Talk:Bush Derangement Syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 10, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 06, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] PLEASE KEEP THIS PAGE FACTUAL AND OBJECTIVE

This wiki is not for bashing left or right, just a definition of a term used more and more by both sides.

Yeah...good luck. When I arrived on this article, it was clearly POV and bashing the term for something it certainly isn't. Not all criticism or disagreement with President Bush can be classified as BDS, but I am sure there are people of a political view that want to attribute the term to "right wing nuts" rather than something that is real.

Example of BDS: "Bush is responsible for global warming. Bush is responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Bush is responsible for crime rising in Detroit." or similar statements that, more than likely, just exhibit an extreme hatred of President Bush rather than researching the topic and laying blame where it is due. It is highly unlikely one man could be responsible for so much grief, but since people of the democrat/liberal persuation as well as persons outside of the United States, hate Bush so much, they become "deranged" as the term goes.

This article needs a complete re-write to remove POV. Someone placing "all criticism" of President Bush as "BDS" is ridiculous as many republicans would suffer from "BDS" in this context as well and this is clearly not the way the term is used.

Also, much of the use of this term is in a humorous way to describe people who are angry at President Bush and blame him for everything as a way of dealing with them. It can, possibly, be viewed as an ad hominem attack but most of the arguments raised by people who are claimed to suffer "BDS" are ad hominem attacks so it really is a similar response.

"Bush is responsible for Hurricane Katrina!" is a sign of BDS while "Bush appointed cronies into positions they weren't qualified for, and FEMA blew it due to these actions." is a reasonable arguement. If one researches the entire Hurricane Katrina fiasco, they would understand the blame lays at the feet of federal, state and local officials who were terribly unprepared for such an event. Bush's response was less than good, but certainly it doesn't make him fully responsible for all the problems that occurred. If someone disagrees, they are said to suffer from "BDS" as it is an unreasonable arguement only attributed to Bush hatred.

If I have time, I'll do a legitimate re-write that is NPOV and should be acceptable by people of both sides of the political spectrum as fair. Of course, those who actually suffer from "BDS" would be the first to vandalize such an article.

I think there is a difference between disliking Bush very much and blaming him for everything as your mind is clouded by blind hatred.

75.44.34.21 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Anon For Now

[edit] Why does it matter that Krauthammer is a Harvard-trained psychologist?

I don't see the relevance of Charles Krauthammer's educational pedigree to an encyclopedia about a humorous term conservatives use to critique liberals. Is it to build him up so we take him seriously? He is known mainly as a political commentator, not an MD, and he invented the term in that context. That aside should be taken out. If we want to know more about the man there's an excellent and balanced (in my opinion) Wikipedia article that describes his background. As a matter of keeping articles clean and relevant the biographical info should stay there in that article, and the description of the term should be here in this article. I don't want to make that edit myself b/c I don't want to get in the middle of a POV fight.Wikidemo 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Why does it matter that Krauthammer is a Harvard-trained psychologist?" It doesn't matter, but by inserting it into this complete waste of Wiki entry the real sufferers of BDS (The WhackjobmoonbatrightwingnutAMradioemptyheadedechochamberBushIsReallyJesus bunch) try to make this "clever" turn of phrase into a diagnosis. But hey, if using Wiki for this literal non-sense keeps these people on their computers and away from playgrounds, perhaps it's a good thing. TJ aka Teej 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Do

- Need more external links
- Need Category
- Needs to be marked for Deletion as a prejudicial and pejorative term

[edit] Failed AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10 deletes, 7 keeps

It's worth noting that the majority favored deletion. Anyway, it's a definition, not an encyclopedia article rewinn 05:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not even a definition; it's a dumb joke. It should be AfD'd again.--csloat 09:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
How does one flag for AfD ... especially since the notations concerning the AfD appears to incorrectly state the concensus. rewinn 02:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a vote. Closing admin decides Delete, Keep or No Consensus. The closing admin said it was Keep (not no consensus which would have been the next level). A second AfD on a Kept article is usually more difficult to establish. I have not seen a third AfD succeed as they are usually Speedy Kept after two Keeps. --Tbeatty 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

WHY would you allow such a blatant partisan smear to remain? It's an epithet, nothing more.

How does one bring an article up for a deletion vote? Revolutionaryluddite 02:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verify tag

All this stuff about Sub-P's and Sub-O's doesn't have any apparent basis in the only reference provided, which is itself a pretty suspect reference. This article needs more facts and less original research. —Cleared as filed. 00:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

I believe this article is unencyclopedic because:

1. It is original work of Charles Krauthammer, who is a columnist for the Washington Post. One man, even if he has a medical degree, cannot invent a diagnosis. It is his opinion, or hypothesis. Without research and peer review, I don't think it could even be called a theory.
2. I cannot find other published information about this article's title, except that which leads back to Charles Krauthammer. This is not an established theory that can be referenced to in verifiable sources - other than in Mr. Krauthammer's column, and web pages that discuss or point to it.
3. Since "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is not recognized as a medical condition, it constitutes opinion, or a term. The article itself refers to "BDS " as a "term." However, WIKI guidelines remind us that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, mirror, or soapbox.
4. The article mentions that "BDS" is usually used "tongue-in-cheek." This makes the article political and without a neutral point of view.

