Talk:Demagogue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Opinion

Can anyone explain how he statement "The most famous demagogue of modern times, Adolf Hitler..." is a fact? That the Republican nominee for President is a person of modern times is a fact. Whether or not the Republican nominee is a demagogue is a question where there is no consensus. To say that Donald Trump is less famous than Adolf Hitler is something that now I greatly question. If all three statements are even arguable, this is an opinion and should be modified by deleting "The most famous demagogue of modern times, ".Theoallen1 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We only reflect what's in authoritative sources. When books on demagogues make Trump the archetypal example of a demagogue, we'll update the article to reflect that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ben Kovitz, I've read through this page to find you consistently gatekeeping against any edits that would include Donald Trump into the article. At this point, it's not clear whether you are concerned for the site's standards or you are biased and attempting to protect someone you may support politically. Are there any other examples of wikipedia pages that supposedly do not allow for, or set much higher standards for living people vs historical examples? You have rejected all sources that are not specifically books, saying "once there are books mentioning Donald as a demagogue, that information can be added," but as far as I know, there is no such requirement anywhere else on wikipedia.

The facts are clear that Donald fits the exact definition of a demagogue, and that this has been mentioned countless times in print and online media for over a year. At the very least, he should be noted as an "alleged" demogogue, including support for (and against?) that claim.

Let's look at the definition as written on the page: "a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues have usually advocated immediate, violent action to address a national crisis while accusing moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness or disloyalty. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so. Most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of dictatorship." Now, the only part of that definition that Donald does not fulfill is the last sentence, which applies to "most" demagogues.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, you may be thinking of 'demagogue' as strictly a pejorative term, like calling someone an 'idiot', which would necessarily make any inclusion of a person subjective. But thinking of the term academically rather than as a mere pejorative term may help you understand why or why not certain living examples ought to be included.

Let's look at this sentence, currently in the article: "Modern demagogues include Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and Joseph McCarthy. All, ancient and modern, meet Cooper's four criteria above: claiming to represent the common people, inciting intense passions among them, exploiting those reactions to take power, and breaking or at least threatening established rules of political conduct" - Now, how can you justify Trump's exclusion from that list when he, too, absolutely meets those four criteria? How many academics and social scientists need to write about it before you, O Wise Gatekeeper, allow him to be added? 117.18.65.62 (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, 117.18.65.62. Please read the "Update" section above, which I posted a couple days ago, which addresses some of your concerns. A few clarifications: (1) The point about "books" had to do only with whether Hitler or Trump is the most famous demagogue of modern times. Much of the information in the page right now comes from academic articles, not books. I've assembled a whole bunch of sources here. (2) I'm aware that demagogue is not always pejorative. I've been trying to gather material for a section on "Benevolent demagogues" but I've hardly found any! Lots of sources mention them in the abstract, but so far I've found only a few details, mostly about Huey Long. (3) On excluding Trump from the short list of modern demagogues even though Trump clearly meets the definition: those are the usual names that come up when sources give a short list of demagogues. There are many modern demagogues, described elsewhere in the article, that meet the definition but aren't in that list.

Regarding bias, here's how I've been approaching the article: Suppose that you were writing an encyclopedia, and you were writing the article on demagogues. Which of the existing writings on demagogues would you prioritize for sources to draw material from? Start with the classic, most-cited, most-respected books and papers and summarize their main points, right? Maybe start by going through Luthin's American Demagogues, James Ceaser's paper on demagogues and statesmanship, Michael Signer's book on demagogues. (I bought the latter a few years ago to work on this article.) All of these were written before the rise of Trump. WP:BALASPS provides that the relative weight of subtopics covered in the article should match that found in the body of sources on the article's subject. Trump hasn't been covered much in the literature on demagogues—yet. I think it's a safe bet that he will be, but he hasn't yet. It is starting, but it's still very early. So far, most of the writing I've seen on Trump as demagogue has been newspaper editorials (not all, though).

