Talk:Capgras delusion

What's it called

when you believe a close relative (or any other person) has been replaced with someone else, without the necessity being same-looking? --Abdull 08:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Intermetamorphosis delusions perhaps? Georgia State Southwestern Univerisity abstract has a different take on the wiki definition. 74.178.201.186 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if it is related to a condition in which someone very familiar is suddenly perceived as a complete stranger (the sufferer knows rationally who that person is, but on some other gut/emotional/empathetic level they seem to be a stranger). I suspect this is a much, much more common condition (does it have a name)? Also would it still be called Capgras if the person actually had been replaced by a duplicate (in the realm of science fiction perhaps) :) ? 64.231.21.226 (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there a standard pronunciation of this in English? Does it rhyme with 'grass', or with 'bra'?
Henry^Flower 21:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard it pronounced as in the French origen of the name. i.e. rhymes with bra -
Vaughan 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Henry^Flower
  --07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes: Dorland's explicitly specifies the silent S.
  --Jerzy•t 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  

(Spelling)

The quote says "imposter" - should we perhaps correct the misspelling? 23 Feb 2008
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.114.165.252 (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009

• This apparently concerns the section Capgras delusion#Presentation, where the 15:37, 17 December 2008 change by 193.3.142.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the O to E and put scare quotes around the words, summarizing

Presentation: corrected a spelling error and added "'s.

And it turns out that that

_ _ the 16:13, 14 October 2008 change by User:QuizzicalBee (along with unrelated changes) added a comma between "other" and "unrelated" in the same passage,
_ _ the 03:55, 9 June 2007 change by User:Mordantkitten, unsummarized & tagged m for "minor" had changed E to O,
_ _ the still earlier 03:21, 3 May 2006 ones by 134.10.176.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had respelled two -ise verbs (British spelling) to -ize ones (American) without summary in a section edit, and
_ _ the very early edit of 14:50, 18 August 2003 by User:Vaughan introduced the quoted passage.

I am reverting all of the others back to Vaughn's 6-year old spelling and punctuation:

The subsequent edits were all, tho undoubtably in good faith, almost certainly mistaken and definitely made with inadequate caution. The only doubt as to the mistakes is that someone may have consulted the source Vaughn cited, and discovered that Vaughn mistranscribed; there is no doubt as to inadequate caution even in any such case, bcz Vaughn attested to the accuracy of the transcription both in stating it and formatting it as a quotation, and no reasonably cautious editor would contest their attestation without making it clear that they had checked against the same source, or replacing the source with their own at least equally reliable one; the only reasonable presumption is that Vaughn was right and they are, from whatever cause, wrong.
As i say, it is crucial that this is a direct quote, and that none of them proposed replacing it with an admitted paraphrase. If you fix the spelling, or the punctuation (for grammar or for clarity), you can't call it a quote. Some of these editors may have not noticed they were inside a quote, and that implies a different form of carelessness.

--Jerzy•t 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, impostor states that both spellings are acceptable, which to my gut is credible: i'm not sure which i'd have chosen for this word that i may never have written before. If your gut or your dictionary disagrees, go study American and British English spelling differences and broaden your gut's awareness.
  --Jerzy•t 07:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  

Intermetamorphosis

Does the Capgras delusion depend on the supposed imposter being unknown to the sufferer? I ask because the example given mentions that the sufferer at times thought her husband had been replaced by her father, which appears to better fit the description given in the article on intermetamorphosis. Is that phenomenon merely a subset or special case of the Capgras delusion, or is it clearly distinguished by whether or not the supposed imposter is thought to be a stranger or another acquaintance? Could someone knowledgeable in the field edit one or both of the articles to clarify the definitions, as it appears at present that both intermetamorphosis and the Capgras delusion could describe the same phenomenon. Specifically, both articles give examples of people confusing two family members. 86.136.92.2 01:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

While both of the same group classification, they are two seperate syndromes. It is under debate if this is even a sympton, or if is in its own right a mental illness. - TkTech 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An explanation of the subtle difference between illusion and delusion.

