Talk:Goldwater rule

A common situation?

One of the founders of Group Therapy, Wilfred Bion, claimed in an article published in Human Relations in 1950/51 (republished in 1961 in Experiences in Groups: page 123 of the Routledge reprint) "In its search for a leader the group finds a paranoid schizophrenic or malignant hysteric if possible; failing either of these a psychopathic personality with delinquent trends will do; failing a psychopathic personality it will pick on the verbally facile high-grade defective. I have at no time experienced a group of more than five people that could not provide a good specimen of one of these."

Bearing in mind that Bion qualified before the war and would have been using these terms in a broader sense that psychiatrists would nowadays, it is easy to see that the electoral process would often throw up results where mental health professionals would be tempted to ignore the Goldwater rule. NRPanikker (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Which APA does the article talks about?

It's a bit confusing at time which APA the article refers to on this article. Could it be cleaned up by the pro ? Theochino (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You are the dumbest person planet Earth. 199.120.30.194 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no harm in being dumb. It's almost a requirement for editing WikiPedia. To clarify: the "Goldwater Rule" belongs to the American Psychiatric Association. NRPanikker (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-political applications

Should non-political applications get a mention ?

By WEIGHT of coverage, mentions are overwhelmingly political. But I did see in-community discussions of offering medical commentary that are not about avoiding partisan politics or the question of libel.

• the Last Word: A Goldwater Rule for Sports Medicine NIH on discussion of professional sports injuries (of interest to fans and bettors, lessons connect better to patients)
• Whether the reasoning behind the Goldwater Rule may apply to labeling (diagnosing) physical health of all citizens from afar via data mining and algorithmic managed-care -- better is a self-fulfilling item when those in question define better as electronic health records and coordinated in terms of linkages made. (Telepresence seems accepted as an examination -- but not data mining.)

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump coatrack?

The Trump section seems to be leaning toward WP:coatracking, as the page is about the rule itself. I'd say that section belongs on a Trump criticism page, with a link to this article. Please see the category: Criticism of Donald Trump, which this article is devolving into.Lindenfall (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to keep the Trump section as a prominent example of an application of this rule. But I agree the section is a bit...editorial. Removed unreferenced claims in first paragraph and replaced with a quote.TheTalkingMeowth (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Biden

Increasingly (particularly during the 2024 campaign), we're getting breaches of the Goldwater rule, concerning President Joe Biden. Should this be mentioned in the article? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Allen Frances

Given who Frances is, what he has written about mental illness, and how what he has said about Trump then and now fits into a greater argument that he is making about mental health in general, my reading of the way the 2017 quote is used here is somewhat misleading and out of context of his larger argument, which he expounds upon here and elsewhere. In short, Frances is arguing that Trump is bad, not mad, or rather that Trump is evil, not crazy. This line of argument needs to be clarified, as it makes it seem that Frances is saying Trump is fine; he’s not. Frances also seems to be drawing a distinction between mental illness and personality disorders, among other things. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)