Talk:Demagogue/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RfC on Donald Trump inclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the course of several months, several editors have debated on whether or not Donald Trump should be listed on this page or not. Since there hasn't been an official RfC on this yet, and previous discussions have led to nowhere, I present you now with one question: should Donald Trump be listed as an example of a demagogue or not? SkyWarrior 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the sources before voting. A section below lists all currently known sources. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Probably not. It would be premature to source such a description to current sources about Trump. On the other hand, what would support such a description would be a reliable source about demagogues as a whole, covering many different individual demagogues and not particularly focusing on Trump, if that source characterized Trump as one of those demagogues and discussed why. (I came here from the RfC notice.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes – there are plenty of serious sources that say so. Here's one, [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/williams-trump-is-a-demagogue/ "Williams: Trump Is a Demagogue"], from 27 August 2015 from Breitbart.com! In June 2016, seven academics provided context in "What History Teaches Us About Demagogues Like The Donald" for Time. Since then, this discussion has intensified, with many links provided on this talk page and in some well-constructed edits in the article itself. Not to mention Trump is disingenuous. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• No – Whether or not Trump is a demagogue is not the editing/encyclopedic question. The real issue is whether we are presenting an objective, non-POV article to the reader. Once we say (according to whatever sources) that he is a demagogue, then the counter-views (that he is not) "should" be included. Hence any attempt to achieve BALANCE is doomed to disrupt the article. The debate as to his demagoguery is best confined to his article. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• No Summoned by a bot. I agree with S. Rich. I think balance would be needed to accurately convey both sides of the argument, but I don't think this is the page to have that argument. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• No. Including a politician who has been in office for a few weeks is blatant WP:RECENTISM in a topic that spans millenia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I think there's a major problem here, with the entire section "Famous demagogues". This is not an objective term, for which anyone can tick off a set of measurable criteria and conclude that person A is or isn't one. It's a highly subjective, and also pejorative term, and we should never say in Wikipedia's voice that anyone is definitively a demagogue. So on the specific question - should we discuss the case of Donald Trump, and the fact that a significant number of reputable sources have referred to him as one? Yes, of course. The sources are mentioned above by Michael Bednarek. But should we say baldly "Donald Trump is a demagogue", or list him in a section on famous demagogues as if that's incontrovertible fact? No, we shouldn't. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Actually there are objective criteria for identifying demagogues regardless of one's opinion about them—covered in our article, even! Please see Demagogue#History_and_definition_of_the_word. The "Famous demagogues" section should have only classic examples. (I'm not sure that Nepos is such an example; if not, he should be removed.) I agree that we shouldn't baldly declare Trump a demagogue—not because it's controversial (AFAIK it's not), but because such a statement would be pointless and uninformative. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's to soon. Simple enough.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - it doesn't add to the article topic itself and seems just a WP:COATRACK bit to WP:ATTACK. I'm also dubious about even having examples here as it isn't a 'list of' article, and a bing for demagogue is generally naming other folks. Markbassett (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes.There are multiple sources that describe Trump as a demagogue. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• No Mainly for reasons given by Srich and others, that the need to put the counter argument (all those fine people who love Trump), would unbalance an article which is mainly about the historical type. Proper place to discuss Trump's demagoguery is one of his own pages and 4 sources (40 even), would only support that he has been described thus, not that he is thus. I note that the Time piece also describes Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus alongside Trump, are they also to be added? Also the NYT piece refers to someone calling Trump a demagogue, not using its own voice. Might I suggest that "Historical demagogues" might be better than "Famous" ones as a heading. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• No. Historical distance is needed to put that . . . [trying to avoid POV here] . . . bloviating ignoramus . . . [OK, not my best effort] . . . into perspective. There are still 47 months left in his term of office. We'll be in for 4 years [please, not 8!] of overwhelming blog-like Trumpery beyond any reasonable weight if editors start whaling into him now. -- WikiPedant (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Definitely Yes. He meets most if not all of the criteria listed in the article for demagogues. Well respected scholars (e.g Michael Signer), authors and diverse sources have labeled him as such, providing copious evidence to support the view that he is a representative example of a historical demagogue. And there is no need whatsoever to wait any unspecified period of time before including him. He is either a demagogue or he's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.130.235 03:44, March 5, 2017 (UTC) (talk)
• Mention somewhere that some reliable sources and scholars have described Trump as a demagogue (per above), but not use him as a universal example of a demagogue because it's too soon and only time will tell what the historical definition of Donald Trump will be. κατάσταση 21:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, with a caveat. Amakuru is correct in his above comment. While there is no question that Donald Trump is considered by many reliable sources to be a demagogue and meets many of the traits commonly thought to indicate one, the section itself should not be titled "Famous demagogues", but rather "Figures frequently described as demagogues" or something along those lines. AndrewOne (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, that would make it much more reasonable. Under that definition, there is no doubt that Trump qualifies. Then we're clearly attributing it to the reliable sources already mentioned, rather than stating it as a bald fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I would not mind retitling of the section to be more neutral (i.e. "Figures frequently described as demagogues" or thereabouts), but Trump should be included in the list.HervéDuchat (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• No. Not even close. This would be a serious breach of our BLP policy, since it doesn't appear to be verifiable or neutral. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and I've looked through all of the sources cited in this discussion and found nothing exceptional, largely a bunch of opinion and borderline sources. Left uncited is this CNN piece which concludes that Trump isn't "a demagogue in the true sense of the word." (Please review this before dismissing me as a pro-Trump shill.) (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The piece you describe is nearly two years old. Much has changed since then, particularly since Trump has become president and has begun assuming more characteristics of a demagogue.24.187.130.235 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying that doesn't make it true. We need to cite exceptional sources for this sort of claim. Absent them, the material must be excluded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And merely saying that these sources are not exceptional as defined in the above mentioned link -- i.e. multiple, high quality mainstream sources -- does not make them unexceptional. I would strongly disagree with any such characterization of lack of quality of the numerous sources that have been provided that would render them exceptional. Please go back and look at the article's recent edit history and look at the sources cited. Also please see the additional sources cited in conjunction with this RFC and its additional discussion both above and below. HervéDuchat (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)HervéDuchat (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Please see this follow-up article by the same author six months later. It quotes the same authority, Michael Signer, this time saying that Trump has "crossed the line" into full demagoguery. Please see also the section of Trump-related sources below. If you know of any other credible articles arguing that Trump is not a demagogue, please add them. AFAIK, that Trump is a demagogue is no longer controversial. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the new source, but I think you're misunderstanding our verifiability policy. This new CNN source doesn't say Trump is a demagogue. It merely quotes Signer saying he's a demagogue. That's nothing new--there have always been knowledgeable people who call Trump a demagogue, including those quoted in the CNN article I linked to. The question isn't whether some people believe Trump is demagogue. The question is whether the reliable sources describe Trump without contradiction. They don't - so we can't say point-blank that Trump is a demagogue. This is a straightforward application of our BLP policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Point well taken about the higher standard of WP:BLP. Can you point me to a current reliable source that contradicts the proposition that Trump is a demagogue? So far, to the best of my knowledge, while few reliable sources say much about this matter (hence by WP:BALASPS we should cover it little if at all), the current sources that address it are now unanimous. Also, have you seen the section below that enumerates and comments on sources on Trump regarding demagoguery? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to continue this conversation much longer, since this is a survey section and isn't for extended discussion, but (1) I disagree that the CNN source that says Trump isn't a demagogue is too out-of-date to be reliable, and (2) yes, I have reviewed those sources. Of the 3 identified as "good" or "useful," I see one (the NY Times) that doesn't expressly say that Trump is a demagogue, and two written by a politician and lawyer. Granted Signer seems knowledgeable about demogoguery, but are we seriously considering saying that Trump is a demagogue based on the say-so of an elected Democratic politician? Please don't answer, as that's meant as a rhetorical question, and again, this is just a survey. My !vote stands. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes but not in his own section. I'm not aware of any controversy in published sources about whether Trump is a demagogue. All published writings that I've seen that address the topic within the last year point out that he is; none argue the opposite. One older article argues against it, but that was before his demagoguery became clear in 2016. The author, Stephen Collinson, writing in 2015, based his argument on Signer's Fenimore-inspired four-point test, and rescinded the conclusion in a later article; he quoted Signer in both articles.

