Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is a strong numerical majority in favour of keeping, and furthermore there is evidence in those !votes showing that this is a topic that is widely covered in sources. This is not saying for definite in Wikipedia's voice that Mr Trump is a "fascist", simply noting what reliable sources have said on this topic. Note also that I'm closing the RM on this in tandem with the AfD, and the article will be shortly moved back to its original title of simply "Donald Trump and fascism".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since a large amount of people have expressed concerns about whether this article meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I will boldly start an AfD discussion to see what the community thinks, since the talk page discussions have gotten nowhere. I have also seen opinions that this is a content fork of Trumpism, which is valid. I will clarify that this is on behalf of several other editors who expressed concerns, as their opinions do also matter. I personally have no opinion on this. SMG chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense). It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality. :To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is a shame for wikipedia to loose neutrality, the page must be deleted Fasil H. (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. I think this article certainly deserves to exist because it is a common topic of discussion, and has been for at least 3 years (after January 6) but I think a lot of improvements could be made. The article kinda makes it look like only silly conservatives are uncomfortable with the term 'fascist' being applied to Trump, but some scholars have resisted the term as well, and I think that should be given more weight in the article. As far as I can tell, even scholars with a negative view of Trump sometimes think that 'fascism' is too far, seeing him as an opportunist, or, most commonly, not politically astute enough to have a real ideology. And so we should mention that in addition to the slightly different conservative defense (that the word is thrown around too much or is a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome). Birdsgeek (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a lot of studies, commentators, political analysts and politicians who have rightly compared Trump to a fascist. And a legitimate topic should not be removed from Wikipedia just because it's hurts the POV of a section of the populace. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for violating WP:SYNTH and being irrevocably NPOV. I mean seriously, what next? ‘List of lies told by Rishi Sunak’? ‘Comparisons between Joe Biden and Joe Stalin’? This is absurd. Riposte97 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not American but I follow American politics from my native Africa and what I see is that, over time, Wikipedia has become a strong bastion of the Western far left. This kind of article is just a direct attack on a right-wing politician. An article that takes up all the rhetoric of the far-left. And as luck would have it, this article was written the same day THE GUARDIAN published an article "Is Donald Trump a fascist?".
  • Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:

    If this shifts to a merge discussion, I would strong oppose that; the {{refideas}} at the top of this page shows a wealth of academic and book sources comparing Trump's views to fascism. charlotte 👸♥ 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

    charlotte 👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.
Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" Gremlin742 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term Fascist and Communist is thrown around so loosely these days without any experience or knowledge of what those words mean. It is sad and amusing to hear people say Joe Biden is a Communist or Donald Trump is a Fascist simply because its an easy trigger word to discredit them. These arguments are being made by uneducated people who would not know Communism or Fascism if it hit them in the face and broke their nose.
_
I would love to hear stories of people who truly suffered under the horrible Fascist Trump Regime of 2016-2020, or the tyrannical Communist Biden Regime of 2020-2024, it must have been so horrible, probably more so than Romania where during the Communism regime where women couldn’t have abortions, and if they got pregnant they would be jailed or killed so they would be forced to undergo at home abortions, risking things going wrong and never being able to have children again. Artem P75 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" George Orwell in Politics and the English Language Wizmut (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

Wikipedia's habit of reflecting what mainstream sources choose to cover means that it has an unhealthy fixation on Donald Trump. We have Donald Trump and handshakes, we have Donald Trump and golf, we have probably a hundred separate articles about every single aspect of the guy and his life and his views and everything about him. It is extremely unusual, even for someone who is the President of the United States -- we do not have this level of obsessive coverage of Obama or Bush or Biden. I get that he is a very visible public figure, and also a very silly guy, and he does a lot of notable stuff, but Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I cannot wait until the year 2029 when I get to fire up the hedge trimmers and merge a bunch of flash-in-the-pan news cycle articles about Donald Trump's opinions on Tabasco sauce and nobody will follow me around to gripe about how this means I am obviously a paid shill for the Republicans and/or Democrats and/or Whigs and/or pushing an agenda for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Diode and Big Capacitor.

See, okay, there is this very long and convoluted argument for how this article doesn't call him a fascist, it's just a list of every time anybody has ever called him a fascist, which we are assembling in a lovingly made gallery of quotes in an encyclopedia article, which inherently suggests that these utterances are worth paying attention to and that they indicate something useful about the state of reality, also for some reason we do not really spend much time explaining that they are opinions and not factual statements -- okay. I get it, whatever. This will win arguments on Wikipedia. I don't think it is going to convince anybody outside Wikipedia, by which I mean the readers of our project, by whom I mean the only actual people who matter when we make decisions about content.

