Talk:Trump derangement syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018

Please revert the last edit. The article itself talks about some conservatives being on the receiving end of being accused of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (Bret Stephens for example). Davidb1988 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Do you mean this edit: Special:Diff/851257232? Danski454 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the one! Davidb1988 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please be more specific, in the form of "Change X to Y", or by giving a specific diff link. Articles change all the time, so what you see as the last edit may not be the last edit by the time someone else gets to your request. Feel free to reopen this request with more details (just change "answered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElHef: The diff is already provided above. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind,  Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump Anxiety Disorder

Can someone write in the header that this is also known as Trump Anxiety Disorder? This source talks about it, and this source as well. --2001:8003:4023:D900:E56F:48DE:190B:3347 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed a section about a survey

I just removed a recent addition to the lede [1] about a survey among members of the "Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association". There was nothing in the material about Trump Derangement Syndrome which is the subject of this article. Furthermore, I don't see why a survey of one section of one professional association should be included in Wikipedia anywhere. And I found their results to be highly questionable: they claimed Trump was the "most polarizing president in history" (I think Abe Lincoln might have a claim to that title - multiple states seceded just because he was elected president - and anyhow we would have to say "respondents believed" rather than asserting it as fact) and the worst president in history (we have repeatedly refused to put that kind of assertion in the main Donald Trump article). Open to discussion of course. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Why are people so 'deranged' about Trump?" some might ask.

Well, might it be because he's broadly perceived by subject matter experts as the most polarizing president in history, so maybe it isn't really "derangement" at all?

"one section of one professional association" - because it's the presidents section, folks who focus on presidents

And the ref states: "On this ranking, Trump is slightly ahead of Abraham Lincoln, whose presidency happened during the Civil War (a time of noted polarization in this country)"

"we have repeatedly refused to put that kind of assertion in the main Donald Trump article" - I assert it is particularly relevant to this article, because if it's not too early to say people are deranged about Trump, it's also not too early to mention a survey of presidential analysts to explain why there is a perception of derangement soibangla (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Why are people so 'deranged' about Trump?" some might ask. Well, might it be because he's broadly perceived by subject matter experts as the most polarizing president in history, so maybe it isn't really "derangement" at all? That makes good sense as original research. But we don't do original research here. Where does it say - in a Reliable Source - that TDS is the result of him being so polarizing? I think we need to be careful to keep to the actual subject of this article and not bring in stuff that hasn't been related to the subject by a Reliable Source. Not as "examples" of anti-Trump actions that the editor felt showed TDS (I have recently deleted several such), and not as justifications for why people might feel that way. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Tone and Importance

The tone of this article seems to move fairly rapidly from a discussion of the meaning and etymology of the phrase directly into presumptive language and quotations that beg the question that this is a real phenomenon as opposed to a subjective interpretation informed by confirmation bias, without presenting adequate counterpoints to balance. This is a controversial phrase used to demean detractors of the president and publicly devalue their opinions, and whether or not he deserves to be demeaned or those detractors do indeed suffer from being "unable to distinguish fantasy from reality," this article should maintain as neutral a tone as possible. Additionally, does this really need its own article rather than a redirect to a section of a larger "Presidency of Donald Trump" article?

I absolutely agree in every respect. The origin and promulgation of this term is yet another gaslighting tactic. See: "What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening" as practically every sentence he utters contains at least one falsehood. Steve Bannon: “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” This is the stuff of an Orwellian cult and it must not be legitimized here. soibangla (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph location

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding the location of the paragraph beginning with "The use of the term by some on the right...", the IP editor's summary, which I agreed with, was "Deleted an excerpt that should be under “Use” of the term rather than the main definition. It was an opinion explaining how/why the term is used and was intentionally placed with the definition of the controversial term to make the opinion of one of the parties who dislike the term more visible. It serves no benefit to the actual definition of the term, but could be moved to the “Use” section like similar opinions that already exist there." Could you clarify your disagreement? Cheers, Λυδαcιτγ 01:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The "dislike the term" is actually WP:BALANCE. And the lede doesn't have to be limited to "the definition" of the term. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough and Trump Derangement Syndrome

Source. --1.136.108.0 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for that link. I never actually read this. I only saw some of his tawk on TV supporting his derangement. Bought the farm (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

First sentence of Uses section

I'd like to propose removing the first sentence of the "uses" section for the following reasons:
1.) As I'm now realizing from the above discussion, it seems there is a general consensus that all hints at this page that Trump Derangement Syndrome is anything other than base ad hominem fabricated whole cloth from genuine criticism of Trump policies should be scrutinized and reworded. The first sentence (Michael Davis claims that "conservatives and progressives appear equally susceptible.") is a perfect example of how a sentence in this article SHOULDN'T be formulated because it lends a sense that this is an actual malady.
and
2.) The source used to supply that sentence has no business being included in this encyclopedia... Especially if we're just using it to quote a fringy writer withuot establishing notability on this topic or anything even tangentially related. 198.119.225.212 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Manifestations" section

