-2022 sources.) But it would be a ludicrous argument that Zelensky is a Trumpist. No source describes Lee Jae-myung as Trumpism or Trumpist. 'Donald Trump' and 'Trumpism' are not synonymous. See WP:SYNTH. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will report you to the Wikipedia administrators for violating the WP:3RR policy. Also, if your logic is correct, why are Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo on the Trumpist list? The sources about them seem much weaker than those about Lee Jae-myung. Additionally, neither of the sources are directly describing Yoon Seok-yeol and Hong Jun-pyo as Trumpists Jeff6045 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff6045: No need for the duplicate effort, I'm in the process of reporting both of you currently. :-) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff6045: No. Yoon Suk-yeol is described directly as "K-Trumpism". While Yoon Suk-yeol is a right-wing politician, Lee Jae-myung is a liberal politician. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a qoute realated to your statement. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: I think I made a mistake while editing as well. I apologize for my inappropriate behavior. If I have done something wrong, I will take appropriate action to rectify it.Jeff6045 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Hong Jun-pyo and Yoon Seok-yeol from the list of Trumpism-related individuals. The sources linking them to Trumpism were from The Korea Herald, which is perceived in Korea as a media outlet with a specific political color. Additionally, in Korean politics, opposing sides often attack each other by accusing them of being like Trump. Based on these points, if a Korean politician is included in this document, it could threaten the neutrality of Wikipedia. Therefore, I have made my edit like this [2]. If you have a different opinion, please feel free to respond. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are approaching that list as though it's "the list". The lead (the top part of the article) is only a summary of the rest of the article. You repeatedly added a name to that list that isn't in the rest of the article and have now repeatedly removed two names that are in the article. Again, this is not a definitive "list of figures related to Trumpism" but a summary of figures covered in the article which have been connected to Trumpism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your edit. Can you point out which part of the source relates Hong Jun-pyo or Yoon Suk-yeol to figures related to Trumpism? Jeff6045 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. It seems that you only included the individuals in the article who have explicit mentions of their connection to Trumpism. Jeff6045 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out which part of the source relates Hong Jun-pyo or Yoon Suk-yeol to figures related to Trumpism? - We have an entire article about it: K-Trumpism, and the section about it in this article reuses some of the same sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. Thank you for your reply. Jeff6045 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&oldid=1149827861"