I don't want to serve as gatekeeper. I've been exhorting people for years to do the leg work on the sources and write more material. See, for example, the list of sources and the to-do list. If you'd like to help, that would be great! I only have limited time for this myself, and I think the world could really use a thorough summary of the scholarly literature on this topic right about now. If you'd like to make the article into a hit piece on Trump, though, that would not be so great. A hit piece on Trump would only cost us our credibility. Declaring "Trump is a demagogue, some authority says so" won't give anyone insight into either Trump or demagogues in general. Propounding an argument that Trump is a demagogue would turn from the expository style of the rest of the article, which just provides facts to illustrate what demagogues are and how they work, to WP:SOAPBOX advocacy.

What helps is summarizing what authors of secondary sources have written to shed light on the nature of demagogues, just as in any article on a comparable topic. Compare, for example, Sociopath, Bribery, Real estate, Hotel, Sexual assault: no mention of Trump. That's because Trump occupies only the tiniest fraction of the literature on those topics. Information about Trump's connections with those topics belongs in the article on Donald Trump, because the literature on Donald Trump talks about them. If this article is to help people judge Trump's demagoguery for themselves, it needs to follow WP:BALASPS, fairly surveying the scholarly literature on demagogues in general—that's all. Given the highly controversial and contemporary nature of Trump, we need to maintain our high standards of scholarliness and neutrality especially strictly.

The article could be a whole lot better than it is now, though. The most obvious subtopics that I see need adding right now are: Mussolini, Huey Long, Savonarola, McCarthy's fall, what demagogues do when in power, psychology of demagogues, the appeal of demagogues, and ways that people have tried to set up democracies to prevent demagogues. Some of these have been on the to-do list for years. Working on them would be a lot more helpful than complaining and criticizing. It is hard work, though.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"Are there any other examples of wikipedia pages that supposedly do not allow for, or set much higher standards for living people vs historical examples?"

As a matter of fact, yes. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

It is not among Wikipedia's better known policies, but information on living persons requires higher standards than those on dead people or historical figures. Call it self-censorship, but Wikipedia has to avoid getting in legal trouble. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So what you're suggesting is that Wikipedia has to compromise on accuracy in view of a certain convenience, that is also motivated by legal reasons which, as I interpret it, practically undermine Wikipedia's primary purpose to spread objective information that may or may not contain certain "hard truths"? 94.210.148.15 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

94.210.148.15: Exactly the opposite. Please re-read all of the above. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistancies throughout wikipedia on the subject of Cleon

Here Cleon is called a demagogue, in the article of 'The Knights', Cleon is mentioned as a pro-war populist and in Cleon he is called a warmonger and a demagogue. In my opinion this gets rather confusing. Please keep in mind that according to the comedy of Aristophanes, The Knights:

• Cleon was a man born in the highter middle class, although the common people were mislead to believe he was not.
• He was a radical-democratic leader who insisted on his decrees to be carried out with ruthless precision.
• His demagogic skills were very good.
• He was called a monster by Aristophanes in The Knights (keep in mind that this is his (Aristophanes) opinion and he could very well be somewhat biased).
• He decried the killing of all adult males in Scion, selling the women an children as slaves and giving the land to the Platæans. This decree was carried out in all strictness after his death.
• He had taken a bribe to soften the infamous decree which he had persuaded the Athenians he had adopted against the people of Mitylene. This softening lead to the killing of approximately one thousand chief leaders and prominent men of Mytilene instead of every adult male.

Jpaxel (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

... and The Knights is a satirical, allegorical comedy that doesn't even mention Cleon by name.

Please read The Knights because this is simply not true. Cleon is mentioned quite often. Jpaxel (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleon was a tradesman—a leather-tanner ...

Cleon was born in a upper-middle class family that owned a leather tannery. There was the misconception by the people that he was one of them, thus part of the lower class. Jpaxel (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, their portrayals define the archetypal example of the "demagogue" or "rabble-rouser.