Two examples of anti-Trump rallies or demonstrations have just been added to this article, under a section titled “Manifestations”. Classifying these incidents - one protest march, one fistfight - as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” appears to be WP:Original research. None of the five references provided mention Trump Derangement Syndrome, so there is no justification for including them in this article. Accordingly I am going to delete the two paragraphs until sources can be provided identifying these, or any other overt actions, as actual examples of TDS. All the examples given under “Definition” involve a manner of speaking, an extreme or persistent criticism of everything Trump does. Nobody that I have seen has tried to claim that every protest march, or every fight between supporters and opponents, is an example of this so-called syndrome. Pinging User:Let us eat lettuce. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. If TDS is not in sources covering those protests, it's WP:OR or WP:SYN. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, Here is a new manifestation reported by Townhall which include mention of Trump Derangement Syndrome:

• In August 2018, an emeritus professor was treated for a self-inflicted injury in the hospital and subsequently arrested and charged with possessing a weapon on campus and other charges. Sociology professor Mark Bird is facing felony charges after shooting himself on Aug. 28, 2018 on the campus of College of Southern Nevada. Bird said he had shot himself in protest of President Donald Trump.

MelanieN, can we add the Manifestations section back to the article?? do we need more examples? Bought the farm (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, User:Bought the farm, we have been putting things like this in the section now titled "use". But I agree we need a better place to put specific examples ("Manifestations" is not a good title) so I have created a subsection in "Use" called "Examples of use". I really don't think we need to include every single time someone says it. Townhall is not a reliable source; let's see if anyone else applies that term to this incident. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, it appears that your entire interest here at Wikipedia so far has been digging up and adding more and more instances of when somebody says this; sooner or later we are going to be saying "enough already"! There are actually a lot of other articles here that could also interest you. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sure that you are correct MelanieN - we've only just begun... Bought the farm (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

btw, is Manifestations too much recognition??? ..Bought the farm (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight to a fringe subject

In the USES section above, we see the problem of dealing with a misleading POV attack phrase like "Trump Derangement Syndrome". We're taking a nasty nickname which would normally be of no significance or notability and dignifying it by allowing use of unreliable sources (the ones who use it) to document its uses. Odd situation. We're giving undue weight to a fringe POV because it apparently passed the basic notabilty criteria for an article here.

Sources like Herman Cain, Fox News, and James Woods are hardly reliable for anything other than their own POV. Such use must be attributed carefully and not presented as if it was true, just that it was stated as the fringe POV it is. This sentence is quite revealing, as it's unattributed and is the POV of the editor who wrote it above: "Scarborough was called out for his derangement and misrepresentation of facts by some media outlets." He's not deranged, nor did he misrepresent facts. On the contrary; he fact checks.

So how should we do this right? We shouldn't give undue weight to the phrase, but give more weight to the RS which show how misleading the phrase actually is.

Here's our lead:

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a neologism used by its adherents to describe a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump conservatives, who are said to respond to Trump's statements and political actions irrationally, with little regard to Trump's actual position or action taken."

It is not "irrational" to respond to Trump's falsehoods, immorality, ignorance, vile language, encouragement of racists and white supremacists, xenophobia, etc. with disgust. That "disgust" is the proper reaction, and we should not give undue weight to unreliable sources which try to portray that disgust as improper. Defenders of Trump and his actions are the ones who are acting irrationally and immorally.

My point is that we must reconsider how we weight the content here. We should do the same as we do with conspiracy theories; we briefly state the theory, with very limited use of a few unreliable sources, and then give much more weight to demonstrating how the conspiracy theory is wrong by using far more RS. If those RS don't exist in sufficient numbers, then the article subject does not have notability enough in RS to exist as an article. Unreliable sources do not establish weight. That's what we should be doing here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we must be careful not to treat the "syndrome" as if it was a real thing - rather than something one side accuses the other of. In my edit about Rand Paul I referred to it as a "supposed syndrome" and I think we need to do more of that, except when we are actually quoting someone. --MelanieN (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. There was even an (improper) addition by an IP, which made the point. Somehow that point needs to be made in a proper way. It's not a real syndrome, but a bullying nickname, akin to the nicknames used by Trump to denigrate his opponents, and they too are usually illegitimate. The "syndrome" is a symptom (smoke) caused by the "Trump disaster fire". As the fire gets worse, those warning about the dangerous fire will yell louder, and Trump's supporters consider that to be wrong. It's an "accelerating lies leads to increased debunking" situation, and professional fact checkers have actually documented a radical increase in the rate of deceptive statements coming from Trump. He's even tweeting fake statements never made by Obama. Debunking lies is not wrong. It's not some bad syndrome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course its not a medical or psychiatric affliction, but what do we do about those entities that clearly show a wildly bizarre "syndrome" when it comes to even the mention of Trump's name? This is merely a meme but there are enough RS to document it. As far as bullying, it's no more so than Clinton crazies, Vast right-wing conspiracy or Fascist (insult) that those that know nothing about fascism refer to Trump and or conservatives as.--MONGO (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that Trump's derangement doesn't cause people to be very upset, and in some cases exhibit symptoms of depression and worry. That's the normal reaction when faced with a catastrophe; it's a sign of sanity. The problem is that Trump and his supporters (Fox News, Rand Paul, etc.) misuse it to denigrate people who criticize Trump, when that criticism is often deserved. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion...a "catastrophe". Foxnews is NOT deemed an unreliable source by this website.--MONGO (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not Undue weight to a fringe subject. s not a symptom/syndrome, a sign of sanity, or fringe, it's a derangement, aka trump anxiety depression. IMO it's worth documenting. Yo! U just don't want it exposed... Bought the farm (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

