Talk:Trump derangement syndrome/Archive 2

Deletion of questions
There was a who and whom question in the first paragraph. I deleted both. This change was made to the article on July 18, 2018; after Donald Trump himself talked about the "trump derangement syndrome" on a twitter post. The purpose of this change was to make the article seem more dubious and wasn't directed at the article itself but coincides with the publication of the twitter post. This is an obvious attempt but regarding whoever made the "whom" and "who" change; there are many references to check in the bottom of the page. There is a journal paper which did a meta analytic study confirming bias on both sides and talks about this derangement syndrome, if someone is interested check on google scholar. I'm not citing it as I don't feel it to be that important for my time. You can add it in reference, just follow wiki citation rules. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2952510

not signing my post, someone edit the formatting. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmraihan (talk • contribs) 18 July 2018 14:43 (UTC)

Trump's abuse of a term and subjagation of it is not a reference to the derivation of that term, first coined to describe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Haters, then cultist Trump Lovers.

HDS and it's consequent conditions are real. Those suffering them should seek help. It's available. Through Obamacare, even. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede relies on Op-Ed pieces
Curious as to why this article's lede, which undoubtedly has numerous watchers, is allowed to rely on 3 sources that are clearly opinion and not news stories.

This may be a difficult topic to cover without relying on opinion pieces but if that's the case then it should be using attributions and not speaking in the voice of Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. None of the authors qualify as WP:RS in psychiatry, psychology or sociology, and they are expressing evaluative opinions rather than factual claims. WP:NPOV stipulates lede should be clarified to specify partisan opinions where appropriate (including contrary opinions for balance), or they should be removed. Watchman21 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A satirical term derived by a clinical psychologist to describe Hillary haters (HDS), then Obama Haters(ODS), and, finally, Trump Lovers (TDS).

As is typical, unoriginal right singers plagiarized the term. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2019
Remove the link on Michael Goodwin in the "Examples of Use" section. It links to the article of an architect of the same name who died in 2011, not the presently active New York Post columnist who is being referred to who doesn't presently have a Wikipedia article. Deep Gabriel (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2019
Remove the text below as it a columnist's opinion whose only purpose is to insult one side of a political debate (yes, I appreciate the irony given the topic):

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".[29] Slywriter (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unless a sourced statement is challenged presenting undue weight, which this is not, it is still a valid piece of information to include. Almost all usages of a term such as this will be, by the very nature of the term, opinions.  Removing them solely because they are opinions would leave nothing left.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discredit criticisms
Can we get a single source for this claim? "The use of the term has been called part of a broader GOP strategy to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions, as a way of "reframing" the discussion by suggesting his political opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.9.97 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This source is used to support it, which is then reflected in the lead, a summary of the article:
 * — Paleo Neonate  – 04:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * — Paleo Neonate  – 04:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Bret Baier's use
Hello to the Wikipedia powers that be! I originated this article and was hoping to write about the reviving of its use for 2020 by Bret Baier, as several articles were written about it, including articles from Newsweek and The Hill. It looks like I have to get approval to edit the article because I have made less than 500 edits.JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You would most likely just have to request edits here on this talk page on the form "please change X to Y". You could also copy it over to your sandbox and request that your changes be implemented. It is possible to request an extended-confirmed status at WP:PERM, but it is rarely granted. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JimmyPiersall (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There are actual examples out there of the TDR
Saira Rao has downright claimed Trump is the guy directly responsible to blame for the downing of Flight 752 and the 176 killed. Leave your biases aside (and you guys know this site is not the most credible around, and you're only making it worse for everyone) and add some counterexamples. The bias is seeping through in this article.

And what happened to the page evaluation thing?

