Talk:Demagogue

Sources

Here are some serious, reliable sources about demagogy/demagogues. I haven't checked them all closely, but I'm listing them because they appear to be scholarly research, not name-calling by opponents. Please add more such sources to this section as you find them. They'll help other editors looking for good material to summarize. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Demagogues in general

Michael Signer. Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from its Worst Enemies. Palgrave Macmillan (2009).

Modern and thorough. Takes care with definition. Details famous demagogues from history. Explains demagoguery as an inherent weakness of democracy (the traditional view), and proposes an explanation of why the United States has never faced a serious threat from a national-level demagogue. Explains why Bush was not a demagogue, regardless of one's opinion of him as a leader.

Ceaser, James W. (2011). "Demagoguery, Statesmanship, and Presidential Politics". Designing a Polity: America's Constitution in Theory and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 75–118. ISBN 1442207906.

Scholarly, covers history back to Athens, with emphasis on the U.S. Defines and classifies demagogues.

James Fenimore Cooper. "On Demagogues." (1838).

Careful, four-part definition of "demagogue". Documents the term's ancient origin and its extension in modern times. Still pretty authoritative.

Thoms Streissguth. Hatemongers and Demagogues. The Oliver Press, Inc. (1995).

Eight examples from history: Samuel Parris (witch-hunter), Lyman Beecher (Puritan), Thomas Watson (Populist), William Simmons (KKK), Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, George Lincoln Rockwell (American Nazi), Louis Farrakhan.

Aristotle. Politics.

Ancient survey of democracy and demagogues.

Reinhard Henry Luthin. American Demagogues: Twentieth Century. P. Smith (1959).

Not freely available, but widely cited. Includes Joe McCarthy.

Polybius's Histories and people's commentaries on them: Google Books search

Something in here ought to be thorough.

Basil Montagu. "The Patriot and the Demagogue" (1837).

Not sure if we need to cite it, but certainly we should offer a link to it. It's probably got something quotable, and it mentions some demagogues who might be of interest to describe in the article.

J. Justin Gustainis. "Demagoguery and Political Rhetoric: A Review of the Literature," Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring, 1990), pp. 155–161.

A survey of other sources on demagogues, especially their rhetorical techniques.

Cal M. Logue and Howard Dorgan, editors. The Oratory of Southern Demagogues (1981).

A survey of eight demagogues of the southern U.S., by a variety of authors. Includes an overview of demagogues in general.

G.M. Gilbert. "Dictators and Demagogues," Journal of Social Issues, Vol 11(3), 1955, 51-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1955.tb00330.x

General analysis of demagogues. (Unfortunately behind a paywall.)

Allan Louis Larson. Southern Demagogues: A Study in Charismatic Leadership (1964).

Might have a thorough analysis of defining characteristics of demagogues and how they target and exploit their followers.

Wilma Dykeman. "The Southern Demagogue," The Virginia Quarterly Review, 33.4 (Fall 1957): 558.

Appears to analyze why demagogues were so common in the southern U.S. in the early 20th century. (Behind a paywall.)

Allport, Gordon Willard. The Nature of Prejudice (25th-anniversary edition, 1979). Basic Books.

Includes a chapter on demagogues. Discusses the followers of demagogues as well as their motives and tactics.

Specifically about McCarthy

Robert Shogan. No Sense of Decency: The Army-McCarthy Hearings: A Demagogue Falls and Television Takes Charge of American Politics. Ivan R. Dee (2009).

Charles Joseph Pruitt. Demagogue McCarthy. University of Oregon. (1967)

William T. Walker. McCarthyism and the Red Scare: A Reference Guide. ABC-CLIO (2011)

Specifically about Donald Trump

As of February, 2019, we don't have consensus that Donald Trump has merited sufficient coverage by authorities knowledgeable about demagogues to merit a mention in the article. As reliable sources accumulate, please list them here, both to help editors judge when it's time to change the consensus and to provide references when the time comes. Not all the references listed here are suited for citing in the article; they're of high quality, but some are useful mainly as leads to other sources or to gauge the level of agreement and interest among authorities. For judging when the coverage is sufficient, please consider the higher standards that Wikipedia requires for information about living persons, especially WP:BLPREMOVE (take care to use high-quality sources; don't argue for your own, first-hand conclusions) and WP:PUBLICFIGURE (there should be a "multitude of reliable published sources").

