Talk:Coulrophobia

Image Discussions again

I am not coulrophobic, although suffer from severe arachnophobia, so have a lot of sympathy for them.

As it has already been said, having the image could cause distressing and upsetting to claudrophobes.

I will remove it until its existence can be justified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk • contribs)

You'll find that difficult to do, as it's already been moved to the clown article. There's a discussion at the bottom of this page. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Generally poor. It seems the psychiatric/psychological community has not accepted this as an accepted disorder. It's absent, for example, from DSM IV. To take this article beyond mere anecdotage would require specific reliable sources; in particular, its incidence is unsourced except vaguely in very young children. Rodhullandemu 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Move

this article should be moved to fear of clowns. It's absurd that the article is at current title but consist largely of explanation of why coulrophobia doesn't exist, even in the dictionary. 169.231.63.77 (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that would be better title, since it appears that it isn't a recognized phobia at all.Sjö (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per Sjö and the wise IP. Also, as Wikipedia is used as a source, it could end up becoming the recognized term. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It is already a recognized term in published sources. See a search for the term at Google Books. Further, a phobia is an irrational fear of clowns...not just a regular fear. Not seeing it in a dictionary or in DSM-IV-TR is misleading. DSM-IV-TR can not enumerate all phobias...they are as numerous as they are irrational. There are three broad categories for phobias; this one falls under specific phobias (as opposed to agoraphobia or social phobias). Specific phobias are always valid. And as for the dictionary, they just haven't caught up with the times. New words are created and become valid all the time. The earliest published source that I have seen when searching Google books is this in 1990...which is citing an earlier publishing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was sure I'd google-book-searched this ages ago and came up with nothing. I am very surprised. It appears to be not only a recognized phobia, but a recognized term. Thank you Berean Hunter. Next time I will not trust my memory, but instead will practice due diligence. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not true to say that the word "colrouphobia" doesn't appear in any dictionaries; for instance, it appears in the Oxford Dictionary of English (and many others), which dates its origin to the 1980s. The Internet as we know it today wasn't generally available until the 1990s, so the "internet meme" argument is hardly credible. Malleus Fatuorum 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment Here is a list of college texts and professional publications

The first 3 of these are college text books mentioning coulrophobia:

• Psychology 02/03. Karen G. Duffy, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2002 ISBN 0072506342, 9780072506341

• Understanding Abnormal Behavior By David Sue, Derald Wing Sue, Stanley Sue

• Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior by Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer

• The encyclopedia of phobias, fears, and anxieties By Doctor Ronald Manual , Ada P. Kahn, Christine A. Adamec.

• Campbell's psychiatric dictionary By Robert Jean Campbell.

Also the Austrailian Oxford Dictionary and the Pocket Dictionary list coulrophobia.

This is a cursory look...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It's recognized as a phobia. --Tepigisthe498th (talk to me!) 23:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of File:Scary clown.jpg

The image File:Scary clown.jpg is offensive and causes anxiety to suffers of coulrophobia, and as such, should be removed from the article discussing the said phobia, as I myself am I sufferer of coulrophobia, I had to cover the image with my hand to read the article, so I would like for this offensive image to be removed from the article, thank you. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The image is by no stretch of the imagination offensive, and so I have restored it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be offensive to you, but what about to the suffers of this phobia? You have to think about the feelings of the coulrophobes viewing this article, such as myself, who have to cover the image with their hand just to read the article, so I will remove this image again. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

... and I've put it back again. That you may find it offensive is immaterial. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you suffer from coulrophobia? Well if you do, then you would understand, but apparently you don't, it is mean spirited to have a scary clown image in an article discussing about coulrophobia, and this has been discussed before in here, but their arguments have been ignored, you don't see an actual image of a real spider in the article Arachnophobia do you? Greg The Webmaster (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a cartoon spider in that article, but I think the situations are rather different. It may not be at all obvious to many people that clowns could in any way be scary, so this is an example. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. No edit-warring please. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus that the image should stay. Greg, if you have coulrophobia then you know yourself that the phobia is irrational, yes? The fact that you can't stand the photo confirms that you have this phobia (many phobias are determined by photo tests). You should never accommodate the phobia. You need to overcome it. That's part of treatment.