However, the term illusion has a subtly different meaning from delusion in psychiatry so "the Capgras delusion" is used as a more suitable name. It might be helpful to specify the difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.37.121 (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Or would it? --76.191.209.117 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, at most that matter deserves discussion of the distinction (which is not "subtle"!) at either delusion or illusion, or different discussions, one at each article.
  (That's been reworded, BTW.)
  --Jerzy•t 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  

Tony Rosato

Isn't this what the comedian Tony Rosato suffers from? 68.164.92.203 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See details here. JTBurman 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you?

"Who are you and what have you done with...?" is often heard on movies and TV - but it is often used humorously rather than seriously. Erudil 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that someone deleted this article and replaced it with a different one... 192.91.173.42 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sex Ratio Query whose Answers Should Perhaps Be Found in Article

Does the syndrome occur more frequently in one sex as opposed to another? Are there differences in the frequencies with which it occurs amongst male schizophrenics v female schizophrenics? male victims of brain injury v female victims? male victims of dementia v female victims? —12.72.70.54 (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The syndrome is rare enough that there are not enough data to make any conclusions on the relative prevelance of Capgras in men and women. Edhubbard (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the rarity of the syndrome could preclude establishing any suggestion of causal relationships between sex and prevalence, but determining actual prevalence itself is simply a matter of “counting heads”. For example, if there were only three suffers, two of whom were men and one of whom was a woman, then it would be more prevalent in men, though nothing of significance would thus be shown. —12.72.72.248 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

David Cronenberg made a movie titled "Spider", which is about the early and adult life of a person with this dilusion. I'm not sure how that could be fit into the article, but does show an interesting, non-glamourous point of view. -GHouck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Is Dead

It may be a good idea to include the Paul is Dead-hoax in this article as an example of collective Capgras delusion...--GraafGeorge (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I just came here to comment that I removed exactly that. To wit: "*The Paul is Dead-hoax could be seen as an example of a collective Capgras delusion."

Some of the most original research I've seen here. :) Sorry to remove it, it is clever. But... source?
Eaglizard (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Owkay, so if I hypothesise this on another website and ref to it, it's good? ;)--
GraafGeorge (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Then you get awarded the Graf Munchhausen Prize for Beating a Dead Pantomime Horse, and a step toward being blocked as a vandal. The sites where you can add that are not reliable sources, and its mention at one site (even if reliable) without attribution to a source of notable interest in it would leave it as it is now: funny, and non-notable.
  --Jerzy•t 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  

And in any case, Wikipedia Policy specifically says that one may not use one's own research as a source even if it is published. I can't give you the link without doing a search and I don't feel like it, so do it yourself. Mike Hayes (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pointless ref?

I have removed

<ref name="ellis">Ellis, H.D.; Whitley, J.; & Luaute, J.P. (1994). Abstract of "Delusional misidentification. The three original papers on the Capgras, Frégoli and intermetamorphosis delusions (Classic Text No. 17)". History of Psychiatry 5 (17) 117–146.</ref>

after going to the trouble of fixing its format & then finally looking at the page. It's actually far short of an academic-article abstract, and (unless it is more useful to someone with some kind of membership), following the link yields a message that EBSCO doesn't yet include the article.
In any case, the link i found to the facsimile of the original probably obviates the other for all our purposes except a text that one could cut and paste from, or an English translation.
--Jerzy•t 21:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Literature and Popular Culture

Please restore the Section on the Capgras Delusion in Literature and Popular Culture. It is a sad loss. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Star Wars novels, the Capgras Delusion afflicts a large group of young Jedi!!! Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the section, which has been removed by Nikkimaria without giving the reason, nor in the talk page, nor in the edit summary --JanusDC (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And I've re-removed it. The material in that section does not meet WP:IPC and does not include reliable secondary sources indicating the notability of these references. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Capgras and Prosopagnosia?

