Talk:Paris syndrome/Archive 1

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:

The BBC piece is probably of wider use as a further reading link for the article anyway. SFC9394 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ota apparently even published a book (Pari shokogun - "Paris syndrome") in the 1990s. 81.173.136.235 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2009 (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!

What are the symptoms?
... 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.210.9 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another voice for the "tell us what it is" camp. I followed a link here, read it, and came here to complain that the article does not define the subject. You have to say what something is before you explain why it happens. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who totally failed to understand what Paris Syndrome might be from this article. Someone who knows what they're talking about, please help us all out! 76.27.211.75 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Japanese?
....not mentioned in the opening, then the explanations are given in the context of the victim being Japanese. Why? Leushenko (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Elephant in the room
So what exactly is Paris syndrome? It should not be necessary to go to Stendahl Syndrome to find out.

racist
This is a racist, ridiculous article with no scientific basis that should be removed from Wikipedia. It's things like this garbage that discredit Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.90.138 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling
Very confusing first paragraph under "General Characteristics." I would have tidied it up myself but I'm not at all sure what the author was trying to communicate in places. I honestly didn't read further than this because it was very off putting. I assume it is a translation, but I feel that the meaning is so obscured as to justify another try. Kittybitme (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)