Talk:Paris syndrome: Difference between revisions
Cimon Avaro (talk | contribs) →You forgot...: yes, definitely |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::::I very strongly agree, what the manifestations consist of should very definitely be in the lead-in paragraph, if not in the very first sentence. I would have thought describing it would have been the most important thing about it, rather than informing us whom it afflicts or why. Very simple common sense, but also according to our style manuals. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick.]] ([[User talk:Cimon Avaro|talk]]) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
::::I very strongly agree, what the manifestations consist of should very definitely be in the lead-in paragraph, if not in the very first sentence. I would have thought describing it would have been the most important thing about it, rather than informing us whom it afflicts or why. Very simple common sense, but also according to our style manuals. -- [[User:Cimon Avaro|Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick.]] ([[User talk:Cimon Avaro|talk]]) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
I also agree. I don't want to go rewriting someone's article because I don't know much about the subject, but you really need to explain what it is in the first paragraph (first sentence, preferably). Otherwise this article is currently...backwards lol |
|||
Revision as of 15:14, 12 January 2008
The external links to the official psychological journals are all in French and in need of accurate translation for more factual detail to be included in the entry.
- Choeki 12:35, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)
2004?
"First noted in the French Nervure journal of psychiatry by A. Viala, H. Ota, M.N. Vacheron, P. Martin, and F. Caroli in 2004", BBC news article just put up on the syndrome states:
It was a Japanese psychiatrist working in France, Professor Hiroaki Ota, who first identified the syndrome some 20 years ago.
The BBC piece is probably of wider use as a further reading link for the article anyway. SFC9394 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Un-BBCing of the article
I've taken the liberty to unBBC the body of this article since this is a Wiki page and not a regurgitation of Mr Caroline Wyatts garbage. I've added more information about the nature/causes of the phenomenon as provided by the researchers cited and removed the "narrative" stirpped from the BBC website. On a personal note it is a great pity that more of the Beebs crappy journos don't suffer Paris Syndrome themselves!
You forgot...
... to tell us what Paris syndrome consists of! Is it hallucinations? Hysterical screaming? Itching? What happens to these folks?!?!?
- Indeed. What are the supposed symptoms? Mod article -1 Uninformative! 216.75.189.154 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The last paragraph very clearly states what the symptoms are as does the link to Stendhal syndrome. Is moving the symptoms to earlier in the article really necessary?
- Yes. The last paragraph even starts with /however/ which seems to imply that it is some alternate view of what the syndom is supposed to be. Frankly, at first read, I though that this article was a post-modernist hoax (not that I am convinced that is is anything else, now). 82.230.65.68 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I very strongly agree, what the manifestations consist of should very definitely be in the lead-in paragraph, if not in the very first sentence. I would have thought describing it would have been the most important thing about it, rather than informing us whom it afflicts or why. Very simple common sense, but also according to our style manuals. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. I don't want to go rewriting someone's article because I don't know much about the subject, but you really need to explain what it is in the first paragraph (first sentence, preferably). Otherwise this article is currently...backwards lol