Jump to content

Talk:Trump derangement syndrome

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

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

Wikipedia articles are expected to meet the neutral point of view policy. The word neutral here doesn't mean "represent all sides equally", but instead to represent all the significant views published by reliable sources. What specific things would you have changed, and what reliable sources can you provide to support those changes? King keudo (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there are reliable sources that agree with Trump and say that his critics are actually deranged? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think the person is saying theres only a onesided definition and 0 examples of a person who is a victim of said syndrome. 2600:6C4E:1A3F:3EF9:78CE:427D:3D97:7CF (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. The phrasing on the article implies that there's no valid criticism to be made about Trump's detractors, or that TDS, while exaggerated, doesn't reflect an actual reality of existing bias against the former president. There's certainly significant irrational stigma against Trump and the article downplays it. Jagrblood (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Longtime reader but created an account just to agree with this point. Love Wikipedia through and through and as a non-Trump supporter, this entry should serve as a self-reflection of the clear bias those have in writing it. This is perhaps tough given modern political topics and the unwillingness of writers to search for sources that don’t agree with their personal opinions. I think a realistic definition of this is the representation of his viewpoints as erroneously extremist, to the political benefit of those who disagree with him. The whole article seems to be an argument against a real phenomenon rather than defining it. Susanrawlings82 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask for the article to take the normal NPOV style of phrasing, perhaps keeping the sentence as "Accusations have been made that the term is used to deflect criticism" rather than the current phrasing " Tomcatfish (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing vague WP:WEASEL wording would be less neutral, not more. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is generally liberally oriented, thats why is this biased situation and I am saying that as someone, who supported Harris.--78.102.87.172 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion about Wikipedia's biases is almost as irrelevant as who you claim to have supported. Wikipedia articles attempts to summarize reliable sources from a neutral point-of-view. If you have an actionable suggestion based on reliable sources, make it. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only warning guy above that its waste of time to try improve situation here. Nothing more. As I personally knew people suffering TDS, and I understand that my own experience is not reliable or relevant source, I am just surprised this article completely dismiss this phenomenon. 78.102.87.172 (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

[edit]

Despite the usage of the term "syndrome" suggesting a medical condition, TDS is not an official medical diagnoses.[8] A 2021 research study found no evidence to support the existence of TDS among Trump detractors on the left.[9]

diagnoses is plural , change to singular " diagnosis " Direktorot (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ligaturama (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2024

[edit]

Trump has, however, described himself as one of the worst treated presidents in history[1]. The former president was impeached twice and now faces a combined 91 criminal charges across multiple cases[2]. He has written off all the allegations as politically-motivated attacks. 2403:5806:AF70:0:EDC9:7C3E:8A7E:16 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not an edit request The instructions say: "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request..." which you have not done. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]