Mr Krauthammer may have something here, although I am sure that there are already terms to cover the general claim, such as prejudice, bias, as well as terms from the area of logic and debate - non of which are specific to an individual person. Regardless of political persuasion, I would support this article's inclusion if it met the criteria for being encyclopedic. In all honesty, it seems to be more of a political commentary - great for a newspaper column, but not for an encyclopedia. --Dorje 03:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Krauthammer is responsible for the 62,000 google hits? [1]. Maybe you could be more specific. -- JJay 03:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that his proposed "theory" is the source of the google hits, which seem to predominately consist of blogs and opinion pieces. I have searched for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in various databases that cover hundreds of journals, and the only instance I can find for this term is Krauthammer's original newspaper column. --Dorje 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't neccessiarly have to be a "real" digagnosis to be a real term used by real people, therefore it can be encyclopedic. Not all the things refered to in Wikipedia are non-fiction, such as Apple Cigarettes 4.240.36.14 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of a term by people does not necessarily qualify it as encyclopedic. This article seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research policy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, which reminds us that "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought."
"What is excluded?
An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:
  • it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
  • it introduces original ideas; or
  • it defines new terms; or
  • it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
  • it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
  • it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
  • it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.
If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

This is a pejorative political term, which is why it is in that category. It is not OR. -- JJay 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Krauthammer the origin of this term? I think it constitutes OR because Krauthammer is defining a new term and it has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal - only in his newspaper column. Yes, many websites use this term, but I don't think they constitute a reputable source by Wiki standards, since they are predominately blogs, op-eds, and partisian sites. If this term could be found to be published in some other reputable sources (such as a political science journal), I think it would be more acceptable. --Dorje 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was only considered OR if the writer of the article is the source, not if the source is someone outside WP and can be sourced. Mapetite526 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If Krauthammer had written the article here on Wikipedia, then that would be original research. Since he wrote the article, and it was published in a reliable source, that is certainly not original research. If published articles were considered OR, it would be very difficult to source anything on Wikipedia. Crockspot 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this article fits into the above prohibition.
Regarding mention of Apple Cigarettes - there is no such page; however, the List of fictional tobacco products is a list. The items do not each have their own article. --Dorje 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Should the Bullshit article only discuss the fecal matter of uncastrated male bovines?

[edit] Merge

I oppose any merge to the Krauthammer page. He originated the expression but it is now in widespread use. This article will also shortly be expanded. I'm also removing the tag since no reason was given. -- JJay 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC) -- JJay 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion the merge. To me, there are legitimate concerns raised about this article. If the verifiable use of this term is mostly with one guy, it's appropriate to merge it into his article. If other people use it, by all means, MAYBE there is a reason for a standalone article. But please don't remove the tag simply because you happen to disagree. Friday (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My main opposition to this article is that it is original research. Although the term does seem to be used by a number of people, it is not used in the main stream and is not common knowledge. Merging the article would not solve the issue of original research, but I think it would be much better than a stand alone article, since Krauthammer did originate the term. --Dorje 16:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's probably too much OR here. But, it just went thru Afd. So, my thought was that a sensible thing to do is merge whatever is verifiable into Charles Krauthammer since he originated it. I agree that this doesn't need a whole article, but I suppose there's no harm in a sentence or two about it in the other article. As long as we take care about what info gets merged, I think we can solve the OR concerns this way. Friday (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to need a poll or something to get consensus on a merge? I looked at the archived Afd discussion, and I cant figure how it didn't pass for deletion. I must have counted wrong - the vote was surely very close. Some of the explanations for keeping the article were not in agreement with Wiki policy though. --Dorje 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not personally crazy about polls. But if anyone wants to start one, I certainly won't try to interfere. To me the way to get consensus on this is exactly what we're doing- discussing it on the talk page. We could argue about the Afd closure, but thats a matter for WP:DRV. In my book, that's over and done and no longer matters. As for the article, this seems to me like a tiny little topic, most closely associated with one guy who we have an article on, and that is why I favor a merge. I sometimes rush into things too quickly tho so I'm hoping for some kind of consensus to emerge before I do much with it. I guess the merge could start happening at any time, though- that's a matter for the other article. Once we're satisfied that the merge is adequately done, I favor turning this into a redirect. Friday (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree --Dorje 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political motivation behind attempts to denigrate the concept of BDS

BDS is a term in common usage in the blogosphere. Just as the anti-Bush 'You forgot Poland' is in common usage in the blogosphere, and indeed, has its own wiki entry.

