Talk:Trump derangement syndrome

Is it worth mentioning ad hominem as part of the description?

Might it be helpful to clarify that the term TDS is often used as an ad hominem? Many of the examples of its usage that are given in the article appear to be ad hominem responses because they are seeking to discredit the person rather than to address an argument. I think this could be a good way of summarizing how it's commonly used.

In the introduction, I therefore suggest changing "The term is meant to suggest that Trump's opponents are irrational or incapable of accurately perceiving the world." to something of the form "The term is meant to suggest that Trump's opponents are irrational or incapable of accurately perceiving the world, and it is sometimes used as an ad hominem to criticize individuals rather than engage with their arguments." NoRelation (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question: wouldn't that be redundant (given that it's already described as "a pejorative term")? M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it adds information in terms of specificity; it's not merely used pejoratively, it's specifically used as an ad hominem to avoid addressing the substance of someone's argument. I think this improves the detail given by the description by describing a precise context in which it tends to be used. NoRelation (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It will help if you could find a WP:RS that supports what you're suggesting. M.Bitton (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The two articles cited at the end of that sentence already provide appropriate sources. To add the phrasing ad hominem would be descriptive, and it would summarize what's already there while clarifying the way it is often used, as outlined in those articles.

According to the ad hominem article, the term "refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself." Under the "Usage" section of the present article it is stated that TDS has been called part of a "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." The fact that the term is used in an ad hominem way is therefore already expressed but not directly stated.

Adding an explicit statement would thus add clarity of expression and improve the summary of what is presented further down the article. I would even argue that ad hominem could also be added to the Usage section, but that is beyond the scope of this specific request. NoRelation (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's responsible truth telling to include why it's a pejorative "ad hominem" attack (provide link to term) and give evidence. It's a term specific to our times in politics and not a mental health classification or disorder.

https://thehill.com/homenews/5200463-trump-derangement-syndrome-mental-illness-minnesota/ 147.219.164.40 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with NoRelation's arguments and proposed change. I also did a search for sources. Of course, all sources I could find are opinion pieces or blogs - it is in the nature of the matter that a discussion about that TDS and calling it an ad hominem is in opinion pieces rather than in factual articles. I propose starting a RfC as a way of trying to find consensus about this. Lova Falk (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should a 2021 peer-reviewed research study be mentioned in the article?

Should a 2021 peer-reviewed research study be mentioned in the article?

The specific text is the following:

A 2021 research study found no evidence to support the existence of TDS among Trump detractors on the left, but instead found bias among his supporters.

The specific source is the following:

Franks, Andrew S.; Hesami, Farhang (September 18, 2021). "Seeking Evidence of The MAGA Cult and Trump Derangement Syndrome: An Examination of (A)symmetric Political Bias". Societies. 11 (3): 113. doi:10.3390/soc11030113. Trump supporters consistently showed bias in favor of the interests and ostensible positions of Trump, whereas Trump's detractors did not show an opposing bias ... Results of the current study do not support the broad existence of so-called "Trump Derangement Syndrome" on the left, but they may lend credence to accusations that some Trump supporters have a cult-like loyalty to the 45th president.

BootsED (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Support

• Support The above sentence and source has been frequently challenged, removed, and restored by editors over the past year to the point of becoming a slow-moving edit war. The varied reasons for removing the study include claims that the statement is "irrelevant" and an "out-of-scope 'touché'"; that it has "wording" issues; that it is an " MOS:EDITORIAL"; that it is a "study by a no-name journal by a no-name scientist"; or that it "does not seem relevant or NPOV" and should be removed.

Not only is the provided sentence based on a reliable, peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal, it is also one of the most reliable and data-driven sources used on this entire page that is primarily based on opinion pieces and news articles. Not even to mention the results of this study is baffling to me. BootsED (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support BootsED has convincing arguments. Lova Falk (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as per BootsED. Theofunny (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The study addresses the subject of this article directly. Moreover it represents earnest research into asymmetric political bias, which is relevant. I do however think the current paraphrasing reflects a tone problem by suggesting that the study first looked for evidence of bias among detractors and then found it instead among supporters. A more neutral POV would start from the fact that the study was looking for evidence of (a)symmetric bias regarding Trump in general.

