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 2001:8003:ad13:f800:c89b:ca27:9e01:58a9 (talk) at 09:06, 19 May 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deleted definition section

Move to correct series

Why is this under conservatism? It should be under Nazism, there's a Nazi flag in one of the article pictures and Trump has repeatedly been compared to Hitler, with some stating that Trump's actions are worse than anything Adolf Hitler had ever done in his time as leader of the Nazi party. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph in intro

Would Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also fit alongside examples of leaders who exibit these authotitarian tendencies? Bashereyre (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is briefly mentioned in the article, so maybe, but I'm leaning no as currently written. But I see another problem with the names here. Apart from Bolsonaro, none of them are mentioned in the body of the article, so including them here fails WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sång's comment but encourage more in depth additions elsewhere in this article if pertinent or in the Authoritarianism article. Throughout the literature I have read on the subject, I think it is fair to say that many scholars have the view that Trumpism is a global phenomenon though they often differ substantially on perspectives regarding its nature. Some pieces I have read made attempts at identifying global commonalities, but as of today this article does not give a great survey of such material. Perhaps it is a little too early. But if you have some good articles that assert a Trumpism connection with a non US figure or movement, please contribute, especially for a section discussing trumpism-as-authoritarianism or the subsections mentioning non US versions of Trumpism. In my reading I have often seen Erdoğan and several other names come up- some with fairly detailed comparisons in scholarly articles depending on the lens the authors view Trumpism by. So far I have not devoted much time to them due to other areas of weakness in the article I have wanted to focus on. So this has a place in the article but until we see some consensus on what Trumpism's fundamental characteristics are, I think Sång's comment about not putting it in the lead is correct. Many scholars do characterize Trumpist leaders and movement in democracies and quasi democracies as essentially a flavor of authoritarianism. Other scholars disagree and think the authoritarian- strongman characteristics are second order symptoms and that some other first order dynamics are in play- such as those described from a social psychology- (eg. SDT or Lacanian analysis) or some other sociological phenomenon such as hostility to outgroups as the societies are forced to become more heterogeneous to globalization of information and economics. Anyway, good luck with any new material you view as helpful. I think examination of global trumpism has areas needing improvement in the article, so if you have some good scholarly citations supporting your contributions, I encourage you to make your additions. If there are disagreements on merit or placement, we can iron out those differences later. J JMesserly (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" bloat

MOS:SEEALSO states The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. I'm seriously doubting that the links to Big lie, Civil rights movement, Cult of personality, John Birch Society, and Reality distortion field really have to do with this topic enough for see also links. Not going to remove these immediately as this is likely a controversial page, but this really seems bloated and a few aren't even that closely related at all. These should probably be removed unless a strong verifiable connection can be made. Hog Farm Talk 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Perhaps the article requires further development to make the linkages clear. Trumpism from some of the perspectives expressed by academics cited in the article is very much related to the rhetorical device of the Big Lie, as a cultural/ tribal reaction to the civil rights movement, the "alternate truth" phenomenon of reality distortion field, can be viewed as an instance of extreme right wing emotions expressed by the John Birch Society. From what I have read, they all deserve wikilinks from the article. However, in the interest of conciseness, I intentionally muted elaboration of nearly every facet of points scholars were making in their thoughtful papers published in peer reviewed journals. Whether they have the status of See Alsos, I do not have strong views except perhaps with big lie, because the device was so frequently employed and is discussed in the literature.
If further elaboration is necessary on each of these, I will direct myself to making them more clear. It would be helpful if you identified what required clarification. Such as, "I see how use of falsehoods is incorporated into the rhetorical strategy of trumpists, and how Big Lie is used as an epithet by opponents of Trump, but I do not see that any expert has made a serious connection with the technique described in Mein Kampf and what Trump was doing..."
I can go along with edits that demote most of them from see also to wikilinks incorporated to their respective areas of relevance, but cannot go along with removal of any of them from the article. They are pertinent to the subject matter, some centrally so. The trick is to know where the make the elaborations, due to the perspectives on Trumpism being simultaneously heterogeneous and intermixing. I was hoping that there would be more of a congealing of perspectives in academia on the phenomenon- at least a congealing of a taxonomy of these perspectives, but we may have to wait a few more years for that. News media and opinion pieces continue to use the term either extremely vaguely, or as a banner term (pro or con) without much regard to what it means as either an epithet or a remark of admiration. Some of the more careful commentators have clearly read some of the scholarly sources referenced in the article but there seems to be waning interest and a desire to move on rather than reflect on the anomalies of the former administration. J JMesserly (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lines quoting Jane Goodall

