Talk:Paris syndrome
RFV discussion
[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Citations required - appears hoax, even if there's a Wikipedia article on it. --Hekaheka 09:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article with six interwikis, and it featured on the British TV program QI. I'd be surprised if it were an absolute hoax. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cited I think. Whether it is a hoax or not, the term is used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The 1998 cite doesn't seem to be for a psychological disorder, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 12:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Err, yes it does. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The words don't. They could as easily have been from literary criticism of a romantic novel as from a medical journal. Obviously they are from some kind of professional medical publication. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does potentially ambiguous wording matter when the full context (not just the location) clearly demonstrates that the meaning is in the required sense? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I was thinking that it didn't well illustrate the definition provided. Maybe the problem is that the definition implies that this is as accepted as, say, the disorders listed in the DSM. Would "putative psychological disorder" be more accurate without being as pejorative as "purported"? DCDuring TALK 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I put "alleged" but counted all three citations. RFV passed. DAVilla 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I was thinking that it didn't well illustrate the definition provided. Maybe the problem is that the definition implies that this is as accepted as, say, the disorders listed in the DSM. Would "putative psychological disorder" be more accurate without being as pejorative as "purported"? DCDuring TALK 20:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does potentially ambiguous wording matter when the full context (not just the location) clearly demonstrates that the meaning is in the required sense? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The words don't. They could as easily have been from literary criticism of a romantic novel as from a medical journal. Obviously they are from some kind of professional medical publication. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Err, yes it does. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The 1998 cite doesn't seem to be for a psychological disorder, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 12:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cited I think. Whether it is a hoax or not, the term is used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
An article in Wikipedia is not enough to prove anything, alone. Funny that there are no English-language scientific articles about such a popularly interesting phenomenon in BGC. The best I found is anecdotal evidence to a "Japanese psychiatrist based in Paris". Not even this individual's name is mentioned. Yes, there is the summary of an article by Katada Tamami, but the article in itself is in Japanese, and one can quite safely state that "Paris syndrome" has not been attested as a medical term in English. The term seems to exist as it has been used in so many places, but the disease itself might as well be an urban legend. In absence of scientific sources I would add the word "alleged" or "putative" as DC suggests to the definition and remove the category "Pathology". --Hekaheka 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)