— Ericabxy (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose-ish per my comment below. I'm fine with the first part of the sentence, but not the second. Astaire (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Only mentioning part of a studies conclusion but not the other because one personally disagrees with the methods is original research. BootsED (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Well no, that's not what original research means: original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. In fact it's the exact opposite of original research: removing content that can be sourced instead of adding content that can't be sourced. Astaire (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Original research also includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Removing that TDS was found to be prevalent by Republicans in favor of Trump implies that it was not found to be prevalent in favor of Trump. So yes, you are technically correct that you are not making any claim that is untrue, but you are also making an implied claim that is explicitly rejected by the provided source. BootsED (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read the definition again. Original research is material. It is not the absence of material. Deciding not to include content in an article cannot, by definition, be original research. Also read further down: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Astaire (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll put it this way. If a source reaches a conclusion, we cannot decide that only part of the conclusion is accurate because we personally disagree with how they arrived at that conclusion. That would be textbook I don't like it. BootsED (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

IDLI is an issue when discussing article deletions, not including content, and I've already explained in detail why "I don't like it".

If you insist on considering the sentence only as a whole, then my vote will be a simple oppose. Astaire (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question why you believe that if a reliable source makes a conclusion, only part of the conclusion is valid because you personally disagree with how they reached it. You've explained your personal belief of why the study is bad, but there's no policy that allows for selective omission like this. BootsED (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@BootsED I don't think you've read WP:NOR carefully. "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Doug Weller talk 13:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't apply to a talk page. I never was advocating for that. I was making the case that the user's interpretation of the source was a violation of NOR and couldn't be on the main page. We can talk about NOR policy on the talk page. BootsED (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - MDPI has a poor reputation as a publisher, and this is a primary source. If a reliable WP:SECONDARY source discusses these three studies, perhaps we could summarize that way or evaluate from there, but as proposed, this doesn't belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  Primary sources can be used as long as they are attributed as coming from a specific source. The proposed sentence notes that it comes from a research study in 2021. It does not make any broader claim as a result of the study, only that this one study found this result. Some MDPI journals can be questionable, however, I don't see any reason it can't be used without attribution, and this appears to be one of the good ones. This research paper is specifically cited in at least eight other articles, including one in Nature. This fact alone makes it reputable in my eyes. BootsED (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"A research study in 2021" is too vague to be proper attribution. If the article isn't making any conclusions from these studies, then the only thing we can say about it is that it exists. That's not enough. We should provide context, we should get that context from secondary sources, and we should avoid predatory publishers when we cannot do that for whatever reason.

As for being cited in other sources, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I looked at one of those at random: "Critical Theory and ideology critique, the weapons of Marx to expose material reality as mystified unreality of the authoritarian and populist moment". It doesn't mention "Trump derangement syndrome" outside of the name of the citation. Instead, it cites this source to more-broadly support the position that MAGA is "essentially a cult". If secondary sources are using these three studies for a specific reason related to this topic, let's look at how those sources are using these studies and, as I said, let's evaluate from there. I am not against summarizing this position with better sources, I am saying that by itself this isn't a good source for this position.