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment Rob Roilen (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be heavily rewritten so it is not bias propaganda against one side, but if that doesn't happen then it should be deleted Gremlin742 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether or not it happens, its about whether or not it CAN happen. If the issue with an article CAN be fixed, deletion is entirely unnecessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

As for WP:NPOV, the article could definitely use a good touch-up, but it is practically impossible to compare X to Y without readers noticing a visible or perceived bias towards whether the comparison is appropriate, warranted, fair, neutral, etc. Neutrality certainly isn't helped by the fact that "fascist" and "communist" have been adopted into the repertoire of insults for a lot of people, but I believe the article is worth keeping. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Labeling Donald Trump as a "fascist" is legitimate.

Generally, fascism is a far-right authoritarian ideology that promotes;

  1. Racial and ethnic nationalism
  2. Centralization of power
  3. Suppression of dissent, and often the identification of enemies within society to rally the populace.

So we continue to debate whether Trump fits this label due to his authoritarian rhetoric, attacks on public institutions, divisive rhetoric against perceived "enemies," and his apparent disregard for established norms.

However, while Trump has exhibited some behaviors associated with authoritarianism (e.g., undermining the press, rejecting election results), he has not instituted a fully centralized, authoritarian state with absolute power. So that his actions fall short of full-blown fascism.

QalasQalas (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from this appearing to be AI generated (according to 10 different detectors), I don't see the point you were attempting to make here. Everyone could spend an eternity comparing person X to fascism, communism or any other ideology

Make no mistake, I also believe Donald Trump is very comparable to a fascist. But we cannot undermine WP:NPOV just because we have the impression he is comparable to one. Millions disagree, making it a view at the end of the day, not a factual statement. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is "millions disagree" how Wikipedia determines a factual statement? Millions believe the moon landing was faked. To stay within the realm of US politics, millions believe that Trump won the 2020 election. 2601:600:CB00:B0F0:949B:4319:E991:38C1 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion and is it happenstance that the first edit you make calls for the deletion of a page concerning trump and fascism by attacking & name calling liberals. Wikipedia is not a rw echo chamber. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia rule books as many who have commented here are. I am just a regular user of the website. In my opinion, it would be wise to delete this article. When it comes to comparison between two ideologies (in this case fascism and Trump's beliefs and actions) it would take an unbiased person to deliver a satisfyingly neutral summary of the situation due to the potentially endless angles from which the comparison could be made, all of which are important in understanding the issue. This page is almost destined to be stained by bias, whether intentionally or not, and there's no reason the readers of Wikipedia who are interested in this subject cannot/would not simply use this website to research fascism and Trump separately in order to make their own comparison and analysis. That's my two cents at least. 66.177.187.250 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete
  1. This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
  2. The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
  3. Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
  4. Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
  5. NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.

  6. Lack of Reliable Sources:
  • Many of the citations used in the article are attributed to opinion pieces. Regardless of whether the source uses the term, "analysis", "opinion", "editorial" or other words, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Just because person X says "Donald Trump is a fascist" doesn't make it so. It also fails to make it so when person X writes an opinion piece analyzing Trump's actions themselves and claims Trump to be a fascist. Whether Trump is a fascist or not should not be left for Wikipedia's editors to determine, but for the individual voters themselves.
  • The poll cited by ABC news in the Lede is also highly unreliable, particularly since ABC is under extreme scrutiny for bias in terms of how they conducted themselves in the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. When you go through to the actual information of the poll itself, you can see that the data is highly massaged and twisted to produce the misleading results published on the wikipedia page. 49% of Americans do NOT think "Trump is a fascist", for example, only 44% think Trump is a facist. 5% think BOTH Harris AND Trump are fascists, however this key detail is left out, as is the percentage of Americans who think Kamala Harris is a fascist.

