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

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

Krauthammer was not a practicing psychiatrist at the time he wrote the article containing the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (based on his Wikipedia article), so I think "former psychiatrist" would be a more accurate descriptor. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bias here

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
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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

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