I know this isn't a semi-protected page, but I think it would be inadvisable to change it without consultation. It seems the Jane Goodall quotes about primate behaviour do not have any established link to the policies of Donald Trump. They do not seem to add any explanatory value to the previous research comparing his followers' behaviour to that of silverback gorillas either. It should therefore be removed, or be clarified with a citation. DhruvPanday (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the analysis of primatologists on any subject is often misunderstood as having pejorative intent, for understandable reasons. If there is any insinuation that the phenomenon of pecking orders and dominance displays have to do solely with people of a particular political point of view, the article must be improved to remove any such impression. First off though I must emphasize the article is not about the policies of Donald Trump. There is a separate wikipedia article for that. What is confusing about the term is that while most -ism suffix words in a political context connote a system or ideology (eg Leninism, fascism), there is almost universal agreement in academia it is a social phenomenon, not an ideology or system of political policy in any coherent sense. This use of -Ism is more akin to its use in the social sciences- behaviors like chauvinism, sensualism, egoism. It is difficult to summarize the wide varieties of perspectives in academia, but I would hazard the observation that Trumpism from their perspectives has more to do with the followers rather than its current leader.
If the tie between primate behavior and the social phenomenon was unclear, perhaps you could elaborate on the ties you think weren't fully explained, or unsupported by the citations. I thought it was clear enough, but I will make every attempt to clarify the linkage in the article if I can get a better idea of what you think was not fully spelled out. J JMesserly (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Luizpuodzius:

Vi q vc estava interessado neste artigo. Você acha q nesse momento cabe uma traduçao em pt-br? att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:FC54:A505:2752:5C7F (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021

I can't believe this is Wikipedia . It appears to have been written by a biased 12 yr. Old .snarky and unfair throughout. This is what is wrong with America 50.108.42.79 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken edit regarding frameworks of analysis being overwhelmed by the complexity of Trumpism

In Edit 09:27, 12 October 2021‎ @Michael.alexander.kaufmann: states: " The cited source (Gordon 2018) does not imply that the exact term "overwhelm any single framework of analysis"." The results of the edits state that Gordon is making the case that there are different definitions of the term Trumpism.

This is incorrect. Gordon does no such thing. Nowhere on this page does he list different definitions. Instead, he lists different lenses of analysis with which Trumpism is viewed. Each has partial truth, but is insufficient. Kaufman is correct that Gordon does not imply the statement. He literally makes the same statement. I quote at length from page 67-68. We pick up from his discussion of the inadequacy of social psychology analysis (outlined later in Wikipedia article) and proceeds into poli-sci ideological historical analyses...

.. Trumpism is not anchored in a specific species of personality that can be distinguished from other personalities and placed on a scale from which the critic with an ostensibly healthy psychology is somehow immune. Nor is it confined to the right- wing fringe of the Republican Party, so that those who self- identify with the left might congratulate themselves as not being responsible for its creation. Nor can it be explained as the Frankenstein’s monster of a racism once deployed cynically as a dog whistle by both the Republican and Democratic Parties, and now expressed openly, without embarrassment, with plainspoken American candor. Most of all, Trumpism is not the mere upsurge of an angry populism that has taken elites by surprise. We have difficulty recognizing this inconvenient and unsettling fact, that much of Trump’s appeal was utterly unexceptional. Those on the left who cling as a matter of principle to socioeconomic explanations often prefer to interpret Trumpism as a kind of misplaced “protest” against the inequities of global capitalism, but in doing so they neglect an overwhelming statistical truth, that the greatest share of Trump voters were not disaffected members of the downwardly mobile white working class but lifetime Republicans, members of the broad and suburban American middle classes who voted for Trump simply because he was the Republican candidate. Trumpism is not a social pathology but another instance of the general pathology that is American political culture.