Wikipedia is not censored.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't help that much. There are two major psychiatric approaches to phobias: "graded desensitisation", in which the patient is gradually exposed to increasingly provocative threats in the expectation that the lesser will eventually overcome the greater. The other is "flooding", in which the patient is exposed to the full threat of the phobia, in that hope that it will be a traumatic enough experience to displace it. My experience of both is that the latter is likely to do more harm than good, since it's about as effective clinically as telling a depressive to "pull yourself together"; it just doesn't work, and inspires resentment against the clinician, to less than any intended effect. Graded Desensitisation, on the other hand, is a form of behavioural therapy which tends to have much more success since it is non-threatening, and that is seen as important and helpful by patients. There are other therapies, such as cognitive therapy, but their efficacy remains moot. Rodhullandemu 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The content of this image may be disturbing or offensive to someone with coulrophobia. Click on the link below to view this image.

Scary clown.jpg

Instead of deleting the image, I propose the addition of this template to the article, it would make the article friendly to coulrophobes. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored in addion we do not put content warnings in aricles --Guerillero | My Talk 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What about giving users the option of hiding the image? Like this:

Image: Scary clown.jpg

A depiction of an evil clown, a character depicted in the media, which might cause anxiety to someone with coulrophobia

Coulrophobia is an abnormal, exaggerated, or irrational fear of clowns. The term is of recent use but is not commonly used in psychology, and according to one analyst, "has been coined more on the Internet than in printed form because it does not appear in any previously published, psychiatric, unabridged, or abridged dictionary". In particular, the term is not recognised as a specific disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in its latest categorisation of disorders, nor is it recognised by the World Health Organisation as a valid disorder. The term has also not yet been accepted by authoritative sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary as having any validity as a usable term in the English language. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, we do not censor content. Also the DSM-IV reconsies specific phobias. This term falls under the wider banner. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not making much sense. This is what you wrote right at the start of this topic: "I myself am I sufferer of coulrophobia". Are you now arguing that you suffer from a phobia that you do not believe to exist? Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to remember that DSM-IV was published in 1994, a long time ago now, and the term coulrophobia has only been in circulation since the 1990s. It's also misleading to imply that psyschiatrists do not use the term; one example from the Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche (2010). "With their masked faces, strange clothing, and unpredictable behavior, clowns have instilled fear in many [my emphasis]. In fact, the term coulrophobia is defined as a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of clowns." Perhaps the sources that you've consulted ought to be updated Greg. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example for you, from the March 2009 issue of Pediatric Anesthesia: "During enrollment [into the study], the potential clown involvement was explained to parents; of course, if the parents were concerned about potential fear of clowns (coulrophobia), the parents were free to decline participation." Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually all I did was copy and paste the beginning of this article as an example to demonstrate the hide-ability of the image. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to quote, then why not make it obvious that you're quoting (and perhaps why), by enclosing in quotation marks? That's what they're for after all. And in reply to your question "no offense, do you read the article you are editing?" the answer is yes, but unlike certain others I do so with an open mind. You might have noticed that the lead has changed somewhat from what you quoted anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@User:Malleus Fatuorum, sorry, I assumed that since you were an editor in this article, you would recognize that it came from the beginning of the article, but in the future, I will quote quotations, thank you for the notice. Is there no way to incorporate my idea of using Template:HiddenImage to make the image hide-able to coulrophobes? Try thinking yourself in the shoes of a coulrophobe, you view this article, and this scary image of a clown appears, how would you feel? @User:Berean_Hunter, I understand what you are saying, fearing clowns is irrational, but some coulrophobes can't help but be scared, and not all coulrophobes are ready to overcome and face their fears, and subjecting coulrophobes to this scary image is not going to help them. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it's not this particular image that you're objecting to, it's any image of clowns? But actually I've got no objection to putting the image in a hideable box as in the example above, so long as the default is that it's displayed. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To a coulrophobe, any image of a clown put in this article would be traumatic and uncomfortable, which is why coulrophobes would never visit the clown article, due to the images, and this is why I strongly believe that images of clowns should be removed from this article, or at least put in a hideable box, and yes, in the template, the image is displayed by default. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well...although I'd suggest changing the title to something other than the raw image file name. Some of the other phobia articles have pics and some do not. It may be a good idea to run this past WT:PSYCH to see if they have any interesting input. This could set a precedent.