By the way, could we create a Politician Derangement Syndrome category to compile every instance of the therm being thrown around under a single catch all page? This thing is not healthy for public discourse and the public at large should know this is nothing new. Trump is in the spotlight because he's the president right now. Hillary had his own HDR. Obama had his own ODR. I don't remember Bush having his own, but I'm not old enough to, so I trust the page. I would say Trump and Hillary had the biggest PDR around them, but that's just my impression. They're some of the first Social Media era politicians (was Obama first?). Social Media is still a relativelly new thing and we have yet to study it's impact on our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thauã Aguirre (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2020
Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a derogatory term for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump

delete "derogatory", as their is NO basis for classing the term as derogatory, as the creator is a qualified psychiatrist and was expressing his medical opinion. Other people may use TDS as a derogatory term, but the author/creator did not do so. Many qualified psychiatrists made the same observation and opinion. If the term "derogatory" is permitted to remain, it requires a citation to explain why it is derogatory, and not just medical opinion, based upon observation by the psychologist who coined the term TDS. Without citation, this is just opinion based on a political view. Gregfjones (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Qualified psychiatrists actually should not do remote diagnoses any more than unqualified ones should. So, his job does not help him. Rather than delete the word on the grounds of dubious original research, the term "derogatory" should be kept and sourced, if there is a good source. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Additional use
TDS was recently referenced in a CNN Coronavirus town hall:. AppliedCharisma (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The fallacy of Trump Derangement Syndrome
Most criticisms of Donald Trump leave out "the end of the sentence". By that I mean accusations are hurled around without explaining what they mean. "He's the worst president in history, (because....). He will destroy the country, (because....). etc. That gives a lot of fair-minded people the impression that these charges are just political, have little basis in fact and are just designed to destroy his presidency, and/or preserve the "Deep State" which is comprised of millions of square feet of granite edifices, and hundreds of thousands of the highest paid employees in the country: Loudoun County, Va., $129,588. Fairfax County, Va., $117,515. Howard County, Md., $115,576. Falls Church City, Va., $114,795. Arlington County, Va., $112,138. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.33.54 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only used by supporters
This is not just used by his supporters. Even some people against him does it.--185.26.63.40 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * More specifically, Trump critics often say that it's Trump's supporters who are the deranged ones. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you I thought the exact same thing. Example: A Gary Johnson supporter (Libertarian) can still use the term and recognize who has TDS. This person by no means has to be a Trump supporter.DrDareFH (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Use of TDS isn't simply used to try to discredit criticism. It's used to describe various irrational behaviors exhibited by people who aren't making arguments beyond "I dislike Trump."  Things like theft of campaign signs, theft of apparel, theft of other forms of property, assault.

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/08/18/the-trump-yard-sign-stealing-epidemic-has-gotten-seriously-out-of-hand-in-massachusetts

https://nypost.com/video/man-steals-teens-maga-hat-and-throws-a-drink-in-his-face/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/29/video-woman-grabs-uc-riverside-students-trump-hat-begs-campus-officials-to-stop-him-from-wearing-it/ https://www.newsweek.com/criminal-acts-trump-maga-hats-1357179

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/deputies-florida-doctors-trump-flag-arrested-70158639

https://nypost.com/2019/10/01/video-shows-antifa-group-block-elderly-couples-path-yell-nazi-scum/

Maybe add something to the initial blurb "TDS is also used to describe actions by Trump critics that others might find irrational."

2601:249:1002:10D0:28D0:6849:EB28:7B1E (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * YAAAAAWN. Nice try. Wikipedia only cares about facts covered by reliable sources. Assuming all the articles are from reliable sources, they bear no relevance unless they specifically attribute this behavior to "trump derangement syndrome". 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets add Trump-China bank
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/24/trump-biden-china-debt-205475 https://www.google.com/search?q=china+bank+retraction+trump&oq=china+bank+retraction+trump That was a real beauty. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:3073:140:AA00:A551 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lets add Trump signing actually in the right place in Nafta 2.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement#Status_(signatures_and_ratifications) All 3 of them sign in first box of the first copy they get. You can see how Justin and Pena's signatures are swapped in the copies that are held up (https://i.imgur.com/iS5PtKK.png) and that all 3 start writing on the left (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvM1wjpC48&t=1142). Many TDS people said Trump did something wrong there; this is false. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone made an error, which turns out to be wrong, is "deranged"? Are there any reliable sources for that unhinged categorization? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you just said that I have TDS? Lol. No, it is pretty bad, look it up on twitter. https://twitter.com/MuhammadLila/status/1069609790802784257?s=19 Insanity. A source, that is not (?) RS https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/trump-trudeau-trade-deal-signature And worst nobody there is debunking it, not like with that moking jurnalist and animal-people. 2A00:1370:812C:B802:159B:788A:1E5:3A53 (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, this answer is no. The Buzzfeed source does not mention "derangement". Neither does the Twitter source (but even if it did, we wouldn't be able to use it.) The only person who makes the connection between this incident and "TDS" is some random person on the internet, namely you.
 * "According to the Wikipedia IP user 2A00:1370:812C:B802:159B:788A:1E5:3A53 [1], this incident [2] is an example of TDS"? This is not how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This Russian IP is trolling here and other places. I just removed some of it. They are NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