To summarize: This article is not written with a neutral point of view, even when it contains a small section of "criticisms" of the point of view, is poorly timed in concert with the upcoming election, may put an individual or individuals in physical danger, and thus needs to be speedily deleted.Steven Britton (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

off topic
@Steven Britton: Having they/them pronouns does not constitute a conflict of interest. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please remove that personal attack, those things aren't welcome here. SMG chat 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a personal attack. I worded it very carefully to avoid an appearance of it being a personal attack. The use of the pronouns can, and does, in this politically-charged environment, bring the author's own motivations into question. I am sure that they are a perfectly decent and upstanding person. I am also sure they have a set of opinions that may, or may not, be in sync with the rest of us. That being said, it is very reasonable and objectively true that a specific set of opinions of a certain community is very strongly linked to the use of pronouns. Which is the basis behind the need to call their motivations into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I use gender-neutral pronouns online (despite my name). Does that make me biased? No! SMG chat 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to focus on that one particular point to invalidate every other point I made, I guess that's up to you. The fact remains, there's a perceived link between use of pronouns and political bias. I have never said there actually was a bias, just that there is an appearance of one. Steven Britton (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY RESPONSES. CENSORSHIP HAS NO PLACE HERE. I HAVE REMOVED THE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT LIKE - AS ACCURATE AS IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS STAND FOR THEMSELVES.
Just because you don't "like" or "agree" with something I said in terms of linking item A to ideology B does not invalidate the point that there does exist a link, and that link, even if not true in a specific case, can and does create an appearance of bias and call motivation into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of bias because of their gender identity will not help you. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failing to adhere to Wikipedia's personal attack policy will get you blocked, no matter the context. SMG chat 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Play nice, we don't care how people identify here. Bias can be discussed without the nasty words. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to play nice. I removed this section because it distracts from the rest of this discussion, and I have also removed the part of my above arguments for “speedy delete” that was contentious. The others restored it for some reason. I have my own suspicions, but you will have to ask them why they decided to restore it. Steven Britton (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also did not see my original statement, I suspect.
I think it’s noteworthy that a discussion was opened on the admin page about “personal attacks” (which did not occur, and certainly not intended) as well. The motivation behind that decision is something I am also wondering about. In the spirit of good faith, I leave it to them to share their reasoning - or not, as they see fit. Steven Britton (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Steven Britton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (with exceptions) Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree the amount of opinion or "newsy" articles need to be trimmed back, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, I'm sure even more of them not used here. Also, a lot of peer reviewed studies are not inline citations but merely "further reading". Except maybe for since mid 2024, studies generally take a long time to compile and many former administration officials calling him fascist is obviously noteworthy enough on its own. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.
Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from my comment above:
So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.
_
I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.
_
It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims
_
Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:
_
If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.
_
Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not agree that titling an article "Comparisons between ________ and fascism" and then packing it with examples of sensational language describing the person as a fascist is meant to, in essence, call the person a fascist?
The lede contains the claim that "49% of American registered voters see Donald Trump as a fascist", which immediately primes the reader and skews the framing of the article. This claim comes from an online poll of only 2,392 people, conducted by Ipsos, a company with a recognized left-of-center bias. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PLEASE NOTE:

