Talk:Maartechen Syndrome

There are a number of Wikipedia entries that disagree with modern physics.

That might be true, but that's not really a good defense. Additionally, I'm a reddit user, and it seems this started as a joke on the noted YouTube reddit submission, and also that this article was submitted as another joke (see http://reddit.com/info/5yhwh/comments/). CDills 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a Reddit user and I disagree. There is an actual syndrome being described, although it is rare. Shii (tock) 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does actually describe real (if rare) perception disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.243.120 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall Maartachen's is extremely rare and probably the only mainstream reference to it in mainstream literature can be found in Oliver Sacks's work (it is mentioned once in 'The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat'). It is often mispelled 'Martachen's'. The first documented occurence of Maartachen's was in Germany in the 1960's, I believe. I surprise myself, I think I only remember this because it was so unusual. It's not a physical phenomenon but a psychological disorder. --Fucube 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly (and Google hasn't proven wrong), the only reference in 'The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat' to a mirror involved people not recognizing their own faces in a mirror, or being shocked by their age, not completely being unable to identify the object of themselves in the mirror. There isn't any mention of someone looking in a mirror and seeing a single person, instead of the two actual people in the mirror. CDills 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book (thanks to Amazon Reader -- no idea how I referference that on here...) does describe the case of a woman who is unable to see the left side of herself in the mirror. Chapter 8, "Eyes Right!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.243.120 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, but the context seems to imply that it's hardly limited to mirrors. She can't identify anything on the left, including things placed in front of her (like her food on a tray). So implying that he describes the syndrome of being unable to see yourself (or even half of yourself) strictly in the mirror seems to be taking that bit slightly out of context. CDills 21:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative autoscopy appears to be a fine description of the syndrome that is described in the present article. However, the name Maartechen Syndrome still appears to be in need of sourcing. [1] CDills 21:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that "Maartechen Syndrome" is a great name, and Im pretty sure someone mentioned it being used in a book, called "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesp707 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the connection to the more common but also unusual prospopagnosia ought to be noted. --Fucube 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Count Dracula have the same problem? :D People will believe anything. Especially emails from Ethiopia that guarantee you 5 million dollars.. Broadcast UFO sigtings on the tele and a half million people will start claiming they saw it too. 15 minutes of fame, that's what I say. Show some medical evidence instead of obvious pranks on BoobTube. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was merge and redirect to Autoscopy. The internet meme gets its two seconds of fame there, and the claims here were either (a) not supported by reliable sources, or (b) not present in the reliable sources claimed. Joking around can be fun sometimes, but I hope that you'll decide to use your eloquent turns of phrase to help improve the encyclopedia in the future. Dekimasu よ! 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of negative autoscopy is satisfactorily referenced. However, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the name Maartechen Syndrome or Martechen Syndrome outside of the sites referencing the joke. Anyone have anything concrete? CDills 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Maartechen Syndrome isnt the name, then I think we should use the term, and eventually make it the official name.

... that's not really our job. Our job as Wikipedians is to document the world, not come up with names for things that already exist (like negative autoscopy). CDills 21:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should keep Maartechen Syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesp707 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is fine. There are pages for autoscopy and heautoscopy, so that would fit.