TDDS: Trump Defense Derangement Syndrome
While " derangement syndrome" has been a "thing" for at least 2 decades (Bush derangement syndrome, Obama derangement syndrome, Trump derangement syndrome), these tend to apply to the opposition to the President and his policies. The countervailing derangement (knee-jerk defense of the sitting president) generally did not exist to any appreciable degree. In both previous syndromes, the defenders of the president were often rational, factual, educated and erudite in their defense, only using the "derangement syndrome" label for obviously emotional and/or baldly partisan attacks. TDS is different from the previous two, often the Presidential defender dismisses all arguments/questions as "TDS" without any other comment of rebuttal. When/if the argument continues, they dismiss all facts, arguments, questions, opinions as "hatred of Trump" driven and offer no factual rebuttals. The TDS users often seem to have no valid facts arguments to offer. Here are a selection of documented examples from reliable sources, they contain the use of TDS as an epithet with zero defense, they do NOT contain references to TDDS, I may have just invented that to describe this phenomenon.


 * Senator Rand Paul blames TDS and denies all factual arguments (2018)
 * https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/rand-paul-donald-trump-russia-cnntv/index.html


 * Charles Krauthammer, psychologist and coiner of the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" phrase (2017), it's an opinion but he has gravitas on this issue
 * https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/08/krauthammer-trump-derangement-syndrome-is-spreading/


 * Semi-opinion, but has references to back up the argument (2017)
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/the-trump-derangement-syndrome-dodge/527154/


 * WaPo summation of Trump's defense lawyer's arguments, fact-free (2020)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/25/trumps-lawyers-are-absolutely-entitled-their-own-facts/


 * Offered as evidence that Trump detractors have documentation to dispute Trump's "facts" WaPo archive of Trump (2020)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_21


 * Scholarly article from a Canadian Psychiatric researcher, in Psychology Today (2019)
 * https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201901/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-real-mental-condition

JBashaw (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "I may have just invented that" - since we have WP:OR, this makes it unusable for the article. The current president's mental condition is indeed more contagious for his adherents than for his opponents, but sadly, only the second way of infection has been given a name in sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia. This is the wrong place. You should instead go to a forum to propagate your neologism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional Example - Conrad Black in the National Review
Conrad Black claims a wide array of people have it in this article https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/trump-derangement-syndrome/ 198.52.130.137 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider deletion of page
Info presented here in is subjective and nothing more than a passing meme. Depending on who you talk to, the definitions are different. Nothing in this article is factual and therefore should be removed from wikipedia. Articles like this should be left to knowyourmeme.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4D40:6740:8D3A:7572:3E4A:23A4 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Reconsider allowing the TDS page to be edited
The TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) page as it is now is factually inaccurate and and opinionated rather than objective, and it needs to be corrected. The implicit and explicit bias expressed in the page delegitimizes Wikipedia as a reputable source. Amy Schucks (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Due to past experience, Wikipedia users prefer to be asked on the Talk page to "change A to B" and say no, to letting rookies replace A by B and reverting that.
 * Just say "change A to B". Either it will work, or you will get an explanation why it did not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This page is so biased that it cannot be considered worthy of keeping. I love Wikipedia AND support it financially every month. THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE EDITED. In the past year, I have noted facts that are changed and pages edited to delete information and FACTS from previous years because the facts were not confirmation of the current media bias. PLEASE allow edits to keep WIKI important and trustworthy! Ritakc (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020
This is all bias and not backed by any fact, further proof is that the page is locked. There are more sources that state TDS is an actual condition that affects mental health than those that say it is just an excuse used by Trump supporters. No wonder everyone says Wikipedia is unreliable. 2600:100E:B13A:527A:F435:A04:A7A7:7254 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No idea how it was when the article was written but it's clearly outdated. Whenever I see it used it's mostly to justify any wrongdoings by Trump's opponents. Here's a prime example: https://twitter.com/suerb2/status/1316445758556647424 https://twitter.com/SVanHoot/status/1316454692197732353 OR the exact opposite. Examples: https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpDerangementSyndrome

But really I think it should just be deleted. It's nothing more than a passing meme everyone will forget the instant Trump leaves office.194.39.99.8 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong take
trump derangement syndrome actually refers to his supporters who have fallen deep into his deceitful cult of personality. I would like to change it to reflect this truth if you'd let me edit. H0pele$0uL (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect definition
The opening sentence defines this as "Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term for criticism or negative reactions to United States President Donald Trump ...". This is inaccurate. TDS doesn't refer to the criticism or the reactions per se. It refers to a supposed mental disorder that causes people to (unduly) criticize Trump. As the CNN reference says, quoting Urban Dictionary: "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition..." This is the correct definition. TDS refers to the supposed underlying mental condition that causes the criticism, not to the critcism itself. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi this is my first post, so I hope I do alright. I do not mean any disrespect, and I just wanted to give my thoughts on this topic.

The last sentence in this definition is incorrect. It is currently being disputed whether Biden or Trump won the election by news sources due to significant voter irregularities and statistical evidence of fraud (as well as other evidence) which can effect the overall outcome. Therefore, Trump has not lost the election at this point as it is in dispute. Moreover, the CNN source used can be countered by many other sources and additional evidence of bias against the Trump administration by CNN would warrant another source possibly? The definition can appear antagonistic and a distortion of the truth to those who have seen significant evidence of media malpractice over the course of the election and Trumps first term in office. CThomasFox (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing, Wikipedia editors can only use reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. Now you may personally find CNN (or WaPo or NYT) an undesirable source but they have a track record for stating facts in articles. The sources that counter them - the sources that state Trump won the Election or the Election is in dispute do not have the same track record. Either they are relatively new, glorified blogs, or have a habit of mixing fact and fiction. Wikipedia has numerous resources dedicated to determining which sources can be used and you can read up on them at WP:RS.


 * Now why did I say all that? Because if you believe you have sources that meet the reliable sources standards of wikipedia that contradict or add details to this article, you can bring them to this talk page and editors will happily look and work to add information that comes from a Reliable Source. Just realize wikipedia's standard for said source is likely higher than your own. Slywriter (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "It is currently being disputed [...]." Yes,, by a fringe who charge fraud but fail to come up with examples. has rightly pointed out the importance of secondary sources; but if you'd like a bang up-to-date (4 January) primary source, I warmly recommend this denial by judge James E. Boasberg of a motion (by the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, et al) for preliminary injunction. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

vote for delete
This page will be deleted unless sufficient votes are submitted to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.92.254 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