Please keep in mind that their (Aristophanes and especially Thucydides) writings are biased to a certain degree. Cleon helped the lower class in getting more wealthy at the cost of the upper class. As said in the article Thucydides and Aristophanes were part of the upper class. Jpaxel (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jpaxel, it's OK for Wikipedia articles to contradict each other. Each Wikipedia article summarizes the sources available for that article's topic. It's not unusual for sources to contradict each other. Within one topic, a Wikipedia article should address important contradictions between sources, but when sources for two different topics happen to contradict each other regarding one proposition that happens to come up in both pages, there's no need to make both pages agree with each other. Each page should faithfully represent the sources for its own topic, nothing more (or less). See, for example, this for some more insight on contradictions between articles. That said, if you find a contradiction between two pages, that's probably a good clue that there's some good information waiting to be dug up and added to one or both articles.

Regarding Cleon in The Knights, the article's current claim about this might indeed be a mistake. However, I just did a little quick googling and found this page, which says:

"Aristophanes had the prudence not to actually use the name Cleon anywhere in the play, however, substituting the allegorical character Paphlagonian, but describing him so that he could not possibly be mistaken. From fear of Cleon's faction, no mask-maker dared to make a copy of his face for the play, and Aristophanes bravely resolved to play the part himself, merely painting his own face. The Knights of the Chorus were the wealthy class of Athens, politicized and educated enough to be able to see through the demagoguery of the populist Cleon and seen by Aristophanes as his natural allies in his personal crusade against him."

Can you point me to a copy of The Knights where Cleon is explicitly mentioned quite often? Regardless of this detail, certainly this article's coverage of Cleon badly needs to be expanded. That expanded coverage should summarize sources explicitly dedicated to demagoguery, though. I'll add a new section to the talk page about this shortly. If you have access to appropriate sources, though, please improve that section! —Ben Kovitz (talk)

"Thucydides and Aristophanes were part of the upper class."

This is true of Thucydides. He is believed to be a member of the Philaidae, a powerful noble family which claimed descent from Ajax. We do not really know anything about Aristophanes' ancestry or political affiliations. His article mentions only three known relatives, his sons Araros, Philippus, and Nicostratus/Philetaerus.

And Aristophanes did have personal reasons to hate Cleon. In the lost play The Babylonians, Aristophanes depicted the Athenian allies in the Delian League as slaves. Cleon and his political allies accused the play of slandering the Athenian state (because it implied that Athens had enslaved its own allies) and took legal action against him. In The Acharnians, Aristophanes makes comments against the "ἀνδράρια μοχθηρά" ("wicked little men") who dragged him into court.

Several of Aristophanes' "attacks" on Cleon were written years following Cleon's death. Aristophanes apparently held a grudge. No big surprise there. Another favorite target for Aristophanes was Euripides, satirized in several of Aristophanes' surviving plays. Aristophanes basically devotes The Frogs to ridiculing the then-recently deceased Euripides and his works. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Modern

How about Huey Long, Juan Peron, etc.? 198.255.197.105 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. If you're interested in helping out, please see the to-do list at the top of this talk page. There is already good literature about every subtopic listed there. FWIW, six of the Methods of demagogues now covered are illustrated by biographical examples from Huey Long. The page probably already contains more information about Huey Long than any other demagogue except Hitler, though currently he lacks a biographical section of his own. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

To the people attempting to add Donald Trump to the list of famous demagogues

Recently we've had a number of rejected edits from new editors trying to add Donald Trump to the article; this was one of the most detailed and carefully written. However, Wikipedia is not the place to argue for a conclusion. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for advocacy of any kind, no matter how worthy the cause. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—a summary of published, scholarly research, a "tertiary source". If you go to the library and look up "demagogue", you'll find that none of the books on this topic mention Donald Trump.

If you would like to publicly advocate that Donald Trump is an evil demagogue, you should do that elsewhere: in print, elsewhere on the Internet, in person, on street corners—the world is filled with places where you can set up a literal or metaphorical soapbox. If you would like to use Wikipedia to advocate for your cause, you should know that there is a way, but it does not involve editing Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies is that we maintain a neutral point of view. We do not participate in controversies. This makes Wikipedia a credible source of information for people who are making up their mind about a controversy. If you would like to educate yourself or others about demagogues, hopefully the Demagogue article gives you some good information. If the article's editors have done their job well, then after reading the article, you will have some new factual knowledge about demagogues and some new insight into how they work and the dangers they present to democracies. That kind of factual knowledge is much more persuasive and enlightening than reading that Wikipedia officially pronounces Donald Trump a demagogue or not. Notice that because of Wikipedia's neutrality and limitation to factual information, all of the above applies equally well to someone who wants to publicly advocate that Trump is not an evil demagogue.