I don't have access to the Nature article. A review article in Nature is, potentially, a very good source. If that says something about Trump derangement syndrome, it would be worth citing that or discussing that elsewhere on this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to find access to this nature article but I don't have access either. It doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia library. This will probably resolve this discussion if we can review it. BootsED (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell: and @BootsED: do you mean the article by Jost: Cognitive-motivational mechanisms...? In that case, it is here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9342595/ Lova Falk (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Lova. According to this review article, this particular study is mentioned to describe asymmetric political polarization and is used to state that in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise seem to be more strongly associated with conservative ideology and Republican identification in the USA than with liberal ideology and Democratic identification, thus backing the study's findings of Trump derangement syndrome bias by Republicans, and not Democrats. BootsED (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't mention Trump and "in-group favouritism, out-group derogation and refusal to compromise" sound like typical political polarization, not the special case of "Trump derangement syndrome" under discussion. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The sentence specifically cites this study we are talking about when making its claim, which backs up the study itself which says that Republicans showed a TDS bias towards Trump and not Democrats. So the primary study is specifically used to back up broader secondary sourcing in a review article backing up its main points, which means mentioning this study is even more due as its findings are collaborated in a review article published in Nature. BootsED (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The Nature source can only be used for what it directly says, and specifically, what it says about this topic. Since it doesn't appear to discuss this specific topic, it is not usable here. The relevant MDPI paper is cited three or four times, but each of those is in a bundle with two or more other sources (the article has 375 numbered references). In context, this is not substantial. To repeat myself a bit, I'm not against including something along these lines, but it should come directly from reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I simply have to disagree. This is a reliable source that is used by other sources and review articles, and whose findings are backed up by the broader academic literature. We will need more input for this RfC, regardless. BootsED (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Minor procedural complaint: Boots, WP:PRIMARY doesn't actually require WP:INTEXT attribution. (It does require that the sources be used "with care". Editors should use common sense to determine whether a given use is sufficiently careful.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! BootsED (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

MDPI journals are supposed to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Societies is a decent journal. Scopus puts it in the top 30% of social sciences journals.[1] Their Wikipedia:Impact factor is 1.7, which I believe is above average for that subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: The claims being made are supported by a single primary source, and based on the fact that we're dealing with a single paper, I do not believe those claims should be given as much weight as they are given right now by being placed in the lede. If secondary sources have discussed that specific paper, then I may support adding it to the body of the article, and possibly to the lede. But for the time being, I believe the section supported by this paper should be removed from the lede. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, if this ends up being kept, the second part of that sentence needs to be clarified. It is currently written as "but instead found bias among his supporters." I mean, of course they found bias among his supporters. They're Trump supporters; they're biased toward him. Or does it mean that they're so biased they believe that Trump's opponents are ailed by a mental disorder that does not exist? Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  If you look into the paper, and into my comment at the bottom of "Discussion" below, you will understand why this claim is made. The paper found unquestionable asymmetrical bias among trump supporters compared to anti trump people. As insane and counter intuitive as this claim is, it's well supported in the data. You should absolutely add other sources if you can to either strengthen the claims in the article, or dispute them. Cubeperson (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is a valid point, but given that this term was popularized closer to the time the paper was written, I don't think there's a good reason to outright remove it. It's a strong source from a reputable journal. I think that if studies finding the opposite, or finding less clear results, from reputable peer reviewed journals, exist, they should be added so that this article doesn't seem so one sided.

  I think it's possible that the reason no opposing studies have been added is because they don't exist. I could be wrong about this, if you know about something you should try to add it.

  Currently this is the best we have as far as I can tell. Cubeperson (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Lacks weight for inclusion: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views." Without that, we cannot report what degree of support the opinions expressed have. TFD (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  Not to mention this at all would itself be a violation of weight, as it is a reputable source used in several reliable publications, including a review article published in Nature. The current mention is a single sentence, which hardly raises weight concerns in regard to mentioning this out of proportion of its appearance in reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I couldn't find any peer-reviewed RS about this that states an opposing view, so I'm not sure the claim that this does not proportionally present "all the significant views" even applies in this instance. The article already talks about "all significant views" in either case, this research article just buttresses one side's view compared to the other. The fact that no research exists to buttress the other view does not mean that this research cannot be included. I believe that WP:PARITY may apply here. BootsED (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  You couldn't find any other peer-reviewed research that discusses rank partisanship influencing the views of voters? If one decides to look at the actual methods and data from the study instead of what I am assuming to be keyword-hunting for "Trump Derangement Syndrome", making a survey and giving respondents partisanship altered treatments to look for differences between the treatment groups is not exactly a novel idea.