Wikipedia:Deletion process: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes." AND WP:DCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Artem P75 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Plainly not NPOV Rob Roilen (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the above comments identify issues that can be fixed by editing. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Trumpism This article’s topic is framed in a way that ensures that the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. When writing articles that deal with contentious subjects (and doubly so for contentious BLPs), I think we do need to be careful that our article topics don’t essentially lock out reliable sources from one side of a controversy. I believe that merging this article into the Trumpism article is most in line with our policies on NPOV. (For the record, I’m worried about the precedent that keeping this article up under its current title could set for other, unrelated articles. My vote is in no way motivated by support for the former president). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spirit of Eagle: the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. Citation needed on that - many of these sources are also considered to be quality reliable sources as per past discussions at WP:RSN, as tabulated at WP:RSP. JavaHurricane 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A source that compares a 21st century politician to fascists is a source that takes an extraordinarily negative view on that politician. My issue here isn’t the reliability of the sources within the article, it’s that the article’s very topic means that the vast majority of relevant sources are going to take an extremely negative position on Trump. To be clear, I think that many of these sources are reliable and should be cited in an article about Trump’s ideology. However, this should be done in a way that doesn’t give them undue weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's obviously notable: for example, there is an entire debate on this topic in the academic journal Fascism. Although I don't personally think that fascism makes a good analysis, I do not find most of the delete/merge !votes to be consonant with our policies. Too much has been said about it to make a good merge into another article, since it would be UNDUE there. CRYBLP does not mean we should delete articles on notable topics. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This topic isn't just a news or social media thing, it has been also extensively covered by political scientists, with fruits of their work being published in various journals. In Google Scholar and JSTOR, there is a sizable portion of journal articles describing comparisons between Trump's ideology and fascism. Some of these sources can be integrated into the article to make it more based on objective facts. Antitransphobe (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Hundreds of high quality sources talking about this issue. Sir MemeGod deserves a trout for wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Very surprised to hear that, especially from someone that I look up to. MemeGod chat 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually have a look at the history of this discussion you will find that SMG raised the issue on behalf of many due to a large amount of requests on the talk page. They have stated that they remain impartial on the issue and that their political views are democrat So I do believe they remain impartial on the issue, and they have certainly not wasted anyone's time, if you again take the time to review the history of the topic. I think you will also find that while these sources in themselves are generally WP:RS, you will also find that politically motivated news stations who caries a bias are far from reliable. Comparing Donald Tramp to fascism, or on the other hand Biden or Harris to communism is sad, uneducated, and done in ignorance of the real weight that those words historically carry. Anyone claiming either political parties are fascist or communist are also uneducated and ignorant on the historical weight of those words and are obviously using them as strong trigger words to discredit someone or associate someone with something so horribly negative and showing a clear and obvious bias against who they are claiming to be those things. "But some actions meet the dictionary definition" or "there has been academic study on this" If we wrote articles exact to every dictionary definition Wikipedia would be more of a mess than what it already is. Dictionary definitions are not perfectly exact or specific and should be considered in light of the history to understand them properly. Academic studies, especially on political topics, often carry a strong amount of bias and will use specific sources to support their own view points - unless the topic of the academic paper is something of real research like the discovery of a new sustainable fuel source for example - matters such as this are purely opinion pieces. Artem P75 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Short summary, the two main reason are that the article is just so far away from being neutral that its beyond saving and that the timing, this close to the election makes it hard to believe that the person that wrote it even tried to make it neutral, so clearly it is conflict of interest.
I have spent pretty much time on this topic and it has been an interesting journey. I first went to read through the abstract on the first page of results from google scholars, surprisingly it was very hard to find these academic people that call Trump a fascist, many was talking about the Trump movement and his rhetoric, but not about Trump himself. It was on the other hand very easy to find the opposite, sources that said he was not a fascist. for example a here: "Discussing whether Trump himself is a fascist may not be the most fruitful endeavour. Trump may be many things; a narcissist with a grandiose sense of self, a compulsive confabulator, a populist charlatan, but there is not much to indicate that he is politically conscious, or even interested enough to have adopted an ideology of any sort, including fascism" Mattias Gardell, Professor at the Centre for Multidisciplinary Studies on Racism, University of Uppsala. source so for me the first sentence of the article "There has been significant academic and political debate over whether Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, qualifies as a fascist" is really far from what I found, after reading all these abstracts.
Next step I went through the sources from this quote of the article "During his 2024 presidential campaign, a growing number of scholars, historians, commentators, politicians, former Trump officials, and generals have described Trump as a fascist". This was really surprising, because very few of the sources said that Trump was a fascist, it was similar as with the google schoolar articles, many called his rhetoric fascist, but very few said that Trump himself was a fascist. According to me Wikipedia should write what the sources says and I think this is not the case here. One funny thing was that one source doesn't even mention the word "fascism", it talks about "Authoritarian", for me it is a hell of a stretch to say that it is the same thing.
So now we come to the main problem with this sort of article. If you compare someone with something that is both pretty vague defined and something that literally no one will say that they are themself, we will easily get a bad article. Most people that will edit this sort of article are those that already agree that Trump would be a fascist, I think that is one reason it will be almost impossible to make this article neutral.