Let's not be hasty. We need to hear from those who have been diagnosed with Maartechen. How would they want their condition named? Let's spare a thought for them. Or, as someone has so eloquently put it elsewhere, "let's reflect on those who cannot reflect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milton rhodes (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia entry for Negative Autoscopy, whereas there is one for Maartechen Syndrome. Furthermore NA only merits 15 results on Google, whereas MS produces 18. Given that the MS entry on Wikipedia already cites four scientific papers, there is I believe a case for MS being allowed to stand as it is for now with a cross reference to a new entry for NA - if indeed that is what the Wikipedian community wish to see. Ultimately, we need to take this where the science leads us. Milton rhodes 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where in the cited papers the name Maartechen Syndrome is used, as opposed to negative autoscopy and heautoscopy. Also, the number of hits on Google is not a relevant bar for determining the correct name of something, especially when the total number is 15 or 18. CDills 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I come from the school of thought that says knowledge shall know no boundaries. Understanding must come without preconditions. And the truth is non-negotiable. Just as Monsieur Einstein toiling as a young clerk in the Swiss Patent Office took a leap towards the truth, so I ask you my friend to take that same leap now. There is a bigger picture here than the counting of Google results or the names in cited works. Science is bigger than that. We are bigger than that. Let us together take that leap towards the truth and retain this page as it stands. I appeal to the whole Wikipedian community and to its respect for the sanctity of an open enquiring mind, open to new possibilities, open to the limitless potential of the human spirit. Let us step out of the night noir and give this tree a chance to grow in the forest of our intellect. Milton rhodes 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate your eloquence, Wikipedia is not original research, nor is it original opinion, nor is it to be based upon a handful of throwaway comments in one or more internet forums. CDills 00:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having stumbled by, I think I'll throw my two cents in. I assume the original research tag placed on this article has to do with Wikipedia's policy against coining new terms; however, it appears that this term was not coined on Wikipedia. I understand the uneasiness with an article being created so quickly after the name "Maartechen Syndrome" gained popularity. Yet, an article about a television pilot might appear ten minutes after the pilot is broadcast without such debate. You mentioned earlier that the number of hits on Google is not a relevant metric for determining the proper name, but I posit that it is - the correct title of the article should probably be that which is most popularly used. Instead of renaming, perhaps consider redirecting the less-popular term "Negative Autoscopy" to the article for "Maartechen Syndrome". Spiffy McPerson 08:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a genuine difference of opinion here. What we need is a third party to adjudicate. I would ask that person to take into account the fact that what we have here is a genuine medical condition authenticated with solid scientific papers. Let us not forget that for those afflicted this is a distressing condition. If Wikipedia can find screen space for Phlogiston, a thoroughly discredited theory, can it not spare a few pixels for a real-life psychological disorder and in so doing perhaps bring comfort to its unfortunate victims. Milton rhodes 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: Patent nonsense[edit]

And whats with the nonsense of the speedy deletion being reinstated? And Patent Nonsense? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesp707 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the rationale of the article bing patent nonsense (though the final paragraph could be considered as such). See Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense#Not_to_be_confused_with.... If anything, the naming of the page could qualify as a hoax. The concept of negative autoscopy is a real thing, as established by the references, and the article should be renamed and refocused to reflect that. If this article deserves to be deleted, it is because the concept of negative autoscopy is described in such a small way in the literature to render it non-notable. CDills 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Its definitely not Patent Nonsense.

It's not even april fools day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.81.101 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not patent nonsense, there's even a disclaimer on the wikipedia page, I mean if you strike this as patent nonsense, why not creationism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.140.138 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with some creditable evidence of a medical study then. All I get is 1 Google page and none of them are from a medical institution and most of them admit its a prank. If you can't get anything creditable call Art Bell and get your 15 minutes there.

--Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no evidence to support this article, then it is either original research or a hoax. In either case it is not patent nonsense in the manner meant by Criteria for Speedy Deletion G1, so this article is not a speedy deletion candidate. If you feel that this article should be deleted take it to PROD or AfD Dsmdgold 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bullshit an das to be reomved immediatley!--169.232.119.231 03:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day you have to go with the science. There are now four scientific/medical citations to support this condition and one lay citation from a patient with the condition. That seems to be more than enough to warrant its inclusion for now. As new papers are published more citations will undoubtedly follow. I suggest we leave it be for a couple of months and revisit it towards the end of the year. Milton Rhodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milton rhodes (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Maartechen Syndrome outside of a joke. The syndrome it describes exists (negative autoscopy), but the name "maartechen syndrome" shows no reference before a day or so ago. CDills 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect people who suffer from this very real and troubling condition would be none too happy to have it refered to as a "joke". Milton rhodes 12:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.