How can I vote to have it kept and corrected in some ways? CThomasFox (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The page should remain. This is popular verbage within conservative circles. Also, this article is completely loaded with political opinions. i.e. it is used to discredit criticism? Sure, that's an interpretation, but by and large it's used to point out to over emotionally reactions to Trump's actions. It's no more than that, how it is used can only be an opinion because there is clearly little study into how it is used, so anyone or any source implying anything is doing so out of their own experience which is irrelevant to discussion the concept by and large. Also, it should be quite clear that using political sources is at odds when discussing anything Trump related because guess what, most political news outlets and commentators hate Trump. We are meant to be going for impartiality and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:440C:137B:200:7D0A:E6FA:8D66:A67A (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
This is obviously written by someone with TDS. This is not the definition of TDS. People with TDS just hate Trump to hate him because it's the "cool" thing to do. It is ridiculous how you on the left is so scared of Trump and his supporters. You get so triggered. 1984 is here! 2600:1016:B01B:C101:38EB:FD6E:895E:1EF3 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No change proposed. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 23:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
This is obviously written by someone with TDS. This is not the definition of TDS. People with TDS just hate Trump to hate him because it's the "cool" thing to do. It is ridiculous how you on the left is so scared of Trump and his supporters. You get so triggered. 1984 is here! 2600:1016:B01B:C101:38EB:FD6E:895E:1EF3 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No change proposed. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 23:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Liberal bias
This article absolutely was written by someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome, he is trying to distort the symptoms and actually is claiming contrary narrative. Of course people with TDS will try to use it for their continuing hatred of Trump and as political narrative. They are exaggerating claiming that when someone uses the term is applying it to every Trump critic. This is a known strategy, trying the delegitimization of the term by saying it’s political tool or by exaggerating it’s frequency of usage which they’re trying to claim here that it’s used always when a critic statement is directed at Trump... laughable. TDS is about people that hate Trump so strongly that they can’t act rationally, i.e. everything Trump supports becomes bad, everyone Trump allies himself to becomes evil, and so on. These people are sick, mentally mega sensitive. These people use absurdly aggressive and disrespectful words towards their political opponents (Like Hillary Clinton calling her opponents “a bunch of deplorables”) and more acts typically made by mentally ill people, but with hate and political convenience behind it (They are more conscious than most mentally ill people). Which actually brings to the topic the possibility of some kind of psychopathic reality. These peoples are not the majority, but only the most extremists of the Democratic Party’s militants. Clinton, cited above, is included on it, extremists tend to be very popular and gain power within a movement, that’s how the masses acts, they like strong passions and unrelenting leaders. Probably some of the responsible for CNN’s daily news are also in this list, because what happens there is not healthy: Attacking a person systematically for years with no respite or pause in order to not looking so hateful and combative. So this is not about what people with TDS here claim, it’s not exaggerated, it’s about some people who are for some reason very upset when this term comes to light. Cheers and sorry for the possible mistakes in my spelling of English, which is my 2nd language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D55:2A12:571:642F:51AA:38F7:8D34 (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. Read WP:SOAPBOX. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * TDS is a fabrication to gaslight so as to persuade people that outlier behavior is normal. But your English is quite good. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or downplaying of TDS could be taken as gaslighting to persuade that normal behavior is outlier; Neither is appropriate on WP talk pages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't expect to get much sympathy when you accuse other editors of liberal bias, don't expect them to help you change the article. I don't think the article says that every criticism of Trump is identified as TDS. It quotes Fareed Zaria who says it is "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people's judgment." Obviously there will always be people like that, whether their anger is directed at Republican or Democratic presidents. The question is distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Trump and TDS. TFD (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Out of place sentence
Under usage, there is a seemingly random off topic sentence about the entire 3d chess phrase. The prose in question : Some Trump supporters have asserted that he plays a form of "multi-dimensional chess" on a mental level his critics cannot comprehend, which they say explains why critics are frustrated and confused by Trump's words and actions.[21][22][23][24]

I'm an ip so I can't edit this out, plus it has four sources so it probably needs discussion. What does this sentence have to do with TDS, the subject of the article? If it is related, the prose should relate it to the topic. The sources do not mention TDS. This may belong in another article about defense of trump, or 3d chess or something, but it does not seem related to TDS 107.202.75.102 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2022
Delete "so-called" in the sentence: Senator Rand Paul has cited the so-called syndrome several times Ihuntley122 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternative definition
This new definition derogatorily describing the rabid nature of Trump followers has been picked up by many outlets and is now widely used.

2602:306:8014:A610:F56E:7190:2C66:583F (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

involuntary appeal to authority creates confusion
I suggest removing the "a psychiatrist" in the Origin of term section.