BDS is closely linked to Post Election Selection Trauma, a real, identified, psychological issue for some people. People have killed themselves over Bush. BDS is real. BDS is driving some people to try to deny that BDS exists. Could this opposition to a wiki entry about BDS be used as evidence that BDS does indeed exist? Estella Primavera 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"coined by American political columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer"

I might be nit picking but this phrase, "former psychiatrist" seems somewhat ambiguous. As far as I know, medical and academic degrees are more like titles than jobs and unless you are disgraced in your field (or perhaps loose your license) you don't quit being a doctor simply by ending your practice.Apple Rancher 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is nonsense

This is a joke by a columnist that has been elevated into an encyclopedia entry - it is ludicrous. I find it hard to believe it survived an AfD. I think it should be AfD'd again. This is completely POV nonsense.--csloat 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a person sometimes accused of having BDS I disagree. We have an entry for "You Forgot Poland" and "Mision Accomplished" after all. More generally we have an entry for "nigger" and various other insulting terms.
I think that a note to the effect that the term "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" is not in general use, but describes similar attitudes during the prior administration would be useful, just to add clarification. Ok, not really, I'd just like to see it mentioned because I'm snarky. --soto 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean like "santorum?" Jinxmchue 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this entry gives the created term and it's users much more credit than either deserves, especially considering the absence of the similar term used to describe blind hatred of Clinton which clearly exists (CFS - Clinton Fixation Syndrome or the more appropriate CDS - Clinton Derangement Syndrome, for which there is ample evidence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.177 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to wikiDictionary or wikiJoke

This page is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Simply adding links to uses of the term makes it no less dictionaric. Alternatively, it should be moved to wikiJoke. rewinn 10:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean like "santorum?" Jinxmchue 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why keep?

The reason this article was added in the first place was not as a joke but as to describe the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as it is used in certain circles on the internet and elsewhere. the phrase itself is toungue-in-cheek, but the article describing its use is not supposed to be. If people are editing the article into a joke, then it needs to be changed. And for those who comment on C.K. not being a psychologist: It's not supposed to be a psychology article, but instead an internet slang dictionary entry.

The fact that this term IS USED by certain web communities and others should be enough for it to be considered as an entry.

wikiDictionary seems to be a reasonable move suggestion if at all.

