This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Start‑class Low‑importance This 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Start‑class Low‑importance This 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Donald Trump Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidents Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"It is currently being disputed [...]." Yes, CThomasFox, by a fringe who charge fraud but fail to come up with examples. Slywriter 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done: No change proposed. Terasail^[✉] 23:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. Read WP:SOAPBOX. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]