? I think it's notable enough for coverage here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM also possible BLP violations PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MelanieN may I suggest change of "supposed syndrome" to "psychotic response" in the article. We could cite the Hannity monologue that I previously posted. Bought the farm (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Absolutely not. You are missing the whole point. This does not describe an actual psychotic response on the part of Trump's critics. This is a meme, a turn of phrase, partisan name-calling by Trump's defenders. It is not describing a real thing, any more than "Lying Ted" or "Little Marco" or "War on Women" is a real thing. Yes, Hannity calls it a "psychotic response"; that is not a real diagnosis, it's part of the name-calling. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Maybe I should explain my use of the term "fringe" above: (1) More voted for Clinton. Trump voters were a clear minority, but "minority" doesn't necessarily equal "fringe". Things have changed since then. (2) That minority has grown even smaller, as many Trump voters have regretted their vote. (3) What's left is current Trump supporters, a much smaller group who are indeed fringe. If it weren't for the fact that Trump is actually sitting in the WH, they would be ignored as a radical group of people divorced from reality, just like Trump. (4) Like Trump, they get their "news" from fringe, very unreliable, sources. Keep in mind that before Trump was elected, only 3% got their "news" from Breitbart (2014), yet Trump gets his "news" from them, InfoWars, and Fox & Friends, and he brought Bannon into the WH. Trump is a very fringe president. (5) Here we have a tiny subset of editors who try to include views from unreliable sources, and even try to use those sources as references. They lack the competence to vet sources, which seriously impacts their editing and discussions here. That is all very fringe by Wikipedia's standards. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN may I suggest change of "supposed syndrome" to "psychotic response" in the article??? We could cite the Hannity monologue that I previously posted. Bought the farm (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are missing the whole point. This does not describe an actual psychotic response on the part of Trump's critics. This is a meme, a turn of phrase, partisan name-calling by Trump's defenders. It is not describing a real thing, any more than "Lying Ted" or "Little Marco" or "War on Women" is a real thing. Yes, Hannity calls it a "psychotic response"; that is not a real diagnosis, it's part of the name-calling. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer regarding undue weight fringe articles, maybe you can explain the dichotomy between wiki articles Protests against Barack Obama and Protests against Donald Trump. do we see a problem here? Bought the farm (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Two very different people, so RS document very different things. We've never seen a president like this, and I suspect Trump would be very upset if he didn't get more and different coverage than others. Well, he's getting it. He is different, so our articles should be different. No doubt about that. Other things applies here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

One of the sources for the lede was Urban Dictionary [2], but the definition now at Urban Dictionary is the OPPOSITE of the way the term is actually used. It now says that the term applies to people who have been driven insane by their LOVE of Donald Trump. That is clearly not the actual meaning - demonstrating why we do not regard Urban Dictionary as a Reliable Source. Someone, in August 2018, replaced the original definition with a parody to make it mean the opposite. The original definition was no better; they are both totally partisan screeds. Rather than try to reconcile the obviously fraudulent definition that we now link to, I have removed Urban Dictionary as a source. But we really do need some more sources - neutral sources, not partisan - to establish what this is. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not think Urban Dictionary is ever a RS. They are community built if I am not mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Also along the lines of RS I do not think the addition of Know Your Meme in this case is reliable since the source says they are still researching it at the moment.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that Know Your Meme is not a reliable source. Delete it if you want. But I thought maybe we could use it in this case, because theirs is the single most straightforward definition of the term I have found so far. In fact their article is so well researched that I have already added a source they pointed me to - a probable first use of the term, in August 2015! --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it seems like a good definition, and generally I do not think they are not a RS. What concerns me is on that page it says "This submission is currently being researched & evaluated!". PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, somebody took it out as unreliable source. I can't argue with them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Trump anxiety disorder"

The article says that "Trump Anxiety Disorder" is a synonym of "Trump Derangement Syndrome". However, the paragraphs that define the two terms describe two entirely different things. Trump Derangement Syndrome is essentially irrational behavior, while Trump Anxiety Disorder is described as essentially rational concern about the state of America under the Trump presidency. I tried to resolve this by simply removing the recently added paragraph on Trump Anxiety Disorder arguing that it is a different topic, but I was immediately reverted. Deli nk (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Deli nk, I can see what you mean. Before making any serious attempt to deal with your concerns, I have improved the ref formatting and wording.