Last thing, that poll is just so ridiculous, quote: "49% of registered voters consider Trump to be a fascist", for me that has to do a lot with that fascist is not only political term, it's also an insult. /Bro (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’Speedy Keep’ and i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds. This is obviously a notable topic whether you agree he is fascist or not. The fact that it is an “attack” is such a spurious reason for removing scholarly research and information that has been exhaustively covered in the news media. We have pure political attack pages like the canard that Obama is from Kenya; Trump’s fascism has received even more coverage, especially scholarly attention, and has the benefit of actually being true, in addition to its indisputable notability and widespread academic and public attention. Please retire from the project if you voted delete. You do not understand what an encyclopedia is.68.196.5.168 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)— 68.196.5.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't get to attack other people or ask to block them because they disagree with you or !vote differently than you do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1. I promised I’d stay away from this discussion, but words like these shouldn’t be said about others. IP clearly isn’t assuming good faith (which I suggest you read). MemeGod chat 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this statement and others, "i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds" Fantastic Mr. Fox is violating Polemic policy and also using wiki:bullying (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying). The reply should be deleted by an editor. And they should be reprimanded. These replies that lack neutrality and don't check bias don't facilitate informed discussion. Stono rebellion (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, @Fantastic Mr. Fox did not write the above statement, they only added a note to the IP's comment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that statement can be qualified by saying that "in X poll, Y% of respondents said that ....". And adding one or two other polls with different figures would be NPOV. Lamona (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article clearly does not have a WP:NPOV. The highly controversial opinions about such deeply contentious, divisive, and subjective issues are inappropriate for what should be an impartial and unbiased encyclopedia. It engages in WP:NEGATIVESPIN of a political figure and should most certainly be deleted. --Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article clearly covers a notable topic that's been covered by both the media & academics. I'm personally unimpressed by the delete votes I've read as most seem to be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or broadly pointing at WP:NPOV with little else of substance. I'd also like to point out that WP:NEGATIVESPIN is not a reason for deletion & specifically states that it doesn't inherently make something an attack page. Any concerns regarding neutrality can be worked on, but currently does not warrant outright deletion. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the name. My initial sense was that this violated WP:NOTESSAY based largely on the article title, but after more review (and looking for other similar articles) I think this is an encyclopedic topic which passes GNG, but is in desperate need of a name change. Fortunately that's already under discussion, which I only realised after the fact... SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rationale for deletion is flawed, even if some content is forked there is such large and global coverage of the subject that it could easily be expanded and made different (have not checked how similar this and Trumpism are). It is expected that Trump sympathizers can be distressed by this inflattering comparison, but these is nothing to do about it as even reputable academics are involved in this public debate about Donald Trump's relation to fascism. Lappspira (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep either to Trumpism or Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. This does mean reducing the content, but I feel that would reflect the proper perspective on this. This article is too long to merge to other articles, and could be listed as "further info" in the Trumpism and the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Of course, there may be much more to say after the election, should he win, but that would then be best in an article about his presidency. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This political topic is getting a lot of coverage in reliable sources, has long-term historical importance, and is important for voter decision-making now and in the future. I just listened to a half-hour with Jason Stanley on the topic [1], who also has a whole book on the subject. Some interesting historical correspondances aren't mentioned in the article, so if anything, it seems like it could be expanded. A lot of "delete" votes seem to be knee-jerk rejections of any mention of widespread criticism of a favored political leader. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think referring to either party leader as a communist or fascist is uneducated and ignorant of the history of what those words mean and the people who experienced real communism or fascism. It is sad that people genuinely think Trump is a fascist or Harris or Biden are communist. Those words seem to have entirely lost their historical meaning and are just thrown around as insults to discredit a candidate that someone does not like - both candidates have their faults, both have their positive attributes - but neither are communist or fascist. If everyone claiming these things looked at the historical suffering under communist or fascist regimes, a lot more people would laugh at these claims. Trump has already been in power, where was the fascism? Who suffered under his horrific fascist reign? Where was the terrible suffering under Biden's horrible communist government? I have no doubt people suffered hardships under both government's terms - but to claim that either was communist or fascist is a mockery of those who have truly experienced and suffered under fascism or communism. Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that. Artem P75 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Artem P75, your opinion on Trump's four-year presidency are irrelevant, and likewise your opinion on Biden. I'm not sure if anyone is claiming in the article that Trump is a fascist (and "comparisons between DT and fascism" is not the same as "DT is a fascist"), but your comment, "Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that", profoundly misunderstands the entire academic publishing industry. No, an academic book or article is NOT an "opinion piece", and if they are academically published then they are likely not "ignorant". And if they are academically published then they are exactly the kinds of things we should base our articles on. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies The ignorance comes from the fact that there are claims that either politicians are communist or fascist. In this case comparing trump to fascism or to Hitler. It is a mockery, and yes, very ignorant of the history of the reigns of power that they are actually drawing comparison to and the immense suffering that people went through under those reigns. If you go and look at real fascism, not just the word that people throw around to discredit or insult someone, you would surely understand the point that I am trying to make. Sure, I will agree with you that my opinion regarding either leader is irrelevant as it is purely just an opinion, what i do not think is irrelevant is the fact that the words "fascism" and "communism" have become so widely used as political arrows that the definition is becoming so diluted that they may as well nowadays be synonymous with "that person is very bad," which is sad. And yes, I do still believe that academic publishings on such topics are opinion pieces - just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion. It is very, very easy to take on an opinion, do your due research and find supporting evidence to substantiate one's hypothesis - and, when