Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 19

Anti Muslim hate crimes that have turned out to be fake

Is there a list of antimuslim hate crimes that have turned out to be fake?99.119.9.245 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is this video of a Palestinian funeral procession (with the "victim" allegedly killed by Israelis), where they drop the body, and he gets up and back into the funeral wrap. They didn't think they were on camera at that point, but an Israeli drone captured it: [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the only people who would have an interest in collating such reports (as in, publishing lists, as opposed to individual incidents - the latter may well be reported in the media) would be anti-Muslims themselves, so make sure to verify accuracy of any given supposed incident from other sources. That's not to say that such incidents do not in fact happen. Eliyohub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth remembering there's a big gulf between "wasn't actually an anti-Muslim hate crime" and fake. I recall a case (unfortunately I looked but couldn't find sources) where there an attack of some sort on a mosque. There was no definite indication it was a hate crime although as is common with attacks on places of worship it was investigated as a possible hate crime. However it was later discovered the attack was due to some dispute between members (and not because of sectarian reasons). There was as mentioned, no attempt to make it seem like a hate crime (it's not like they wrote 'this is for 9/11'" or something on it) so it would be inaccurate to call it fake, but it wasn't an anti-Muslim hate crime. Even if the perpetrators were one of the ones calling it a hate crime later, it's questionable if this would make it a "fake" and I don't think this happened anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

More of an "individual hate" crime, i.e. personal not religious. When the OP raised the question, I first thought of that attack on a Sikh congregation in Wisconsin a few years ago, where the perp was so stupid he thought he was shooting Muslims. But that doesn't quite fit the bill either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of some idiots who set fire to the workplace of someone who had devoted their life to helping children, because their idiotic brains could not distinguish between a Pediatrician and a Paedophile. How sad. Eliyohub (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of a case exactly as described by Eliyohub, but here[2] is a report of a paediatrician being driven out of her home by a mob, after the News of the World stirred up anti-paedophile vigilantism. Iapetus (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Note if you read the source carefully, there's no reference to a mob actually being involved. Actually it says it's unknown who actually did it although police and others believe only someone incredibly ignorant could be responsible and it's probably not children. However [3] suggests it may have indeed been teens but in any case the perpertrators were never identified and so their motivations are unknown (so whether it was genuinely anti-paedophile vigilantism or someone trolling or what likewise). Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the IP might be referring to most recent crimes in the US. And there have been a few documented to be made up. Here is one in NYC, [4] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ann Coulter documents hate crime hoaxes in at least one of her books, but it is far from complete, up to date, or focused only on Islam. I am curious why the OP hasn't just googled this. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Does she document alleged hate crimes against Christian which turn out to be fake? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • I am fairly certain she documents attacks against black churches that turned out to be hoaxes. I am not sure what exactly you are getting at. The problem for the OP is that she gives anecdotes across the spectrum in a book, not a continuously updated website with a focused and comprehensive list. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The way I generally compile a list on Wikipedia (e.g. for nuclear magnetic moment) is not very clever, but it seems to work: go out, get whatever the top few hits are, put them into a table, search multiple items from the table, see what sources those bring up, etc., until finally authoritative sources blunder into my gaze. So in this case I go to my search history and find [5] which references Yasmin Seweid from a previous incident and an unnamed person -- unfortunately, the most recent google news hit for "university of michigan" "muslim" doesn't give me a name, but the search puts me to a recent Ann Coulter article FWIW: [6] But that does not describe other Muslim incidents, not even Seweid, so it isn't really useful. But a search for "university of michigan" "seweid" pulls up a Daily Caller article (we're not swimming in pure waters here...) which lists a bunch of "hate crime hoaxes" of which Muslims form a small minority; these include [7] but we don't have a name on that story again. Searching Lafayette hijab didn't get me a name but did get me a SPLC article [8] which brings me back to Seweid, and nothing else. I'm getting the feeling there's not a whole hell of a lot out there really, that it's in line with other fake ethnic reports, that it is indeed outweighed by incidents not known to be false, and that it's not exceptionally significant. Wnt (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Risshū (Buddhism)

As far as I know, 律宗 is a Chinese Buddhist sect, at least originally. Baidu Baike says: 律宗，中国佛教宗派之一，发源地是陕西西安净业寺。 This page as it stands does not reflect this. Tooironic (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

They could both be right (sort of). Having a look at zh:律宗, it talks about 律宗 as Chinese school of Buddhism (漢傳佛教宗派). Jianzhen's voyage to Japan is mentioned right at the bottom of that article: 律宗由道宣三传弟子鉴真于754年（唐天宝十三年）传至日本当时的都城奈良. That's the point in history where the English language article starts. It appears that Jianzhen brought a preexisting school (律宗) to Japan, and the English language article only talks about its history in Japan and not before. I note that Nanto Rokushū says

These schools moved to Japan from Korea and China during the late 6th and early 7th centuries. All of these schools were controlled by the newly formed Japanese government of Nara. These schools were installed to mimic and expand upon already existing mainland Asian Buddhist thought.

