From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Would fear of scorpions also be considered arachnophobia? After all, scorpions are arachnids too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not intentionally vandalizing[edit]

"'Most people with this phobia are scared that spiders may be on them. They also dislike the faces (as in, the abundance of black eyes, large fangs, etc. look both abnormal and threatening) and the creeping legs of spiders." I'm not really sure how this part enhances the article, besides accurately describing a frightening spider. Reading the excerpt within parenthesis really freaked me out. I'm going to try and edit this/remove the phrase to make it less frightening. And also, thank you so, so, so, so much to everyone who fought for the current picture. It's perfect. People who argued against leaving the frightening picture don't seem to realize how horribly those images can affect people. So thank you. -- (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the big picture of the tarantula intentionally there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, please leave pictures out, I start getting freaked out when I see them and don't really need to see one to understand the phobia, please have compassion hahah, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talkcontribs) 04:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

genetic cause[edit]

I'm pretty sure I read in the last couple of years an article which said researchers had identified genes which pre-desposed individuals to both fear of spiders and fear of snakes (separate genes). Anyone else come across this?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spider image[edit]

/Archived talks about spider images

WARNING. Before you want to write something about images of spiders, it is strongly suggested to re-read the archived talk. Unless you suggest some new considerations, not already covered, your post may be removed. This is not a chat room and Wikipedia is not censored just because someone dislikes or fears something. If you or your friend really has a problem, it is strongly advised to seek qualified medical help. Wikipedia will not help you. `'mikka 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a recommendation for arachnophobics regarding the picture issue- turn off the "display image" setting in your browser so you won't have to look at any spider pictures, like the one in the discussion section. Or you could use my highly sophisticated paper technique: get a piece of printer paper, hold it up a foot away from the screen, and move it in slowly. Big, dark blotches warn you of a picture, and the closer you move in the paper the better you can see what type it is- that way you can give yourself a little warning of when a spider graphic is coming. It works for me!! But really... a picture of a spider itself doesn't belong here. (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for hiding the spider picture on the discussion page- thank you, kind wikipedians!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I came to the arachnophobia page looking for a really frightening spider pic. I was disappointed. :o( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lame edit war![edit]

You guys might be interested in knowing that this ridiculous little edit war you guys have going on here is now listed on the Lamest edit wars ever page.

I say the following as a complete outsider, as an experienced Wikipedian who has never participated in the discussion here but who has been silently watching it for several months now: For goodness' sakes, User:Mikkalai, your interpretation of Wikipedia is not censored is so asinine that it borders on WikiLawyering! (Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense. Also, having noticed that you're the one dominating your side of this edit war, I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.)-- 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with the above comment. This is truly an absurd interpretation of censorship, and the inclusion of completely spurious content in an article does not aid the cause of Wikipedia. --Haemo 09:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What the? How are we listed on a page which has not even been created?! Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

It WAS created but since deleted. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How can it be an edit war? There was only one reply! Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion on "lame edit wars" that barely have any input. Rob657 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Rob657

The page was moved to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, but it's still there. (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally New Picture Idea (I hope)[edit]

So here's my sudden thought: why don't we replace the photo with one which somehow depicts the phobia itself? Perhaps a cartoon of some kind would work — although I'm not an arachnophobe myself, I would guess that drawn renditions are usually not quite as frightening as realistic photos (but do correct me if I'm wrong). I seem to recall at least one other article with tries this trick (of using a drawing to depict something sort of abstract) for a different reason, but I can't recall which one.

The other specific possibility I can think of right now (feel free to ponder along similar lines) would be an image from a film such as Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, in which (spoiler alert) the character Ron must confront his arachnophobia by facing down enormous spiders called Acromantulas. If one such frame were used (without violating copyright rules of course), it wouldn't even need to include an image of one of the spiders themselves at all, just that of Harry and a terrified Ron behind the windshield of that car (if I remember the movie correctly).