The two phrases are just two different ways of looking at the same "Trump induced anxiety" experienced by many who are worried about Trump's volatility. They are genuinely worried, enough to experience anxiety. Trump's supporters ridicule their reactions as irrational and call it "Trump derangement syndrome". Two sides of the same coin.

One solution might be to retitle the article to Psychological reactions to Trump's actions, or make this all part of a "Reactions" section at Presidency of Donald Trump and leave a redirect here. This article is far too long anyway. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is NOT about "psychological reactions to Trump's actions"; it is not about a real thing. It is a made-up term used to dismiss or ridicule any criticism of Trump. It is not based on people's actual "psychological reactions", which the users of the term have no way or knowing anything about. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We should not call these two terms "synonyms"; they are very different. "Trump derangement syndrome" is not a real thing; it is an insult used by Trump's supporters to characterize people who oppose him as irrational. "Trump anxiety disorder" is reality-based, describing the rational fear of some people about Trump. IMO we should not mention the "anxiety disorder" here at all. This is an article about political discourse; it's not about how real people feel about real things. We need to make that clearer, particularly in the lede. I would propose we start a discussion here about how to modify the lede to make it clearer that this is not a real thing; it's a phrase used by partisans. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph about "Trump anxiety disorder", which is clearly controversial and has been subject to some recent reverting. I also removed the "self-contradictory" tag, since that is not a problem if the "anxiety disorder" material is not included. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is important and noteworthy and deserves to br somewhere on this wiki. If not on this page perhaps it's own? --1.136.108.109 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 1.136, I’m glad you are here to talk about it. This was added yesterday by you. [4] In the time since, it has been challenged by Deli nk, restored by you, removed by me, and restored by you again, using a slightly different IP. So it is currently in the article, and I don’t want to revert again, but I suspect someone will. Here’s the situation: this is new content that has been challenged. In that situation, it needs discussion before it is restored. That discussion is what we are doing here. In the meantime you should not keep adding it; that is edit warring. As for the subject of “Trump anxiety disorder”, it seems to have received a little bit of notice [5], but certainly not enough for its own article. And if it is to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia, IMO it should not be here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, An article I've found claims Trump Derangement Syndrome is so prevalent, therapists have coined a real term for it. Liberals are reportedly still seeing therapists on a regular basis for their yet-unresolved TDS. Their condition has become so severe, in fact, that psychologists have assigned it its own unofficial name: Trump Anxiety Disorder. So it seems that TDS may be same thing as TAD... Bought the farm (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Bought the farm, PLEASE learn to evaluate your source before you come running to this page with another article, and another, and another. You can start to evaluate the source by looking to see if it has a Wikipedia article. If it doesn't, then forget it. If it does, read what kind of publication it is. This source, BizPac Review, says clearly that it is a conservative opinion site. Not a neutral or reliable source for this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

USES

Here's a new found usage to consider. tried to get good RS, but this was also broadcast on TV

• While speaking on the Senate floor in July 2018, Rand Paul declared that "Trump derangement syndrome has officially come to the Senate." He further claimed that the hatred for the president is "so intense" that some members of the Senate seemed more willing to risk rising tensions with Russia rather than to allow the Trump administration to pursue diplomatic efforts with Russian President Vladimir Putin.Bought the farm (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This would be worth mentioning, if we can find it in Reliable Sources (which The Daily Caller and The Washington Examiner aren't). I'll take a look. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

it was broadcast on C-Span, here is a link https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4741336/trump-derangement-syndrome Bought the farm (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a WP:primary source. But I actually found two times that Paul has talked like this, reported in reliable secondary sources. I think we could mention both times. How about something like this:

Senator Rand Paul has cited the supposed syndrome several times: in a July 16 interview where he said that investigators should simply focus on election security and stop "accusing Trump of collusion with the Russians and all this craziness that's not true" - accusations which he said were entirely motivated by "Trump derangement syndrome”; and again on July 19 on the Senate floor, when he objected to legislation proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders by saying "Trump derangement syndrome has officially come to the Senate. The hatred for the President is so intense that partisans would rather risk war than give diplomacy a chance."

--MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

that reads real good. I concur.Bought the farm (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN how/when does this get added to the article?

oops, just saw it under the DEFINITION section....