However, there hasn't been enough written about Trump qua demagogue to fill a section just on him. Remember, folks, all we do on Wikipedia is summarize facts already published in other sources. If you go to a library and look up "demagogue", you won't find much on Trump (nothing in book form yet, AFAIK). The article could, however, mention Trump by way of illustrating something general about demagogues, like his calling legitimate journalism "fake news" as in this recent edit by User:Catholic_nerd. Unfortunately, the cited article makes no explicit mention of demagoguery, so including it here amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. A good article specifically about Trump's demagoguery might mention the "fake news" trope, though; if so, we should incorporate its material and cite it. It's an excellent illustration of how demagogues attack the press, right along with Hitler's use of the term Lügenpresse (which we should summarize first—as it's already well-covered in secondary sources). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with not having a separate section devoted to Trump, as long as the references above to 'fake news' and 'Lügenpresse' are included and attributed to Trump's recent actions and statements. Likewise for other examples of ways in which Trump accurately meets criteria for demagogues, as has been noted in various recently reverted entries.HervéDuchat (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely not In time, say after his presidency or even after death, there may be enough hindsight to call him a demagogue, but to include it right now where he has only been in this type of visibility since he tossed his hat into the ring for a few years, that's a gross violation of BLP as well as WP:NOT#NEWS. We need long term hindsight here, not just because a few press people have named him as such. (Counterpoint: that is a fair criticism of him for his own page with appropriately sourced attribution). To use a few current opinions to include his name among a half-dozen examples is very much a BLP/NPOV issue. There is no deadline to including him if history eventually judges him as one. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - Masem and others nail it. Having to bother commenting here in defense of simple neutral and biographical main wikipedia policies is embarrassing. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: It's not that simple. Wikipedia reflects current consensus among reliable sources. AFAIK there is no controversy that Trump is a demagogue. What would help is sources. Do you know of any that find that Trump is not a demagogue? Please see current list of sources below. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• yes, limited to what he has done to date - namely his campaign and his initial administration. The content should be carefully stated: "In his campaign and the initial period of his presidency...." and should be careful not to make some claims about what he is. We cannot do the WP:CRYSTALBALL thing but the past is the past and there are plenty of sources showing how what he has done to date checks the definitional boxes. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog - citing what reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WIth regard to what, exactly? Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• No only because it's too early. But the article topics fit Trump to a T. Give it time - wait until he's out of office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Of course this article is not the place to argue whether Trump is or isn't – it's the place to show reliable sources which make that argument for/against, and WP:BALANCE does not preclude that. If arguments against may be hard to find, WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek - just follow the cites has a couple ways that WP:V needs to consider more and look to be WP:BETTER.