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or a joke compendium. If you want to create this article at wikidictionary go for it, but it doesn't belong here.--csloat 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's as much of a joke as people would like to think. It's a tongue-in-cheek description of a political philosophy that is "Oppose Bush No Matter What." Bush's popularity numbers, ironically, has made this particular philosophy more popular. The use of the term "syndrome" highlights the philosophies irrationality, not a medical condition. The notability of this term as an expression of a political philosophy, and the philosphy itself, has only increased with Bush's falling approval ratings. Since the first AfD, the term has become more notable.--Tbeatty 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This page and the deletion page has been home to some of the dumbest things I have read on Wikipedia. And that is saying a lot. I'll be removing this from my watchlist after this comment so I don't have to keep picking my jaw off the floor every time I look at this, so if you feel the need to respond to me or insult me, don't bother to do it here as I won't see it. My final comments on this ridiculous matter, which I have already wasted far too much of my time on: First, of course there are people whose political philosophy is as described, just as I can find plenty of people [freerepublic.com here] whose philosophy is "Oppose Clinton No Matter What" -- which is even more bizarre since that guy hasn't been president in the better part of a decade. Where is the Clinton Derangement Syndrome article? The fact that some people are irrationally tied to a particular political perspective is not something we need a new name for, and if it is, it would make sense to choose a name that is not tied to a particular political figure, since that kind of irrationality is not "liberal" or "conservative" in its essence. Second, it seems that it is the Bush supporters, not the BSD'ers (or whatever they're supposed to be called) who have gotten more irrational as his approval ratings have sunk. (Several of the comments on this page and the AfD page stand as evidence for this, and it's obvious - in fact, several of the commenters outright stated - that the reason some folks (e.g. see the comments by Tbeatty, Morton Devonshire, and TDC) voted so enthusiastically to keep the page had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and everything to do with pissing off people perceived as "liberal.") Third and finally, what I find most bizarre is the insistence that this is a real syndrome, not an insult or joke. At least one who voted "keep" gets it (Armon), and his argument might have persuaded me in a different setting (probably not, though; I tend to be more conservative about Wikipedia pages; as I stated on the AfD page, I also suggested deleting the "whenever you masturbate god kills a kitten" page, and I lost that battle too). But this is an obvious insult, and the textual evidence from Krauthammer's article supports the view that this is tongue in cheek -- those who insist it is a "real" syndrome are themselves showing signs of the kind of irrationality the term is being used to signify. Anyway, I'm sorry I pissed you all off by AfDing this article; it's my opinion that stuff like this is why so many people think Wikipedia can never be taken seriously. Have a nice day!--csloat 11:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Because the left didn't coing a phrase called "Clinton Derangement Syndrome", they coined the phrase Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. No one considers it a real "medical condtition." Please. It is a political philosophy, and like the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that is "out to get Clinton" it has the same reality. Should we delete Vast Right Wing Conspiracy because some idiot thinks it's a "real conspiracy" or should we keep it because it is a real neologism that exists in the lexicon and is seriously believed by a small but real part of the population? --Tbeatty 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is very telling that certain people (always of the liberal/progressive democat persuasion) are offended by this article. It really must hit close to home to get so angry over a term that only applies to a few people. Please, before anyone gets angry, please reflect on your life and take control of your anger/rage. I've seen the term "neocon" used mostly in a derogatory fashion as well as a host of other words. I live with it just fine even though I am certainly not a "neocon" in any fashion but have been called as such for simply having merely a FEW opposing views to democrats. I am not Anti-Abortion, but if I was 100% democrat and stood up against abortion, I'd be called a neocon scumbag by some people. It is ridiculous how people jump to assumptions and conclusions right away. I hope to make this article NPOV enough to seem fair. give me a day if nobody beats me to it, but seing how this article has been changing from bad to worse and worse and worse...etc. over the last few months, I don't think anything will change! 75.44.34.21 Me
"It really must hit close to home to get so angry over a term that only applies to a few people". Would that it were so. The problem is that in many political fora, this term is resorted to in order to shut down debate with anyone who is critical of Mr. Bush. Perhaps it only *correctly applies (if ever) to a few people, but it is widely *applied nonetheless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.254.100 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I am an independent and feel there are many fanatics on the left that just make me shake my head. Many of these people are gaining power in the Democratic Party (moveon, daily kos, etc), but it definitely is not indicative of the entire Party or the liberal persuasion. I am liberal on many pov, but I have never seen an outright hatred for a President in my life. There's one thing to disagree on policy, even fervently, but many Bush haters take things way too far. 161.185.1.100 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Hatred section

I removed and replace this section: "However, Bush Derangement Syndrome is psychological displacement, the root psychological cause of the left's intense Bush Derangement Syndrome. What makes Bush Hatred insane is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart." even if this dr. sanity thinks that it is psychological displacement, that doesn't mean that it is true. also the use of "insane" and "evil" and saying that it is the "left" that believes this, is hardly npov. perhaps it needs to be toned down a little. at any rate, i didn't think it should replace the sentence that was there previously. it should come after if at all.Mapetite526 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the text you added on your last edit. It is POV, and unsourced. I removed it. I left the part you removed out too. Crockspot 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I was only adding back what the last person deleted. No big deal to me.Mapetite526 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry. Crockspot 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] See Also Section

Why are "The Death of a President" and "Post Election Selection Trauma" listed under the "see also". Shouldnt that section be reserved for other political epihets commonly used to describe people who do not agree with the administrations line instead of for attempting to defeine a person as "Bush deranged" (The Death of a President) or attempting to legitmize it as a psychological disorder by affiliating it with a specific instance theory on PTSD ("Post Election Selection Trauma")?24.18.186.206 10:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead problems

I have deleted a chunk of text from the lead (below). This article is about the political epithet "Bush Derangement Syndrome", and examples should demonstrate this term in use, as opposed to demonstrating the attitude which the epithet seeks to illuminate. Drjon 03:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples:

"George W Bush is responsible for Hurricane Katrina" made by Germany's environmental minister Jürgen Trittin [2] a member of the German Green party. August 30, 2005

Harry Belafonte accused "Bush of Gestapo tactics" Jan 21, 2006 “the greatest terrorist in the world” Jan 8, 2006

"The devil came here yesterday," referring to George Bush, who addressed the UN during its annual meeting "And it smells of sulfur still today." Hugo Chavez said September 21, 2006

Web sites with ridiculous conclusions:

[KOS: Bush Caused Spinach E. Coli. Expect More of this!!!]

[Walker Bush is the ANTI-CHRIST]

a site tracking numerous Bush = Hitler comparisons: [Gallery of "Bush = Hitler" Allusions]

so many silly charges that the parody on website [Bush!] is convincing.