(I'm having a hell of a time trying to find a consistent romanization of 律宗 in Chinese: lǜzōng and diacrtic-less versions, rulong, lenzong... )

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: no matter how polite you think it might be, do not refer to Nara as o-Nara.

Imperial Household Law

Who has the authority to amend or change the Imperial Household Law? The Emperor or the elected government? Aside from the talks, nothing has been changed since 1947, correct?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that the Emperor of Japan is bossed around by his household staff, (a bizarre situation to my "western" mind!) he himself would presumably have near-zero power here. He can veto an appointment to the "Grand Stewardship" of the agency, but that's pretty much it. He doesn't even have any Reserve powers, unlike most constitutional monarchs, I believe. Convention, as I understand it, is that he's not even allowed to have an opinion, even on Imperial Household matters, at least publicly. So it would fall upon the Government to change things, though some things are "executive" rather than "legislative". The aforementioned Imperial Household Agency falls under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet Office (Japan), and they could presumably change its operations without any need for legislation. The Imperial Household Law that you mention, on the other hand, is presumably legislation, and only parliament could change it. Eliyohub (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Our article is actually quite good and OP should read it. The Imperial Household Law is ordinary statute and can only be amended by parliament - much as the line of succession in the UK and the Commonwealth Realms can only be amended by parliament and not by the monarch alone. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Note, though, that the Japanese Government would have a lot of an easier time as to the mechanics of amending the Imperial Household law, than the U.K. Government had in passing the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, as the U.K. had to deal with the Statute_of_Westminster_1931#Implications_for_succession_to_the_throne. (As to the politics of any changes, I am not familiar with the politics surrounding the Imperial Household and its operations, though our articles do talk about the issues). Changes to the British monarchy require the consent of all Commonwealth realms, whereas changes to the Japanese Imperial Household law only need action from the Japanese Parliament. And am I correct in pointing out that the operations of the Imperial Household Agency, are purely "executive", and would not even require legislation, just a Cabinet Office decision? Eliyohub (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

More than one President

Does any person have a job title of "Second/Third/etc President"?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. If you mean "anyone anywhere", Google might turn up some examples. But the prefix "vice" means "substitute",[9] like if the president is incapacitated. That doesn't preclude some organization somewhere using a term like "second president" rather than "vice president", of course. Many large organizations have multiple vice-presidents, who aren't necessarily "substitutes" but are merely second in command to the president for their specific departments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, the official title "Second <blank>" is definitely used in other contexts, the UK has a Second Lord of the Treasury, many nations use the title "Second Minister" as the official title of what others may call a deputy minister, etc. --Jayron32 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• This parliamentary office in France has a président, a premier vice-président (first vice-president), and multiple (regular) vice-présidents. (In the translated website, the first two are called chairman and vice-chairman.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Second president is sometimes used as a translation of Av Beit Din, the second leader of the Sanhedrin [10]. Rmhermen (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• The National Council of Austria has a President, Second President, and Third President.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Inauguration Day

We all know the president places his hand on a bible and takes the oath of office, but what other details need to be satisfied? Does he sign anything declaring he understands or accepts the responsibility? Is there an official recording to 'prove' he accepted the oath? Who picks the bible? I have some Baptist friends who only recognize the King James Version and some Catholic friends who only recognize the Catholic version. What if he were Jewish, Muslim, or atheist? Does the outgoing president do anything to relinquish his position or does he just move out?68.191.203.98 (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Does Oath of office of the President of the United States answer some of your questions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(1) I've never heard that he signs anything--he just takes the oath. (2) There's no constitutional requirement for a recording, since recordings didn't exist when the Constitution first came into being. (3) He picks the Bible himself. (4) He doesn't have to use a Bible; he just needs to take the oath. (5) The departing president just moves out. Loraof (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Two notes. (1) He doesn't have to take an "oath" at all; it's actually an "oath or affirmation", with no religious requirement. See the above link. One president so far has chosen to affirm. (2) The error at the 2009 inaguration was initially made by the Chief Justice, who tried to recite the words from memory for the President to repeat, and got them wrong. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the "affirmation" option is for those who consider it a violation of their religion to "swear". As for 2009, I recall it fondly, as Obama had a big grin as he tried to say it the right way after Roberts botched it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the US Constitution says no such thing as "for those who consider it a violation of their religion". Again, see the link posted by Future. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