An obvious objection would be that such depictions tend to be exaggerated and therefore possibly offensive to arachnophobes (consider that comedy, rather than sympathy, is drawn from Ron's phobia in the film). That said, you'll be hard-pressed to find a depiction which doesn't seem "out-of-wack" to some achranophobes, since each one experiences the fear in a different way. Even supposing that the fear were confronted and captured with permission on a candid camera, it probably still wouldn't seem "right".

Such, sadly, is the nature of irrational fears (irrational in the sense that they persist even when actual dangers are absent, not in the sense that there isn't any basis for the fear in the first place): It's basically "all in your head", and models like computer images can only approximate, but never match, them. (It would seem to require some sort of science-fiction device to produce an image that would instantly make non-arachnophobes understand the fear without simultaneously causing that fear in arachnophobes.) Yeah, it's a doozy, all right.

All that aside, I'm still in favor of my own idea, and and very willing to do the searching/uploading necessary to find such an image if others support it. --Lenoxus 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, so having taken closer attention to the other text on this page (even the stuff which isn't split into paragraphs, at which point my eyes usually kinda blur, sorroy) I see that this idea has indeed been raised by two users: TaggedJC and Gilgamesh. The former suggests something similar to my cartoon notion, instead regarding a picture with a toy, while the latter suggests something entiely different from either of us: A diagram indicating the more frightening parts of spiders and how this correlates with , perhaps in such a way as would midigate the fear-inducing qualities of such a picture. I would support either of these notions, although I naturally have a slightly less vague sense of the first. --Lenoxus 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly favour this approach - if only because it will, once and for all, kill off the silliest edit war I have ever had the amusement to read. Well, at least, it would be amusing were it not an important issue. Find us a better picture, people! --Haemo 09:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
i found a picture of little miss muffet on isecta inspecta, and you can cite her as a classic sufferer of said disease, but i dont know how... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendragonneo (talkcontribs) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I like it! Good idea! --Hnsampat 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I love the idea, myself! It's exactly the kind of thing I had suggested before. This is leaps and bounds better than the pictures that other uses were insisting were somehow appropriate. I think I'll even add a mention to miss Muffet.  :) -JC 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

cool! first edit/contributiont i've made that wasn't considered stupid!--the halo massacre-er 19:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your empathy when trying to find a picture that won't scare anyone that looks at this page. Half of everyone who views it is probably here to investigate their own arachnophobia and a picture of a spider prevents many from doing so. (If someone truly doesn't know what a spider is, perhaps a link could be posted at the bottom leading to a picture of one.) In my opinion, the anatomy of a spider itself doesn't have much to do with the research surrounding arachnophobia. (For fear), I can't look at this page because I know there's a picture of a spider on it- Wikipedia's goal of sharing and spreading knowledge is not being accomplished when everyone can't look at the page. --not a registered user

This approach is for the lowest common denominator, catering to the specialty needs of a minority. There are lots of phobias, should we delete the photos of dogs and needles found on wikipedia? Your mental illness and inability to look at a photo should not dictate the presentation of educational material for the wider public. (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced piece deleted[edit]

Another suggested cause of arachnophobia is that it is a disorder of face perception in the affected individuals. In this theory, a person's brain is accustomed to the facial and body features of humans and vertebrates, including the abstract positions, shapes and numbers of eyes, nostrils, mouth, and the face of the wider recognizable body as a whole. In non-vertebrates, and particularly so with spiders, the functions of eyes, mouth and legs may be recognized, but as they appear in the "wrong" shapes, sizes, amounts, locations, etc., the sight of a spider can trigger the brain to perceive a scary and disturbing image, triggering the release of hormones that produce an immediate and compelling fight-or-flight response. As most sufferers of arachnophobia come from parts of the world where spiders are rare, then this theory reasons that young children who frequently encounter spiders are less likely to associate them as scary or disturbing sights, and are less likely to develop arachnophobia.[citation needed]

The above unrerefenced paragraph sat in the article for quite some time. Now its place is here until the requested reference provided. `'mikka 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of order re "minor" edits[edit]

User:Mikkalai has requested that all communications to him be addressed on the talk pages of the articles that he edits. Accordingly, I would like to make a point of order regarding his manner of editing on this page.

