Talk:Democratic backsliding

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Severe neutral perspective issue with article

[edit]

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.

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) 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is extremely biased and is mostly pointed towards one point of view. I would fix the article and add more references if I knew I wasn’t at risk of being reverted and penalized. For all their talk of “democracy of knowledge,” Wikipedia is often anything but on political issues.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjoh249 as well. I've not read this article in detail, so can't comment on tge general criticism of the article lacking neutrality. However, I think it would be extremely helpful if you could give a clear example of bias and it's remedy Jabbi (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just ONE example of the liberal bias in this article in the section on “Backsliding of democracy in the United State” section:
”Backsliding in the 21st century has been discussed as largely a Republican-led phenomenon, with particular emphasis placed on the administrations of Donald Trump. Frequently cited possible drivers include decisions made by the Supreme Court (especially those regarding money in politics and gerrymandering), attempts at election subversion, the concentration of political power, and a growing interest in political violence and white identity politics. The presidencies of Donald Trump have also resulted in the downgrading of US democracy by a number of indices and experts.”
I would put ‘citation needed’ on there but the editors would probably delete that.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjoh249:, I don't know why you think adding a citation needed would be reverted. The user WarriorOTruth (talk · contribs) has started a similar discussion in the talk page for the article about Democratic backsliding in the United States. It seems to me that there are good, trusted sources for the statements being made in the article. If you see a specific content statement you think is not neutral or is incorrect, please just point that out. Jabbi (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-right-wing slant

[edit]

Anti-right-wing slant is quite prevalent in the article.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it or any mention of right-wing. If you see a problem, edit the article. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the POV tag that was added — I don't see any issue with the article as it stands from a POV perspective. If you have a specific issue, you can raise it here on the talk page for consideration. Neutralitytalk 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-right-wing slant is quite prevalent in the article.

We have fifty years of right wing thinkers; fifty years of right wing white papers, books, and lectures; fifty years of right wing politicians; fifty years of right wing think tanks and organizations and PACs; fifty years of right wing writers, journalists, academics, and philosophers; all saying the same thing: "we hate democracy". And that is some kind of slant? Reality exists. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not time for activism. I don't care if you think all right-wing politicans are evil, I don't care if you think two wrongs makes a right. But we need to cover the LEGITIMATE other side.
I know you wouldn't be happy if this page was a anmalagraton of sources proving "Democratic Backsliding in the U.S never occured under trump" and I wouldn't be happy either.
But you can't be happy when the opposite is true.
So please, act. WarriorOTruth (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Liberalpedia. Bjoh249 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recency bias and narrow minded thinking in the United States section

[edit]

The Issue of Democratic Backsliding in the United States is due to much more chronic issues that go back centuries. Blaming such a complex issue all on Trump stinks of recency bias. That section needs a much more nuanced take than just "Trump bad". I added a small bit of nuance, and a long-term perspective to that section. Hopefully people without a narrow minded agenda will help improve that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescart (talk • contribs) 10:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Some amount of "democratic backsliding" may have been going on for a while (if hardly "centuries", not while voting right were being constantly extended, and the Senate became elected and not appointed, etc.), but the onset of Trump was a major move backwards towards authoritarianism which pales even in comparison to the modern growth of the Imperial presidency. That is not "recentism", that's factual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not factual. It's your opinion, and you impressing your ACTIVISM upon wikipedia only tampers with wikipedias reputation.
We need to highlight all opinions, the two major, reasonable and legitimate are
1. Trump is the root cause of democratic backsliding
2. Trump is not the cause, and is mis-attributed
3. Democratic Backsliding is not real.
We are bereft of our duty when we only cover 1/3 of the story. WarriorOTruth (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil?

[edit]

The article shows an aggressive, exaggerated bias. As a Brazilian and expert on this topic, I can guarantee that even people from the left here would laugh at that. There's NO single act by the government of Brazil that would be considered Democratic backsliding. The article only cited (out of context) phrases. There's no single ACTION by Bolsonaro that jeopardized Brazilian Democracy. Actually, the "anti-democratic rallies" cited in this article was a protest against the Supreme Court which arrested a congressman, censored a site, and sent police to confiscate the computer and phone of an Brazilian comedian who is a critic of them (That's right, you read it exactly right). This article is so biased, that even the media in Brazil, which is hostile to him, don't make such an accusation. It's just absurd, comical. There is no single act in that sense, and it was agreed here, but the tactic was to take statements out of context. By adding Brazil here, the effect is just the spread of fake news. Brazil is as democratic as before. Actually, Bolsonaro often remembers that the people have the right to self-defense and supports freedom for anyone older than 25 years old and without criminal records to own guns. If the state wants to dominate a people, the first act would be disarming them. This article seems either from far-left sources or from misinformed sources. I suggest diverse sources, not a source based on extremist views, which is the case here. Sawyersx (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is a polemic. It is from the perspective of left-wing Americans. In America Bolsonaro is viewed as the 'Brazilian Trump' by members of the Left. The same is true of the governments of Hungary and Poland. Of course the claim that Trump moved America towards authoritarianism is also false. No president has that power because various American institutions prevent one person from seizing power. But you have to understand that for the American Left Trump's election in 2016 was viewed as synonymous with the events in 1933 Germany. Even recently, prior to America's mid-term elections in 2022, the left-wing politicians, and much of the media, told the people that if the right-wing party (Republicans) won the election then democracy would be over in America. Unfortunately, my fellow Americans have succumbed to political rhetoric and now view hyperbolic statements and fear mongering as true. I haven't commented on a talk page in probably 15 years even though I read them all the time. This page is one of the worst pages I have seen. The bias is so slanted that the page is now a work of fiction. It is a polemic against conservative governments around the world. 2601:140:C002:8C60:B8F3:F89F:C4A3:1A2 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. An expert would certainly be capable of providing good sources backing such claims instead of limiting himself to name-calling and conspiracy theories. These claims that negative evaluation of Bolsonaro's presidency (and his well-documented anti-democratic beliefs and actions) is a "far-left" position (or a "left-wing American" position) seem particularly indicative of trolling - the same kind of trolling that, ironically, is directly correlated with democratic backsliding. Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt template