While I'd love to see more people work on this article, editing Wikipedia is for encyclopedists, not propagandists. It's scholarly work; most people don't like to do it. That said, if you do want to work seriously on the article, there is plenty more material in the literature waiting to be summarized, especially on demagogues in countries other than the United States. See the Sources section above for a big list of excellent books, any one of which you could start reading and summarizing. Note that you should start with reliable sources and summarize what's in them, not start with a conclusion and search for sources to support it; see WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:CHERRY.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on Neutrality requires that all information be written as neturally as possible. This policy requires in this case that both policies favoring and opposing Donald Trump be included. However, while it is true that Wikipedia must be neutral, this policy would call for elimination of all examples. For these reasons, the word "Most famous of all time" should be deleted for Adolf Hitler. Donald Trump is arguably more famous now than Adolf Hitler. If the goal is to stay out of politics, this phrase should be removed. In addition, if Wikipedia must cover the proportion that the stories are headline news, the guidelines require covering. Wikipedia's Neutrality policy is as follows "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." However, it should be noted that the exclusion is not mandated, and this is from reliable sources. Theoallen1 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Theoallen1, we don't try to mirror the prominence of coverage in current headline news. We summarize the whole of the literature about each topic, not whatever has been getting the most press coverage in the last few days. The literature on the 2400-year history of demagogues just doesn't have much to say about Trump. On this topic, we are the grandfather clock in the thunderstorm. There might be a place for what you're talking about on pages about the thunderstorm, like Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. I'm actually a little surprised that there's no link from Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 back here, under "Opposition from Republicans", in connection with this. But people involved in politics who are accusing Trump of being a demagogue are not reliable sources that we can use in this article; see WP:IS. BTW, I was glad to see that CNN quoted the article. Note that they probably wouldn't have used the article as an unbiased information resource if we had written an anti-Trump hit piece. Our strict neutrality paid off: we educated rather than advocated; the advocates and the advocatees are now a little better informed. Please have a look at a couple more policies that are particularly relevant here: WP:BLP and WP:SYN. And please have another look at what I wrote above, about using Wikipedia for advocacy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that if you look at the methods of a demagogue in the list, Trump is a good example for each one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.13.80 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: Press coverage that Trump is a demagogue

@Michael Bednarek: @Shoemacher: @Theoallen1: @198.7.220.148: I think there are now plenty of credible, published newspaper articles pointing out that Trump is a demagogue. I suggest summarizing them in the article on Donald Trump himself. That would keep the Demagogue article clearly neutral and focused on its proper topic of the inherent nature of demagogues, sourced entirely by books and articles in scholarly journals, while still providing a good source and summary about Trump's demagoguery in an appropriate place. Note that Trump has added nothing to our understanding of demagogues. Every demagogic tactic he's played has been played many times before by previous demagogues.

Would anyone like to do that? Right now, I'm putting all my Wikipedia research time into reading what's been written about how past demagogues have run things once they've gotten power. If you'd like to add info on Trump's demagoguery to his article, keep in mind that as a Wikipedia editor, you should not argue the case that Trump is a demagogue, nor combine sources that imply that conclusion; see WP:SYN. You should only summarize what authoritative sources have said specifically regarding Trump's demagoguery. The word "demagogue" in Donald Trump should link back to this article, of course. BTW, I don't think it will be easy to find the good sources: most of them are contentious editorials, inappropriate for Wikipedia.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted edits this morning that added a Trump section in this article. It was unsourced and in my opinion not neutral. Justin15w (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Donald Trump a Demagogue or Not?