But that's its purpose. At the time it was written, atheism was not even on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's a bit surprising in hindsight that Nixon, a nominal Quaker, did not also affirm. —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I occasionally hear of a crank challenging the legitimacy of a judge by demanding to see the formal record of their oath of office. I don't know what form they imagine that this record takes. —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The swearing-in of new judges may well be videotaped, as it's often deemed a major occasion, where the Government of the day gets to show off its picks, and release the footage to TV stations, and possibly online, in the modern age. Not that the crank has any right to this in order to establish the Judge's jurisdiction, but he or she may well have a right to the recording under Freedom of Information laws. Though, this would seldom be necessary, just ask the Justice ministry, they'll usually happily hand over a copy. Eliyohub (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Catholic position would be that this is not a sacrament or part of one, and hence the Bible is more of a prop demonstrating the solemnity of the Oath. Even when I did the readings at my Sister's funeral mass, I asked the Roman Catholic priest presiding over the funeral mass if I could use the KJV of Proverbs and Corinthians I, and he "gave his blessing". Catholics nowadays frown on entanglement of church and state per se. Caesaropapism might be relevant. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of our crackpot Conservapedia colleagues: "If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office." [11] Some funny stuff there. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm way off track here, but I wonder, if the President was required to take an oath, and did not have the option of affirming, would this not potentially clash with the No Religious Test Clause, if an oath was deemed of a "religious nature"?

The bible is entirely optional, and as our article notes, several Presidents did not use one. Some swore on a book of law, others held nothing at all.

Also note that whilst the option to affirm rather than swear may have been based on concern for those who are religiously prohibited from oath-taking, a President need not have such justification, and may choose to affirm purely as a matter of personal choice.

And yes, a hypothetical Muslim President could choose to hold a Koran as he took the oath, as what he's holding has no legal significance to the procedure. The political wisdom of doing so may be a separate consideration, perhaps. Eliyohub (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically, Trump could take the oath on a copy of The Art of the Deal if he wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Trump presumably thinks he's smarter than God, so his book would be a natural fit. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"In the beginning, The Donald created the heaven and the earth and the tax loophole and the bankruptcy law; and he saw that it was all great... HUGE, even." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Which latitude and longitude crosses the most countries in the world?

Thanks.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[12] [13] --Jayron32 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Those links suggest the 8th parallel north (I counted 23 countries in our article) for latitude, and both the 27th meridian east (21 countries) and the 28th meridian east (21 countries as well) for longitude. (Of course I'm wondering whether it's possible to find a non-integral (non-X°00′00'') latitude or longitude that beats these answers). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As Sluzzelin notes, the question was not limited to latitudes and longitudes where the number of degrees is an integer. The answer will have to be one or more bands of latitude and one or more bands of longitude, that cross the most countries. By drawing a north-south line in Google Maps using the "measure distance" tool, you can tell that longitude 27.1°E (27°6' E) crosses all the same countries* as longitude 27°E, plus Lesotho; therefore 27°E cannot be part of a correct answer. I have not checked other longitudes or any latitudes; I don't have any tool to do it easily. (*Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa.) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting bit of useless trivia I gained from this question: As far as I could tell, South Sudan is the only country which is passed by all three lines (8°N, 27°E, 28°E), so it must be the nation from which it is possible to visit the largest amount of countries worldwide by only traveling on one line in one of the four cardinal directions ... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That must explain it's thriving economy as the world center for trade. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed in the above responses since all suggested solutions appear to be wrong. Using the database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM v2), I find that the answer for longitude is a narrow strip from 22.357 E to 22.570 E that crosses 26 countries:

• Angola, Botswana, Bulgaria, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Namibia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Ukraine, and Zambia.

This misses South Sudan by a little bit, but makes up for it by crossing more countries in Europe. For latitude, the answer is complicated. There are in fact three swathes that cross 3 different permutations of 27 countries. These swathes are: 10.2821 to 10.3096 N (with gaps where it misses critical island nations), 11.1347 to 11.1390 N, and 12.1918 to 12.1982 N. The nations in the first swath are:

• Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, France (overseas territory), Ghana, Guinea, India, Mali, Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

The countries in the last swath are:

• Benin, Burkina Faso, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Curaçao, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Mali, Marshall Islands, Netherlands (overseas territory), Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Philippines, South Sudan, Sudan, Thailand, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Yemen.