Michael Signer. "Donald Trump Wasn't a Textbook Demagogue Until Now." Washington Post, December 2, 2015.

Analysis of precisely why Trump meets the criteria of a demagogue, written by possibly the current leading authority on demagogues.

Patrick Healy and Maggie Haberman. "95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue." New York Times, December 6, 2015.

In-depth analysis, with consultation by experts Jennifer Mercieca and Michael Kazin.

Philip Freeman, Loren J. Samons II, Daniel Schily, Melissa Lane, Jason Brennan, Rafael Piñeiro, Les Drutman. "What History Teaches Us About Demagogues Like The Donald". Zócalo Public Square, June 20, 2016, reprinted in Time Magazine, same date.

Little information specifically about Trump, but illustrates academic consensus that Trump is a demagogue.

Adding Trump to list of famous demagogues

There has already been a discussion about this, but a general conclusion was never clear to me. President Donald Trump appears to fit the definition of a demagogue, but many editors have refused to add him to this list because of POV pushing. Can we have people comment on whether or not to add Donald Trump to a list of demagogues on this article? AIN515 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually we've had several discussions about this. (See the archives for this year and 2016.) But to respond, we have to make sure that WP remains neutral on the topic, every topic. And including Trump as an example of a demagogue is POV, pure and simple. The readers are informed about demagogues through the other, neutral, scholarly sources in the article. Besides, "fits the definition" is an "according to whom?" matter. The WP:TOPIC of the article is an historical discussion of demagogues over thousands of years of history, and Trump is a recent event. More importantly, we have the content policy of WP:LIVE which mandates we stay clear of POV problems when it comes to living people. The proper page(s) for stating the demagogue view-points about Trump are those pages which discuss him directly. We cannot let WP be a WP:SOAPBOX for announcing Trump=demagogue=Trump. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've said it before and I say it again: characterising Trump as demagogue is not POV; in line with Wikipedia policies, that's only reporting what many reputable sources have written. On the other hand, whether this Wikipedia article includes him or not doesn't affect that fact – see the results of this Google search. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is why we can have Hitler and Joseph McCarthy, but not Trump. If we list anybody, there are bound to be people who will object to the classification. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a list of people that meet a specific criteria. AIN515 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ain515: Wikipedia only summarizes the authoritative literature on a topic. So, the fact that someone is a demagogue is by itself a weak reason to include him. There are many demagogues that we don't cover. We cover Hitler and McCarthy because they are covered extensively in the literature on demagogues—not simply because they're demagogues. However, there is some authoritative literature pointing out that Trump is a demagogue and analyzing his demagoguery. I have never heard of any controversy about this. I think it would be OK to briefly mention Trump somewhere as an example of a demagogue, maybe like the way we briefly mention Stanisław Tymiński. (However, see above for a discussion where this conclusion did not reach consensus.) But it would not be appropriate to write a whole section about Trump or Tymiński or cover either of them in depth, because Trump and Tymiński occupy only a tiny fraction of a percent of the whole literature on demagogues; see WP:BALASPS. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your President doesn't fit the definition of demagogue, quite simply because he doesn't make the grade. To be a real demagogue you have to be able to shut down reasoned deliberation: read the lede. Last time I looked, reasoned deliberation was still going on in America. (And I sort of remember that most American voters voted for the other candidate.) Sorry, but some people on this forum seem to me not old enough to remember what a real demagogue was like. Now, Senator McCarthy knew how to shut down reasoned deliberation. I can remember reasonable people being scared to speak out in case he labelled them a Communist – which could cost you your job in those days. But Trump? Get real. Ttocserp 09:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: Shutting down reasoned deliberation. Trump is actively shutting down the free media choosing only to interact with those outlets sympathetic to his cause. This is a fact not an opinion. By all measures Trump is a demagogue, "Demagogues "pander to passion, prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance, rather than reason." Trump ticks every box. By censoring his addition to this list is to push your own POV onto factual, independently verifiable information. 20:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.235.226 (talk)

