Sure I ll explain because of WP UNDUE and WP RS OK now I ll really explain in English instead of wikijargon Our Neutral Point of View policy says that our articles should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject In an article about a concept mentioned in over 100 000 web pages including some from major news organizations a concept mentioned only in 500 or less blog pages does not make the grade That s because a blog is basically only a WP RS for claims about the blogger s or the blog content If a newspaper like the NYT started printing items about CDS that would be a WP RS by Wikipedia rules and would count more for Wiki notability than all the blog mentions Those of us who edit Wikipedia articles about bloggers keep running into this um difficulty However I and other long term editors have noticed that following Wikipedia s rules does produce better articles in the long run So I ve just removed the following text from the article Clinton Derangement Syndrome relates to Bill and Hillary Clinton The Washington Monthly Political AnimalWhat Caused Bush Derangement Syndrome Asides A That s good writing B The pwblogs com link is worth reading Another problem is that the term CDS has multiple meanings making it harder to treat encyclopedically Right wingers bizarre irrational claims about President Clinton see eg The Clinton Chronicles Left wingers natural hostility to both Clintons for being too centrist occasionally produces bizarre irrational claims Overly emotional hostility to Hillary s presidential campaign from a variety of people Yet another factor influencing me I expect use of the terms BDS and PDS to increase over the next year or two but CDS to fade away at least as an epithet and preferably as a phenomenon So I do have reasons for removing this material Of course I could be wrong and as mentioned one MSM item about CDS would make a big difference Cheers