  Take for instance: Barber & Pope (2018). Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America. American Political Science Review. They find that generally, self-labeled conservatism correlates more heavily with alterations of beliefs according to a partisanship treatment with Trump's viewpoint on an issue, but note a robustness problem in that their Trump formatted questions are a product of what they consider to be Trump's unique penchant for rapidly switching viewpoints, thus making treatments more plausible, but limiting the ability to as thoroughly test with candidate vs candidate treatments. When they had the opportunity to test a position aligned with both Trump and Obama (detainment of illegal immigrants): Democrats were less likely to agree with the policy by more than a point (on a five-point scale) when told that the policy came from the Trump administration versus the Obama administration. Republicans were more likely to agree with the policy by about 1/3 of a point when told the policy came from Trump rather than Obama.

  As for another paper that does in fact do the candidate vs candidate analysis: Littvay, McCoy, & Simonovits (2024). It’s Not Just Trump: Americans of Both Parties Support Liberal Democratic Norm Violations More Under Their Own President. Public Opinion Quarterly. They find that both Republicans and Democrats have similar levels of supporting erosion of liberal democratic norms, so long as their president is in power. Example includes finding that from 2009-2016 under Obama, Democrats were far more supportive than Republicans of justifying the closure of Congress by the President, suddenly became much less supportive from 2017-2020 after Trump takes office.

  It's a big field of research with wide variance in findings and a lot of possible methods. I somehow doubt there's anything particularly groundbreaking about this one paper you found using surveys with sample sizes in the few hundreds that happens to throw in "Trump Derangement" while doing nothing particularly special with survey methods, except for maybe being brazenly low effort. From my reading of your paper, they don't even try to get a representative sample, justify their non-probability survey methods, or weight the results in accordance with population demographics. Why should they take precedence over any other paper conducting similar research with more rigorous survey methods? KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  Its possible to read the entire paper in a sitting. No need to keyword hunt. If you believe papers that examine partisanship should be presented along with those on asymmetric bias I'd love to see a well-cited section on current research in the entry. Why not iterate rather than delete? Omitting criticism of TDS is a fast way to violate NPOV by failing to cite criticism of a minority or fringe theory. — Ericabxy (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am referring to the claim about "The fact that no research exists to buttress the other view does not mean that this research cannot be included". This claim about no other research existing is completely untrue. My assumption is that the only way you can reach such a conclusion is if you don't look for comparable papers through the methods and data, but rather the authors of the paper namedropping "trump derangement syndrome", ie. keyword searching "Trump Derangement Syndrome" in Google Scholar. The other papers I cited examine the same exact issue, typically with better methods at that, just without namedropping "Trump Derangement Syndrome". KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is no specific research I can find that discusses Trump derangement syndrome specifically. There is research about partisanship and bias generally, but it does not use the term Trump derangement syndrome or test for it specifically. If you want to discuss partisanship and bias in a general matter, you should add that to the related page about political polarization. BootsED (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  What is "test for it specifically"? What do they do to "test for it specifically"?

  For surveys 1 and 2, they surveyed people, asked them their political leaning, gave them a treatment condition of "Trump said this" or "Not-Trump said this", do you support it?, and then looked at the differences between treatment groups to determine the treatment effects on partisan bias.

  The Barber & Pope paper, like I mentioned, also surveyed people, asked them their political leaning, and gave them a treatment of "Trump said this" or "Not-Trump said this", do you support it? and then looked at the differences between the treatment groups to determine the treatment effects on partisan bias.

  Similarly, the third survey in your paper is analogous to Littvay, McCoy, & Simonovits, in that they look at whether respondents supported democratic norms when it benefited their preferred candidate or not, and looked for partisan bias based on whether the survey respondents backed a position that benefited their preferred candidate when they would not do so if that same position benefited an opposing candidate.

  The fact that one paper calls their findings "Trump derangement syndrome" related, does not make their methods or data super specialized and incomparable to a vast amount of other research out there. If a researcher calls their paper an examination of "orange man hate or love", but uses the same survey methods as other papers do to look at whether people support/oppose policies just because Trump advocates for them or not, that doesn't mean it's in its own unique space for "orange man hate or love" research. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I gave an overview here of other sources with contradictory findings and why the survey methods here are highly questionable.