First, the sources show what article it belongs to. Sources that say 'examples of TopicT are X, Y, Z' are about TopicT, and sources that say 'X is TopicT' are about X, saying X relates to TopicT, and it's a fine point of WP:INTEGRITY to properly place with the topic a source is dealing with. One should be approaching it from the topic and trying to stay on topic, it is still WP:OFFTOPIC if a source is only loosely relevant to the article topic.

Second, the sources show WP:V what to portray as its WP:NOTABLE and due WP:WEIGHT. Either a major source or multiple independent sources help guide the amount it deserves a mention and how to portray it, and that may be showing that it looks like WP:FRINGE or WP:Cherrypicking. The WP:V can be a demonstration that its not significant to the topic and/or that it's just a POV that would have to show the other POV(s) too if it's mentioned. One can google and find Trump with almost any quality or topic and find an instance -- as well as the opposite -- as well as numerous sources talking about value labels as POVs, that what some view as (for example) nationalistic others say is patriotic.

Until and unless there is a good reason that it helps cover the subject Demagogue better, I think if one wants to improve this article it would be better to do other things -- go into the methods of demagogue, or working the to-do list, or perhaps consider adding some aspect of demagogue like the other meaning of 'leader espousing the cause of the common people'.

p.s. It's not on topic or about WP guidelines, but for full disclosure I'll mention that I'm feeling I've had too much mentions of Trump (elsewhere as well as WP). There's no WP:WEIGHT about too many articles unless it's WP:RECENTISM, but that WP coverage seems to be showing him as more important than Obama plus FDR plus George Washington just doesn't sit right. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