The points of intersection would be in either Central African Republic or Chad. Dragons flight (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the best place to read 50% probability-bad Trump scenarios, 10%, 1% and so on written by experts?

If not explicitly saying "10% chance-bad Trump scenarios look like these", "1% chance-bad Trump scenarios look like these" or similar then at least giving some qualitative idea of how likely or unlikely.

There's got to be some college degree and résumé that's least unqualified to do this but I don't know what it is. Much better than any single person I think would be a group of specialists and probably a Renaissance man or three. An economist isn't going to predict his possible wars well, someone who predicts war well (for a human) isn't going to predict the chance of recession and how bad well, psychologists wouldn't know enough military strategy to predict casualties. Sociologists, political scientists, historians, climate scientists, diplomats, intelligence experts , Constitution experts, terrorism experts, "nationologists" (i.e. Mexicologists), Islamologists and maybe psychiatrists probably would all have something to contribute. Has there been an interdisciplinary gathering of people like these about what could happen the next 4 years? That would've been awesome and useful. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest you go on the internet and use a search engine to try and find what you are looking for.

By the way, are you aware that there is an encyclopedia attached to this discussion board?--Shirt58 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on policies and removing a page

Hello I was wondering I cam across a page denoting and citing fictionalized facts and literally the book used to reference the page was labeled historical fiction by a bookseller.. I read through the references and it is entirely ambiguously written no references or footnotes to the truth of where such exaggerated unfounded and literally comical assertions in many ways completely disprovable by recent discoveries have all but dismissed any of the nonsense that was obviously made up by the author.... Anyway the page in question is: Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and I fail to see the point in allowing this page to exist since it is basically disinforming and the cited reference is fictionalized.. This is being displayed and misrepresents the truth so what do I do or how do I proceed in removing it or is that something that has to be approved and if so can you direct that way... The reason really is this actually incites and further racial hatred and exaggerates the truth and anyone who is ignorant of the truth and history of what is written and referenced on this page is going to be out right offended and in this time we don't need to perpetuate lies to advance a very ugly agenda that appears to be the motive here perhaps since you don't publish such nonsense as fact unless one is completely and utterly irresponsible in the harm it can truly cause! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolzeezee808 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

First, this is the wrong page to ask the question, it should have gone to WP:HD or WP:EAR. Second, you're telling me you've looked into all 62 references in the article, including all 12 books, 6 online resources, and many other sources, and determined all to be fictional? Or is this a beef over one source? I think you'd be better off clicking the "talk" or discussion tab above the article, and starting a conversation, than beginning a futile endeavor to delete an article over one bad source. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has a wide number of references to reliable sources; if you have specific issues with particular parts of the article or questions about a specific reference used, the place to discuss them would be the article talk page, Talk:Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you call the symmetrical folds around the mouth ion this face?

Is there a physiognomy interpretation of such a feature (as varied as psychics are and as pseudo-scientific as any such endeavor is)? I'm only asking as I don't tend to see such a facial feature and a Chinese tells me that this indicates a person who has to toil. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to nasolabial folds. There is actually a ton of research on it. Apparently these are missing in most newborns and those with facial paralysis, but present on most other individuals. They get more pronounced with age. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, but wouldn't you say that they are much more pronounced in this person than in many other people? Seems like he's lost a lot of fats and collagen there then. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? You haven't linked to anything or mentioned anyone by name. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they mean Harvey. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it really accurate to describe Trump as fascist?

