Talk:Maartechen Syndrome

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.   CDills 21:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

message: :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)
replies: text: ... 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Renaming?