[edit]

@Beyond My Ken I'm sorry, but I continue to fail to see why {{Excerpt}} is undesired for the #United States section. The Democratic backsliding in the United States intro is identical, but includes an additional inline citation (and currently comes with the option of including an additional V-Dem Institute graph). Regarding the disadvantages of {{Excerpt}} according to its own documentation,

  • the "impediment to editing" is at least partially resolved by the template providing a one-click edit button to the excerpted article (as {{Excerpt}} itself points out),
  • the reduced accuracy of this article seems to hardly apply considering the section here is an introduction to the application of democratic backsliding to the U.S. which Democratic backsliding in the United States's intro (as the article title and selected section suggests) would match perfectly,
  • and decreased visibility of changes I would see as the only viable counterpoint.

Therefore, in my view, one is trading reduced maintenance, improved content quality, and fostered collaboration (per {{Excerpt}}) for partially decreased visibility (only "partially", seeing the overlap in the subjects of democratic backsliding and its application in the U.S. (on the English Wiki) and hence anticipated likelihood of a given editor watching both pages). Anderjef (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has sat in committee for a week without objection, I reinstate my edit. Anderjef (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has clearly been objected to, since I reverted it - and I have reverted it again, as hyou have no consensus on this talk page for your edit. Get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer excerpt HudecEmil (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, how did you happen to come here, since you've never edited this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken And why is that relevant, except to help prove my point? WP:GOODFAITH
WP:DETCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue." It appears to me that I have consensus. Anderjef (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aciually, it appears to me that you asked an editor to drop by here and support you. If you attempt to edit the article on the basis of this patently false consensus, your edits will be reverted until there is an actual consensus by users who regularly edit this article, not by drive-bys. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel should have its own page about its democratic backsliding

[edit]

under netanyahu israel has gone a severe democratic backsliding Monochromemelo1 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article misses the entire topic by a light year

[edit]

Right wing libertarianism is directly responsible for the last 50 years of democratic backsliding yet not a single word about it appears here. Unbelievable. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Jae-In

[edit]

It is unclear whether democracy backsliding under the Moon Jae-In administration. Most democracy indices, including V-Dem Democracy Indices, Freedom in the World, The Economist Democracy Index, World Press Freedom Index are significantly improved during Moon's presidency. (Source:[1], [2]) Migupla (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge study challenging democracy backsliding

[edit]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-democratic-backsliding/9EE2044CDA598BD815349912E61189D8&ved=2ahUKEwjylbjm6dWNAxWdXGwGHZe0AsUQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1H8Y5lwwPjh7bTfIkuJQ-2

Sorry for the long link but there is a Cambridge study stating that there is no evidence for democracy backsliding. Considering the contents of the article should this be included? Question169 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:Village pump (technical) about some cite issues in this article

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Democratic backsliding + content from Democratic backsliding in the United States = some odd cite issues. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New source for the US.

[edit]

US ‘on a trajectory’ toward authoritarian rule, ex-officials warn The Guardian. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty easy to summarize...A 2025 report by network of former US intelligence and national security officials wss released warning that the United States is moving toward authoritarian rule under Trumps second administration. They describe this trend as a "rapid decline in democracy", which may become entrenched without organized resistance. The authors express a "moderate to high confidence" that the US is heading towards a competitive authoritarianism. The report outlines indicators of democratic decline, including increased executive power through emergency measures, politicization of government agencies, attempts to diminish judicial independence, and the undermining of civil society and the press. Moxy🍁 23:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add that text! Lova Falk (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"attempts to diminish judicial independence" The pretense of judicial independence does not actually work with the Supreme Court of the United States functioning as a subsidiary of the Republican Party. Per the main article on the partisan court: "additional factors cited by critics include the polarization of national politics, ethics scandals, and specific controversial partisan rulings, including the relaxation of campaign finance rules,[1] increased gerrymandering,[2] weakened voting laws,[3] Dobbs v. Jackson and Bush v. Gore.[4] The continued consolidation of power by the court and, as a result of its rulings, the Republican Party, has sparked debate over when democratic backsliding becomes entrenched single-party rule.[4]" Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Stone, Geoffrey R. (March 26, 2012). "Citizens United and conservative judicial activism" (PDF). University of Illinois Law Review. 2012 (2): 485–500. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 17, 2021. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
  2. ^ Millhiser, Ian (May 23, 2024). "The Supreme Court's new voting rights decision is a love letter to gerrymandering". Vox. Retrieved May 29, 2024.
  3. ^ Beauchamp, Zack (June 27, 2019). "The Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision reveals a profound threat to democracy". Vox. Retrieved January 30, 2023.
  4. ^ a b Millhiser, Ian (June 10, 2024). "Justices Sotomayor and Kagan must retire now". Vox. Retrieved June 19, 2024.