done by capable authors, will likely be published as a welcome contribution to the academic literature. It does not however change the fact that it is someones opinion on the matter, regardless of how well researched or written it is, otherwise we may as well regurgitate every point of view that can be found as published in an academic journal onto Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Artem P75, "just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion"--sorry, but you don't understand how such publications work at all, and clearly don't have much experience with academic publishing. Please see WP:CIR. And I'll just add that comparing Trump's policies and claims to fascist expressions is actually a thing that apparently a bunch of academics have done, as well as seasoned scholars and commentators, and if the publications are there, in peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources, it's possibly a valid topic, your opinions and ideas notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Drmies I have quite a significant amount of experience in academic publishing and academia in general thank you. An opinion is an opinion regardless of how well written or researched it is, including the fact that it was published or not. A comparison can be drawn either way, for either side of the argument - the fact that there can be more than one side of the conversation quite literally means that it is an opinion. It is not as simple as factually stating, for example, "To those without color blindness, the sky appears blue." Just because a paper may use suggestive, rather than conclusive terminologies such as "drawing from the evidence discussed it can be concluded that Donald Trump could potentially have fascist ideologies" does not make it any less of an opinion. Tip-toeing around, and using different phraseology to make a statement of which an entire publishing is based around, does not change it from a matter of opinion. Artem P75 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Artem P75: I encourage you to listen to the half-hour with Jason Stanley linked above, and you can hear for yourself how well-researched such comparisons can be. While it's true a lot of people use the word "fascist" as an insult or just to mean "horrifically bad", Stanley points out a lot of specific correspondences between the Nazis and Trump, such as discrediting the media, calling minorities "vermin", complaining that the blood of the country is being polluted by immigrants, controlling the movement of non-Christians (with the Muslim Ban), targeting LGBT people, controlling women's reproduction, etc. A "fascist" (when used in a well-informed way and not as a diluted insult) movement is a particular type of right-wing authoritarian political movement. It does not need to commit crimes against humanity, nor even actually take any sort of political power, to be accurately described as such. Our article Fascism goes into much more detail about the attributes of fascist ideologies. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think your well-reasoned argument points to somthing that is probably lost on a lot of people: Reliable sources are not calling Trump a fascist just to engage in name calling, there is a substantive and emerging body of well-researched work that shows these tendencies. There is no corresponding body of work showing that Harris or Biden or literally any other democrat up to and aincluding Bernie Sanders, is trying to move the country toward communism, because they are not and there is no credible evidence that they want to coming out of their own mouths or their campaigns. That actually is just name calling. You can't "both sides" every single issue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Just Step Sideways Thank you, I was more including the mention of Biden and Harris to convey that I try my best to remain impartial on these matters and am not taking my opinion because of my political ideologies. @Beland has raised some good points in his comment above that I have overlooked / not considered and will now have a look in to Artem P75 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Beland You raise good points, perhaps I have been too quick to dismiss this matter given the excessive use of the term "fascism" and the way it is so loosely thrown around. I will give the interview with Jason Stanley a listen, it may broaden my interpretation and perspective on the topic Artem P75 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Strong consensus for keep and discussion is getting dreadfully messy. Great Mercian (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the 'strong consensus' to which you refer. Riposte97 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No strong consensus on either keep or delete IMO. I would personally maintain the status quo and leave it up. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and close per WP: SNOW This was an obvious keep from the beginning. the fact that anyone suggested that a well-established topic of academic research and popular media attention should be deleted from the encylopedia raises WP:Competenceisrequired concerns for all 'Delete' voters, especially the nominator. Nomination is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is high time that Wikipedia stopped kneeling to overly conservative editors who raise spurious concerns of this kind and abuse process to try to remove obviously notable information as "biased." This is not the place for you to debate whether Universities or the popular Media are "biased." Go become a university professor or journalist if you want to claim it is "biased" for notable academic sources and respected newspapers to discuss the topic of Trump and fascism. Notability is obviously met. We must stop pandering to bad-faith abuses of process like this deletion nomination. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a "bad-faith abuse" of the AfD process? I clearly said that I have no opinion on the issue, and filed the AfD on behalf of others who couldn't due to EC restrictions. Yet I still get called "biased" or an "IDONTLIKEIT" editor. (Sir MemeGod here, I went through a rename about an hour ago). EF5 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obviously highly notable topic. This deletion nomination is as if I nominated Super Bowl for deletion because I don't think sporting events are encylopedic or notable. This topic was always clearly not going to be deleted. No more than a handful of people, many of them trolls, voted to Delete. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling 11+ people "trolls" seems to be a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS. Comparing this to the Super Bowl is only partially relevant, as the Super Bowl isn't a potential WP:CFORK of anything. EF5 19:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the "reasoning" givenn in the delete votes? One of them claimed that using pronouns constituted a conflict of interest. Even reading them charitably, the responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!" and never dispute the fact that this is a widespread topic in mainstream media discussion and has received significant academic attention and hence has met the bar for notability. There is really no point to further discussion here as no delete vote raised an actionable cause for deletion. At most these claims are reasons to edit the content of the page (if they were even true); certainly none of the delete votes gave any reason for deleting the page. This whole discussion was a clear waste of time to appease bad faith arguments that never offered a justification for deletion or dispute of the notability of the topic. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the primary issues of the article is not what happens in the next 5 minutes, it is what happens only the dust has settled. The article will be firmly in the trenches for a very long time regardless of the outcome as it will have a tendency to drift to non-WP:NPOV view. Il also remind everyone here that WP:ONUS exists.

