Severe neutral perspective issue with article

I'm not questioning the validity of the viewpoints or sources in this artcile. But it's clear that in the war of ideas, this article only supports on side. On wikipedia we need to cherish a neutral point of view. There are just as many people who would agree with this article as disagree, and our job on wikipedia isn't to preach a stance, but to unveil all the reasonable ones. I would be just as indignant if this article only covered right-wing sources, but this is not the case.

1. The article parrots claims made by left-wing sources, without any rebuttals or differences of opinions. 2. The article only presents one viewpoint, and uses charged opinion words like "Destroyed, Demeaned, Dessicated" that are not in the respective source. 3. The article fails to acknowledge or give any credence to the opposing view, which is subscribed to by at least half of americans politicians and voters. Instead, the article only gives credence to one viewpoint 4. The article presents all sources as facts, without acknowledging it is their own viewpoint.

Some will claim " We can't give the other side a perspective because it is a false balance". And I disagree with that wholeheartedly, and I know the millions of americans who voted for trump would as well. What is the false balance criteria 1. Is it extreme, and fringe? Nope! It's a common talking-point for republicans of all stripes and colors to decry democrats and claim they are the "true threats to democracy". 2. Is it a topic about violence? Nope 3. Will including the other viewpoint harm the articles integrity, Nope! Both claims are equally legitimate, and should be discussed. 4. Is it a fringe theory? Nope, there are just as many sources for the other viewpoint as for this mono-viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorOTruth (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This article has severe problems with achieving a neutral point of view. I don't care what activist you are, or what politics you subscribe to, Wikipedia is not meant to preach, it's meant to explain. Due to bias in the article and the fact that it seems to be an opinion piece, it should be deleted. Natwebb (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to cite specific examples of NPOV violations and your proposed alternatives. Be sure to make your alternatives unbiased and explanatory summaries of reliable secondary sources without editorializing their content. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

absolutely-- you can't have nothing nice when liberal wacko nut jobs are allowed to be in charge. ~2026-12909-13 (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

In short, this article has severe problems with achieving a neutral point of view. I don't care what activist you are, or what politics you subscribe to, wikipedia is not meant to preach, it's meant to explain. And we are bereft our of duty as purveyors of information when we miss a huge and legitimate other side to the issue. Thank you. I hope this article can be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorOTruth (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV is about reflecting the neutrality of the sources on the topic. Equal balance of viewpoints can only happen if there are RSes for all viewpoints, we don't create a false balance if one viewpoint us not represented in sources. We'd need sources here that refute the idea of democratic backsliding, of which there are not apparently any from reliable works. Part of the problem may be that those claiming there is no backsliding are being only published in unreliable sources like Fox News. Masem (t) 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned the false balance argument in my explanation. False Balance is too often used as a crutch to misconstrue any NPOV attempt as being "Wrong". Democratic backsliding only being a republican casued phenomenon, is not unfalsifiable and a reasonable attempt should be made to find legitimate viewpoints to enchance the disucssion. Clearly the majority of conservatives would be alienated by this article. There is a treasure trove of information on the web that could be used to create a section on alternative and equally legitimate views.

What other reason could you oppose this, besides being content by the biased nature of the article?

I used Fox news to point out that right-wingers have differing opinions on the nature of democracy. It was never labeled as fact, why is it automatically taken down?

I've seen rolling stone, the guardian, vox news, and the brennan center, repeadetly cited despite being hyper partisan.

Fox News is a major media source, and is just as reliable as any other. 2605:940:612:A700:0:0:0:0 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fox News is deemed unreliable for anything politics related, and while we can use its opinion, the lede must reflect what's in the body, and there's currently very little if any discussing the claim that there is no democratic backsliding. If one section can be made from multiple sources, then maybe it could be included, but keep in mind that Fox is generally unreliable in the politics area and thus we'd want to see more than just one fox news opinion piece to support it. Masem (t) 17:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

yet Wikipedia has it as a reliable source. just cause you don't like it doesn't make it one. get your activism out of wikipedia. Razgriz9203 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't actually. Per WP:FOXNEWS, there's no consensus it's reliable or unreliable for news (which generally means better sources are preferred). Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, it's considered unreliable for anything related to politics—exactly as Masem said. Lewisguile (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

While I’m certain that quoting MSNBC or one of the other liberal- spin media machines would be just fine with you. Most reasonable folks understand your diatribe for what it is.