Tl;dr: there's plenty of other research on partisan bias conducted through surveys and applying partisanship treatments. This particular paper went to the crowdsourcer MTurk, grabbed small sample sizes with no indication of random selection, did not do anything to ensure a representative sample, and did not weight based on demographics. They just report massive variances in areas like sex, income, and religion in passing from survey to survey as if it's background data for fun, no acknowledgement of possible impacts on survey results. It would be an absolute mockery of WP:WEIGHT to include this paper. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

TDS specifically implies that Trump-detractors reflexively oppose his statements and policies, not that partisan voters favor their own party's policies. Papers that examine partisanship thus don't necessarily contradict findings more specifically focused on TDS.

WP:WEIGHT stresses that articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints. The idea that Trump detractors are reasonable (and not just acting reflexively), is not a minority view. TDS might even be considered a fringe theory in itself depending on framing. If you think the paper's findings on asymmetric bias are contradicted by papers on partisanship perhaps the article should represent all significant viewpoints by citing current research on bias and partisanship in a section on scientific research into the area. — Ericabxy (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain what is so unique about the Franks and Hesami paper's survey methods (besides them not using basic survey methodology best practices) that makes it a valid "more specifically focused on TDS" examination of TDS, but not other papers looking into the same exact thing with similar methods, just without calling it TDS? KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

So again, your argument against even mentioning this survey is that you personally disagree with the study and think it was done wrong. We've already established that the journal and study is reputable and is used in other research, including in Nature. However, because you and a few other editors personally disagree with how they conducted the study, it can't even be mentioned. BootsED (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting reply to a comment from me asking what differentiates the Franks and Hesami paper's survey methods from other papers. I think that would in fact indicate that my argument also includes the existence of other research on the topic that doesn't align with the Franks and Hesami paper. But if you want to explain why their methods should be trustworthy for providing data on the larger population their samples are supposed to represent, despite an absence of rather basic but important methods to ensure mitigation of bias, please do. And/or explain why their paper is so special compared to other survey research on the same issues. I'm not sure that I can agree with your ad populum point of "We've already established", since I see multiple editors who are disagreeing with this apparently established view on reputation in this very talk section. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seems better without largely per TFD. PackMecEng (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear this is a due weight issue. Which this paper lacks. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – per WP:PSTS. I don't like referencing primary source studies because so many papers in social sciences are poorly executed and then a critique will come out and render them weaker than they initially claimed. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm highly concerned by this sentence from the study: For the Trump support variable, participants were categorized as anti-Trump if they indicated that there was “No chance” that they would vote for Trump in 2020 and pro-Trump if they indicated any non-zero likelihood of voting for Trump in 2020. How exactly "non-zero" are we talking about here: 1%, 10%, 50%, 100%? As far as I can tell, the article provides no further information about what numbers these participants gave. Calling anyone who isn't 100% sure they'll be voting against Trump a "Trump supporter" is bizarre, quite honestly. Astaire (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The source says that "This classification was performed to create equal groups (because about half of participants indicated that there was no chance of them voting for Trump) and also in order to provide the strongest test of symmetrical bias." It also states that they were "pro-Trump if they indicated any non-zero likelihood of voting for Trump in 2020." BootsED (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read both those sentences and one of them I already quoted. They don't address my questions about how strong the support among this group of "Trump supporters" really is. I'm also concerned by the part This classification was performed to create equal groups. If you're having problems recruiting enough Trump supporters for your study, the solution isn't to divide into "100% anti-Trump" vs. "not 100% anti-Trump" just because it's convenient. Astaire (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This was worrying me too, because you are right, you don't do something in a study because it makes it more likely to find something.

So, I went to where it says this in the original study, and I now understand the confusion. In the study it says it makes this classification in order to provide the strongest chance of finding symmetrical bias.

Think of it like this. If you are doing a test to identify if something exists at all, a convincing way to show that it exists without question is to set up the variables in the experiment so that the results are as likely as possible to show that the thing does not exist.

If you separate people into a "never would vote for Trump under any circumstances" group, and an "everyone else" group, what would you expect the outcome to be? The "anti-Trump" label is pretty accurate, and the "pro-Trump" label is not accurate at all. That's actually the entire point of the study, and why the study is so convincing. The people with clear "anti-Trump" bias showed less bias than a group of people who literally aren't even pro-Trump necessarily, they're just not anti-Trump.