Calling Donald Trump a demagogue is controversial, but on balance, I believe the definition fits. There are numerous examples of the techniques that demagogues use to gain power (as describes in this article) in Donald Trump's own twitter feed. These are his own words, and while subject to interpretation, it is pretty clear that techniques such as attacking the press are in evidence. Please recognize that this is a controversial topic and break out the discussion into another article and substantiate the claims using twitter links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.43.143 (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Combining facts from many sources together to prove a conclusion is not what we do on Wikipedia. Please see WP:SYN and WP:OR. We only summarize information from authoritative sources. We summarize analyses in secondary sources; we don't make our own. An article about topic X should summarize the whole published credible literature on topic X, nothing more or less. See WP:BALASP and especially WP:V for more info. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I get that. The main suggestion I had was to break out the topic. While other leaders may occasionally engage in behavior that fits the definition, Trump consistently shows all of the traits (in his own spoken word no less). So, is the idea that, if there existed published and credible literature that used Trump's own words to come the conclusion that Trump fit the definition (and other non-spoken credible sources of course), then Wikipedia could summarize this analysis and report that on balance, Trump is an example of a Demagogue? (ie. these people believe it because they have gathered evidence, pro and con) The thing is this: He *is* (by his actions and the Wikipedia definition). Leaving him out or not even talking about it is glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.37.237 (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Note that Trump has added nothing to our understanding of demagogues."...I have to disagree. Trump added to our understanding of demagogues by directly linking modern demagogues to the modern idea of "post-truth politics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the historians say when they write about Trump (which might not take them all that long). My understanding is that the attitude of the Trump campaign toward truth and fact was already used by Hitler and the Nazis—it's not that they're lying, it's that the truth doesn't matter—but I haven't read extensively about that. If anyone knows some sources, please post. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add a point to this discussion, the "modern" section seems to give the impression that no one has used the term since the 1950s, there are many examples of people frequently described as demagogues since McCarthy, so why he and Hitler are the only 2 listed in modern times is beyond me.

I think the larger point should be that for every example there will be objections, it is not for Wikipedia to make a judgement as to whether the term "demagogue" accurately describes a leader or not. So I would propose that the section "Famous Demagogues" should be renamed "Famous Individuals Described as Demagogues", such a change would allow for greater neutrality, whilst at the same time meaning that more extensive examples could be used. Trump and others could be included as the sources would simply be one or more texts referring to the person as a demagogue.

Right now the lack of examples harms the quality of the article in my opinion, for example the "See Also" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator#See_also section in the article on dictators allows the viewing of many potential examples, thus providing far more information to the reader than otherwise would be. 2A02:C7F:404:8C00:1025:864C:414B:CA68 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding weakening "Famous demagogues" to "Famous individuals described as demagogues": In the literature, they're demagogues, not "individuals described as demagogues". Neutrality does not mean murky, mealy-mouthed language, it means sticking to facts. People sometimes use the word loosely, merely as an insult, much like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prostitutes_and_courtesans, but [[1]] addresses this. If someone were to call Hitler a "famous individual described as a demagogue", I would think they're giving me a snow job under a false pretense of neutrality. See also WP:WEIGHT.