Trumpism is sufficiently complex as to overwhelm any single framework of analysis. Theories that see it as a departure from the

norm may explain some aspects of the phenomenon, and each may hold a special appeal in some precinct of criticism….

I can sympathize with the editor's desire to provide a more concrete definition for Trumpism, but this has been elusive for analysts as Adorno scholar Peter E. Gordon explains. The difficulty is that definitions given by different types of analysis cover elements of the phenomenon but are incomplete and often contradictory. Gordon summarizes the inadequacy of particular political science and social psychological analyses in the above passage and gives coverage to that of other disciplines in that chapter. Gordon did not imply, but literally stated, and provided support for his statement that Trumpism is sufficiently complex as to overwhelm any single framework of analysis. It is an excellent summary of this conundrum in academia regarding providing a single coherent description of trumpism and for this reason I am reverting Mr. Kaufmann's mistaken edit.

My view as I have stated multiple times on this page is that without a concensus in academia about definitions for the term, for the lead to suggest that there is any such agreement will leave readers with a false impression. It is incorrect to hoist the Ideological- historical analysis to the lead even though we may think it is a persuasive analysis. Sources quoted elsewhere debunk the analysis that it is an ideology, and other analysts view the efforts by Bannon to valorize Trump as a Jacksonian as cheap political hackery. My view is that wikipedia cannot take sides in these political and academic controversies over definition. We should list each perspective in an impartial and succinct way, and refrain from elevating one or the other as being the dominant perspective. Perhaps given time a consensus will emerge in high quality sources. J JMesserly (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action, Students for Trump, and Turning Point Faith

Is there a space here for activist Charlie Kirk and his businesses, including Turning Point USA and the Professor Watchlist, Turning Point Action, Students for Trump, and Turning Point Faith? If so, where should they appear? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luizpuodzius

Caso queira traduzir fique a vontade. 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:580D:6779:DD26:2B43 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is kind of biased

I do Think this article is kind of biased. I do see a trend in this article that makes Trumpism look like its extremally far right. From calling Trumpism Authoritarian, To calling it or making a suggestion that's its a form of Fascism, when its really non of these things, This Article even uses a photo called Fascism worship which is the photo with the trump cape and photos like that could be easily faked. It even look's fake to me, but I could be wrong. Another problem is that this article seems to link Trumpism with white supremacy. The reason this shouldn't be done is because of Trumps and republicans growing minority voter base. Manly Latinos, Hispanics, and even some blacks.

I think y'll should rewrite some of the sections. I do think This article dose good in some places and bad in others. --Zyxrq (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC) 11/20/2021[reply]

Everything in this article is well sourced. If you think there are any issues with specific sources then please list them. — Czello 19:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zyxrq, I have reverted your edits. Changes that are not based on RS, that remove RS, that replace RS with unreliable ones like Fox News, and otherwise try to make the article seem "neutral" are not proper. NPOV refers primarily to EDITORS. They are supposed to be neutral in their editing, whereas sources and content need not be neutral, but should reflect the biases in the RS used. Editing should not twist or neuter what RS say. Read NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Also, Fox News is not considered a RS for political content, especially its opinion articles. See their listing at WP:RSP.-- Valjean (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News' reporting on science is also considered questionable, so careful with sources the network is quoting. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at WP:RSP and it says fox news is a reliable source, because of that I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and say yall made a mistake, also me saying 'seem neutral' I meant I edited it to be more neutral, which this article clearly isn't neutral as I talked about in the main paragraph. If we are going to make this article more neutral I suggest we start by putting up a NOPV disputed warning at the top of the article. I am happy to continue this conservation. :] Zyxrq (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) 8:09[reply]