I think it's arguable that they should have been labeled more accurately, but I hope this clears up why the study claims bias so confidently. Cubeperson (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but my entire point is that it is not accurate to then call this "everyone else" group "Trump supporters", like the study's authors do and like the proposed wording for this RFC does. Astaire (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I don't think calling the group "Trump supporters" is accurate. The group contains Trump supporters, but also contains people who are open to voting for Trump, but usually vote democrat, or third party, or don't usually vote at all. But it doesn't affect the claim it's making, right?

I guess I'm asking what you think the solution is. Should the wording be changed in the article? If so, how should it be changed? If the results show that there is asymmetrical bias, does it matter if the label tells the full story?

To be clear, this is what it says in the wiki article currently: A 2021 research study found no evidence to support the existence of TDS among Trump detractors on the left, but instead found bias among his supporters. What should it be changed to? You could say the study found asymmetrical bias towards Trump among people who were open to voting for Trump compared to anti Trump voters. I would be okay with that. My gut says that this implies they found a bias among Trump supporters, but I could be misinterpreting how they reached that claim.

If I could change it, I would want it to say something closer to A 2021 research study found asymmetrical bias towards Trump between anti Trump voters, and voters with a non-zero chance of voting for Trump. This lower level of bias among Trump detractors compared to other voters implies higher bias among Trump supporters, and supports claims that TDS does not exist.

What do you think, is there something missing that would make it more clear? Cubeperson (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I took some time to go over the study in detail, noting your concerns about sorting self-reported undecided voters as “supporters”. In both studies using this categorization, bias remained significant even with Trump support as a continuous rather than dichotomous variable. This further information is shown under “Exploratory PROCESS analysis” in studies 1 and 2. So the authors are not misleading or inaccurate about the data they collected and the degree of non-zero support is shown.

I do however agree with paraphrasing the study more directly when we cite it. The abstract says “Trump supporters consistently showed bias in favor of the interests and ostensible positions of Trump, whereas Trump’s detractors did not show an opposing bias.” Section 13 further specifies supporters “consistently shifted their attitudes” while detractors “did not reflexively oppose Trump.”

Either the lead should simply say e.g. “A 2021 research study found bias among supporters in favor of Trump and no opposing bias among detractors”, or in an effort to keep the lead more focused perhaps “A 2021 research study found that ‘even Trump’s strongest detractors did not reflexively oppose Trump’” which more clearly and directly addresses the claims of TDS. The findings of asymmetric bias in support of Trump can be detailed later in the article. — Ericabxy (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you have proposed a very nuanced and compelling way of expressing the study's findings. I would not be opposed to something like this, and I would be interested in how you would propose findings of asymmetric bias would be expounded upon later in the article. BootsED (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The survey's results reflect earlier studies of right-wing authoritarian voters. They will support policies merely because their leader does, which explains among other things how their views on Putin suddenly reversed.

Liberal voters otoh do not blindly follow leaders or reject policies because the other side supports them. But that is not the same as saying that no liberals have an irrational antipathy toward Trump. It's just more likely to show itself in beliefs such as Trump being a Russian agent.

The study itself could be flawed by choosing voters with a zero percent chance of voting for Trump. This skews toward progressive voters whose rejection of Trump is more likely to be based on policy disagreements.

If we had secondary sources, we could report this type of analysis. Per NOR, editors require sources for analysis.

TFD (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Sweeping pop-culture generalizations about “liberals” and “conservatives” should not be used to interpret the results of the source article. The studies only considered participants as Trump supporters or detractors. Whether any of them were “progressive” is irrelevant.

Editors are not analyzing the source in order to include the results of the study in the lead. Interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source. We are citing the article, not analyzing it. Furthermore, the idea that Trump detractors are reasonably (rather than reflexively) opposed to his policies is neither an extraordinary claim nor an undue/minority view. — Ericabxy (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The source makes "[s]weeping pop-culture generalizations about “liberals” and “conservatives”", as you so eloquently phrase it: "Meta-analyses demonstrating asymmetrical levels of bias between liberals and conservatives have found greater degrees of politically motivated bias among conservatives."