Regarding lack of examples: Yes, I'd like to see a few more biographical sections, too. We don't yet cover the "canon" of major historical demagogues. The only reason why more aren't included is because no one has done the work. I've been collecting notes on Mussolini, Huey Long, and Savonarola, but so far not enough to make a good section about any of them. Please see our to-do list at the top of this page if you'd like to do some work. However, I would not want to see the famous examples expanded to include anyone who's ever been called a demagogue in one or more texts. That way lies madness. The famous examples should include only the most important illustrations of demagogues commonly found in authoritative sources about demagogues. Please see WP:PROPORTION.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Including Trump in the list of examples is a WP:BLP issue. The others are dead and scholarly studies support the descriptions. At this stage, even before he takes office, it is improper to include Trump as a "modern" example. (The sentence has been modified to limit modern examples to the 20th century.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does WP:BLP compel us to ignore reliable, reputable, independent, multiple sources? WP:PUBLICFIGURE says the opposite. The material you removed ought to be reinstated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose that you, wiki, acknowledge and accept what history tacitly does, and explicitly state same in the lede: a demagogue is not historically acknowledged as such until he or she is deposed, steps off the stage of history as an active participant and is judged so. Until such happens you will be taking a political stance in violation of your stated policies. 198.255.197.105 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not true. McCarthy was widely recognized as a demagogue well before his fall. The U.S. Southern demagogues were commonly recognized as such within their own time. Here's an illustration from 1866. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a historian to spot a live demagogue. But we do need thorough, published writing about a demagogue by experts before we can summarize it on Wikipedia. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bednarek: Our IP is correct. Wikipedia needs to look at this issues from an historical perspective. That's why I redid the section "modern" into "20th century". There are inherent POV and NOTNEWS issues involved when we take non-academic November 2016-dated sources and use them to describe Trump as a demagogue in Wikipedia's voice. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(That malformed {{Ping}} didn't work.) People don't enter history only once they're dead; see also Ben's examples above. There's no POV or NOTNEWS in the section you removed; to the contrary, the sources you removed place DT in a historical context. They ought to be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Robinson Meyer from The Atlantic is a technology writer, hardly qualified to opine on demagogues or demagoguery. We cannot put his opinion into WP's voice. Professor Andrejevic is more qualified, but the abstract simply mentions the "demagoguery ..." that is associated with the Trump campaign (I don't want to pay the $36.00 to see the full article). It does not necessarily follow to say Trump himself is "a demagogue" in WP's voice. (Also, if the particular article were peer-reviewed and more explicit, then his opinion might be WP:NOTEWORTHY.) Still, the professor's article might be useful in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. As it stands, though, using the term to describe Trump is too POV-laden and UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Srich, Indeed the sources cited were poor. Thoughtful, in-depth sources are emerging, though. The NY Times article found by 189.169.129.113 is quite thorough and credible; it doesn't just declare Trump a demagogue, it explains what Trump is doing and compares it to demagogues of the past in some detail. That's the right kind of source for this article. Michael Signer, one of the leading authorities on demagogues today (and yes, we already cite him about other aspects of demagogues), has written two newspaper articles about Trump as demagogue. Another factor to consider is that there seems to be no controversy about whether Trump is a demagogue. As long as it's properly sourced, I no longer have a strong objection to mentioning Trump in some appropriate place, like the short list of famous modern demagogues. I think, though, that your suggestion of putting this material into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (or even Donald Trump) is wisest, for this reason: if you look up "demagogue" in secondary sources, the percentage about Trump is minuscule; but if you look up Trump, especially in regard to the 2016 election, his demagoguery does get considerable notice. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Community consensus regarding Donald Trump?

Based on these talks, it seems like the consensus is that Trump is indeed a demagogue and that it would benefit the article. The main issue that was brought up is that Wikipedia tries to remain a tertiary source. But now that there have been credible experts who have described Trump as a demagogue, as posted by other users, then there should be no problem right? Yet, I see constant deletions in the article history. I don't edit Wikipedia much at all, but this seems to be a clear example of gaming the system. WP:GAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.35.253 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

As PCR I hereby declare that DT is in fact a demagogue for our intents and purposes, and will be accepting correct edits regarding this. L3X1 has spoken, his tongue is not forked. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Modifying the subheading, I do not think we have consensus. Certainly not because an IP has said so. If editors want a definitive consensus, they ought to post an RFC or BLPNB thread. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

At least one editor, User:BenKovitz, has declared that consensus is not sufficient but that scholarly papers categorising Trump as a demagogue are required. That strikes me as an unwarranted extensions from Wikipedia articles in the medical field – reputable, reliable and verifiable sources should be sufficient, and there is no shortage of those, just observer the results from the Google search "Demagogue". So whether this corner of Wikipedia self-censors or not doesn't really matter for the discussion at large. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:17, 17 February 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)

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) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: I don't think that scholarly papers are required, only preferred. I don't propose any higher standard for sources for this article than Wikipedia has for all articles. I don't know if you saw this, but I changed my mind a while ago to favoring mentioning Donald Trump as a demagogue, based on credible sources to summarize (and by your arguments, I think). Please see above and/or in the archive. I don't think that an article that merely categorized Trump as a demagogue would be of interest, since that doesn't really provide material that fleshes out the topic. But an article that used Trump to illustrate demagoguery, or that analyzed Trump's demagoguery, could provide very good material for this article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The location for this discussion is below. An WP:RFC means that the topic has been "advertised" for interested editors to comment on. Feel free to cut and paste your comments to the bottom of the page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump Demonstrates that he is a Demagogue Again and Again in His Own Words