Does anyone know if there's any research about how Capgras would/might/does interact with prosopagnosia? Prosopagnosia (at least some instances) has been correlated to functional deficits of parts of the fusiform gyrus that (I assume) is involved in face recognition/memory. Capgras would seem to be a syndrome where the "output" of this area is not correlated correctly with other parts of the memory system. But in prosopagnosia, there is no (or reduced) "output" from this area. Does this mean that Capgras syndrome couldn't happen? Jimw338 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a few papers that posit Capgras is a 'mirror' of prosopagnosia - this one for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30416111 - & others that indicate Capgras comes from a disconnect between the part affected by prosopagnosia & the part that calls up the memories/emotions associated with the face (ie. the two pathways are functioning, but the linkage is defective). As someone mildly affected with prosopagnosia I'm always interested in learning more about it & related "disorders" - it's a shame how little we truly understand about our own brains LeviaThinMint (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Common and harmless in young children

The delusion is common and usually harmless (acute put short-lived) in young children. It is not implausible that this is an innate fear, and that adult sufferers have not succeeded in overcoming this fear. But I have no references for this, so I'll just put it on the talk page for an expert to look at.137.205.183.114 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Capgras delusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105171601/http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2007/08/08/ot-rosato-070808.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2007/08/08/ot-rosato-070808.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What about adding another movie to "society and culture"

The movie 'They Look Like People' fits this condition perfectly, although it is not explicitly stated that the movie is about this condition. I believe it would be worth adding, though. Justin3684 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition needed tag, Causes section

I have added the {{Definition needed}} tag to the following sentence "It is generally agreed that the Capgras delusion has a more complex and organic basis..."

I do not believe that the phrase "organic basis" is a commonly used term and would like clarification on the meaning when used in this context. I did a cursory Google search for "organic basis" and didn't see anything readily apparent; it's unclear if the term means something related to psychology, anatomy or something else. I assume brain matter is considered organic material, right...? Does organic imply some kind of physical decomposition/damage, or does it have a specific meaning in Psychiatry?

Can someone either please link to an appropriate reference, or restructure this part of the sentence? I noticed there is already a {{CN}} tag for the same sentence, so it might be worth just reworking it. Sawta (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

New evidence suggests it might not be right hemisphere damage

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28794897?dopt=Abstract

> We identified 84 individuals and extracted diagnosis-matched comparison groups. Capgras was not 'monothematic' in the majority of cases. Most cases involved misidentified family members or close partners but others were misidentified in 25% of cases, contrary to dual-route face recognition models. Neuroimaging provided no evidence for predominantly right hemisphere damage. Individuals were ethnically diverse with a range of psychosis spectrum diagnoses.

Perhaps the last paragraph of the article could include this new information? DanBCDanBC (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop Talking About References to Popular Culture

According to Nikkimaria, the references to Popular Culture to not comply with one of Wikipedia's rules. Thusly, I'd like to make it known that you should cease suggesting new movies should be put into an nonexistent 'Popular Culture' page. The quote from Nikkimaria from 11:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC) follows. "The material in that section does not meet WP:IPC and does not include reliable secondary sources indicating the notability of these references." TheTeaDrinker (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Invalid "Culture" Examples

I believe we should remove all purported examples that reflect sci-fi stories featuring actual replacement of individuals with identical duplicates, namely "The Father-Thing," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," and "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub." These would only be valid if, say, a person recognizing such a replacement is mistakenly diagnosed with Capgras delusion. "Fate of the Jedi" can stay, in my opinion, because although it's science fiction, the storyline is described as involving a delusion, rather than actual replacement. --DavidK93 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Those links are just in the See also section, they are related to the topic of impostors, even though they are actually sci fi. It is normal in articles to have a section In popular culture with such kind of info. Now, how much is a reasonable number of links per MOS:SEEALSO? That is an open question. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Actual cases of impostors section - relevance??

At best, the story of Christine Collins has only a tenuous connection to the Capgras delusion through the "Code 12" mention. The story of Irene Silverman doesn't have anything to do with the Capgras delusion at all. I propose that both should be removed - this is not the article on impostors and should focus on the psychiatric condition. Snickersnee07 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The article's first sentence states, "Capgras syndrome is a psychiatric disorder in which a person holds a delusion that a friend, spouse, parent, another close family member, or pet has been replaced by an identical impostor."