to address these criticisms that trump is to witless and charmless and unpopular to be considered a demagogue, I have added: “Trump is considered the most archetpical demagogue since Hitler, alveit with considerably less warmth or charm.” I hope this adderesses your concerns. Unconcealment (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, um, no. This is an encyclopedia and not a place to post your personal opinions. Rklawton (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

* From the article: "They fashion themselves as a man or woman of the common people, opposed to the elites." A couple of months ago Senator Elizabeth Warren could be said to have demonstrated appeal to the common population by performing (with intentionally dramatic effect) a beer drinking maneuver in front of her fans. She has also appealed to the masses in YouTube commercials by claiming, without any supporting evidence, that "This administration is the most corrupt in history." So, by every definition, Warren fits at least some of the criteria of demagogue, as cited in this article. I don't post this to introduce the (rather lacking, here) case that for every point his detractors make about Trump, multiple equal examples can be found to apply to many from among his political opposition.

* From the article: "They threaten or outright break established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law." -> such as canceling a State of the Union Address by an executive you personally dislike? See how easily the definitions can apply to just about any politician with an equally diametrically opposite ideology.

* From the article: "What distinguishes a demagogue is how he or she gains or holds democratic power: by exciting the passions of the lower classes and less-educated people in a democracy toward rash or violent action" -> not unlike Ocasio-Cortez or Maxine Waters appealing to the have-nots and disenfranchised, and especially minorities who dominate their respective constituencies (ex: Ocasio-Cortez speaking at a Harlem neighborhood hospital). This isn't intended to be a personality criticism of Waters/Ocasio-Cortez, but rather a comparison of of how speaking styles of some Democrats are similar to Trump's speaking style. Ocasio-Cortez, in particular, exhibits a criterion of demagoguery by not engaging in debate with individuals who hold opposing ideologies. She is famously on record for refusing to debate conservative editor Ben Shapiro, and even resorted to ad hominem of Mr. Shapiro.