Krauthammer was a high-level psychiatrist but the man 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 article, not in a process of scientific studies. It's not medicine, adding "psychiatrist" to the already sufficient "political columnist and commentator" looks like some unnecessary forced credibility, and gives the wrong idea. 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 jokes in a light-hearted political article about the most extreme anti-Bush people, his field of psychiatry being an angle for the jokes. Feel free to check source to confirm :

So long story short, mentioning him being a psychiatrist in this context seems irrelevant and misleading. (Edit : just realized there was an "edit request" function but can't find it)

I read the archives, oh boy it's scary lol I'm trying to be careful with this sensitive topic Tetrarque (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request Proposed Change
Before using the specific edit request template, I would propose this minor change to the introduction:

I suggest changing "Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term usually for criticism or negative reactions to former United States President Donald Trump"

to

"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term usually reserved for criticism or negative reactions to former United States President Donald Trump"

...or in the case of necessary prose, any good alternative word. I feel like there was intent to include this, or something similar as an adjective in this sentence. If my suggestion is incorrect for any reason, please feel free to ignore me! King keudo (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thisappears to be the first time "usually" appeared in this part of the lead. Until this change, the sentence read "Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term for criticism or negative reactions to" - and the qualifier 'usually' was not present. My edit suggestion also includes changing back to this sentence structure, as opposed to adding an adjective. Either option seems acceptable, without changing the sourced claims or requiring additional citations, I believe. King keudo (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Copy Edit Request
"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term usually for criticism or negative reactions to former United States President Donald Trump"
 * What I think should be changed:

to

"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term usually reserved for criticism or negative reactions to former United States President Donald Trump"

or "Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term for criticism or negative reactions to former United States President Donald Trump"

The lead original read as "Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term for criticism or negative reactions to" until a change added 'usually' which broke the sentence. Unfortunately, this has persisted.
 * Why it should be changed:

No citations to add, this is intended to only be a copy edit to fix this sentence. King keudo (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


 * Fixed by comma – small jars 12:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition
Can you use an example of Wikipedia editors locking and only allowing edits that don't break their Trump hating narrative. It fits perfectly for TDS. 2603:7080:D601:CF00:DDA1:2D3A:AE2E:77E4 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source to support this? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, normally we'd just delete the comment as a violation of WP:FORUM and waste of time, but maybe an explanation is in order. We don't delete comments for the reasons asserted. We delete them because they are often trolling, misuse of talk pages, or based on so extreme partisanship or ignorance that we won't waste time on them.
 * The lesson to be learned is that comments should be based on reliable sources (RS), knowledge of the article's contents, and suggest positive changes that will improve the article (please change this to that), and the RS should be provided with the suggested improvement. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This article should be removed. It present a political spin as a medical condition which is not. This political spin will have a better place into the maga movement page presented as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.113.225 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As above, this talk page is not a forum. Please don't change items in the banner on this page without consensus, either. King keudo (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition
The current definition of mere "impaired judgment" is too broad, and would include the cognitive biases that afflict us all. TDS is distinguished by fixation, e.g. the frequent injection of Trump into discussion of unrelated topics. A complete lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5D:5800:F9:B474:C8F7:CDF5:14BE (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Voting to add (pejorative term) on title of this page
This is not real syndrome, because when someone view name of this page on some URL or on some browser to know immediately that that is just pejorative term used by Donald Trump. Duosdebs01 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We do that only when there is another meaning of the term. So, if people referred to a real thing, like Trump's own derangement infecting his allies, by the same term, it would be worth considering. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from 206.127.44.50
A made up term used to abuse people for not agreeing with their terms, A Gaslighting term to force people to change their mind by degrading them.This is NOT a real term. 206.127.44.50 (talk)


 * Wikipedia focuses on being able to verify information from reliable sources. It is not a forum to express personal opinion. Can you provide supporting sources for these claims? King keudo (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This term does not exists it is NOT a real term please remove this term from Wikipedia its childish and Immature. This term is used to abuse people. 206.127.44.50 (talk)


 * You mean like "homophobic", "transphobic" or "islamophobic"? These have their entries in Wikipedia, but fall under the exact same category you described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasconnault (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)