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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 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:

Keep, 7 July 2019, see discussion.
no consensus, 16 May 2018, see discussion.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

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.

Bias here

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.90.88 (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

i think the person is saying theres only a onesided definition and 0 examples of a person who is a victim of said syndrome. 2600:6C4E:1A3F:3EF9:78CE:427D:3D97:7CF (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The phrasing on the article implies that there's no valid criticism to be made about Trump's detractors, or that TDS, while exaggerated, doesn't reflect an actual reality of existing bias against the former president. There's certainly significant irrational stigma against Trump and the article downplays it. Jagrblood (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longtime reader but created an account just to agree with this point. Love Wikipedia through and through and as a non-Trump supporter, this entry should serve as a self-reflection of the clear bias those have in writing it. This is perhaps tough given modern political topics and the unwillingness of writers to search for sources that don’t agree with their personal opinions. I think a realistic definition of this is the representation of his viewpoints as erroneously extremist, to the political benefit of those who disagree with him. The whole article seems to be an argument against a real phenomenon rather than defining it. Susanrawlings82 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why I won't contribute another nickel. Either Wikipedia figures this out or risk losing annual donations. 47.145.56.101 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people who collect the donations don't make editorial decisions about articles, exactly so this kind of comment has precisely zero effect on how Wikipedia is run. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for the article to take the normal NPOV style of phrasing, perhaps keeping the sentence as "Accusations have been made that the term is used to deflect criticism" rather than the current phrasing " Tomcatfish (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing vague WP:WEASEL wording would be less neutral, not more. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is generally liberally oriented, thats why is this biased situation and I am saying that as someone, who supported Harris.--78.102.87.172 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about Wikipedia's biases is almost as irrelevant as who you claim to have supported. Wikipedia articles attempts to summarize reliable sources from a neutral point-of-view. If you have an actionable suggestion based on reliable sources, make it. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was only warning guy above that its waste of time to try improve situation here. Nothing more. As I personally knew people suffering TDS, and I understand that my own experience is not reliable or relevant source, I am just surprised this article completely dismiss this phenomenon. 78.102.87.172 (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah man because it's such quality research and science to say that it's actually not true at all and it's actually his supporters that are the biased ones. Late night talk show hosts crying on TV nightly about a president who deported fewer people than Obama, is completely normal and good actually. Mikmow (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Most of this biased article needs to be deleted. The sources listed are biased and then their “studies” are used as supporting evidence. The studies source more biased sources…CNN, the Guardian, and Independent. Liberals think their own bullshit verifies their bullshit. 2600:1015:B11F:91C3:9455:DEF7:8B7C:882A (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skynxnex (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair characterization

The first paragraph claims that TDS is more often than not used to slander all forms of criticism. This is an over-generalization: the term is mostly used to denote blind and unbridled disdain towards Trump that someone exhibits in methods/times generally considered irrational. Of the sources supporting the claim the article is making, one has its title written in a non-neutral manner (indicating that the article is likely the same), the other is an opinion piece, and the other is harder to evaluate since it can no longer be accessed (though the bizarre characterization of Trump supporters possessing irrational criticism of Trump seems to indicate that that article also has some bias).

Obviously this term is used at times by conservatives as an ad hominem attack on all liberals, but not as often as it being thrown at zealous critics of Trump, and to completely say that it’s the former and not the latter is unfair: the sentence should be restructured to be something like “The term has been used by some conservatives as an ad hominem attack on all critics of Donald Trump.” LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article deletion request

this entire article should be deleted. This is wikipedia, not wikimemes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.102.159 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting

This website is quickly becoming CNN lite. Do better before it's too late.