I have restored text (above). This article is about the political epithet "Bush Derangement Syndrome", and the examples demonstrate who the term is describing, Metalman780 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

are those example sourced to a notable and verifiable reference. or are they just editor's opinion of examples? 08:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
sourced to a notable (wiki entries linked) and verifiable references. quotes are self evident, much blog discussions of each as "Bush Derangement" moved "example quotes" to new section Metalman780 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is "self evident" at Wikipedia. If you've got someone notable applying the term BDS to those quotes, that's ok. If you've got nothing, or maybe a commentor on a blog saying it, that's not ok. Derex 07:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I removed a couple of sources that, as far as I could tell, were simply examples of what the contributor thought was BDS, instead of examples of the use of the term "BDS". Let's be sure to make that distinction. If I do a text search on an article, and I do not find the strings "BDS" or "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in the article, I'm probably going to remove it. Putting in a link to an article where a lefty is losing it as an example of BDS without the article actually mentioning that it is BDS, is original research. The article seems to have degraded some since the last time I spent much time here, so I'm going to try to at least improve the source lists, and how they are listed.

Also, I want to remove the merge tag from the top, since the person who added it has a total edit count of two, and both are merge tags. This article has survived AfD with "keep" twice, so unless the person tagging it has some sort of case to make here on this page (which they chose not to do), then I have no compunction about removing it. However, User:Derex objects, so I left the anon a note on their talk page to come here and state a case. If they do not reply fairly soon, I will remove the tag. - Crockspot 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • anon user has not responded, removing merge tag. - Crockspot 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable Neologism

How has this silly article survived two AfD's? Epithets with FAR more mainstream penetration ("Blame America First", "Peacenik", etc) do not have articles, why does a phrase never used by anybody but pundits have one? Eleland 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think those two should have articles as well. Dman727 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's not just pundits anymore. - Crockspot 14:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And a slightly different search. - Crockspot 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ummmm, Crockspot, those searches return only punditry! The phenomenon of "Bush Derangment Syndrome" does not exist in the real world; or if you prefer, its existence is CONJECTURED by highly biased commentators. Therefore the term should only have an article if it has achieved significant mainstream penetration. "Peacenik" and "Blame America First" probably do deserve their own articles, given their durability and familiarity. Does anyone think that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" will still be discussed twenty years from now? Eleland 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Fox News, CBS, New York Times, Boston Globe, and on and on. Those are reliable secondary sources. No matter how much you try to spin it, there is significant penetration into mainstream media. Put it up for a third AfD if you like. It will survive again. - Crockspot 17:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I never said that the term had not appeared in the editorial pages of mainstream newspapers; clearly that is the case. WP:NEO specifies that "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." All of the reliable secondary sources which you brought up are discussions of George Bush, his opponents, and his proponents. None of them are treatments of the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" itself. Unless and until THE TERM "Bush Derangement Syndrome", rather than the alleged syndrome itself, is discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources, it is not notable. Eleland 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering the article survived two AfD's, which were both nominated on the grounds of being a non-notable neologism, I wish you luck with this line of argument. - Crockspot 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

I would rather this be straightout Bushie propaganda than the current "some people say" gobbledygook. It is not a "point of view" to say that talk of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is an inherently partisan coinage and an ad hominem attack.

Eleland 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual and objective my ass

This is bullshit. The page has gone from saying "talk of BDS is a classic ad hominem attack" to saying "[nebulous, anonymous and unnamed] people have said talk of BDS is an ad hominem attack" to some anonymous editor removing all negative coverage of the term, period.

Is it not possible for Bushies to step back and think about it? ACCUSING SOMEONE OF HAVING A "DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" IS AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK. This is not a matter of opinion or POV. Ad hominem means "to the man (person)", as in, "Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself". A phoney-baloney medical diagnosis of someone is an ad hominem attack. Period. Charles Krauthammer is deranged. That's an ad homimem attack (also true).

I love the pedia and I've made hundreds of positive edits. But I don't care, I'm vandalizing this piece of crap page. Block me if you must.

Eleland 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered treatment for your BDS? :). Just joking of course. Its only a matter of time before ANYONE gets extremely frustrated, if you edit wiki enough. Thats just the nature of it. We all have our opinions on all variety of subjects. However lashing out and destroying things ISN'T helpful. My advice, take a deep breath, calm down and come back when you can edit clearly and in a helpful manner. Dman727 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup, May 2007

Ive started edited the "References" section. I started out to improve the formatting, but also add/changed some URLs (which often meant different titles, BTW: each newspaper chooses its own title). Then I decided that lots of them weren't all that relevant, so I deleted them. Here's the formatted list, with my comments.