Bought the farm (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think it belongs under "definitions". And I see that his other comment is also there, under uses. And neither of them actually says what he is talking about. I think I will replace both of them by putting the above under Uses. While I am there I am going to trim the excessive use of quote boxes. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I see the edits and concur. Good job! now what about Joe Scarborough and his derangement??Bought the farm (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• In June 2017, Herman Cain identified MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough for taking "Trump Derangement Syndrome to a whole new level" and criticized him for his "poisonous vitriol" against Trump. Later, on the September 11, 2018, the day Trump designated as Patriot Day 2018, in honor of the hero's of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Fox News guest host Jedediah Bilah stated during the broadcast of The Five that Scarborough exposed himself as having the Trump Derangement Syndrome, citing the op-ed he posted in the The Washington Post that same day, that claiming Trump “has done more damage to the dream of America than any foreign adversary ever could.” Bought the farm (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. Two accusations, 15 months apart? Maybe we can trim it down some. The fact that Fox News hosts attack MSNBC hosts (and vice versa) is not exactly news. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand about the time frame involved, but that's only becuz no one wants to report about this guy - he's not the news. I've seen his daily show while in hotels, and his derangement [and Mika's] is exposed daily. Thus, the time frame may be proof positive of his issues. Agreed about Jedediah, but I did hear her USE it. Trim away... Bought the farm (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, here is an edit, and a trimming:

• In June 2017, Herman Cain identified MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough for taking "Trump Derangement Syndrome to a whole new level" and criticized him for his "poisonous vitriol" against Trump. Later, on the September 11, 2018, the day Trump designated as Patriot Day 2018, in honor of the hero's of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and of "every hero who has given their life since that day to protect our safety & our freedom", Scarborough posted on twitter and in an op-ed published in the The Washington Post that same day, claiming that Trump “has done more damage to the dream of America than any foreign adversary ever could.” Scarborough was called out for his derangement and misrepresentation of facts by some media outlets. Bought the farm (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Bought the farm (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Bought the farm (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Trim? That's actually longer! Still way too detailed. I'll work on it tomorrow. --MelanieN (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN a New trim and edit:

• In June 2017, Herman Cain identified MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough for taking "Trump Derangement Syndrome to a whole new level" and criticized him for his "poisonous vitriol" against Trump. Later, on the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a day Trump designated as Patriot Day 2018, Scarborough posted on twitter and in an op-ed published in the The Washington Post that same day, where he claimed that Trump “has done more damage to the dream of America than any foreign adversary ever could.” Scarborough was called out for his derangement and misrepresentation of facts by Trump's children and some media outlets. Bought the farm (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not using this level of detail for every "use" of the term. In most cases the "use" gets one sentence in our article. I would suggest something like this:

• Fox News host Jedediah Bila and Fox News guest Herman Cain have accused MSNBC host Joe Scarborough of suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

The only reference I could find for Bila was the Daily Caller, which is not usually regarded as a Reliable Source, but I think it can be regarded as reliable for reporting what Bila said. The other references you cite - Huffington Post and USA Today - do not say anything about Trump derangement syndrome and thus are no use here. This article is just about that particular phrase; it's not about every time Trump supporters object to something a Trump opponent said. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

this is a good compromise. Bought the farm (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

mmmm! you are killin' me. I'll try to do better I want to add relative items here..... Bought the farm (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiding behind the facts?? pro-active response to Hurricane Flo? seems ready to go... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bought the farm (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

sorry, off topic. but I hope we're ready for Flo Bought the farm (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! let's add Jedediah's content, which is valid to this topic... Bought the farm (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So let us all know about it...... Bought the farm (talk , I'm ready to add content.... —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

so, let's eat the lettuce of truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bought the farm (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if anyone else chimes in here - about whether to add anything, or what to add.Wikipedia works by consensus; let's see if anyone else has an opinion. There's no hurry. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd support adding a sentence about Scarborough. He has been doubling down on hyperbolic statements about Trump. Should be mentioned in his article as well. — JFG ^talk 10:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I added it. I also streamlined some of the other examples of "use"; we don't need a paragraph every time someone utters the phrase. I would also like to get rid of the clutter of Tweets; can't we just paraphrase? --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hannity called TDS a Psychosis during 9/13/2018 opening monologe referring to a Washington Post op-ed. Trump Derangement Syndrome Reaches New Heights' With WaPo Headline on Trump & Hurricanes - Paper declares Trump 'complicit' in deadly hurricanes Bought the farm (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC) (Hope you don't mind, Bought the farm, but I have moved your comment. Since this is another example of a "use" I have moved it here to the "use" section, from the "anxiety disorder" discussion below. There are multiple discussions going on here about multiple things, let's try to keep them in their own section.--MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC))

• In September 2018, the New York Times published an opinion editorial claiming "Trump Derangement Syndrome is a Myth". The article instead stated that "There is strong evidence that Trump has broken the law, both by obstructing justice and by using the presidency to enrich himself." Bought the farm (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

• That link doesn't work. Here's the right link. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

fixed it, thanx! Bought the farm (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

not sure if this belongs here

President Trump 'complicit' in storm. --1.136.108.109 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make any mention of the "syndrome", so no it does not belong here. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Putin derangement syndrome