Say, that phobia doesn't extend to smiley faces and the like does it?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm still listening. Would it address your concerns Greg if the image was hidden by default? Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to Greg's point of view. This image might be better used in a coulrophobia overview in the clown article than here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm only here part-time at present but this does not seem to be going anywhere. There's no requirement to have an image in any article, particularly those that are provocative to some readers; however, we seem to manage this quite successfully in Depictions of Muhammad and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in that those who do not want to view such images may opt not to do so. Of course, there are always fanatics who insist that, despite the teachings of their own scriptures, such images are sacrilegious and there is not much we can do about that. However, in this case, I believe that the image is pointless. Any phobia, by definition, is predicated upon its irrationality, yet the image we have is of an evil clown, which might not meet that test in that fear of evilness isn't that irrational, and thus perhaps a better image here might be of a "non-evil clown", although again, I don't see why we might need to have such an image. Similar discussions have occurred in the article cunt, suggesting that an image might be added; but that article isn't about the "thing", it's about the "word", and there are much more appropriate articles in which such a depiction might be appropriate. Same here. Thanks for reading, but I'm now quite exhausted, and will try to leave it up to common-sense: do we need an image here at all? I do not think so, for that is purely decorative and does not expand a reader's understanding of the topic. Malleus, for once please take my comments seriously even if you can't do that for myself personally. Rodhullandemu

Everyone should expect that a page that discuss clowns, will include images of clowns. I see no reason to hide the image. arachnophobia has a spider for example and triskaidekaphobia has 13. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The last arguments of Rodhullandemu are stronger. We should discuss on them. I tend to agree that the image adds nothing to the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove the image because I'm no longer convinced that it adds anything to the article. As I already said above I think that it would sit easier in the clown article than here. The makeup, attitude, and lighting are clearly contrived to present a particular and non-typical image of a clown. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal but also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Images in phobia articles before I knew that it was removed. Greg has a point which may extend beyond this particular article into other phobias and psychological articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