“Democratic backsliding” is a direct result of the failure of the Democrat party’s idiology and the rampant abuse of power of its members in employing widespread censorship, weaponization of the justice system and the blatant, illegal and immoral peddling of political access to senior members of the party, for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Liberals, unfortunately never take responsibility for the actions of those that they vote for. Even though they’re responsible for putting those people in power. 47.33.19.241 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

"right-wingers have differing opinions on the nature of democracy" Yes, the average fascist, national socialist, and falangist expresses their anti-democracy policies in different ways. That does not mean that we have to express fascist views in the article. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The average right-winger is not a facist, nor we even know of those ideologies. Get your activism out of wikipedia. 2605:940:612:7C00:0:0:0:0 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We need to seriously do something about the left wing bias in Wikipedia.This is just insane. Bjoh249 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

WP uses reliable sources, which are generally left-leaning. There are very few right-leaning reliable sources out there. Masem (t) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Personal bias should have no place in WP. ~2025-35232-23 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the sources of the statements that you take issue with? It is not unfalsifiable to claim that democratic backsliding predominantly occurs under Republican representatives. This is an academic claim within the field of political science. We can measure democracy; see the general page on democratic backsliding. Even if the truth alienates particular political narratives, Wikipedia is biased in favor of academic consensus, which is the closest approximation to truth we have. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

A MAJOR problem with this article (of which there are many to choose from) is the use of opinion from commentators as facts cited to RS. You claim that Reliable Sources assert that "democratic backsliding" is occurring and (comically) claim there are no reliable sources to refute that claim.

A spot check of the sources will demonstrate that claims specifically accredited to specific individuals are recycled by this article as uncontroverted truths, even when the source itself provides a rebuttal from some one "on the other side".

This article goes well beyond describing the majority view of reliable sources. It is pure advocacy. Bravelake (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There is an entire section devoted to international academic institutes for measuring democratic backsliding. Every single major institution respected in the field agrees that the US is undergoing democratic backsliding and that this is primarily due to Trump and his movement. At some point, you have to admit you're the one with the bias, not the people who are the most educated on the subject. ~2026-24233-76 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• In addition to what others have said, it's important to understand that Wikipedia takes an international perspective; it is not written (or balanced) according to the coverage within a single country. That matters here, and might account for some of the discrepancy you're feeling, because sources from within a country are often going to weight nationalist perspectives more heavily, which will naturally tend to present the state of that country in a more positive light. You mentioned Fox News' perspective several times above; but even aside from the fact that it's not a reliable source for politics, it is also a heavily nationalist source within the US. That means that when you zoom out and look at what high-quality international coverage of the current state of the United State says, it's usually going to place less weight on the sorts of things (and sorts of perspectives) that sources like Fox News emphasize If you're someone who places a lot of weight on Fox personally (or even just someone who views it as representing "half" the debate within your country), Wikipedia's coverage is going to look strange to you - but that's not Wikipedia being biased, that's Wikipedia balancing things for a broader perspective. Similarly, Wikipedia is academic in focus and tone - we value academic sources, and sources that themselves respect academic consensus. "Democratic backsliding" itself is a specific academic concept, say. If you believe that eg. international opinion is irrelevant and academia itself is biased, then you're never going to be happy with what Wikipedia says; that's not a problem with Wikipedia, that just means you fundimentially want something different out of it than what it's set out to be. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  "but that's not Wikipedia being biased, that's Wikipedia balancing things for a broader perspective." In this case the broader perspective is still liberal. 2600:8803:2B0C:5D00:4DCE:5BCF:32A3:9B33 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  The broader perspective comes from the unanimity of experts in the field of political science from across the globe.

  
  

  What do you think makes you qualified to dismiss them? Do you have a PhD in super-political theory that outranks them?