One mention of "anti-Bush derangement", no other mentions of BDS. Deleted.
The column in which Dr. Krauthammer defined BDS. We now cite it (with a link to the version from FrontPage Magazine; the original Washington Post version can be purchased here).
  • "Malady Season: Political Illnesses May Be Epidemic This Year", Editorial, Daily News-Record (Harrisonburg, VA), 6 December 2003
Costs US$2.95 to access; not available from my computer. Retained for now.
AFAICT, Wikipedia articles should not cite or link to letters to the editor with unknown authorship. Deleted.
Could not view whole item. (Newspaper websites suck!) May be a letter to the editor. First few lines are:
I was amused by Charles Krauthammer's column on Bush Derangement Syndrome ("Delusional Dems virus has finally hit Dean," Opinions, Sunday). However, I have to take issue with his claim to have discovered a new psychiatric syndrome. It seems to me that this is just another strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which plagued the entire Republican Party in the 1990s. This is indeed a serious affliction, as it seems that most of those afflicted by it have [...]
Non-notable opinion. (The "entire Republican Party"? ) Deleted for now.
CK's original column quoted Howard Dean as saying:
On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but ... I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. ... What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.
Woolcott does not dispute the quote, but argues that CK's failure to tell readers that the first few words were a joke proves that Krauthammer is "delusional" and "bonkers"! Deleted.
Don't have access to a copy, so retained for now.
Only 1 mention of BDS: "Watching [Cindy Sheehan] and her advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on TV, ...". Deleted.
  • "Listening For Terror - Why The Dark Night Of Fascism Is Not Yet Upon Us", Editorial, Daily News-Record (Harrisonburg, VA), 23 December 2005
Costs US$2.95 to access; not available from my computer. Retained for now.
Only 1 mention: "[The NYT has] ..., enabled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-driven crusade of the lying Joe Wilson, ...". Deleted.
Goldberg extends the concept of BDS to "Wal-Mart Derangement Syndrome". Deleted, for now.
Book review of Debunking 9/11 Myths; only 1 passing mention of BDS. Deleted.
Only 1 explicit mention but lots of relevant discussion. Retained.
1 explicit mention; whole editorial is about BDS. Retained.
1 paragraph about BDS, and rest of column is somewhat relevant. Retained, for now.

I've also deleted some 3 external links: 1 to "Dean's Delusion" column (redundant) and 2 to michellemalkin.com (didn't seem relevant enough).

If you think I've made a mistake, feel free to edit accordingly (but please explain your edits on this page).

Does anyone think we should delete the cite to 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America? What about the 2 Daily News-Record items? (WP:EL#Sites requiring registration says that "[a] site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.")

(For future consideration: I don't think "References" is a good title for that section, and I don't agree that Krauthammer's "argument is that the majority of left-wing attacks on the President and his policies are a result of personal emotions, rather than real policy differences".)

Cheers, CWC 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was long overdue. I think somebody wanted to "prove" the notability of BDS and just added everything they could find, shotgun-style.
Eleland 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope the silence here means that people have checked my edit and found nothing wrong, as opposed to meaning that no-one has checked ...
I've just renamed the "References" section to "Examples" and moved it before "Notes", which is now named "References". I also changed the description in the second para to
The term is used when attacks on President Bush seem to reflect the attacker's emotional state rather than real policy differences — for example, when President Bush is alleged to be the greatest current threat to Americans.
I hope this new version is clearer and less POV. Cheers, CWC 10:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to take issue with that line, as it seems to imply that anyone who DID think Bush was the greatest threat to Americans MUST be deranged, or at least in a strange "emotional state". This is a totally rational position and multiple polls confirm that the world's public thinks Bush is the biggest threat to them. Obviously it's not a "threat" in the sense that Bush is going to launch terrorist attacks against Americans, but many believe that the consequences of his policies are likely to be far more damaging than anything done by Bin Laden or the like.
For that matter, "the term is used when attacks on Bush SEEM" is problematic, too. Seem to who? It is POV to say that a critic of Bush "seems" this or that way. Better to keep such statements in the form of other peoples' accusations, rather than objective. It should say something like "the term is used to accuse critics of President Bush of succumbing to bias or personal emotion rather than logic."
Good work on the cleanup though.
Eleland 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's see if we can do better. Here's a starting point: "The term reflects the belief that some attacks on President Bush have more to do with the attacker's emotional state than facts or logic." Comments? Cheers, CWC 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer that wording. Eleland 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just changed it to
The term reflects the belief that some attacks on President Bush have more to do with the attacker's emotional state than facts or logic — for example, when President Bush is described to be the greatest current threat to American lives.
That's definitely better than my version from a few days ago, thanks to Eleland. Comments? CWC 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed to --
The term reflects a belief that some criticisms of President Bush — for example, a description of President Bush as the greatest current threat to American lives — are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic.
My rationale is that the term does not apply only to 'attacks' on Bush (which itself is a conclusion), but rather negative statements about bush generally that are seen as unfair. I put the example in the middle strictly as a matter of English to clarify that it is an example of a criticism/attack rather than a "belief" (which is the subject of the sentence) or one of the other nouns that could be modified. Also, if the term is legit at all it is to describe what is wrong with a criticism of Bush, not as an attack on the person who made the complaint. So I said it's saying that the criticism of Bush is of emotional origin, not that the person who made the criticism is having some trouble with their emotional state.
I think the example of Bush being the greatest current threat only belongs here if you can cite an occasion where someone actually made the statement and also an instance where someone claimed the statement is an example of BDS. Otherwise, if the example is only hypothetical it is essay-like and not encyclopedic.
I also added "pejorative" because the term is not a legitimate academic or mainstream political term, it's an invective from the right. Also, it's argumentative to claim that there is a tendency to blame Bush for "anything and everything." Whether there is or not, that's a partisan opinion. This article is highlighting that a term has been coined to express that opinion, not that the opinion is or is not true. So the term describes a purported tendency. "Matters for which he is not responsible" is more specific and clearer than "anything and everything," which is a hyperbole. Nobody blames Bush for burning their microwave popcorn, for example.Wikidemo 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the other night I left the TV on during a Bush speech and I got so angry -- deranged even -- that I lost all track of time and what do you know, my popcorn is burnt black around the edges. For a while I blamed the Jews but than I realized it was Bush's fault.
Eleland 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Wikidemo. I like your rewrite. I'll hunt up an example cite some time in the next week or so.
But it's no thanks to Eleland that my keyboard is dry just now. Lolz, CWC 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

