Talk:Trump derangement syndrome
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trump derangement syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I saw a bot removed my suggestion so here it is again : involuntary appeal to authority leads to confusing wording
[edit]I suggest removing the words "a psychiatrist" in the Origin of term section.
Krauthammer was indeed a psychiatrist but is already presented here as a political columnist, and that is the context in which he coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome : in his Washington Post opinion article, not in a process of scientific study.
Adding "psychiatrist" to the already sufficient "political columnist and commentator" gives the wrong idea in this context.
As a result this part easily reads as BDS being a diagnosis or the result of research lead by this psychiatrist when it was actually said in a light-hearted political article about the most extreme anti-Bush people, his field of psychiatry being an angle for the joke. Feel free to check the source to confirm : [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/12/05/the-delusional-dean/cbc80426-08ee-40fd-97e5-19da55fdc821/
So long story short, mentioning him also being a psychiatrist in this context is at best misleading, that word should be removed.
If there's still no controversy about this and no change, I guess I'll make an official edit request after some time has passed. Tetrarque (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Krauthammer was not a practicing psychiatrist at the time he wrote the article containing the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (based on his Wikipedia article), so I think "former psychiatrist" would be a more accurate descriptor. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Bias here
[edit]I do not support Trump, but what happened to Wikipedia's impartiality? You can get see the user above this heading getting angry and calling it "childish and Immature". This article seems to be written by some thinly-veiled liberal perspective.
For example (and this is just part of the issue here) just look at the opening part of the 3 paragraphs in the "Usage" section: The term has been widely applied by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, The use of the term has been called part of a broader GOP strategy to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions, The term has been used by journalists critical of Trump to call for restraint.
I usually do not edit, so please excuse the errors, but like half the article throughout the sections claims (sometimes defacto claims) that the GOP uses it to stop criticisms of Trump, without offering much alternative argument. More neutral would be 2 sections, one exploring use of it as a pejorative, and one exploring the claims of those who use the term.
- Wikipedia articles are expected to meet the neutral point of view policy. The word neutral here doesn't mean "represent all sides equally", but instead to represent all the significant views published by reliable sources. What specific things would you have changed, and what reliable sources can you provide to support those changes? King keudo (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you saying that there are reliable sources that agree with Trump and say that his critics are actually deranged? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Despite the usage of the term "syndrome" suggesting a medical condition, TDS is not an official medical diagnoses.[8] A 2021 research study found no evidence to support the existence of TDS among Trump detractors on the left.[9]
diagnoses is plural , change to singular " diagnosis " Direktorot (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- Wikipedia requested images of conservatism
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- Wikipedia requested images of politics
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class U.S. Presidents articles
- Low-importance U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of the United States Government
- Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States
- WikiProject United States articles