* From the article: "Throughout its history, people have often used the word demagogue carelessly, as an "attack word" to disparage any leader whom the speaker thinks manipulative, pernicious, or bigoted." I sense that this talk section is being contributed to by people who apply any combination of definitions of demagogue to Trump on the basis of confirmation bias, while overlooking the application of these same definitions to present officials representing their own points of view. Ergo, if you want to open the floodgate and admit Trump to the ranks of demagogue, the case could easily be made to admit Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Schumer, Sen. Warren, et al., by applying many of the exact same definitions that you apply to Trump. Trump may or may not be a demoagogue, but, by applying the exact same criteria that his detractors apply to conclude "Trump is a demagogue," we can draw the same conclusion about his adverse political corollaries. giggle (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear consensus here that "Trump" will not be added to this article - not unless independent reliable sources start identifying him as such, and that is not likely to happen. In the meantime the article is under indefinite Pending Changes protection, to defend against the occasional attempts to add it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you misrepresent the discussion here and in the archives, and in the real world. Many reputable sources have been provided where Trump is identified as a demagogue, and the majority of contributors here are in favour of adding him to this article; the opponents are just shouting louder. Are there any sources that discuss the widespread labelling of Trump as demagogue and refute it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The editing decision does not depend upon whether "reputable sources" say he's a demagogue. Such a designation is inherently POV, and is best confined to WP articles directly related to Trump. By way of analogy, suppose "reputable sources" say he's morally bankrupt – would WP include his name in that article as an example? (I should hope not!) The names of demagogues in this article are provided as well-established historical examples, and the reliable sources are provided without need of refutation. Moreover, the issue is NOT whether a majority of contributors favor the designation/inclusion. Since the issue involves a living person, the best COA is to keep Trump out of the article IAW WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE/WP:POV. Otherwise we'll end-up in a WP:TLDR discussion on the WP:BLPNB. (FYI, we already have 100+ such threads.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources that want to tag him with this name are opinion, not reporting. They are not the type of multiple independent reliable sources needed to say something like this about a living person. Trump is at best a wannabe demagogue. He admires powerful dictatorial leaders, and he might like to be one, but the legal and constitutional systems in place in the United States prevent it. He has not shut down the free press; although he rails against it, it continues to do its job whether he likes it or not. He keeps saying that his political enemies should be investigated or jailed, but he has not been able to make it happen. Yes, he does use many of the techniques listed here - scapegoating, fear-mongering, lying, insulting and attacking, emotional oratory, attacking the news media - but this has not brought about the desired results of increasing his power, or even stopping the investigations into him. Elections still happen, and even if he dislikes the results he is powerless to overturn them. A true demagogue would have Mueller in jail and the press organs that disagree with him padlocked. All Trump has is a 39% approval rating and an inability to carry out his major campaign promise. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Citing "reputable sources say" is probably an appeal to authority logical fallacy.giggle (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gregory.george.lewis: Fallacy or not, all we do on Wikipedia is summarize the authoritative writings about each topic. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The techniques cited in the above paragraph are also techniques employed by a few non-Trump officials, by the way. For example, at least one newly elected official has recently rolled nearly all of these check boxes into one comprehensive diatribe by claiming the world is going to end in 12 years because of rich racist lying Republicans, etc., and even explicitly stating that Trump is a racist (presumably by her own definition as to what is a racist). We've also seen the "insulting and attacking, emotional oratory" angle from a California Congresswoman standing above a crowd, telling them to "get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," and, by the way, proclaiming that "God is on our side."giggle (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Reducing confusion about what a demagogue is

@Gregory.george.lewis and MelanieN: It sounds like you're arguing about whether Trump or other people not mentioned in the article are demagogues. As you probably know, WP:TALK pages are for discussing edits to the page, not debating the subject matter itself. However, some of your arguments suggest to me that we could make the article clearer about what is and is not a demagogue.

Canceling the State of the Union Address is not what is meant by "threaten[ing] or outright break[ing] established rules of conduct, institutions, and even the law." Appealing to have-nots and the disenfranchised does not make a politician a demagogue. Refraining from debating people with opposing views does not make a politician a demagogue. Accusing a government of corruption does not make a politician a demagogue. Telling people to refuse service to political opponents does not make a politician a demagogue. Emotional oratory does not make a politician a demagogue. But a demagogue can have a 39% approval rating, can fail to shut down the press, can fail to find the political support needed to stop a police investigation into his corruption, and can fail to overturn democracy and establish dictatorship. Demagogues don't necessarily win a single election—or even run for office.

It's very hard to get the concept of demagogue from an abstract definition, and no point-by-point list of criteria alone can do it justice. You need to see examples; then it becomes apparent how profoundly they differ from ordinary politicians. The article tries to address this difficulty by giving many, many real-life examples. The examples illustrate the unprincipled methods of demagogues: far beyond the stretching of the truth of ordinary politicians or even the outright lying of ordinary corrupt politicians, demagogues lie with a disregard for truth seldom seen in any sphere of life, accuse while knowing their accusations are false, and stir emotions by inventing or exaggerating threats to the country, by taunting opposing politicians and inviting their followers to join in, by scapegoating "elites" or minority social classes, by promising wonders with no regard for the means to bring them about—whatever heats up the crowd right now, without regard for truth or moral principle. Demagogues don't just try to score political points, they overturn the norms of deliberation and rule of law that make democracy function—while their followers cheer on the destruction.