While I realize that the Wiki editors have decided not to include Trump in the article, the fact remains: He is a demagogue. While some leaders display some of the traits of the demagogue some of the time, Trump is relentless. Here are a few examples:

Scapegoating

The most fundamental demagogic technique is scapegoating: blaming the in-group's troubles on an out-group, usually of a different ethnicity, religion, or social class.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Fearmongering

Many demagogues have risen to power by evoking fear in their audiences, to stir them to action and prevent deliberation.

“Our way of life is under threat by Radical Islam and Hillary Clinton cannot even bring herself to say the words.”

Lying

While any politician needs to point out dangers to the people and criticize opponents' policies, demagogues choose their words for their effect on their audience's emotions, usually without regard for factual truth or the real severity of the danger.

"There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down."

"I saw it and so many people saw it, Chuck. So why would I take it back? I'm not going to take it back."

Emotional oratory and personal charisma

Many demagogues have demonstrated remarkable skill at moving audiences to great emotional depths and heights during a speech.

“The law and the Constitution give the President the power to suspend immigration when he deems -- or she -- or she -- fortunately it will not be Hillary-she. When he or she deems it to be in the national interest of our country.”

“Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!”

Accusing opponents of weakness and disloyalty

Cleon, like many demagogues that came after him, constantly advocated brutality in order to demonstrate strength, and argued that compassion was a sign of weakness that would only be exploited by enemies.

"You don't think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you? No. This ruling makes us look weak, which, by the way, we no longer are. Believe me."

Promising the impossible

Another fundamental demagogic technique is making promises only for their emotional effect on audiences, without regard for how they might be accomplished or without intending to honor them once in office.

"I will build a great wall -- and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me --and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

Violence and physical intimidation

Demagogues have often encouraged their supporters to violently intimidate opponents, both to solidify loyalty among their supporters and to discourage or physically prevent people from speaking out or voting against them.

“There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.”

Personal insults and ridicule

Many demagogues have found that ridiculing or insulting opponents is a simple way to shut down reasoned deliberation of competing ideas, especially with an unsophisticated audience.

“I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came … to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!"

Vulgarity and outrageous behavior

Legislative bodies usually have sober standards of decorum that are intended to quiet passions and favor reasoned deliberation.

“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever."

Folksy posturing

Most demagogues have made a show of appearing to be down-to-Earth, ordinary citizens just like the people whose votes they sought.

“Such a beautiful and important evening! The forgotten man and woman will never be forgotten again. We will all come together as never before”

Gross oversimplification

Scapegoating is one form of gross oversimplification: treating a complex problem, which requires patient reasoning and analysis, as if it results from one simple cause or can be solved by one simple cure.

“They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us.”

Attacking the news media

Since information from the press can undermine a demagogue's spell over his or her followers, modern demagogues have often attacked it intemperately, calling for violence against newspapers who opposed them, claiming that the press was secretly in the service of moneyed interests or foreign powers, or claiming that leading newspapers were simply personally out to get them.

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00:09, October 10, 2017‎ 204.239.253.216 (talk • contribs)

Lede

Just wondering what section of the article's body corroborates the following from the lede: "Most who were elected to high office changed their democracy into some form of dictatorship." This is something which is extremely difficult to corroborate in such a general manner, and I'm inclined to propose this statement be removed unless its author cares to clarify its meaning and its inclusion, especially considering the rest of the article does not state any such conclusion. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that sentence can be considered difficult to corroborate. The article provides sufficient examples of people who were originally elected and then became dictators. Demagoguery and dictatorship are linked; there's a paper cited in the article which makes that point in its title. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The text does not currently match the cited examples in the article.