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/09/trump-russia-us-sanctions-quiet-analysis —PaleoNeonate – 04:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this article

I would like an appropriate label placed on this article, indicating that its neutrality has been disputed, as I have just demonstrated.KhazWolf (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

See {{POV}}. Please follow the instructions in the How to use section there, and please also read WP:DUE. You'll probably need to mention supporting sources in your explanation here on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and miniscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

The idea that "Trump derangement syndrome" is a thing that exists is the view of a tiny minority, the very existence of this article is giving undue weight to it. This belongs on UrbanDictionary or KnowYourMeme. This is not medical science or psychology, this is a propaganda campaign designed to frame opposition to Trump as mental illness. The article at present includes ONE singular dissenting quote from CNN describing it as such, meanwhile the entire remainder of the article simply parrots people using this term as though it's a real thing.

I agree this should be documented, but how about we do so in the same manner that the original Bush Derangement Syndrome was documented: As a small subsection of the "Public image of George W. Bush" article. This article -in isolation- gives a distorted point of view that seems to grossly overestimate the impact of this term. Analysis of google search results shows that term spiked in popularity in mid July of 2018, and has in the few months since dropped back to irrelevance. This is a pattern indicative of fleeting meme content and NOT a real observable "medical condition".KhazWolf (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked closely at this but the proposal appears to me to conflict with WP:DUE. it appears to me that TDS has more weight than BDS ever did. Neither is regarded as a legitimate mental illness, but see Lee, Bandy X. (2017). The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-250-17946-3. The "tiny minority" appears to include John Gartner and over 60,000 mental health professionals who signed a petition circulated by an organization founded by Gartner which states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. [...]"; see Sword, Rosemary K.M.; Zimbardo, Philip (September 28, 2018). "Book review: 'The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump'". psychologytoday.com., which was a response to "Shrinks Battle Over Diagnosing Donald Trump". psychologytoday.com. January 31, 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I just re-read the above, and it is clear that I veered off track. The proposal sought to minimize assertions that some Trump detractors are deranged, and my disagreeement highlighted the reportability weight of assertions that Trump is deranged -- not the same thing at all. Apeing Emily Litella, I'll say, "never mind" here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump Derangement Syndrome

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" first appeared on Twitter in early February, 2017. Three tweeters were trying to come up with a phrase to describe the hatred of President Trump that people were continuing to exhibit after his inauguration. "Trump Hysteria Syndrome" and "Trump Hysteria Disorder" were suggested but "Trump Derangement Syndrome" caught on primarily because tweeter Philip Schuyler used it regularly for months. Other tweeters, then people on Facebook, then the New York Post, and finally Fox News picked up the phrase. 172.100.197.132 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Philip Schuyler

Wikipedia:Attack page

Wikipedia:Attack page An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. I will try anyway delete the page, because there about living people who can be hurt with such page. PoetVeches (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

PoetVeches, this is not an attack page as it has encyclopedic value. If you have specific concerns with the content of the page you may raise them here, but deleting pages is not a means of dispute resolution. Bradv🍁 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• What about Wikipedia:Attack page? ″An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject″ PoetVeches (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  PoetVeches, the key word is "primarily". This page exists in order to document a notable topic, and therefore does not meet the definition of an attack page. Bradv🍁 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is the subject of this page that they are being disparaged or attacked? SCAH (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Lol PoetVeches (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

    PoetVeches, these are serious responses to what we took to be an earnest question. Please elaborate, lest your comments be interpreted as trolling. Bradv🍁 18:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

    • Probably, you are right, but I ask just in case Wikipedia:Teahouse#Teahouse question by PoetVeches, all people there said I was wrong. Then apology to all if I was a bit rude or like that. User:PoetVeches 19:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries, it's a common misunderstanding of what WP:ATTACK is about. That page could probably benefit from some clarification. Bradv🍁 19:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute the neutrality, but...

The first sentence is a bit odd to me. It almost sounds non-neutral. I'd rather it read, "Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a neologism describing a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by various of his opponents..." or something like that. The part of the sentence "liberals, progressives, and Never Trump neoconservatives" reads almost like a very specific enemies list. Can't a Never Trump old school conservative have the syndrome too? Or just a contractor Trump might have stiffed? Also, saying it "describes a reaction" sort of makes it seem that TDS is definitely a real thing. I'm not saying it's not a real thing, but is the article supposed to read as though it is? Perhaps "describes an alleged reaction?" Or "describes an accusation?" Because, it seems to me, unless it has been established that TDS is a thing, we're talking about an accusation. Further, I don't think there is supposed to be a comma after 'neoconservatives' and before 'who' since the who clause is not optional. And, no. I don't have TDS. :) Yarkinator (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The term is used by Trump's supporters