That the source is peer-reviewed is wholly irrelevant. Peer revue is a factor in determining reliability of facts, but weight is the policy of determining which opinions belong in the article. If this opinion has weight, you should be able to find a reliable secondary source that reports it.

Incidentally, saying you are just citing the article is no excuse for not investigating how accepted its conclusions are. Not all opinions are equal and articles should not give undue weight to minor views. TFD (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

"Meta-analyses demonstrating asymmetrical levels of bias between liberals and conservatives have found greater degrees of politically motivated bias among conservatives."

Could you explain why you think this statement is a "sweeping pop-culture generalization about 'liberals' and 'conservatives?'" What do you think was done wrong in the experiment that renders this statement an opinion? What do you think about the methods that are used to examine levels of bias? I'd encourage you to dig deeper in the actual study itself and see what you think. Your comments make me think that you haven't actually looked into the details, though if I'm wrong I'd be open to understanding where you're coming from. However, as things are, I think this measured bias in this study has very little to do with opinion, though I can understand why this might be hard to believe without looking at the details. Cubeperson (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Notice I put it in "quotes" and said I was quoting an editor I disagreed with, not endorsing those views. I had written that "The survey's results reflect earlier studies of right-wing authoritarian voters. They will support policies merely because their leader does." The editor called my statement "Sweeping pop-culture generalizations about “liberals” and “conservatives” [that] should not be used to interpret the results of the source article." I was explaining that my views they called pop culture and should not be used in assessing the study were in fact endorsed in the study.

Where I believe the opinions in the source err is in defining TDS as a mirror image of irrational support of Trump by his followers. That's why we need reliable secondary sources to assess the assumptions of the study and explain how accepted they are. TFD (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's the sweeping generalizations that are the problem, namely "they will support policies merely because their leader does" and "Liberal voters otoh do not blindly follow leaders or reject policies because the other side supports them." The studies don't support either of those statements. It just says bias is asymmetrical. And the meta-analysis that they discuss is referenced in annotations specifically when they discuss it in the paper.

Other than that though, I understand your point, I misread what you said and thought you were talking about the results themselves as opinions.

I'm interested to see if these kind of studies and meta analysis bear up over time. Looking at the samples of the statements used and the differences between them, it's pretty convincing that there is some inherent difference between these two groups of people in terms of personal experience or personality overall, and that bias as defined in the paper is measured with some care. But I can understand now that applying it as a argument against the implications of a pejorative term is somewhat in bad faith. Or maybe just possibly counterproductive to understanding the history and use of the term itself. Cubeperson (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Robert Altemeyer studied the right-wing authoritarian personality and you can read his book, The Authoritarians, online. There is substantial evidence for their unquestioned support of authoritarian leadership. But probably half or even most Trump supporters don't come under this category. While left-wing authoritarianism may exist, the Democrats have never come close to choosing a leader like Stalin or Mao who would attract their support.

As I mentioned, I question whether TDS should be seen as a mirror image of Trumpism. Whether or not it's real, isn't the accusation that some Dems believe and repeat false or unsubstantiated claims about Trump? For example, some claim he has been a Soviet and later Russian agent since his visit to the Soviet Union in 1987. TFD (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding primary sources: Wikipedia does not forbid primary sources. Its very much a judgment call as explained in most of the policy around primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY sources may be used with care. We do not know and should not interpret whether its conclusions are undue. Deciding whether to cite it has required a fair measure of analysis. Its worth noting that TDS may be a fringe theory and while sourcing policy for fringe theories is a little looser, on the other hand we also emphasize more caution and WP:PARITY provides some context about when (and when not to) relax citation policy.

A major source of disagreement among editors may be that TDS is fringe when framed as medical science, taken somewhat seriously in political science, but is perhaps purely a rhetorical construct. Wikipedia *should not make that judgment call* so I think the emphasis on caution around fringe theories is salient here. Citing the study risks framing TDS as a scientific subject and only reliable secondary sources should do that.