He should be listed as somoeone who has been accused of being a demagogue. Not called one. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That's sophistry, and your choice of "accused" is WP:SYNTH. Still, even listing him as someone being described as demagogue by reputable sources won't apparently fly here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No I am just anti-POV pushing. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician - that's the meat of the 'his article not this article' point -- when saying it (he should be) is said as something about him then it's material for his page, to identify a characteristic of him -- not a characteristic of this article. Unless it adds something to the topic Demagogue about what demagoguery is, then I think it doesn't belong _here_. If his name starts getting put in every quality said about him -- 'villain', 'hero', 'nationalism', 'patriotism', 'brave', 'crazy', 'twitter', 'egotist', 'famous' -- we'd just have wound up putting his name on a lot more pages here and making him more famous/infamous but not helping those pages be better. Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at our lede and parse: "A demagogue ... or rabble-rouser is a leader [Obama and/or Trump and/or many other US politicians] in a democracy [the US] who gains popularity [Obama and/or Trump etc.] by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, [Obama and Trump etc.] whipping up the passions of the crowd [Obama and Trump etc.] and shutting down reasoned deliberation [NOTHING has been shut down by either]. Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, violent action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty.^{[citation needed]} [Hmmmm ... "usually"? Is this a requirement in the definition of demagogue?] Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.^{[citation needed]} [Quite radical and as yet unsupported in either case] Most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of managed democracy.^{[citation needed]} [WP:CRYSTAL]" — Here is my editing point – in these days of hyper-media it is easy to find "RS" which says this or that. BUT are we taking a dispassionate, reasoned look at what will improve this article? Or are we trumpeting our own views? – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are taking a dispassionate and reasoned look at improving the article by including Trump, since by rational and factually-based criteria, he is a demagogue.HervéDuchat (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If one uses the criteria established by the article itself for what constitutes a demagogue, the facts, supported by reliable sources cited in recent edits, point towards a rational basis for inclusion. It seems to me that the discussion here aligns with a consensus view.HervéDuchat (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The emerging edit war doesn't make sense. The recent additions are all from RS and include a balanced array of mainstream sources including The New Yorker, Washington Times, etc. HervéDuchat (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying hard to reach a consensus, but no one is discussing this here on the Talk page. All I get is reverting back to the unedited version without inclusion of any of the recently added references to Trump's actions that are, according to well documented, mainstream sources, indicative that he fits the mold of a demagogue, as set forth in this article's headings. If there were genuine and legitimate criticisms of these edits based on NPOV issues, which I haven't seen, I could understand simple reversion of edits, but that has not been the case. Nebulous statements about Trump's premature place in history or "not now" comments don't cut it. I'd like to see some genuine discussion and attempts at compromise or consensus that results in inclusion, at least in some form, of these matters. If I don't see some movement from editors to reach consensus, I will have to up the level of this discussion to a higher level dispute resolution status, which I'd rather not have to do. As it stands, this reeks of unilateral partisan actions not based on any genuine dispute about the legitimacy or relevance of the sourcing or wording of the editsHervéDuchat (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@HervéDuchat: I have written a lot on this talk page about whether, why, and how to include Trump in the article. Please search for my name above and in the archive, and I think you'll find that I've addressed a lot of the points you've brought up—everything from neutrality to appropriate sources to "not now" to the naming of sections. If you have a point that hasn't been addressed, would you please start a section specifically about that? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have, by the way, seen on Wikipedia's entry for Lügenpresse (Lying Press) several references to Trump. These references fit perfectly with the subheading on Demagogues outlining the characteristic of repeatedly disparaging the press. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_press. If it's good enough for another Wikipedia article, it should be good enough for this article.HervéDuchat (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A few points: When you say "dispassionate and reasoned" I think you mean I want Trump listed. Next, there is no "emerging edit war" – right now various editors are discussing, compromising, reaching a consensus, etc.. HD, it seems that the particular consensus you strive for is one which you prefer. Finally, your comment about "lying press is simply WP:OSE.

In any event, I'll offer another suggestion for interested editors: Look at Megan Garber's article in The Atlantic (already linked above). She is entirely correct when she says "It's more than an insult. It's a loaded word ...." (And she says labeling Trump as a demagogue is "More dangerous.") And that point out how important is the POV aspect of this RfC and discussion. If we mention Trump in this article we are promoting a view that is an insult, non-encyclopedic, and a BLP violation. The only proper place to use the term is in those articles which contain explicit criticisms of Trump. – S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)23:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

To expand on my suggestion, use the sources provided above to expand the article Public image of Donald Trump. That way editors can push wherever they want with various descriptions. – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The reference related to "Lying Press" elsewhere is mentioned because WP consistency across WP articles is a valid reason.24.187.130.235 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