Kinda obvious but I guess some people like to pretend otherwise. So here's a source [6]. Likewise, the fact that this is a rhetorical strategy to try and discredit any valid criticism of Trump is also well sourced, so please stop removing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is sourced from the article The origin of the term is traced to political columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer... himself a harsh critic of Trump so how does it reconcile and why are you rewriting a neutral lead without concensus? Why did you remove the LA Times and why did you cut-and-paste content from the body to the lead? Explain these changes. Cestlavieleir (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources for its use by Trump supporters are above. Krauthammer coined the term Bush derangement syndrome. And who coined it may very well be different from who uses it. As for the rest, I'm afraid you have it backwards. YOU're removing a sentence from the lede that's been there for awhile.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the sources for Krauthammer? Apparently not. This edit [7] you cut-and-pasted text from the body into the lead, causing a citation error. It wasn't there in any version before yours. If you insist it was there's an easy way to settle that, give the link. Cestlavieleir (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump Derangement Syndrome - Type A vs. Trump Derangement Syndrome - Type B

I first noticed Trump Derangement Syndrome a couple of years ago. I noticed it on TV and in social media and it was a bizarre phenomenon. People were crazily against Donald Trump and it was consuming them. People that I had admired were constantly tweeting weird and sometimes hateful things about the president to a point that I forgot why I had liked them in the first place. In a word they were “triggered”.

In recent days I have come to realize that there are actually two Trump Derangement syndromes, so I have labeled them Type A and Type B. Type A is the one that this article refers to. Type B is essentially the opposite. I have encountered pathological Trump supporters that regurgitate tired arguments, ignore facts, cling to irrelevant details and seemingly support Trump no matter what he does at any cost for specious and bizarre reasons.

I would like to create a separate article for Trump Derangement Syndrome - Type B and I would like to call Trump Derangement Syndrome in this article Type A. Is that ok? Do you have any thoughts or ideas? Any input will be appreciated. Thanks. Jasonagastrich (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that if reliable sources support the concept of the two (and ideally one treating of the two to prevent synthesis), it may be best to describe them both in this article to avoid creating a WP:POVFORK risking deletion. —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I took your advice and added TDS-B to the existing article. Good idea. Take care. Jasonagastrich (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jasonagastrich: It seems you did not fully take PaleoNeonate's advice. In order to add "TDS-B", you need to back it up with reliable sources. You only cited Urban Dictionary, which is not a RS (the encyclopedia cannot rely on user-generated content); moreover this source does not even call the phenomenon "TDS-B", so that the naming is original research. There might be sources out there that make your case, and you'll have to find them or keep this out. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

To me ignorance is not bliss. Jasonagastrich (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if you find sufficient sourcing for the existence of a "type B", you can't give it a name yourself. I don't think this is going to work. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Page Protected

Due to persistent disruptive editing, despite multiple short term page protections, and invoking WP:ACDS, I have applied indefinite extended confirmed protection to this article. I apologize for any inconvenience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

The term derogatory needs to be removed as derogatory is an opinion and community users should remain bias. AdamNeuegebauer (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

TDS is not a real thing, it is only an insult Trump supporters use anytime someone disagrees with them.

"TDS" is an insult used by Donald Trump supporters and it should not be dignified as being a real thing in an encyclopedia which purports to present itself as a real encyclopedia, it cheapens and demeans Wiki and I for one was dismayed to see it here pretending to be a real thing. Someone I spoke with here today said that this article did not say that TDS was a medical condition, it doesn't have to, "syndrome" is a medical condition without qualification: It is a medical term and obviously there is no syndrome called Trump Derangement Syndrome in any DSM I have ever read, and Krauthammer was not a practicing psychiatrist anyway and any MD who diagnoses anyone with anything would have to make that diagnosis in person even if it were a real psychiatric condition which it is not. "A syndrome is a set of medical signs and symptoms that are correlated with each other and, often, with a particular disease or disorder.[1] The word derives from the Greek σύνδρομον, meaning "concurrence".[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndrome

I would like to open this up for deletion. Bobyoung53 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bobyoung53: If you'd like this article deleted, the appropriate process is explained at WP:AFD. Given the extensive coverage of the topic in reliable sources, though, there is little chance of success. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. See Kessler syndrome, Stockholm syndrome, Paris syndrome, China syndrome, Empty nest syndrome. 172.56.7.140 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Loch Nsss Monster, Big Foot, and lots of deities aren't real either, but people want to know about them. Answering those questions is why Wikipedia exists. Teishin (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The primary definition of TDS (first paragraph) cites 4 sources: CNN, AP, Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. Given these organisation's negative bias towards Trump (as reported by CNN themselves), this would seem a poor choice of source. If TDS is, in fact, a real phenomenon then it is reasonable to suppose that these organisations are inflicted and, therefore, the least able to define the phenomenon. The people who coined and use the term should be cited to define it so that the definition reflects the meaning intended when the term is used. 62.255.48.40 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Edit: further, I would say that the current (at time of writing) cited definition should be given in a "Criticisms" section, since the definition posed by these sources seeks to illegitimise the term.