Mikkalai, I've noticed that, during the course of this little edit war, you have continuously reverted any deletions or modifications of the spider image and have noted each reversion as being a "minor edit" (as signified by the m that accompanies each reversion). I simply wanted to ensure that you are aware of the policy regarding the labeling of edits as "minor". Specifically, minor edits are those that are noncontroversial and which involve only superficial changes to the articles, such as, in the words of the policy, "typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc." A minor edit is supposed to be one that "the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

However, it is blatantly obvious that all of these "minor" edits have been the source of considerable dispute, to the point where an all-out edit war has ensued here (an edit war that, as others have pointed out, is now listed among the lamest edit wars in Wikipedia history on WP:LAME). There is simply no way that you are unaware that your "minor" edits are a source of dispute. Therefore, you're labeling your edits as "minor" when you are clearly aware that they are a source of dispute. Knowingly or unknowingly, you are violating the policy on the labeling of edits as "minor."

I ask first of all that you do all that you can to put an end to this edit war. I tried to stop this edit war by changing the controversial spider image to a noncontroversial one. However, you reverted that (and labeled the edit as "minor"). If, however, you choose to continue this war (in violation of the spirit of cooperation that Wikipedia has), please stop labeling all your edits as "minor" unless they truly are minor. Thank you very much. --Hnsampat 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I support your picture as an interim compromise. First of all, I would strongly question the need for a picture of a spider on this page at all. (Is there an image staring over a precarious cliff at "acrophobia"?). However, in the interests of compromise, and WP:AGF, I think an anatomical illustration, as the one you have put forth, is an excellent choice - there is no need for the illustration to be overtly threatening, at all. I am not willing to perpetuate this edit war over this, so I will instead urge others to voice their consideration for what needs to be done. --Haemo 09:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I liked the 'anatomical illustration' far better, personally. There's just no need for anything more. A simple illustration of what a spider is already is more than enough for this page. It's just that an image of a spider alone does not aide in one's ability to understand arachnaphobia - okay, so they now know what a spider looks like... but that's what following the spider link is for. I don't expect to find a huge picture of the anus on the Human page just because it's part of our anatomy. That belongs on the anus page (and that one had a bit of a kerfuffle some time back, iirc, for having an image that helped in understanding the anus, considering how difficult it is to see one's own, where I was on the other side - fighting for the image to stay). As you can see, I don't want to censor wikipedia either - nobody who truly cares about the project would. However, I also don't want unnecessary and purposefully disturbing or frightening content. Leave the scary spider pictures on the spider page, but feel free to put in an image you think adequately illustrates arachnaphobia to someone who doesn't know anything about arachnaphobia itself. No, a scary spider picture doesn't suffice - if someone doesn't understand arachnaphobia, they won't see anything scary about a spider, and it just puzzles them more.  :P I've ranted enough. -JC 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the analogy with acrophobia. Should, say, |this picture be in the article? If I added that picture, would it be censorship to remove it? Of course not, on both counts. I think it's really telling that if you review the prior edits which added a spider picture to this page, before around this August, they were almost uniformly intended as either a joke, or vandalism. It was only after this silly censorship argument got pulled up that people seriously began arguing that it should stay. --Haemo 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything that's been said here. Frankly, I think a major problem here is that, as was pointed out above in the "Lame edit war" section, certain users are essentially claiming ownership over this article. They haven't explicitly said, "I own this article," but they're exercising fierce control over it. However, they don't own this article and it's time that they realize that. I think it's fairly obvious that the "scary" spider picture serves no useful purpose on this page and that it's high time we put an end to this. I'm sure it was fun while it lasted, but back to business. I'll leave the anatomical spider picture in place for now as a placeholder for a picture depicting arachnophobia (e.g. someone freaking out at the sight of a rubber spider). But, for all intents and purposes, consider this a forcible cease-fire in this hysterically lame edit war. --Hnsampat 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This flurry of activity aimed at deletion of a pic but adding nothing useful to the article is pretty much qualified as trolling, and I see no reason to subdue. Like you said, until you find a picture of a person who actually freaks