At this point I'm nearly convinced the study should not be included. On a myopic level it looks like its relevant and may be allowable as per ambiguity in primary source policy, but in the big picture its inclusion in the current context represents an unconscious decision to treat TDS as scientific and interpret/analyze sources for inclusion. — Ericabxy (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not changing my vote from Support. But pointing out primary sources are not against policy and criteria for inclusion is nuanced. Should it be removed on the basis of it being a primary source period? I what makes it primary? Do circumstances make it allowable as a source ‘‘with care’’ per WP:PRIMARY? Note there is no scientific consensus on the existence of TDS so per WP:PARITY it may or may not be appropriate. — Ericabxy (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with your argument. This is a clear case of WP:PSTS. There is no need to use a primary source (especially an academic study) unless you are referencing it with a secondary source and adding the primary source just for the readers sake. Primary sources make sense for things like simple statements of fact, but social science studies can be riddled with methodological issues (e.g. replication crisis) and hence it makes little sense to reference them. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Notably policy 3: A PS may be used "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Our policy 1 seems to say PS are acceptable but "only" is a pretty clear caveat. — Ericabxy (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Ericabxy, I think that is a misread of the policy. "Straightforward, descriptive statement of facts" are things like birthdays or quotes. Statements of "fact" made with primary source studies wouldn't work, because many studies have methodological problems and do not necessarily prove "facts", because of things like the Replication crisis (most published findings, especially in social sciences, are false). Zenomonoz (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

What I'm saying is the results of the study aren't a statement of fact. So yes. Policy is probably against using this citation. — Ericabxy (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah yeah, ok we are in agreement. Misinterpreted you then. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed the study per WP:PSTS, it's a primary source study and primary source studies are prone to methodological problems. That's why Wikipedia is based upon secondary sources, because they evaluate these studies within context of other research, and usually include expert assessment. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've re-added the study, as there is still an active RfC over its inclusion. BootsED (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

How exactly does that line up with WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.? KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In case it's unclear this RfC was started regarding a paper that has been removed and re-added several times over the past few years. Consensus would need to be reached to make a final decision regarding its inclusion. Until and if consensus *is* reached, do you propose the passage should be removed, returned, or left as-is and at what state in the edit history? — Ericabxy (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for disputed, it's not included, per WP:ONUS. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, clear case of onus. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What happens if consensus is not reached on this RfC? Might the citation be consigned to a "slow-moving edit war" until someone eventually writes a differently-cited passage that satisfies all parties? I'm still new here so I'm curious. — Ericabxy (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

An uninvolved closer will take a look at the discussions and come to a conclusion based on the arguments made and policy points raised. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so even if there are more votes in favor of one argument or another, the closer will base their decision based on the strength of the arguments and existing policy, not by sheer numbers. BootsED (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Is it necessary to say it's not a recognized medical term?

It strikes me that saying so-called "Trump derangement syndrome" isn't a recognized medical term gives it more weight than it deserves. It's just a phrase Trump supporters use to describe his opponents. Nobody, including that troll senator in Minnesota, actually thinks it's a medical term. This doesn't require clarification IMO. 192.80.110.215 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, the article says it isn't currently identified as a mental illness, implying that at some point, it might be. 192.80.110.215 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's redundant because the opening describes it as a term. I've removed it, but mainly because the provided source (Psychology Today) was not cited in the body. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is not Wikipedia policy, but an essay on policy. The fact that the word "syndrome" is used makes it reasonable that some may believe it is a medical term, which required a reliable source to explicitly refute. This is noteworthy. I've re-added this to the page for the time being. We can also add it to the body as well. BootsED (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

My reverted edit?

Zenomonoz, please reply.

In any case, I completely understand my edit being modified, but it seems deranged (heh) to just outright revert it. I think there needs to a reference to its facetious use as well as its TDSDS counterpart. Thoughts? Electricmaster (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this, Wikipedia is not a list/index of every instance of the term being used, see WP:ISNOT. Given this is a modification of "TDS", I'm not really sure it needs using. Also, the Federalist has been deemed an unreliable source on WP:RSPS. It's not impossible that it could be used for opinion pieces, but this seems a little borderline IMO. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)