* BTW – The RFC has been open for 30 days now and I've posted a request for closure at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Demagogue.23RfC on Donald Trump inclusion. – S. Rich (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I invite editors to look at the essay WP:HISTRS. Our article is, in fact, one that discusses the history of demagogues with an academic approach. With this in mind, the advice of the essay ought to be followed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the reference sources I list below, particularly that listed for March 17, 2017, which includes highly respected and reliable academic writings. e.g. Wehner and Mercieca. HervéDuchat (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

User:HervéDuchat has only 28 edits to this wikipedia, see them all here all of them are in relation to Trump and Demagogue . Govindaharihari (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant, as well as incorrect. I have also edited on the subject of diplomatic immunity. HervéDuchat (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant at all, your editing history reflects your WP:POV, Yes you also have 'two edits commenting on russia. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a controversy?

Many of the !votes above are premised on there being a controversy about whether Trump is a demagogue. But is there any controversy?

Our current list of sources is unanimous: everything credible in print appears to say that Trump is a demagogue. All but one published within the last year for granted that any reader already knows that he's a demagogue; the exception, by Michael Signer from Dec. 2, 2016, still basically assumes that you see that Trump is a demagogue, but addresses the question of whether "demagogue" is merely a subjective term of opprobrium (i.e. it explains the concept for non-experts). If you know of any current sources that indicate that there is any real controversy about this matter, please add them to the Sources section and add a note here. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly controversial and a wp:npov concern to use opinionated commentary to label a living person as a demagogue. This is embarrassing, can someone please close this partisan trash. As for the list of sources, Michael Signer is mentioned ten times - his page says he is a democratic activist. lala. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Govindahari, calling the claim "clearly controversial" and calling this section "partisan trash" don't shed light on the question of whether a controversy exists; same with your remark about the current list of sources, some of which involve Michael Signer and some of which don't. If you would point out a credible source or two that establish that a controversy really exists, that could be very helpful. Depending on the quality of those sources, it might even settle this matter and quickly establish consensus. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's the equal of the when are you going to stop beating your wife situation. I don't need to show it's controversial, it clearly is without more opinionated press links suggesting it is and even if there are no opinionated press links suggesting it is controversial it clearly is controversial - I hate having to comment about this worthless crap and I won't reply again. I will note though that for the last six months User:BenKovitz is almost a single issue account in regards to Trump and demagogue. Contributions/BenKovitz Govindaharihari (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, your personal attacks against editors are unhelpful to the discussion. HervéDuchat (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If I have personally attacked anyone please wp:personal attack let me know and show me a link and I will deal with that, commenting on your editing history is not a personal attack as far as I am aware? thanks. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Taking this thread of discussion to the proper forum, the User Talk page. re: WP:PA. HervéDuchat (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Granted there are a variety of useful and non-useful sources, but the editing question is whether adding Trump's name violates BLP, NOTNEWS, NOTEWORTHY, RECENTISM, and other guidelines/policies. As before, I submit that use of these sources is best restricted to the Donald Trump article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977: would you please move this comment to another section somewhere above? Adding it here turns the list of sources into yet another place to declare one's opinion about the survey, and encourages others to further erode the separation between that question and discussion of one source at a time. Feel free to delete this request of mine when and if you do. Thanks. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Please add specific sources on Trump's demagoguery here and/or comment on their usefulness for the Demagogue article.

Jul 23, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/donald-trump-rick-perry-demagogue/

Out of date By Stephen Collinson. Quotes Michael Signer and appeals to Signer's criteria to argue that Trump has demagogic qualities but doesn't measure up to a full demagogue. Rescinded in follow-up article by Collinson on Dec. 30, 2015.