The current article has a number of passages designed to counter misunderstandings like the ones above, but it looks like that wasn't enough. Better, anyway, is to make the overall thrust of the article establish what a demagogue is by hammering it home with example after example so you can't miss it. But even that apparently wasn't enough. Can you (or anyone reading this) suggest something we could do to prevent those misunderstandings?

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I just thought of a way to reduce the confusion: I moved Luthin's definition from a footnote to the lead. Not only is his definition a gem of the literature, it's practically a summary of the whole article, which is just what we want in a lead. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL as an out

The non-occurrence of "trump" in the current text looks very bad for a site that is supposed to be a compendium of knowledge, various policies notwithstanding. I came here to see what was said after seeing that Stephen Hawking had called him one. At the very least the acknowledgement of "some people", for which a long list of similar illuminaries could be compiled as a reference (so it wouldn't in fact be WP:WEASEL) is in order. Nothing at all is a) glaring and b) an invitation to endless milling on both the front and back matter of this article. A single sentence with a short set of similarly apolitical references should settle the matter. e.g.. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Also a "Contemporary allegations of demagoguery" subsection under modern with list of same should work, with reference to populism, trump isn't unique. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding Trump to the article has been discussed numerous times. Please read the thread above and the archives (box on right above). Then, add to the discussion above. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

wikifail, a type case. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It has been discussed numerous times, and the deciding vote was cast around 2 years ago. The primary benefit of Wikipedia, in contrast to encyclopedias of old, is that it can be updated and improved as necessary. A huge amount has been written about Trump and demogoguery since then, including actual scholarly articles. At this point, not including a brief mention is simply willful ignorance.Jtrnp (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a section on contemporary allegations of demagoguery is a very bad idea. First, it would misrepresent the literature on demagogues, which gives this year's allegations of demagoguery very little importance. Second, the literature is clear that people have been accusing politicians of being demagogues for hundreds of years, loosening the standards for what counts as a demagogue while trying to invoke the negative connotation; the article already mentions this. Third and most importantly, it's weaseling. There is no controversy about whether Trump is a demagogue. Covering him under "contemporary allegations" would suggest doubt or controversy where there isn't any. Fourth, calling it an "allegation" misunderstands the topic—and this suggests some material from the literature that hasn't made its way into the article yet. People who vote for demagogues like what demagogues do. They like the disruption of political norms, the lying, the scapegoating, taunting, march to dictatorship, etc. It would violate WP:NPOV if we took a side against demagogues, as "allegation" suggests. Neutrality means to report on them factually. Also, the literature mentions "good demagogues" a lot. Unfortunately, I haven't found any examples—just some tidbits here and there of someone like Huey Long doing something beneficial, not a clear case of an overall good demagogue. But one theory about demagogues is that the disruption they bring about might be beneficial in the way that occasional forest fires clear forests. If anyone knows of a good source about that, it would be nice to summarize it. Regardless, I don't think the article should just assume that demagogues are necessarily bad. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but saying, "I came here to see what was said after seeing that Stephen Hawking had called him one," sounds suspiciously like you may have come here expecting to find confirmation bias. Also, citing Stephen Hawking as an authority on demagogues is another kind of logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Various entertainer personalities such as Robert De Niro, et al. have suddenly assumed the role of demagogue expert, as well.giggle (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I would see it as a confirmation of WP:RECENTISM. Would someone in ten years, or a hundred, come here to check what a demagogue is, because Hawking called Trump one? Is Trump a more important or quintessential example than Cleon or Hitler? The reference to the appeal to authority is flawed, as Wikipedia is not doing original research (it's deliberately banned). The encyclopedia is built on the idea of representing authoritative information. Sakkura (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, the answer to your question is "yes". If you were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, the wiki would be empty. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely with Sakkura. All we do on Wikipedia is summarize the authoritative literature, and so far, only a small portion of the literature on demagogues is about Trump. Also, if you want to understand Stephen Hawking's comment, I think the article in its current form, even with no mention of Trump, gives a reader a very good understanding of what kind of person Hawking was likening Trump to. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is any mention of President Trump considered POV?