The information about actual cases of impostors or crimes committed to supplant a person is relevant because it highlights cases where actually crimes were committed to supplant or try to impersonate another person.

I think this is important information from a historical point of view about the topic of impostors, which is an essential component of the Capgras topic. As such, adding a section about actual impostors and historical cases and how the issue was in society before being made almost exclusively a realm of Psychiatry is relevant and called for. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I second the recommendation to remove this section. There is nothing in the opening sentence or elsewhere in the article to suggest that actual cases of impostors or impersonators never occur nor that the topic of impostors is now "almost exclusively a realm of Psychiatry." If there are reliable sources describing how the understanding of impostors has changed because Capgras delusion has been characterized, that perspective could be described. Currently the section is just two random cases that do not pertain to the current understanding of Capgras delusion nor its historical development. MYCETEAE - talk 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"delusion that a friend, spouse, parent, another close family member, or pet has been replaced by an identical impostor." The actual cases of impostors is to provide contextual balance, otherwise the reader might think that any and all suspicions that a person is an impostor is a psychiatric disorder. I added it per the neutral point of view policy.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

The topic is not only delusion or capgras but also significantly and crucially impostors. Also, if you read the relevant section of actual impostors, I added only information backed by reliable sources.

I have intended to add more information regarding the historical development of cases of impostors and its eventual evolution into being considered a psychiatric disorder but I haven't gotten to it. You are welcome to add info. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about Capgras specifically. Nothing else in the article suggests that real-world impostors never occur nor that all or even most purported cases are explained by Capgras. I find it a stretch to assert that typical readers would be confused or mislead by a description of Capgras into thinking impostors never occur in the real world. I think more examples of real-world impostors will make the article worse, not better, by adding length to a section that veers significantly away from the topic of the article. My suggestion was that if there are sources explicitly describing the relationship between Capgras and real-world examples, those could be summarized and cited.

A better way to address your concern would be to state somewhere in the introduction that Capgras syndrome is an example of a non-bizarre delusion because, while false in the case of Capgras, it is technically plausible for impostors to occur in the real world and such cases have been documented and confirmed. That clarification near the beginning of the article could be brief and would contain the discussion to the topic at hand while directing readers to the relevant discussion on classification of delusions within Wikipedia.

I'm interested in more perspectives on this. I appreciate the work you've put into this, including finding sources for the cases you describe. This not a criticism of the sourcing or the work itself; rather, I find it off-topic and not helpful to understanding Capgras syndrome. MYCETEAE - talk 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my primary recommendation is that this section be removed. I don't feel strongly enough to be bold and just delete it myself and I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion. Given that, my secondary recommendation is to find a more on-topic way to address the concerns you have raised. MYCETEAE - talk 22:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it a stretch to assert that typical readers would be confused or mislead by a description of Capgras into thinking impostors never occur in the real world. Why do you think governments around the world put so much emphasis in misinformation? Not exactly because people are not misled. Not saying this article is misinformation, but making a point that readers need as much clarity as possible within the guidelines of Wikipedia. The important thing is to provide context and a balanced information from a neutral point of view.

Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK,

a Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

I don't feel strongly enough to be bold and just delete it myself I appreciate that, and your adherence you have demonstrated to achieving consensus in talk pages, which I also try my best to adhere to.

I have to point out you may have some basis about the section itself, per WP:STRUCTURE,

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for clarity and rooting out misinformation. I do not see this as an issue of neutrality so much as on of relevance and the coherence of the article as a whole.

While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

I believe my suggestion is consistent with this:

state somewhere in the introduction that Capgras syndrome is an example of a non-bizarre delusion because, while false in the case of Capgras, it is technically plausible for impostors to occur in the real world and such cases have been documented and confirmed.

A clear statement near the beginning of the article could address unequivocally the fact that Capgras concerns a delusion about a phenomenon that can and does occur in the real world. I think it could be brief while containing sufficient detail and definitions to improve understanding of Capgras specifically, related phenomena, and the broader concept of delusions in psychiatry. It should contain relevant wikilinks but not as a replacement for sufficient treatment of the topic within the article.