What part of "Fox News (news excluding politics and science)" (bold added) do you not understand? Note that "excluding".
What do you mean by "to be more neutral"? What policy(cies) are you using to back up that idea? Note that NPOV does not mean "no point of view" or a balance between opposing POV. It is editors who must be neutral, not the sources or article content. Articles should reflect the biases in the sources, so of course an article will not look neutral, especially on controversial topics.
Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and an article about a pseudoscientific topic (see List of topics characterized as pseudoscience), conspiracy theories (see List of conspiracy theories), or the Big lie (see Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election) will reflect that mainstream RS consider such things to be garbage and dangerous. Is that "neutral"? Of course not, and that's the way the articles should read. The bias found in mainstream reliable sources and science is definitely toward facts and truth, not nonsense and propaganda. We expose such things here, and those who find their favorite delusions described here with negative terms do not like it and they attack Wikipedia and its articles for not being "neutral".
Above I provided you with a link to an essay that explains NPOV and how it applies to how we should deal with biased sources. You need to read that before you continue, as you're editing with a misunderstanding of what "neutral" means here (very different than elsewhere) and the meaning of the NPOV policy. -- Valjean (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly partisan and biased article…

Trumpism has nothing to do with authoritarianism. Donald Trump and his voters have not demonstrated any authoritarianism. I would like to see true examples of authoritarian actions or policies enacted by Donald Trump. 76.64.245.134 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Authoritarian" is a well-sourced description. — Czello 18:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources which dispute the association between authoritarianism which some but not all academics make, then please direct us to these sources so that these counter arguments may be expressed in the article. Better yet, improve the article by contributing to the article and citing your sources.J JMesserly (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic tone

In addition to what's been said about the partisanship that is so blatant in this article, the tone of the article is not appropriate at all. It reads like an opinion piece from NBC or CNN, not an encyclopedia entry. Statements such as "Nostalgia is a staple of American politics but according to Philip Gorski", "Historian Stephen Jaeger traces the history of admonitions against becoming beholden religious courtiers back to the 11th century", "Sociologist Arlie Hochschild thinks emotional themes in Trump's rhetoric are fundamental" all read like they're trying to turn the article into a holistic evaluation of recent American politics, rather than explaining the subject matter of the article. There's absolutely no need for such lengthy quotations of so many people's random opinions. As a result I'm slapping a tone label on the article. See also WP:NEWSSTYLE FAISSALOO(talk) 13:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is able to have articles on controversial subjects by adhering to standards designed to insure that the substance of controversies are expressed. For example, in the article Abortion debate, the argument is presented that unborn fetuses without human consciousness cannot be regarded as persons. The source for that point was a noted philosopher who has written about the moral questions surrounding the abortion issue. However, the article also presents opposing views from equally high quality sources. That article has been at times been elevated to high quality rating, even though some of its content might read like an opinion piece from MSNBC, and in other places like information presented by Fox and Friends. We all would like to improve the article on trumpism. In the case of Gorski, what is being advocated? That the article no longer mention the analysis that the religious right and trumpism are linked in the way he describes? Why should we hide that perspective? Gorski is a Yale sociologist whose views on the role of the religious right in trumpism are no doubt unpopular in many communities. But this fact does not bar us from making the reader aware of it anymore than the abortion debate article should be barred from expressing views similarly unpopular in the same community. Robert Jeffress and and Richard Land do not agree with Gorski's perspective and these views are no doubt similarly unpopular among those who opposed Trump, yet they are also included in the article. The analysis of Jeffress and Land are representative, not random views. Nor is Gorki's analysis. Other equally qualified sociologists see the linkage he describes. Gorski's analysis was published not within editorials, but within a juried paper in a book from Springer- a well established scholarly publisher. If there are similar scholarly publications publishing an analysis contrary to Gorski on the particular points he makes, please do the research and make a contribution to the article. If you do not have the time, please give a pointer to the juried scholarly papers or other high quality source and I will endeavor to express the contrary views in a balanced way. Other contributors of course are free to correct the summary if it is too lengthy or unbalanced. Our goal is not to push a particular perspective on Trumpism. It is to illustrate the wide divergence of views on its nature. There is not a lot of agreement in the field on whether it is primarily a phenomenon of history, collective psychology, theology, political science, or sociology. Experts from all these fields are represented in the article, and all tend to think their field is the correct one for analysis of the topic. They can't all be right. Are we saying that the article should not describe these competing and multivaried perspectives? If no specific changes are listed or there is no consensus that such changes would improve the article, I propose that the maintenance template be removed and that the Controversial template be added to the talk page in its place in two weeks. I agree that any material outside the scope of Trumpism ought to be removed. Many may feel that the impact of Trumpism has altered American politics in fundamental ways, but I agree with Faissaloo that the article should not be a "holistic evaluation of recent American politics". If there are specific items that ought to be struck as irrelevant to the topic, please propose specific changes to specific passages so that the article can be improved. J JMesserly (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider this article to be in the same vein as the abortion debate article, since the abortion debate article by nature is the discussion of a discussion, and so various views are mentioned from the perspective that they're opposing belief systems as opposed to people disagreeing on particular events. If this article were something like 'Trumpism debate in American politics' I might be more receptive to such quotes. To be clear I don't believe analysis of the link between the religious right and trumpism should be removed and I don't think Robert Jeffress or Richard Land should be mentioned either, but it should stick to what there is some semblance of consensus on and avoid mentioning things that are simply the opinions of singular sociologists. The article seems to have prioritised quantity over quality, which makes it exceedingly difficult to read for very little benefit. FAISSALOO(talk) 09:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Trumpist" vs "Trumper"