  
  

  No, you don't. Sorry, we go with what the people who actually know what they're talking about are saying. 2601:486:100:9780:389D:538F:3BD8:39E4 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• I mean, we're an encyclopedia; we summarize what the highest-quality international sources say (which generally means the papers of record, mainstream media, and academia.) If you disagree with the conclusions of those sources, and think the mainstream media and academia are biased, then you're going to disagree with our summary, too. Maybe you're even right! Experts can be wrong! But as an encyclopedia, we still have to follow them, even if some people disagree and think that doing so makes us biased. WP:NPOV and balance, for Wikipedia, means reflecting the balance of the best available sources. It doesn't mean we never say anything that any reader would find objectionable or controversial or which they personally might feel is biased. In fact, sometimes those policies require that we say things that readers may personally find objectionable or controversial. As I said on WP:NOTREPUTATION, our goal is to inform readers, not just to tell them what they want to hear; to neutrally and accurately summarize the best available sources for them, not just to serve as a mirror of their pre-existing beliefs. --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  If the goal is to inform readers, then why did you undo an edit that was factually-based? Jim Crow was enacted by Democrats. Fact. That's not editorializing, as you claim. But adding factual content.

  No different than the very next sentence that includes "Republican-led" with no reference given. 2 Salukis (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Saying that the democrats enacted Jim Crow laws isn't necessary to the current discussion. It serves the same purpose as saying that both parties in the United States once supported and enacted laws for slavery. It doesn't make much sense to add it to the article other than to make Republicans happy. Making either side of the political isle happy isn't our job, if the Democrats were doing the same thing we'd put it in the article. ElderLemurian (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Your claims of objectivity ring rather hollow. Try again. ~2026-71234-8 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody here cares what "rings hollow" to you. How entitled. ~2026-12612-86 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Reality

I cannot understand V-Dem. Contradicts everything I know about US history. What's V-Dem anyway? What's wrong with Trump's first presidency? --95.24.75.157 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, growth following WWII, yes. --95.24.75.157 (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

V-Dem has its own page, including its rankings of other countries. They have a list of the indices they measure on their site which also details their methodology. The complex technicality of their approach can be disorienting at first, even to some scholars. I hope this helps. 2601:486:100:9780:F862:61AA:C5A4:6CBE (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Consider that you may have been misled about US history. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Have a look at V-Dem Institute and you'll learn about their research methods. V-Dem research is generally well-respected. Boud (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, to hell with V-Dem. I thought the way they ranked democracies around the world was reliable, but the fact that they have labeled the US as an “electoral autocracy”, despite democrats winning in large numbers in the recent off-year elections (and will likely win in the 2026 midterms, regardless of Trump’s gerrymandering scheme), tells me they’re just ranking based on vibes, which, let’s face it, is just unreliable.

Staffan I. Lindberg is just full of shit, simply just giving up on America like that. ~2025-42369-75 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but having local elections where a controlled opposition party wins does not mean the US is not an authoritarian regime. The US has to have free and fair elections in order to avoid the label of authoritarianism.

Mussolini still had elections. Franco still had elections. That's why the US is an "electoral autocracy" rather than some other type of illiberal regime. Your point here is extremely biased original research at best. ~2026-12612-86 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah sorry. I was just frustrated is all. But still, I cannot in good conscience defend V-Dem labeling the US as an electoral autocracy, even despite the fact that the 2025 off-year elections were fair and not rigged. To me, that sounds more like a “hybrid regime” rather than an actual electoral autocracy like Russia or Belarus. The democrats winning back congress in the 2026 midterms would only prove that, despite Trump’s attempts at interference.

Also, Franco and Mussolini? Really man? Those are perhaps the worst comparisons you can come up with. Those so-called “elections” under both of those guys weren’t even elections at all to begin with. They were just for show and nothing else. Hell, I’d even go as far as to describe elections in Russia as for show as well, because the opposition parties don’t even show opposition at all, and show nothing but blind loyalty to Putin.