Aug 27, 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/williams-trump-is-a-demagogue/

Poor Opinion. Author fears that Trump is a demagogue. A couple brief remarks about scapegoating and xenophobia. Not usable. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dec 6, 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/politics/95000-words-many-of-them-ominous-from-donald-trumps-tongue.html?_r=0

Good Thorough, detailed, factual analysis of Trump's rhetoric, with explanations of how he compares to historical demagogues and how he embodies the essential characteristics of demagogues. Establishes pretty authoritatively that Trump is a demagogue, with lots of specifics that we can summarize. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dec 10, 2015
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-demagogues/419514/

Useful but not for citing Says that calling a politician a demagogue amounts to calling him or her a threat to democracy. Points out that Trump is a demagogue but offers few specifics about him that we can summarize. However, it does run through much of the standard litany on demagogues that is found in most sources about demagogues in general, and it includes links to other sources on demagogues in general and on Trump as demagogue. We probably won't have much use for citing this source directly, but it can give an editor an overview of coverage throughout the main authoritative sources and it provides leads to sources that we might be able to cite. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

December 11, 2015:https://theconversation.com/the-rhetorical-brilliance-of-trump-the-demagogue-51984

Dec 30, 2015
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/politics/donald-trump-2015-presidential-election/

Useful By Stephen Collinson, six months after his article above. Quotes Signer again, this time explaining that Trump had "crossed the line" and become a full demagogue. Has citable specifics. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Feb 29, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/29/heres-what-demagogues-like-trump-do-to-their-countries-when-they-take-power/

Good By Michael Signer, a leading authority on demagogues. Discusses Trump to teach about demagogues, and compares Trump with past demagogues to shed light on how Trump is likely to behave in office. Good source for this article: includes material (not all about Trump) that explains what demagogues are and do. Only basis for doubt is probable light editorial oversight compared to a scholarly article or book. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mar 10, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-demagogue-that-our-founding-fathers-feared/2016/03/10/58584278-e6df-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

Poor Opinion piece, light on facts. While the author is certainly right that the U.S. Founding Fathers were most afraid of demagogues like Trump, we can't really use this as a source due to lack of factual material. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Jun 20, 2016
http://time.com/4375262/history-demagogues-donald-trump/

Useful but not for citing Seven scholars answer the question "How does democracy survive demagoguery?" Lots of good historical material here about demagogues in general, but probably any fact here has better sources than this one. Also, no information about Trump except that the article takes for granted that Trump is a demagogue. This counts reasonably as evidence that "Trump is a demagogue" is not controversial, but we can't cite this article for that fact. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sep 20, 2016
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/trump-files-donalds-big-book-hitler-speeches

Poor Describes Trump's ownership of, and non-denial denial of owning, a book of Hitler speeches. Nothing specifically about demagoguery. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oct 19, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/trump-the-first-demagogue-of-the-anthropocene/504134/

Poor Analyzes implications of Trump's demagoguery for addressing climate change. Takes for granted that Trump is a demagogue but says little or nothing about demagoguery. Contains little or nothing that we can summarize in this article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nov 17, 2016
http://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/

Maybe good Another article by Michael Signer. Explains, factually, that the Electoral College was primarily designed to stop demagogues. This point is probably made more thoroughly in Signer's book Demagogue but this article explains specifics about Trump with regard to demagoguery in general. Basis for doubt: this is an opinion piece, arguing that the Electors should revolt and vote against Trump—so probably light on editorial oversight. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

November 23, 2016: http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2016/11/23/the-rhetorical-genius-of-donald-trump-demagogue-for-president/

Dec 2, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/02/donald-trump-wasnt-a-textbook-demagogue-until-now/

Good Another by Michael Signer. Explains how Trump didn't appear at first to be a demagogue but clearly has shown himself to be one, and explains that this is precise use of language, not a matter of semantics or opinion. Points out that this observation is now commonplace, with some illustrative links. Many specifics about why Trump is a demagogue. Briefly discusses the ever-present threat of demagogues to democracies and U.S. Founding Fathers' attempts to prevent takeover by demagogues. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Jan 20, 2017
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trump-the-impulsive-demagogue-in-the-white-house

Poor Opinion, wandering commentary on current events, no specifics on Trump's demagoguery. I don't think we can use this. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Jan 23, 2017
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.766960

Poor Proposes "Trump is a demagogue" as one of three possibilities, which apparently are not mutually exclusive, and also takes that possibility for granted. Somewhat incoherent, and offers almost no information about demagoguery in general or Trump's in particular. Not useful for Wikipedia. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Feb 17, 2017
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-fake-news-media-enemies-american-people-white-house-press-conference-twitter-a7586786.html

Unusable Describes Trump's calling legitimate journalism "fake news" and an "enemy of the American people". These are clearly demagogic tactics but the article isn't about demagogy. For us to cite it as being about demagogy would be WP:SYNTHESIS. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 17, 2017
http://politiseek.com/2017/03/demagogue/

