Talk:Trump derangement syndrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw a bot removed my suggestion so here it is again : involuntary appeal to authority leads to confusing wording[edit]

I suggest removing the words "a psychiatrist" in the Origin of term section.

Krauthammer was indeed a psychiatrist but is already presented here as a political columnist, and that is the context in which he coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome : in his Washington Post opinion article, not in a process of scientific study.

Adding "psychiatrist" to the already sufficient "political columnist and commentator" gives the wrong idea in this context.

As a result this part easily reads as BDS being a diagnosis or the result of research lead by this psychiatrist when it was actually said in a light-hearted political article about the most extreme anti-Bush people, his field of psychiatry being an angle for the joke. Feel free to check the source to confirm : [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/12/05/the-delusional-dean/cbc80426-08ee-40fd-97e5-19da55fdc821/

So long story short, mentioning him also being a psychiatrist in this context is at best misleading, that word should be removed.

If there's still no controversy about this and no change, I guess I'll make an official edit request after some time has passed. Tetrarque (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 206.127.44.50[edit]

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)[reply]

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)

Bias here[edit]

I do not support Trump, but what happened to Wikipedia's impartiality? You can get see the user above this heading getting angry and calling it "childish and Immature". This article seems to be written by some thinly-veiled liberal perspective.

For example (and this is just part of the issue here) just look at the opening part of the 3 paragraphs in the "Usage" section: The term has been widely applied by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, The use of the term has been called part of a broader GOP strategy to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions, The term has been used by journalists critical of Trump to call for restraint.

I usually do not edit, so please excuse the errors, but like half the article throughout the sections claims (sometimes defacto claims) that the GOP uses it to stop criticisms of Trump, without offering much alternative argument. More neutral would be 2 sections, one exploring use of it as a pejorative, and one exploring the claims of those who use the term.

Wikipedia articles are expected to meet the neutral point of view policy. The word neutral here doesn't mean "represent all sides equally", but instead to represent all the significant views published by reliable sources. What specific things would you have changed, and what reliable sources can you provide to support those changes? King keudo (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]