For use of this expression in syndicated newspaper columns, see http://www.google.com.au/search?&q=%22Bush+Derangement+Syndrome%22+site%3Ajewishworldreview.com, which finds 13 articles by Michelle Malkin, Mark Steyn and others (plus a column by Jonah Goldberg which isn't actually about BDS).

For what many have described as BDS in operation, see the recent claim by Peter Mehlman that Bush is worse than "the world's worst fascist dictators", including Hitler, because they meant well.

I said above that I'd look for a good cite describing "President Bush as the greatest current threat to American lives" ... but it slipped my mind. I'll start looking again. Cheers, CWC 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I heard of something similar to this, BWS

BWS stood for Bush Worshiping Syndrome. It affects people who consistently praise Bush for what he's doing usually its based off of large sums of money and corrupt media attention. Commonly people affected by BWS will twist the truth in their favor insisting that everything that bush has done "is in our best interest". Rarely these people look at the facts and find some portion of an entire statement or factual article to twist going off into a tangent that really had nothing to do with the original presentation of facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiamori (talk • contribs)

[edit] August 2007

I've just added an article from National Review to the list of examples. (In it, Andrew C McCarthy argues that BDS is poisoning the policy debate about FISA and related matters.)

In a separate edit, I've taken out the two Daily News-Record editorials, mainly because I bothered by them costing money (US$2.95 each) to read in full.

  • "Malady Season: Political Illnesses May Be Epidemic This Year", Editorial, Daily News-Record (Harrisonburg, VA), December 6, 2003
  • "Listening For Terror - Why The Dark Night Of Fascism Is Not Yet Upon Us", Editorial, Daily News-Record (Harrisonburg, VA), December 23, 2005

(BTW, This search finds 9 editorials in which the Daily News-Record has used the term, and displays the start of each.)

Cheers, CWC 09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed "meaning of term"

Please folks, this is not supposed to be a commentary on George Bush. It is simply to define the somewhat tongue-in-cheek definition of "Bush Derangement Syndrome". I fixed the definition which had clearly been changed by someone suffering from BDS. GuyInCT 22:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another fine example of the crap that ends up on Wikipedia.

This bullshit entry shows exactly why Wiki is laughed at by the public. There is nothing here other than a "clever" snarky insult by a political hack, and it's only been saved from deletion by manipulation of the deletion process. Wiki is not a dictionary, and certainly is not the place where this nonsense should be awarded the merit of inclusion. TJ aka Teej 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Moved from page top and titled by Eleland 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it clearly fails our guidelines for neologisms. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term ... Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." (em mine)
Except for the Krauthammer article (single primary source not independent of the subject) we have only a lot of passing mentions of the term. This being said, deletion policy often takes a back seat to partisanship here, especially when it comes to obscure idiocy from the right-wing Blagosphere. Eleland 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like this one: Santorum (fluid). Good luck with trying to get rid of either term. Jinxmchue 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ew. I could have gone on happily never being aware of that article. - Crockspot 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I needed to provide an example from the "other side of the fence" and that was the first one that came to mind. Jinxmchue 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this article survived two AfD's, with consensus keep both times. I'm not sure how you get manipulation of the deletion process out of that. Ranting on in a partisan manner here only lends credibility to the existence of BDS. - Crockspot 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And he'd never rant against "Santorum." Jinxmchue 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sooo... an article that cites several Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News articles entirely about the subject is comparable to an article that cites only the originator of the term plus one random blogger how? Eleland 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I just added several secondary sources. Took me like a few minutes. I've been adding sources to this article for over a year, but they keep disappearing, so I find newer ones whenever people get whipped up. - Crockspot 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, the "sources" you keep adding are editorials which happen to briefly mention the term BDS in passing - in this case, one paragraph out of fifteen has anything to do with it. They are simply examples cherry-picked in order to promote this term. They add nothing to verifiability which is why they keep getting deleted. By contrast, the Santorum article cites pieces which are actually about the term "Santorum" rather than just tossing it out (erm, awkward metaphor) in passing. Eleland 15:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Laughed at by the public" ... would that were true. Unfortunately millions think it is a substitute for a real encyclopedia. Personally, I never use Wikipedia for anything even remotely controversial, and even then only as a last resort. How it ever became some kind of authoritative resource is beyond me. Well, actually I do know: Google promotes Wikipedia to the top of virtually all searches, which is a scandal in and of itself. 69.120.97.162 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just one of those essential truths of life. Fire is hot. Ice is cold. The sky is blue. Wikipedia has a systematic liberal bias. Revolutionaryluddite 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Australian