I don't agree with this characterization at all. People who are indifferent or disdainful of the entire political class may use the term. I Would like to see a more neutral tone here. Trump has found a way to get under the skin of his opponents. Observing their hysteria is non-partisan. The term TDS may be used by non-partisan bystanders or those who do not support Trump. If you can't see this, then you might be too close to the issue. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Blatant contradiction in article

The first couple of phrases define TDS as a "derogatory term for criticism of, or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are alleged to be irrational and have little regard towards Trump's actual positions or actions taken." And claim that "the term has been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of his actions, as a way of "reframing" the discussion by suggesting his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world." Yet the definition of the term is credited, among others, to Fareed Zakaria and Charles Krauthammer, critics of trump who defined the term as "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment" and "Trump-induced 'general hysteria' among the chattering classes, producing an 'inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology' in the President's behavior". Neither of these are meant to discredit critics of the president.

So which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.88.206 (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Some "weasel words" here

"...a derogatory term for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump that are alleged to be irrational..."

So would you describe unicorn as "a word for an animal alleged to have one horn"? I doubt it. It's a word for an animal that has one horn. The accuracy of the usage is a different matter. Similarly, idiot doesn't mean "a person alleged to be stupid", it means "a person who is stupid". The fact that a term can sometimes be misapplied does not change the intended meaning of the term, and I suspect that the start of this article is showing a touch of non-neutrality with the aim of discrediting certain groups. Equinox ◑ 16:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated, because I read "for" as meaning "used for" and I wouldn't say "idiot" is "a derogatory term used for people who are stupid". That would imply that all people who are called idiot are actually stupid. Similarly, without "are alleged to", I would read the opening sentence as implying that all criticism called TDS actually is irrational. You could also interpret "for" as "meant for" and then you're totally right. There has to be a way to rewrite it so that it can't be over-interpreted either way. 81.82.243.8 (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree, and I'll point to MSNBC, in the hostile actions that Iran was preforming they went from suggesting Trump was going to drop the bomb, to calling him weak for not going to war, to calling him a war monger, to calling him weak again for not going to war with Iran. That's not logical thinking, that's taking a paranoid contrarian stance. That is where TDS is used. It's also used for people that attack, verbally and physically, anyone that they don't agree with. This is paranoia and pathology. You see the term used to describe someone that throws an egg at a man just for wearing a red hat, you don't see it used for someone that sits down ant actually has a dialogue. (98.228.230.125 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

The description of this syndrome is inaccurate to what Conservatives actually use and mean by this. This is phrased from a pretty biased standpoint, and since it is a conservative-used and conservatively-created phrase, it should be described from someone who actually understands the meaning. My edit suggestion is as follows:

Description of what TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome): The Conservative-made phrase to mean someone who has lost sense of reality out of negativity and hate directed towards Donald Trump. Specifically aimed to those who scream, attack, incoherently speak, and refuse to slow down to have a respectful conversation about their political views. 50.35.122.45 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source that says TDS is "that are alleged to be irrational"? It should simply say "that are irrational". Putting the opinionated word "alleged" there is violating NPOV. And the accuser should always be the first one to produce evidence, not the defendant. So in this case, you should produce evidence that this is "alleged", not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.160.35 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Revert Chicago Tribune line-

Also in July 2018, Eric Zorn stated in the Chicago Tribune that "'Trump Derangement Syndrome' afflicts Trump supporters more than it does critics of the president" as it is "the delusion suffered by those who still think he’s going to make this country a better place for average people."

It's an opinion of the columnist without any factual basis. This article is already loaded with weasel words, it doesn't need pure conjecture to boot Slywriter (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This term was originally coined to describe CONSERVATIVES, for their unreasonable and baseless hatred of Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was adapted to describe the same in relation to Barack Hussein Obama. After being used to describe slobbering Republicans in their cilt-like worship of Donald John Trump, Trump cult followers plagiarized the term to describe people who did not spend their lives worshipping Trump. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Another biased wiki article

Unsurprisingly, this article is again completely skewed towards "conspiracy theory" type labeling. Even mainstream sources disagree with the skewness of this article:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/03/its_worse_than_bush_derangement_syndrome__132696.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201901/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-real-mental-condition

Have fun "unbiased" editors! 2601:602:9200:1310:C1E3:118A:73EB:2BA2 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also add: https://psmag.com/news/research-suggests-trumps-election-has-been-detrimental-to-many-americans-mental-health

Including many of the sublinks, linking to peer-reviewed studies, testimonial claims by experts, suggesting that this is a definable clinical entity. Journalists do not qualify as reliable sources in refuting the existence of a purported psychiatric condition. Watchman21 (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There's not much sense in crying about a satirical term first generated in response to psychologically unhinged haters of Hillary Clinton, for whom this term was originally derived as a description of. Afterward,it was modified to describe Obama Haters, then Trump Lovers.

It's an inherently biased term regardless of use, so your complaining is absurd to say the least. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)