Is there a difference between these two? The article uses Trumpist consistently but "Trumper" seems more common in everday use. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is understandable because many including those in the media use Trumpist as an adjective form of Trump rather than an adjective form of the Trumpism phenomenon that has been the focus of many investigations in academia. In usage, there are two senses. One is indeed a synonym of Trumper as described in sense 1 in the wiktionary entry on Trumpist. Another usage, the second sense in wiktionary, commonly appears in more rigorous publications where what is being referred is the phenonomena of Trumpism including descriptions of similar phenomena in other countries (See "Beyond America" section). For example, consider articles on Brazil's slide to autocratic rule such as the Economist or America's Quarterly: "While the Trumpists around Eduardo Bolsonaro consider it a key element of Brazil’s automatic alignment with Washington, both the generals and the neoliberals are dismayed." or "Eduardo Bolsonaro is probably the most influential adviser to the president-elect along with Paulo Guedes, and Bolsonaro himself is at heart a Trumpist." Is the meaning the author intends the adjective form of Trumpism describing some characteristic described in the article, or that these individuals are devoted to Donald Trump? J JMesserly (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism in the Philippines

Where's the section about Trumpism in the Philippines? It's really big over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:7C8B:AAFB:A28D:C48 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively verbose

I don't think I've ever seen a wikipedia article that manages to say so little with so few words. It talks about everything from religion, to leave it to beaver to chimpanzees to the kitchen sink, yet it fails to say anything that wasnt already neatly summarized by Umberto Eco. We have a name for this phenomenon/ideology, it's called Fascism. What's the point in reinventing the wheel? The article doesn't really achieve anything besides obfuscatie the obvious, whitewash the ideology of trumpists, and advertise trump to people who more or less agree with everything listed here. Just call a spade a WP:SPADE. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think this misses the point. The issue that this article discusses is that a simple label of fascism is disputed by various reliable sources, and isn't as clear-cut as some might suggest. The fact that some call it fascism is in fact mentioned in the lead, but we must also acknowledge that debates on the subject are more complex than that. — Czello 12:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing the point, I'm pointing out that none of the complexities illustrated by the article are foreign to various definitions of fascism. Pick any characteristic of trumpism, and you will find that it will neatly fit into one of the 14 characteristics of Ur-Fascism. If the debates on trumpism are complex, it's for the same reasons the debates on fascism are complex. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken. Other contributors favor other reductions, such as, "this is just more of the same Jacksonian democracy thread in US politics". Though I personally view the "new fascism" label as useful, the article must mention those who dispute or view the fascist label as non central. Some examples of those who do not accept the "fascism" reduction: 1) Theoretical thinkers such as Chomsky reject the Fascism label, preferring instead authoritarian. 2) Historians and political science scholars who point out the significant differences with the fascism of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. 3) Those who make a social psychological reduction, for example Social Dominance Theorists who have the perspective that political science mechanisms are a secondary phenomenon, so that in principle you could have a Trumpian individual who attracted large number of followers, but espoused a non fascist political order which instead denigrated all who disputed the virtues of multiculturalism. In this general area are also primatologists cited in the article. Do we think that Goodall would claim that the dominance behavior of hominids is fascist? 4) Sociologists have a wide variety of perspectives, but as an example, Hochschild's claim is that the primary phenomenon is not a political but a social emotions phenomenon- that the alienation between the political perspectives is due to what she calls an empathy wall.