On a different note: To illustrate my current view, imagine a lone see-saw in a truly massive playground (in this case the millions of articles on Wikipedia). The article is the see saw. Currently, everyone here is balancing the see saw, utilizing it to ensure that it remains verifiable and the most neutral it can possibly be. But inevitably, there are other things to do in this playground, and the see saw is left alone.

This particular see saw has a problem though. Due to it's construction, it's centre of gravity with result in it resting on one side. Consequently, when left to it's own devices, it will inevitably become little more than a WP:ATTACK page. This means this article will need to be watched like a hawk for non-neutral content arrising. If Donald Trump wins the election, since most of us aren't necessarily in the mindset of a Trump supporter, monitoring this page is gonna be fuuuunnnn.

Now I wouldn't mind that if the article was of incredible importance, like Barrack Obama or any election article, but the article right now, to be honest, reads like the leftover of some really unnecessarily complex Youtube Shorts video idea brainstorming session. I don't see it getting much better than that either from it's current state, because it can only really be presented that way.

Even right now, the temptation is real to add an obligatory "So what do you think? Is Donald Trump a fascist?" to the tail end of the article.

That's just my view. I felt the need to explain it more detail. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this matters. This is a topic that has a considerable academic literature and a considerable literature in the popular media-- by definition, these are the reliable sources upon which an encylopedia relies. There was likely enough of a literature on this topic in 2016 prior to the 2016 election to warrant an article. Its omission reflects an unfortunate conservative bias in this encylopedia resulting from abuse of process by bad actors like the present deletion discussion, which is absolutely without merit and should have been closed immediately as Speedy Keep under WP:Snow when the delete votes offered no possible basis for removing the article. This is a clearly extremely notable topic. It is one of the most notable aspects of Trump's political "career. We have articles on controversies on other political figures that could far more reasonably be read as attack pages, such as Birtherism or other pure political smears that were never serious academic topics of debate. No offense, but your position is palpably absurd. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the question of deletion or provides an actionable ground for deletion. This article is not based on a You Tube shorts section; it's written about in scholarly works and reliable newspapers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you actually read the discussion you will notice that there are substantially more reasoning to your claims of "The responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!"" Maybe take some time to put your own obvious biases aside and try and look at this from a NPOV with a rational mind. Artem P75 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the majority of delete arguments are complaints claiming NPOV, bias, propaganda, or some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with most of those arguments lacking evidence to support their claims. They are also importantly, not policy based arguments.
Neutrality issues are not a reason for deletion, they're a reason to fix the article. The deletion process is for analyzing the topic's legitimacy, not the content's. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please please just stop. You're only demonstrating my point of how messy this discussion has gotten. Great Mercian (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is a policy based argument. Just because you don't like it or agree with it, doesn't mean that it isn't rational and valid - see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I believe that the framing of this topic is a POV violation, if not the contents. It may amount to a WP:POVFORK. Anyone can slant an article by positioning it in such a way that it excludes balance. For example, the article 'Accusations that Barack Obama is a Communist Spy' would have a bunch of crackpot claims from the Limbaugh crowd by its nature, and relatively few direct refutations, because of the very specific framing.