Usable for References The article itself is not by a RS, however, the references cited are numerous and of good quality and reliability, including articles by both conservative and liberal authors. There are so many good references here that these alone would be sufficient to justify inclusion of Trump as a demagogue. Of particular note in this regard is the linked article containing an interview with Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the book, "The Rhetorical Brilliance of Donald Trump, Demagogue for President" written by Texas A&M Professor, Jennifer Mercieca.HervéDuchat (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20, 2017
http://www.newyorker.com/podcast/comment/american-demagogue

Excellent Says, "No American demagogue, not Huey Long, not Joseph McCarthy, not George Wallace, has ever achieved such proximity to national power." "Trump can be viewed as part of a deadly serious wave of authoritarians and xenophobes, who have come to power in Russia, Poland and Hungary." Goes on to describe Trump's criticism of the "weak" leaders we have in the US. References Trump's start of the birther movement, use of insults, bigotry, and courting of the basest elements of US political culture, comparing these to Nixon's Southern Strategy. These are all typical demagogue traits, tactics and associations. HervéDuchat (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is another trait of the demagogue "a misguided appeal to patriotism"?

I wonder if this should be added to the list of potential attributes of the demagogue? It seems that many demagogues use an appeal to their country to gain support and divide their opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.64.44 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"The enduring character of demagogues"

@Srich32977: I just reverted your change of "The enduring character of demagogues" to "The character of demagogues". I'm actually not especially fond of "The enduring character of demagogues". I'll explain it here; maybe you or someone else reading this can suggest a better title. The section is about a common observation made in the sources: demagogues and demagoguery have stayed pretty much the same across millenia (modulo the changing technologies of news media). That's why I changed it back from merely "The character of demagogues": the point is the enduringness. "Enduring" isn't ideal, and I think "The perennial character of demagogues" doesn't fit right. "Demagogues are pretty much the same in every age" is clear but lacks encyclopedia tone, of course. I haven't looked over the sources in a long time. They might have good word for this. Or maybe you do. Any ideas? (Signer says that demagogues are an "endemic" problem of democracies, but that word seems even less clear without explanation.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

How about "Character of demagogues through history"? – S. Rich (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that title suggests that the character of demagogues has changed throughout history. I'll keep thinking… —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2017 (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)

"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)

Folks, please limit discussion to improving the article. That mostly means: sources and how to summarize them. Thanks. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

@BenKovitz: I only applied definitions taken directly from the article to make my point that Trump's detractors (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) equally meet demagogue criteria. If those definitions are not good enough, then it says something about the article. 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'm not arguing that the personalities I mentioned should be included as demagogues, only adding to the reason why it's an attack on personality to include President Trump as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

The article has certainly failed if it honestly gave you the impression that Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump equally meet the criteria for a demagogue. Could you please suggest some way to improve the article so it doesn't promote such an extreme misunderstanding of the topic? Or can you provide some more detail about how you got that impression? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Every politician exhibits traits of the demagogue from time to time. The thing that distinguishes a demagogue is that all of the traits are there in spades. Further, to those people arguing that Trump in not a demagogue because he has yet to shut down the press and jail his opponents, his success or lack of success making use of the techniques does not change the fact that he demonstrates them. It just makes him less successful and more successful in some areas. Having said all of this, the Wikipedians have voted, and I support their vote (but I personally disagree). It is possible they will vote again should the situation change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.68.83 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ben, I reread the article and in particular, the sections at the beginning that attempt to clarify the "extreme misunderstanding of the topic" you mention above. Sometimes it is better to use less words and zero in on the key element. The demagogue must have the majority of the traits and must use them in day to day operation. Somehow this gets lost in the text (even though it is stated). My 2C ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.68.83 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

64.231.68.83, thanks for the constructive criticism. I'm sure the high points could be made to stand out better. I've struggled with that and am also not satisfied. You are welcome to edit the article yourself, of course. If you're proposing "The demagogue must have the majority of the traits and must use them in day to day operation" as a strict, or at least clearer, criterion, I think that would contradict the sources, which are agreed that there can be no precise boundary. Nor can there be any final, authoritative list of traits, not even Luthin's. "Demagogue" marks a hazy but real distinction, like "sycophant" or "bully". If you can point out a specific point that gets lost, please do, and I or someone else can try to make it stand out better. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)