Now, you might point out that all of these perspectives can be subsumed under the fascism label. If you have an scholarly source you can cite making this claim, then by all means add it to the article in a section listing controversies. However, until there is some dominant consensus in the academic world, Wikipedia ought not take sides with any particular reduction. J JMesserly (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Trumpism simply authoritarian is an even bigger reduction, because fascism is more specific, and while trumpism is inherently authoritarian, that's not it's most defining characteristic. Rather, as I stated before, all of trumpism's defining elements listed in this article can also be found under Umberto Eco's concept of Ur-Fascism, which I already linked to above. Yet for some reason, every time I link to that article, it flies over people's heads completely. Umberto Eco and Ur-Fascism cannot possibly be this obscure. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article could be reorganized and succinct if there was wide agreement in the academic community that Umberto Eco's concept of Ur-fascism is the clearest way to describe Trumpism. Until you can show with citations that there is any such a consensus, Wikipedia can't take any sides in the debate about which organizing principle is the best way to comprehend it. Umberto Eco's framework is already described in Wikipedia and I agree that it does have significant descriptive power. If there are good citations backing up the view that his framework is best for understanding Trumpism, then why not make a mention of this in the article with a link to the section of the Fascist article describing Eco's contribution? J JMesserly (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recall Eco tweeting about it a few years ago, and the context made it obvious he was referring to trump and trumpism. That's probably not enough though. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best would be from a peer reviewed source. It is your choice, but to get at the heart of Eco's perspective, I would think the mention of Eco would best fit in the article's sections describing spectacle and the literature of politics rather than those explicitly taking the poli-sci perspective. Otherwise readers my get the mistaken impression of the heart of Eco's work. There are many such english language mentions which may be found by searching "Trumpism" and "Umberto Eco" from scholar.google.com. This one, by Dr. Maria Brock is in a juried academic journal is not the highest quality, since it is a commentary, but might provide useful support for contributions to the Trumpism article if you cannot find better sources. You might also Log into Wikipedia and establish an identifiable name so others do not have to refer to you by your IP address. J JMesserly (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polling data

I'm struggling to see the relevance of the two paragraphs of polling data in the Future impact section. Neither of the sources specifically connect the findings to the phenomenon of Trumpism, and neither set of data seems significantly more important than the rest of the vast amount of election polling and approval polling asking about Trump or his campaigns. The second paragraph of the two is also not exactly lucidly written, though that could be fixed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Hanson

Australian senator Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party have been compared with Donald Trump in many articles. She supports white supremacy, admits to racism, hates all Muslims, opposes COVID-19 restrictions and vaccinations, and in this ongoing election, she posted a video that attacks others, and made comments on election fraud. She is a Trumpist, and Australia's face of hate. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:18DB:C6BE:F1CE:F19F (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could link some of those articles? I agree that Hanson could be worth mentioning in this article (though not precisely in the terms used above), but would be interested to know what sources we could cite on the connection. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of citations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Vacant0 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source, which states that Hanson is staunchly anti-vax, and has spread false information about COVID-19, despite her testing positive last week like Trump did in October 2020. The link also shows her support for the mostly neo-Nazi Convoy to Canberra, and rejects climate change actions.
And while not in the article I showed, I have heard rumors that Canberra may place extra security around Parliament House to avoid a repeat of the January 6 terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. from supporters of Trump and One Nation in the aftermath of the ongoing election. 2001:8003:AD13:F800:C89B:CA27:9E01:58A9 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trumpism&oldid=1088645170"