I often hear mainstream media describe Trump as a fascist, but wouldn't his ideology be the complete opposite of fascism? Republicans are for freedom of the individual and small government, while fascists are pro-statist. Second question: I also argued this point to somebody, and he claimed that Hilter was for small government but more law and order, and I haven't seen anything online that says this is so.Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Republicans aren't for small government. They want the government involved in subsidies to fossil fuel, bedroom behaviors, a huge military-industrial complex. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Trump is a fascist" is about as accurate as "Obama is a communist". Also, what Imagine Reason said - Republicans only want to shrink the parts of government they don't like. Let's look at how Wikipedia talks about fascism. It would appear the defining features include social conservatism, anti-liberalism, anti-communism, nationalism, and a positive view of violence and masculinity, all of which could be ascribed to Trump, but not nearly to the intensity that was seen in historical fascist leaders, like comparing a campfire to the sun. However, fascism also typically included government intervention in the economy and support for (some) trade unions, neither of which seem particularly Trumptastic. I think a fair assessment would be that Trump has some things in common with fascist leaders, just as most people have something in common with most other people, but this is not a particularly informative comparison. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) See Fascism. I wouldn't (yet) call Trump a fascist in earnest, but he uses a lot of the symbolism and rhetoric. "Make America Great Again" vs. Hitler's "great mission", "great plan", "great time", "great people", "great movement", "rebuilding the great empire of the German people" - there is a depressing similarity of tone. Also see Snopes on the topic - they rate the claim that both use the same slogan as "mixture". Also note that Trump is a Republican only in name and by convenience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This would seem to me to fall under "requests for opinions, predictions or debate", which are forbidden on the Ref Desk. There's no Official Council of Whether or Not Someone or Something is Fascist; any determination of such is always going to be subjective to some degree. A question that could be answered factually would be something like, "Do scholars of fascism think that Trump is a fascist?" --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See Godwin's law. And right wingers like to claim it's liberals who are the "fascists". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Republicans are for freedom of the individual and small government" Oh, sweet summer child. Not to mention the fact that Trump is not exactly a Republican. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Republicans make that claim, but it's a false claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• No one has a clue what Trump is politically. He's never been a politician before. So far he's populist, but highly changeable. He could go any way. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • He could go more than one direction even within a 24 hour period, it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It's been said that Trump has, at one time or another, held every possible position on every issue. It's not far from the truth. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Except the scientific consensus on climate change. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say the most important aspect of fascism is that the leader thinks he is smarter and more important than everything else; other individuals, parties, the government, the rule of law/Constitution, and even the nation. Hitler, for example, was always meddling with the war and overriding his generals and admirals, usually with disastrous results. So, does Trump think he is smarter than the generals ? StuRat (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. Trump repeatedly claimed on the campaign trail that once he was in office, his military policies would result in ISIS being crushed inside a month, though he didn't say how (he did float the idea at one meeting of nuking ISIS, I'm sure that wouldn't have any bad consequences). However, to my knowledge he never clarified if he put the blame solely on Obama, or also thought the generals were being incompetent. He has also talked about getting advice from various generals, and bringing new generals in to assess the situation. So it's possible his plan for destroying ISIS was to bring in experts to solve the problem for him, because his experts will be better than Obama's. Or he just never had a plan, and this was typical Trump bluster. Who knows. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's the Führerprinzip and it's originally specific to 1930s German fascism under Hitler (and some others). It has been a popular feature of fascist politics, but not always. Only one gets to be Führer and so it's hard to get support from others during its development: even budding Führers need minions. Hence the endemic nature of squabbling and political assassination within growing fascist movements.

Once established, it's also difficult for the political continuity of a fascist state as what happens after the demise of the Führer? North Korea seems to have achieved this, by combining fascism and hereditary monarchy. That's rare though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We can't know for sure until he actually takes office and actually does something. So far, it's been nothing but talk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

All the comparisons above are to Hitler and the Nazis, but they were themselves only called "fascist" by analogy to the slightly older Mussolini and his Italian fascist parties. Perhaps one should look there for possible parallels with Trump. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• We've had this question a few times, and I always link George Orwell's essay "What is Fascism?" - in particular, this quote:

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

[...] Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear anderally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

In a nutshell, he's saying there is no good definition of fascist, and there's unlikely to be one, since the right will resist defining traditionalism and nationalism as fascist traits, and the left will equally reject the idea that public ownership and a planned economy are fascist. Smurrayinchester 20:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Here is a another similarity: Hitler personally profited from his political position, because schools and cities were "strongly encouraged" to buy Mein Kampf - he even got a special law that made it illegal to sell this particular book second hand. Trump is set to personally profit from his position - most obviously via the Trump International Hotel, which is even now apparently advertising "stay here to leave a good impression with the administration" [14]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think the fascist label is just a term of abuse as applied to Trump at the moment. I think narcissistic sociopath would be accurate, but then that applies to quite a large number of the heads of companies. It is surprising that it seems to be such a winning trait in business. Dmcq (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• A CEO who dramatically overestimates their own competence seems like it would get a small firm into trouble, if it means taking crazy risks that drive them out of business. On the other hand, once a firm gets "too big to fail", they can take all the crazy risks they like, knowing the taxpayers will bail them out if the risks turn out badly. StuRat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)