If we reach consensus to keep the section on actual cases, this discussion elsewhere in the article will more clearly link it to the rest of the article. It also serves to address your concerns and fleshes out the description of the current understanding of Capgras whether or not we discuss real world cases.

Thanks for engaging on this. MYCETEAE - talk 23:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I made changes, I hope it is a good compromise. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Original asker here finally getting around to checking notifications - I think this is a great compromise!

I wish that the circumstances around Christine Collins's psychiatric stay were clearer. Did doctors actually consider her be in the midst of a psychotic break, or did police commit her out of embarrassment and annoyance, as the newspaper articles imply? I think a diagnosis of Capgras is highly unlikely considering the first case study was presented in France 5 years before. Regardless, I do think instances where a Capgras diagnosis is overturned due to the presence of an actual impersonator are noteworthy and merit mention in this article.

Thanks to both of you for sharing your thoughts. I generally only consume Wikipedia and am glad to have contributed a tiny improvement to the flow of this fascinating yet extremely niche article. :) Snickersnee07 (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is a great compromise!

I made this change to include wikilinks to the article on list of impostors which I came across this evening. (I didn't see the Collins/Hutchens case on there, by the way.)

It doesn't sound like Christine Collins was ever considered to have Capgras delusion, more like she was considered "mad" or "hysterical" in a general sense and was inconvenient for police. I think the level of detail now in the Capgras article, plus the wikilinks to the full disappearance of Walter Collins and list of impersonators articles, is sufficient and appropriate.

Thanks, both of you, for your contributions! MYCETEAE - talk 04:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oof, y'all are so fast. I reworked some of that last paragraph to flow a little better and give more (too much?) context before I saw your reply. Feel free to adjust as needed - I worry that I too strongly implied that she did have Capgras, but I wanted the gist of "oh, that actually WAS a fake" to come through. I will leave it to seasoned veterans to perfect! Snickersnee07 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that gives the wrong impression. I appreciate the enthusiasm, though! I think the way Thinker78 worded things gave plenty of detail without incorrectly implying that she was misdiagnosed. I undid your change but if there is something in the wording you think could be improved without suggesting she was ever labeled as having Capgras, take another stab, or you can always propose alternate wording here if you want input on it first. MYCETEAE - talk 05:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, 90% of my issue with it was the wordy sentence fragment in there. ;) How's this?

"Historically, there have been many cases of actual impostors, who took over or attempted to take over the life and identity of someone else. In an unusual case, Christine Collins claimed that a boy presumed to be her missing son, Walter, was not actually her son, which resulted in the police committing her to a mental hospital. Upon questioning, the boy revealed himself to be an unrelated runaway."

No implication of Capgras, but a clear statement that an impostor was revealed?
Snickersnee07 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to illustrate the case well. It comes off as if police were right in committing her and that she was just making claims. Which defeats also the point that I added the info to provide balance. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Consider consensus through discussion,

Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think the description and level of detail currently is sufficient. It accurately describes the Collins case without too many extraneous details that are irrelevant to Capgras syndrome and without incorrectly suggesting a link to Capgras at the time of the incident.

I made [this change] which I think improves the sentence structure and readability. MYCETEAE - talk 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed discussion of the disappearance of Walter Collins from the article. See update here. I maintain my original position that listing or describing real world cases of impostors has no place in this article. At best, mentioning case gives it undue weight but really I find it completely irrelevant and more likely to confuse or mislead than to inform. I was never fully comfortable with where we landed although the compromise was a vast improvement. I have left the List of impostors links in place. I see now that Thinker has been banned. Pinging @Snickersnee07 as a courtesy. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest new topic to this page about Capgras syndrome in children

this new paper concluding all cases of Capgras syndrome in children and adolescents in the last 100 years. i think some information from this systematic review or at least mention it, should be included here. i have no experince in editing in wikipedia, that is why i suggest it here. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163834324000847 91.228.248.251 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)