By all means let's have that wider discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my POV on this issue, articles about phobias shouldn't have images of the fear itself, because people suffering from the phobia would be driven away from the article due to the image, and if that person wants to overcome and face that fear, like I myself will someday do, then that person would just visit the article about the fear, once again, thank you for understanding. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw this being discussed elsewhere and it drew my attention as a coulrophobic. In case this is brought up again at some later point, I'd like to add my name to those who are opposed to an image being included in this article. Coulrophobia, for me, is more specific. I'm not much affected by images, but for many, it's a source of great anxiety. It isn't necessary to include an image for readers to understand what the phobia is about. It's a fear of clowns. Pretty straight-forward. If they don't know what a clown is (lucky them), they can click on the clown link. The arguments about CENSOR and such don't logically apply here. It's not about censoring. It's about the images not being necessary, and thus there should be some consideration for how it may affect those who suffer from coulrophobia and have a desire to read—or possibly even work on—the article. That said, the hostile reaction given by some of those here in response to Greg's completely reasonable request are shameful. Lara 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The context needs to be borne in mind; Greg presented his position made during a period in which at least one other editor was rubbishing the article as essentially describing an internet meme rather than a valid phobia, we'd already had the "some" vs. "many" wars, and Greg began by claiming that the image was offensive. Which it is not by any stretch of the imagination. Greg subsequently argued for his position and persuaded at least two other editors who had initially supported the image's inclusion that it ought to be removed, which is has been. Problem solved, surely. The only shameful thing I can see here is the effort to deny that coulrophobia actually exists. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You edit warred and argued harshly against someone with a valid concern because (it appears) you didn't like his terminology. He stated from the start that he's coulrophobic, yet you have decided to take a hardline position on the word "offensive". By definition, to be offensive is to be unpleasing; to be insulting. Personally, for my particular flavor of coulrophobia, I didn't actually find the image to be unpleasing in the same sense as Greg did, in that it produced anxiety in him. I found it offensive more in the insulting sense. Insulting that someone would be so inconsiderate (read: trollish) to include a "scary clown" image in the clown phobia article. And further offensive that a long-term editor would so aggressively defend such an (obviously inappropriate) addition. Now, maybe it's only so obvious to me because I understand the phobia having dealt with it for quite some years now. Regardless, I don't expect you to feel shame for how you responded to him. I don't expect you to acknowledge that you misunderstood his above post in which he copied the lead of the article as a means of presenting an alternative, thinking instead he was claiming the phobia doesn't exist. Especially considering you seem to still think that's what he did, even after it was clearly explained that he wasn't making such a claim. Or, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, and you're talking about the earlier edits to change the article into a meme article, in which case, that's irrelevant to this discussion. Either way, I know you quite well, Mal. And you know me quite well too. As well as two WP editors who have never met can expect to, at least. I doubt either of us will back down from our positions on this, but I hope you better understand my position now. Lara 21:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, I very much doubt that either of us will be changing our minds on this. BTW, it wasn't Greg who claimed that the phobia doesn't exist, it was Rodhullandemu. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well my apologies for that misunderstanding then. I missed that as I skipped over everything he said. Lara 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw this posted at Jimbo's page. I vehemently oppose article censorship - but that said, this clown image isn't really relevant unless there's some source that says this image triggers the condition. I have absolutely no idea for example whether a picture of a happy clown would be as objectionable to phobics, so including it might obscure more than illumine. (Even if I believe your reaction, it would be original research, and to be rudely honest, I can't get over my gut feeling that this is some imaginary disease made up by some shrinks clowning around...) For example, [1] cited in the article shows a combination of "happy" and "scary" clowns, saying that any distorted image was potentially disturbing, and it wasn't clowns in particular, while saying that scary clowns were important in popular culture. I think that an image should be added if (1) it is specifically cited (e.g. used in a study) or (2) if a source defines the type of clown images that are involved clearly enough that you can say that an existing Commons stock photo is definitely covered in the category. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction on hearing of this on Jimbo's talk was that we should include the image, but I find the arguments in this thread fairly convincing: this article isn't about clowns, so it's not really useful to include an image of a clown. It's just decoration. And since it's specifically harmful, I don't think we should have a clown image in the article. A better image might be of a person in the throes of an attack of the syndrome, for instance (I'm not sure how you would depict that in an image and I'm not saying that would be a good image either, but it would be more on-topic.) Herostratus (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW Wikipedia:Images has some thoughts on the matter, but could be read either way. Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature says images should be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic". That's arguable here. "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate", but the image isn't a picture of coulrophobia (which as an abstract entity you obviously you can't have a picture of). On the other hand, if a reader is thinking "Well, what is this clown entity that the article speaks of?" then it would be useful. But the article Clown is just a click away, and if you really don't know what a clown is you should probably go to that article. Wikipedia:Images didn't change my mind, I still think it'd be better not to include the image. Herostratus (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree this picture should not be in the article. It appear to be included mostly for shock value. Look at Arachnophobia, which has a cartoon rather than a picture of a huge spider at the top. It seems common sense not to include a picture of what causes the phobia in an article about the phobia itself. This is not about censorship, but rather about good taste. Yoenit (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the image makes little sense and is somewhat disconnected from the article topic. There is no source provided explaining that this is an example of a particularly scary clown, for example, that has significant effect on a Coulrophobe. I agree with the above that an image more relevant to the article prose would be appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, coulrophobia isn't a fear of scary clowns. It's a fear of clowns, so a happy clown would serve as a potential trigger as well. Lara 12:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I'm sure even happy clowns are sufficient triggers, an evil-scary-clown is even worse. If that's true (and it may not be) then this image is particularly cruel. It is also somewhat inaccurate, since it portrays a clown in such away that even non-coulrophobes might find it disturbing (just cause it's creepy and dark looking). Much more honest representations would be of a normal clown not a "terrifying clown" which is for these purposes redundant, excessive, and possibly misleading. (also flew in from Jimbo's page) Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't even put the template on the page because on some slow computers, while it's loading, templates like that are open.--Tepigisthe498th (talk to me!) 23:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)