• Cleon first turns up in sources as an opposition leader in 431 BC. He rose to power following the death of Pericles, mostly by using sycophants (informers) to tarnish the reputations of his political opponents. He managed to lead the Athenian democracy and gather power in his hands, without ever actually becoming a tyrant and holding sole rule. He did not really manage to eliminate several of his political opponents or to silence his persistent accuser Aristophanes. He was killed in battle at the Battle of Amphipolis (422 BC), a decisive Spartan victory. Surviving Athenian politicians soon abandoned his policies.
• Alcibiades was previously known for his familial connections, and his scandalous personal life. He started rising to prominence as a war-hawk politician c. 421 BC. In 415 BC, Alcibiades managed to convince the Athenians to undertake the Sicilian Expedition against Syracuse. He was offered the position of strategos (general) in the campaign. However, he had to share the office with his main rival Nicias (a dove) and with fellow war-hawk Lamachus. Before leaving for the campaign Alcibiades was accused of taking part in sacrilegious ceremonies and vandalizing sacred statues. He asked to be allowed to stand trial before campaigning, but was denied. He set sail for Sicily, and in his absence his enemies started gathering "evidence" against him for every sacrilegious crime available and for supposedly conspiring to overthrow the Athenian democracy. "He was convicted in absentia and condemned to death. His property was confiscated and a reward of one talent was promised to whoever succeeded in killing" him and those loyal to him. He fled for his life, while Lamachus was killed in combat. Leaving Nicias alone in command. Unsurprisingly Nicias mismanaged the campaign and led most of his army to their doom. Not only did not Alcibiades became a tyrant or dictator, he was brought down by slanderers and conspiracy theorists.
• Gaius Flaminius Nepos was a plebeian politician and possibly an early leader of the Populares faction (champions of the urban poor in the Roman Republic). He came to prominence in 232 BC by managing to secure land grants for poor families, an act of questionable legality. He was elected consul in 223 BC and successfully led the Romans in campaigns against the Gauls. His campaigns led to the creation of the new province of Cisalpine Gaul. He continued his political career by constructing the Via Flaminia (which was named after him), establishing colonies at Cremona and Placentia, granting more voting power to the poorer classes, building the Circus Flaminius (which was named after him), and supporting the Lex Claudia, a law preventing the senatorial families from profiting from overseas trade. In 217 BC, he was elected consul for a second time, to face a Carthaginian invasion of Italy. He led his army to defeat against Hannibal and was killed at the Battle of Lake Trasimene. He never became dictator or came close to holding sole power. Following his death, his aristocratic opponents in the Senate rose to power and his patrician rival Fabius Maximus was elected Roman dictator for a second time.

They may have been demagogues, but tyrants or dictators? Hardly. On the other hand, actual tyrants like the bloodthirsty Critias (who executed at least 1,500 political opponents) and the opportunist Theramenes (who managed to bring the downfall of Athenian democracy, before judged as too "moderate" by his own allies and getting executed without trial) are not even mentioned. This is a very biased perspective on Greek and Roman history. Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: This is really good information! Would you be willing to radically revise the article's coverage of ancient demagogues? It sounds like you've got all the information and sources ready to go. I put in Cleon and Alcibiades because they're usually mentioned as famous early examples in general coverage of demagogues, but I haven't yet found much by way of specifics about why Alcibiades was a demagogue. I'm not sure that Nepos belongs in the rogues' gallery of leading demagogues; if not, I think it would be fine to delete him. Julius Caesar certainly belongs there, even though some dispute that he was a demagogue. Similar to Cleon, Caesar's takeover of Rome has often been used as a cautionary tale about demagogues—so we should cover that usage, e.g. by the U.S. Founding Fathers. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I was using material from our articles on the three politicians. I am familiar with Cleon and Alcibiades, because I have read the works of Thucydides and Aristophanes, along with various modern Greek works which analyze them. Nepos' story fits well in the narrative of conflict between the Populares and the Optimates, which was ongoing for centuries.

What I dispute is that ancient demagogues turned their states to dictatorships. Demagogues thrived in democratic environments and mostly did not have any ownership over official positions. Their ability to gain popular support is what gave them power, but they were never rulers or autocrats.

Julius Caesar is a bit of a strange example. He was a member of the Populares faction, but it was not the love of the people which elevated him to power. At the opening of Caesar's Civil War (49-45 BC), he basically used his own army to invade Rome itself and to drive away his opponents. He was "appointed" dictator by force of arms. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)