The president of the United States clearly fits the definition of a demagogue. The fact his name is not mentioned one bit in this article seems to be more of a POV issue than including him in the article. Hitler and McCarthy are included as modern examples. There is not any kind of question that Trump is a demagogue. Including him in the article does NOT mean putting him on a list of "evil people". People can decide for themselves on "good vs evil". This article contains modern examples of people who fit a concrete definition of demagogue. In an era of "post-truth politics" people will easily see a lack of inclusion of Trump in this article as suggesting that he is not a demagogue. This article contains a list of demagogues. Demagogues have a concrete definition. Trump fits the definition. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death and there was a vote on it (see above). I agree that Trump fits the definition and for each of attributes of the demagogue (attacking the press etc.) there are numerous examples in Trumps own words. However, the Wikipedians have debated and Trump is out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.231.252 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it ironic that Trump is a demagogue in and of the fact that the Wikipedians are afraid to label him as such? Besides manipulating fears and emotions, this is objectively a suppression of reason, even if we can discuss it in our little side branch here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.164.3.140 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No it is not "ironic". Misuse of "ironic" is however a shibboleth case for the thing that Trump epitomizes and represents though, i.e. covefe, the smocking gun, the failure of the culture of the largest Western nation state to produce an intellectually capable citizenry, etc. Just shoddy, piss poor thinking and lots of it. At some level you just have to accept this. Wiki does a lot, but it's not reasonable to expect it to be perfect, or even decent and good in every one of its nearly 6 million articles, just as there is no really large set of human beings that are uniformly good, smart, whatever positive thing we are looking for. There are bad things, even in the midst of the otherwise good. Recognize, deal, and move on. Wiki being unable to label Trump a demagogue doesn't stop any of its editors or readers from doing so. When he has been driven from office and condemned by history, then things will flatten out here, but for now this is likely TRTD for this population, consistent anyway.45.46.138.162 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is ironic. The detailed correction of the meaning of ironic was unwarranted, for 167.154.3.140 identified irony correctly. However, I do understand why one would question it, as the word seems to used incorrectly more than 50% of the time. (On an unrelated note, I hope that we are able to make a brief mention of Trump at some point after he vacates office. Only a brief one, in the style of the brief mention of Stanisław Tymiński. POV simply doesn't apply when multiple academics have provided detailed explanations as to Trump's status as a demogogue.) Jtrnp (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article here. It spins a reality, as we often do here that is an advance on the real world, in which there is a massive core concept corresponding to what the article treats in passing as "situational irony". The text that I naysaid is not coherent to me so I can't evaluate against that standard. The sentence in question seems to be saying something about the logic proposition "Trump is a demagogue" and "wikipedians are afraid to label him as such" but I can't see how that can be cast as being near to the center of mass of the concept of peripeteiaic reversal. In the irony studies article though, you may be able to find a basis for such a casting. It may be also be that I have passed cynicism as far as expecting wiki to be a defender of absolute or difficult truth, which if it were , the suppression would be ironic. 45.46.138.162 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Trump is a demagogue" and "wikipedians are afraid to label him as such" <- Unwitting example of demagoguery. giggle (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"the culture of the largest Western nation state"

Last I checked, the largest is Canada (9,984,670 km²), not the United States (9,833,517 km²). Dimadick (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If that's a joke, lol. "Large" being restricted to literal size is again, thing. The Collosus of the 20th century is in fact the most populous Western country by far. Also it is powerful enough that the former imperial conquerors of the planet are happy to hold its coat while it does all or nearly all of the work of maintaining the order they established. That's large, next to which the pusillanimous hat is just that, a big ol floppy, mostly worthless tract of tundra. The EU would be if it were a nation state but I guess we know where that stands. 45.46.138.162 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)