Talk:Mean World Syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Normally I don't do edits, but something about this didn't seem right. There were no sources cited and nothing beyond what could be mere opinion presented. Upload 42 14:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
And it is said objectively, with a point of view in mind, as the name suggest, which makes it look worst.. there is enough of good reason in the world to have the "mean world syndrome" not to point out good things about it
"Mean world Syndrome has very few references, thus indicating it is a figment of this writer's imagination, in psychological literature (a contradiction )and exists as a so-called 'new' disorder."
This sentence not only makes no sense in the context of the article, it makes no sense at all. I *think* it's trying to indicate that the person who created this article made it up, but it's hard to understand (what's the contradiction? is the person who wrote this trying to suggest that "psychological literature" is oxymoronic?). But if it's made up, it doesn't "exist" at all, and "so-called 'new' disorder," with "so-called" and scare quotes, seems like overkill. "MWS has very few references in psychological literature, and since it has not been thoroughly studied, people should not draw conclusions about it" is the only way I can read it so that it makes sense, doesn't make the article sound like it was written by someone with MPD, and is neutral and grammatical. Does this sentence even belong in the article?
"Is this for real? Media-induced PTSD where one of the symptoms is an insatiable desire to seek out violent images? Sounds a little Onion-y to me. At the very least, it needs to be reframed in terms of 'this is a proposed theory, this is who advances it, this is what they say it is' instead of just reeling off causes and symptoms in Wikipedia's voice." --Ross Hight
[edit] Disputed?
I have added a couple of links to relevant sites. I think the "factual accuracy disputed" warning should be removed. I tried to find some citations in opposition but didn't have much luck. If someone has a link maybe it could be added. Tom harrison 17:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the external links prove that it is no longer dispusted. I'm removing the sign. 24.147.141.127 02:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The sense I indicated has been understood. Ergo, my edits are in fact a sensible statement. The correct conclusion, either way, was to delete the sentence as it was irrelevant. The separate comment about psycholgical literature whether contradictory or oxymoronic renders, again, the same sense and conclusion.
The wider issue on whether "psycholgical literature" is contradictory or oxymoronic (the same thing) is also met, whether understood by the editor or not - serendipitous for that person I suppose, or good intuition at least.
how do u make something a stub????
New user comment: This is not a disorder recognised by any national or international psychiatric organisation. The text of the article does not make clear that this syndrome is hypothetical. As such, it may be factually correct, but it still needs a warning attached. 163.1.143.122 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
