Talk:Trump Derangement Syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Donald Trump (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconTrump Derangement Syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Donald Trump. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Deletion of questions[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18 July 2018 14:43 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind,  Done. L293D ( • ) 02:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Manifestations" section[edit]

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.

[1][2]

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)

Trump Anxiety Disorder[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

USES[edit]

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.[3][4]Bought the farm (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Beth Baumann | Townhall, Trump Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again: A College Professor Shot Himself In The Arm In Protest Of The President, https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/09/12/trump-derangement-syndrome-strikes-again-a-college-professor-shot-himself-in-the-arm-in-protest-of-the-president-n2518266, September 12, 2018
  2. ^ Victor Morton | The Washington Times, Professor who shot himself as Trump protest faces felony charges, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/11/mark-bird-college-southern-nevada-professor-shot-h/, September 11, 2018
  3. ^ Mike Brest | The Daily Caller, Rand Paul: ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Has Infiltrated The Senate, https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/paul-trump-derangement-senate/, 07/19/2018
  4. ^ Pete Kasperowicz | Washington Examiner, Rand Paul: 'Trump Derangement Syndrome has officially come to the Senate', https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rand-paul-trump-derangement-syndrome-has-officially-come-to-the-senate, July 19,2018
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”;[1] 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."[2]
  1. ^ Watkins, Eli (July 16, 2018). "Rand Paul dismisses focus on election attack as 'Trump derangement syndrome'". CNN. Retrieved 5 September 2018. 
  2. ^ Britzky, Haley (July 21, 2018). "What they're saying: The buzz around "Trump Derangement Syndrome"". Axios. Retrieved 5 September 2018. 

--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.[1] 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.”[2] Bought the farm (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fox News Insider, Cain: Joe Scarborough 'Takes Trump Derangement Syndrome to a New Level', http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/07/donald-trump-morning-joe-scarborough-looked-thug-herman-cain-hannity-react, June 7, 2017
  2. ^ Jenna Amatulli | Huffington Post, Joe Scarborough Pens Op-Ed For 9/11: Trump Is Worse For U.S. Than ‘Foreign Adversary’, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-scarborough-pens-op-ed-for-911-trump-is-worse-for-us-than-foreign-adversary_us_5b97c634e4b0511db3e63e98, 9/11/2018
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.[1] 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.”[2][3] 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)
  1. ^ Fox News Insider, Cain: Joe Scarborough 'Takes Trump Derangement Syndrome to a New Level', http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/07/donald-trump-morning-joe-scarborough-looked-thug-herman-cain-hannity-react, June 7, 2017
  2. ^ Jenna Amatulli | Huffington Post, Joe Scarborough Pens Op-Ed For 9/11: Trump Is Worse For U.S. Than ‘Foreign Adversary’, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-scarborough-pens-op-ed-for-911-trump-is-worse-for-us-than-foreign-adversary_us_5b97c634e4b0511db3e63e98, 9/11/2018
  3. ^ Maria Puente | USA TODAY, James Woods leads Trump fans in feud with Joe Scarborough over 9/11 tweet, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/09/11/james-woods-trump-fans-attack-joe-scarborough-over-9-11-tweet/1266506002/, September 11, 2018
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.[1] 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.”[2][3] 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)
  1. ^ Fox News Insider, Cain: Joe Scarborough 'Takes Trump Derangement Syndrome to a New Level', http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/07/donald-trump-morning-joe-scarborough-looked-thug-herman-cain-hannity-react, June 7, 2017
  2. ^ Jenna Amatulli | Huffington Post, Joe Scarborough Pens Op-Ed For 9/11: Trump Is Worse For U.S. Than ‘Foreign Adversary’, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-scarborough-pens-op-ed-for-911-trump-is-worse-for-us-than-foreign-adversary_us_5b97c634e4b0511db3e63e98, 9/11/2018
  3. ^ Maria Puente | USA TODAY, James Woods leads Trump fans in feud with Joe Scarborough over 9/11 tweet, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/09/11/james-woods-trump-fans-attack-joe-scarborough-over-9-11-tweet/1266506002/, September 11, 2018

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:

  1. ^ "Cain: Joe Scarborough 'Takes Trump Derangement Syndrome to a New Level'". Fox News. June 7, 2017. Retrieved 12 September 2018. 
  2. ^ Morefield, Scott (September 11, 2018). "'The Five Hosts' have a bone to pick with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough over 9/11 column: 'He calculated this'". The Daily Caller. Retrieved 12 September 2018. 

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[1] 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."[1] Bought the farm (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Leonhardt | New York Times, ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ Is a Myth, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/opinion/columnists/democrats-midterms-progressive-left-trump.html, September 17, 2018
fixed it, thanx! Bought the farm (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph location[edit]

@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)

Undue weight to a fringe subject[edit]

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)

Joe Scarborough and Trump Derangement Syndrome[edit]

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)

"Trump anxiety disorder"[edit]

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. [2] 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 [3], 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...[1] Bought the farm (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vivek Saxena | Business & Politics, Trump Derangement Syndrome so prevalent, therapists have coined a real term for it, https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/07/29/trump-derangement-syndrome-so-prevalent-therapists-have-coined-a-real-term-for-it-658940, July 29, 2018
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)

Urban Dictionary[edit]

One of the sources for the lede was Urban Dictionary [4], 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.[5] 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)

First sentence of Uses section[edit]

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)

not sure if this belongs here[edit]

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)