Since V-Dem is now being headed by a new director, maybe they can change how countries are ranked by democracy, mostly by adding a “hybrid regime” label. ~2026-13403-89 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Remember that the concept of a "hybrid regime" is still controversial in academia. Many scholars argue that "hybrid regime" is just a euphemism for a modern type of authoritarianism. Some papers have even called "illiberal democracy" the 21st century form of fascism. This is all mentioned already on the relevant pages with citations. There's a serious argument that the US, in losing its status as a democracy, is in the early stages of authoritarianism. ~2026-24233-76 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I would not describe illiberal democracy as a “21st century form of fascism” as some of these researchers would. Fascism is a TOTALITARIAN and ULTRANATIONALIST ideology, not just authoritarian. Illiberal democracy is not the same thing. I know that the term “hybrid regime” is still controversial, but it’s better than just “electoral autocracy”, just saying ~2026-24927-91 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" is itself a very disputed concept, with some scholars arguing it was made up to lump the USSR and Nazi Germany together solely for propaganda. Many scholars argue that Mussolini's Italy wasn't totalitarian, does that mean that the very Fascist regime that named fascism wasn't itself truly fascist because it was "merely" authoritarian?

I agree with you that ultranationalism is core to fascism, as do most scholars, but my point is that there is no consensus on these subjects. There are multiple opinions and the debate might never be fully settled. You might prefer to call America a hybrid regime, others would say its failure to be a democracy makes it an authoritarian regime. Others might point out that not even Mussolini or Franco were so severely ultranationalist that they had concentration camps, but Nazi Germany and modern America are, so there's a real argument to be had that the US is an outright fascist regime now. That's the breadth of current scholarly opinions; from illiberal democracy to fascist regime. ~2026-24233-76 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The argument for America being a fascist or ultranationalist regime under Trump still falls flat though, because Trumpism lacks the core tenants for it to be described as such. I really hate how these scholars are cheapening the term “fascist” just to describe Trump’s second term even though he hasn’t fully tapped into the main core of fascism, that of course being the totalitarian aspects. Sure, Italy under Mussolini may have not been fully totalitarian like Nazi Germany, but it was still a totalitarian regime nonetheless. Same goes for Spain under Franco, but even then it had devolved into a conservative authoritarian regime after World War II and remained that way until Franco’s death in the mid-1970’s.

Regardless of what the scholars may say, I just cannot in good conscience consider America under Trump as a fascist. Especially considering that the US has had a history of authoritarian leaders, politicians, and laws, like this article mentions with Jim Crow as an example. Really, I think there should be more added to this article about other examples of democratic backsliding in the country, including the grossly authoritarian actions of presidents such as Andrew Jackson with the trail of tears, Abe Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, Woodrow Wilson federalizing segregation, FDR imprisoning Japanese-American civilians, and even Richard Nixon with Watergate.

Trump is obviously not the first president to grossly violate democratic norms, but that doesn’t mean he’s good for the US. You don’t necessarily have to be a fascist to be a public menace to democratic norms and institutions. ~2026-24927-91 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

No, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain were absolutely not totalitarian. And that's if the word means something relevant to scholarship, which is itself a controversial assertion.

There is no consensus that totalitarianism is even a core facet of fascism. There is more of a consensus that authoritarianism and ultranationalism are core facets of fascism, and that it's anti-liberal and anti-socialist. We have an entire page on Fascism and Definitions of Fascism each. I recommend reading through them. The page on Fascism even explicitly has a section for Trumpism. ~2026-24233-76 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, Italy under Benito Mussolini wasn’t fully totalitarian in practice, but it was totalitarian in ambition. The regime pushed one-party rule, propaganda, and state control. The totalitarian aspecks of fascism were only prevented because institutions like the monarchy and the Church limited how far his control actually went.

As for Spain under Francisco Franco, it definitely was generally considered authoritarian, but many historians note it had some totalitarian features, especially early on. It’s not accurate to say totalitarianism is irrelevant to fascism either, as there’s no single definition, but classic fascist regimes did pursue total control to varying degrees. Lack of consensus doesn’t mean the concept has no core elements.