As a sidenote, the current title is nonsensical, as one cannot compare a human to an ideology. One might accuse a person of adhering to an ideology...but that's a fight to have if this thing survives.

I see a bunch of editors above so convinced of themselves that they're comfortable attacking the competence and motivations of others. Aside from coming across as nasty people, they're sure to land themselves at ANI with that attitude. Riposte97 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my comment under the mindset of 'this IP will respond with "So how is this relevant?", then not read WP:ONUS and bring up a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST point'.

I was wasn't too far off from that assumption. If I were hypothetically to adopt the IP's line of arguing (not discussing), I could simply say "if it didn't look like YouTube Shorts brainstorming session, why would I say it is?". This might be fine in a political interview, but it falls flat here.

If someone can't make even an attempt to understand an opposing article without calling them 'palpably absurd' (i.e personally attacking them) they shouldn't be participating in an AFD. Is their a contentious topic label for US political articles? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain very slowly one more time so that even you might understand. I stated very clearly that the article clearly meets notability guidelines as it is a major topic of academic discussion and debate in reliable media sources. You repeatedly failed to raise a single germane point in opposition and babbled aimlessly to distract from the embarassing lack of substance or even a point to your argument. Please just stop unless you are going to address why you think the extensive scholarly and popular literature on this topic cited in the article fails to establish notability. Whats that? You can’t? Thought so. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't see anything here other than WP:IDNHT material from someone wanting to 'win' a debate (completely wrong attitude). It would be neat of you to withdraw the personal attack earlier. And perhaps, consider trying to edit an article other than a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 I meant specifically it is not a policy based argument for deletion (I was also referring to !votes that didn't back up their claims & only called NPOV), apologies if my phrasing seemed misleading. I don't understand your meaning behind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT though, as I haven't really been arguing here, with half my comments being minor clarifications to others.
In regards to the title however, I don't agree with it either. it was originally just "Donald Trump and Fascism", but was moved against consensus to the current title. It has momentarily stuck due to this deletion discussion.
Finally, I agree that the discussion here needs to be more civil. Name calling & insults are pointless impediments to meaningful conversation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Don John's Public Image page - I did a page search for the word "couch" to make sure no JD Vance hoaxes involving rubber gloves were mentioned here. I am very impressed, en Wiki! However, while Trump may be a cheat who has been convicted on tax evasion, for his -"because a prostitute is someone who'll love you, no matter who you are, or what you look like"- business with Stormy Daniels, and God knows what else, op-eds about Trumpty-Dumpty don't need to be taken encyclopediacally. Did Germans call Hitler evil until some hindsight opened their eyes? No! Hell, Trump rambling on about "they're eating the cats" and whatever else didn't need its own article, it felt right under the larger Springfield pet-eating hoax article. Not to say this doesn't belong, but it needs a home. BarntToust 00:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about a POV are not necessarily POVforks, depending on whether they have been written to inform the reader rather than just proselytize the position that some editors want to give undue weight to. This article for one does a pretty good job at demonstrating that this POV is a significant topic of dicussion among several reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not Delete, then Merge/Redirect to Trumpism or perhaps better Rhetoric of Donald Trump, per WP:FORK; it seems that the content of this article could well fit into either one of these articles. Piccco (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:POVFORK. If reliable sources state Trumpism is a fascist political ideology, then describe it as such at that article. And/or describe Donald Trump as a fascist at the Donald Trump article. (Potentially something such as "Donald John Trump is an American businessman, fascist, racist, and neo-Nazi politician who is the president-elect of the United States"?) If consensus can't be reached to describe Trumpism as a fascist political ideology at Trumpism, and consensus can't be reached to describe Trump as a fascist at Donald Trump, that would prove this is a POVFORK which by its existence gives WP:UNDUE weight to a particular viewpoint. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has plenty of sources that discuss how there is a perception of, and comparisons to, fascism. It doesn't matter whether that perception itself is neutral, only the article itself has to be balanced with NPOV. A couple of people mentioned how we should have equivalent pages for other political figures; we should IF it's being discussed to the same degree, with RS etc., but we're not discussing those pages here. Even if the page itself was NPOV, it's not so far gone that it needs deleting - WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article never states that Trump is a fascist, it only presents comparisons that allows the reader to draw the conclusion if he is or not. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparisons_between_Donald_Trump_and_fascism&oldid=1255845708"