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 Unassessed 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.

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 (talk • contribs) 18 July 2018 14:43 (UTC)

Trump's abuse of a term and subjagation of it is not a reference to the derivation of that term, first coined to describe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Haters, then cultist Trump Lovers.

HDS and it's consequent conditions are real. Those suffering them should seek help. It's available. Through Obamacare, even. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why this article's lede, which undoubtedly has numerous watchers, is allowed to rely on 3 sources that are clearly opinion and not news stories.

This may be a difficult topic to cover without relying on opinion pieces but if that's the case then it should be using attributions and not speaking in the voice of Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. None of the authors qualify as WP:RS in psychiatry, psychology or sociology, and they are expressing evaluative opinions rather than factual claims. WP:NPOV stipulates lede should be clarified to specify partisan opinions where appropriate (including contrary opinions for balance), or they should be removed. Watchman21 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A satirical term derived by a clinical psychologist to describe Hillary haters (HDS), then Obama Haters(ODS), and, finally, Trump Lovers (TDS).

As is typical, unoriginal right singers plagiarized the term. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Chicago Tribune line-

Also in July 2018, Eric Zorn stated in the Chicago Tribune that "'Trump Derangement Syndrome' afflicts Trump supporters more than it does critics of the president" as it is "the delusion suffered by those who still think he’s going to make this country a better place for average people."

It's an opinion of the columnist without any factual basis. This article is already loaded with weasel words, it doesn't need pure conjecture to boot Slywriter (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, this article is again completely skewed towards "conspiracy theory" type labeling. Even mainstream sources disagree with the skewness of this article:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/03/its_worse_than_bush_derangement_syndrome__132696.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201901/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-real-mental-condition

Have fun "unbiased" editors! 2601:602:9200:1310:C1E3:118A:73EB:2BA2 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add: https://psmag.com/news/research-suggests-trumps-election-has-been-detrimental-to-many-americans-mental-health

Including many of the sublinks, linking to peer-reviewed studies, testimonial claims by experts, suggesting that this is a definable clinical entity. Journalists do not qualify as reliable sources in refuting the existence of a purported psychiatric condition. Watchman21 (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much sense in crying about a satirical term first generated in response to psychologically unhinged haters of Hillary Clinton, for whom this term was originally derived as a description of. Afterward,it was modified to describe Obama Haters, then Trump Lovers.

It's an inherently biased term regardless of use, so your complaining is absurd to say the least. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This term was originally coined to describe CONSERVATIVES, for their unreasonable and baseless hatred of Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was adapted to describe the same in relation to Barack Hussein Obama. After being used to describe slobbering Republicans in their cilt-like worship of Donald John Trump, Trump cult followers plagiarized the term to describe people who did not spend their lives worshipping Trump. Plain Dark Sedan (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the link on Michael Goodwin in the "Examples of Use" section. It links to the article of an architect of the same name who died in 2011, not the presently active New York Post columnist who is being referred to who doesn't presently have a Wikipedia article. Deep Gabriel (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the text below as it a columnist's opinion whose only purpose is to insult one side of a political debate (yes, I appreciate the irony given the topic):

 Also in July 2018, Eric Zorn stated in the Chicago Tribune that "'Trump Derangement Syndrome' afflicts Trump supporters more than it does critics of the president" as it is "the delusion suffered by those who still think he's going to make this country a better place for average people".[29]

Slywriter (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Unless a sourced statement is challenged presenting undue weight, which this is not, it is still a valid piece of information to include. Almost all usages of a term such as this will be, by the very nature of the term, opinions. Removing them solely because they are opinions would leave nothing left. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a single source for this claim? "The use of the term has been called part of a broader GOP strategy to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions, as a way of "reframing" the discussion by suggesting his political opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.9.97 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source is used to support it, which is then reflected in the lead, a summary of the article:

• Flaherty, Anne (July 18, 2018). "Trump's diagnosis for critics: 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'". Associated Press. Retrieved August 1, 2018.

—PaleoNeonate – 04:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to the Wikipedia powers that be! I originated this article and was hoping to write about the reviving of its use for 2020 by Bret Baier, as several articles were written about it, including articles from Newsweek and The Hill. It looks like I have to get approval to edit the article because I have made less than 500 edits.JimmyPiersall (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​You would most likely just have to request edits here on this talk page on the form "please change X to Y". You could also copy it over to your sandbox and request that your changes be implemented. It is possible to request an extended-confirmed status at WP:PERM, but it is rarely granted. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JimmyPiersall (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]