Sorry, but I just can’t in good conscience defend your arguments. It’s just… flawed is what I’m saying. ~2026-27491-83 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this discussion has outgrown its usefulness. Please remember WP:TALKNOTFORUM. It's also tough to follow with multiple temp accounts. Consider making an account or at least signing your comments with a consistent pseudonym. Eigenbra (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yea, you’re right. Best to leave it here ~2026-24927-91 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"

Seeking input in a related merge discussion

Hi all,

There is a merge discussion at Talk:United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones#Proposed merge of Hannah Natanson FBI raid into United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones that's been open for a while, and I'd like to hear additional thoughts to make some progress. The question is whether to merge the federal court case against the FBI's seizing of a journalist's assets and an article about the FBI seizing of Hannah Natanson's assets. Any thoughts and contributions there would be appreciated. Thank you. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Should you or I put it in Wikipedia:Noticeboards: Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers? Same with this one in Wikipedia:Proposed article splits? – KaijuEditor (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, good questions! I'm on the move today and don't have time to do it myself, so feel free to go ahead with both, I think those are great ideas. Thank you! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article is just another example of Wikipedia’s swing from neutrality.

I see talking points about Trump and Authoritarianism but again we are seeing a total lack of historical context because it’s not a secret that the Obama Administration targeted people via the IRS and also went after journalists but somehow this isn’t viewed as authoritarianism? And the same holds true for the abuses of the Biden justice department. It’s fine if there is going to be an article about the expanding power of the Presidency but pretending that it is something only exercises by the current occupant of the White House is more than a little disingenuous.

The same thing holds true on the topic of gerrymandering because Massachusetts, New York, Illinois and California all have been gerrymandered by Democrats but it appears Wikipedia doesn’t want to give that equal weight. And please don’t come at me with this idea of me spending time here having a battle with editors who like to dominate the slant on political topics, there are clear sources even if Wikipedia’s source list also has bias that will detail these things… there are even pages here on Wikipedia itself that are devoted to these events. I honestly wish Wikipedia would enact some kind of policy that pushes any current event articles out for at least a year. One of the true problems today is with the advent of social media and the spreading of false narratives. as in the age of newspapers articles that ran on the front page but were later found to be wrong had their correction buried further back in the paper. Wikipedia in its way is guilty of the same thing as editors are desperate to be ‘first’ and leave their mark. ~2026-37803-69 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"if there is going to be an article about the expanding power of the Presidency" I think that article is the one called imperial presidency. Per the main article:

• • "Historian Zachary Karabell argued that executive power grew further in the 21st century, due in part to congressional inaction. Citing the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama as examples, he wrote: "9/11 saw the beginning of the current move toward an imperial presidency, as George W. Bush keyed off the crisis to expand executive authority in national security and domestic surveillance. In that, his administration had the legal but classified support of Congress, and for a time, a considerable portion of the public." Karabell said that this trend continued under Obama, and that "stonewalling" from Congress "provoked the Obama administration into finding innovative ways to exercise power," making Obama "one of the most powerful presidents ever." He wrote that this trend could potentially set precedent for further expansion of executive power.^[1]"
  • The importance of the United States Congress in political decision-making seems to be in decline throughout the 21st century, as it is rarely taking action on any major issue. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is great. I think this article should have sections for both imperial presidency and inverted totalitarianism ~2026-40250-74 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd +1 the idea of not writing on current events for a year. We have policies for it, such as WP:NOTNEWS, but unfortunately they are the most widely and deliberately ignored policies here. But much as I like the idea, this is not the page to discuss that. There is an article to be written about democratic backsliding, and you are quite right that this one is unduly slanted towards Trump. But some want to split the article and just keep writing about Trump. Rather, we should be adding in all the history. Sadly, we don't appear to have anyone suitably familiar with the historiography to write that. Although the long-running transfer of power to the executive branch (per the imperial presidency) is a large part of that story, there are other elements (the gerrymandering being another huge element). It's a lot of reading though, and perhaps we understand why some editors prefer just to write up what they see in the news. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The subject areas for Democratic backsliding in the United States goes back much further than Obama and even Bush. IMO part of the reason this article feels so incomplete is that there wasn't much internet coverage before the 90's because the medium was in it's infancy. Average editors are relying on web coverage. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but see the talk section "Lacuna" above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)