Interesting twist on BDS abroad. - Crockspot 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Poland. Eleland 15:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It's an editorial in a small-circulation Rupert Murdoch paper, which mentions BDS in one paragraph out of fifteen. This article is not a dumping ground for every passing usage of this obscure term. Eleland 12:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Op-Ed pieces and editorials are frequently cited in Wikipedia as reliable sources of information when they have liberal content-- see climate change denial. The paper does not have a "small circluation". The fact that the paper is owned by Rupert Murdoch means absolutely nothing; it's still a reliable source. Revolutionaryluddite 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the source is unreliable, and of course it is acceptable to cite editorials, even in extremist sources, as long as they are attributed properly. I am arguing that it's largely irrelevant, since it mentions BDS once in passing. This article is an attempt to hoover up every passing usage of the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in order to promote it, and to make it appear more notable and widespread than it really is. Bringing in yet another source which adds nothing to our understanding of the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a step in the wrong direction. Eleland 20:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "hoover up"? Is that Australian English slang? Revolutionaryluddite 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
See wikt:hoover up. It's U.K. slang, I believe.
Personally, I don't see that citing Albrechtsen's column would add much to this article. Cheers, CWC 04:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. The BDS reference was in passing. Revolutionaryluddite 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tongue-in-cheek

Following now-reverted edits by user 74.232.76.32 (talk · contribs) several days ago, I tried to work in a brief mention that Krauthammer's original article was "somewhat tongue-in-cheek". I don't think I did a very good job, so further edits are even more welcome than usual. Cheers, CWC 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless a source has called the article "tongue-in-cheeck" or something like that, it's better to strick the wording altoghether. It's better for this page to just link to the orginial article and let the reader make up his or her mind. Revolutionaryluddite 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


This whole page should be removed due to political bias and Partisan bashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainenwo (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing meaning of BDS

Quite a few opponents of G. W. Bush have asserted that his supporters are deranged, not his opponents. For an example, see http://www.bushderangementsyndrome.com, which is probably quite educational about BDS. I've tried to work a mention of this into the article, but I'm not real happy with my edit, and I invite other contributors to improve or revert my work. Does anyone object to mentioning the opponents version of BDS? Cheers, CWC 11:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Turgidson has expressed an (entirely reasonable) opinion in this edit. While we can find primary sources for the Bush opponents' claim, I too would be a lot happier with proper secondary sources. CWC 10:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the notification on my talk page. Look, I don't know what to say, this subject does not seem very encyclopedic, but I'm not opposed to the article per se, I've even edited it occasionally, since I think the term is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. But I'm concerned that this could turn into a vehicle for all sorts of invective being inserted, detracting from the encyclopedic character of WP. Now, to this specific site mentioned, let's look at what it says, caps and all:

BDS stands for BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. How do you know if you suffer from BDS? Well if you have the DERANGED opinion that George W. Bush (aka Dubya Gump) is doing a good job then you have BDS i.e. YOU ARE A BUSHEEP! Now the facts are simple: GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE SINGLE WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION AND AS SUCH HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED ASAP!

Hmmmm... Well, OK, it proposes an alternate (tu quoque) meaning of BDS, but isn't this in itself a textbook case of BDS? So what do you propose to do with such prose? Is this notable enough, and serious enough, for inclusion here? Turgidson (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I have no strong feelings about retaining or deleting that section I created, and am happy for other editors to remove or improve it. I agree that we should keep the invective out of that article. If we don't find a good secondary source for the opponents meaning, I'd take that as showing that we should delete that section. Cheers, CWC 08:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)