out at the sight of a spider, there is no valid reason to replace the image. `'mikka 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Until you explain how a picture of a spider contributes to understanding arachnaphobia, there is no valid reason to include the image. I say it has to go, and later be replaced with a picture or illustration that will contribute. That picture up there when talking about acrophobia doesn't illustrate it well. Those people look quite pleased, or at least not experiencing acrophobia. It'd just be "high places, like this one, frighten acrophobic people" but that's a bit pointless. As a plus, you mentioned that it gave you vertigo; the page specifically states that vertigo is not acrophobia, but is commonly mistaken to be a synonym. So it would actually detract from the page, as people would associate that vertigo feeling they'd get from looking at that picture (mostly caused by perspective, actually) with "acrophobia". -JC 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
the arcticle about acrophobia, just like this one, sucks, written by nonprofessionals and I will not go into discussion about vertigo. In fact, I decided to abandon this one for a while. I have better things to do. I stay with my opinion that all this fuss with image is trolling, but I will not fight is alone. `'mikka 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please choose your words carefully. The definition of "trolling" is to make posts or comments solely for the purpose of inciting a conflict. In other words, by accusing all of us of trolling, you are accusing us of removing the spider image for the sole purpose of provoking you just to see you get angry. I hope that that is not what you meant, because if it is, then that is a completely baseless accusation that is quite uncivil on your part. We are trying to improve this article just as much as you are. However, we have different opinions on how that can be done. We only ask that you cooperate and recognize the established consensus, rather than simply edit-warring and reverting any attempts to improve the article. --Hnsampat 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When you hit the "rollback" button, it is automatically marked as minor. Since the (automatically inserted) comment actually describes what happens, this is hardly misleading. `'mikka 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not true. You must have your preferences set up to mark every edit as a "minor" edit (it's a check-box) somwhere. Also, you avoided the crux of his statement entirely. 'A minor edit is supposed to be one that "the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." - what you said does not address this at all. We know exactly what happens when someone reverts a section - that does not mean it requires no review, or could never be the subject of a debate. --Haemo 20:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes this is true. I am not an idiot or newbie. If you think that this behavior of the engine contradicts the policy, please feel free to file a bug report. `'mikka 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The acrophobia picture you suggested is excellent illustration. I even felt a mild vertigo when looking at it. I guess it is copyrighted, unfortunately. As for "joke" part, the real joke is a swarm of phony arachnophobes on this page `'mikka 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I noticed you again reverted the page. Please don't do this! We are trying to forge a concensus on this page, and you do not appear willing at all to enter into a dialogue here. I will WP:AGF on your part, but there is (so-far) unanimous opinion that your image is not suitable for the page, and should be removed. --Haemo 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And it will be done again. We are not going to replace countless images on a whim. `'mikka 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, User:Mikkalai, I have no idea what you mean when you talk about replacing "countless images." All we're talking about is not including a picture on this page that clearly doesn't belong there. More than that, though, I think your latest responses, in combination with your previous behavior on this talk page, are evidence that you do not intend to behave cooperatively. You seem to have assumed "ownership" of this page and are not willing to relinquish this. Even after you have been warned not to engage in edit wars, you continue to do so. You provide no valid reasons for your position. You simply do not want to, in your words, "subdue." I must urge you to stop doing this immediately. You don't own this page. What will go on this page will be what the consensus is, not just what you want. And the consensus is clear from the discussion here and in the archived pages: the spider image has got to go. --Hnsampat 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going address this all-together, since it makes more sense than expanding this fragmented argument across several paragraphs. mikka's words are in bold:

  • Yes this is true. I am not an idiot or newbie. If you think that this behavior of the engine contradicts the policy, please feel free to file a bug report. `'mikka 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said either of those things, and it is not exactly WP:CIVIL to infer that I did. However, it is not a "bug" - the system is working exactly as intended. However, you are misusing it. Though the preferences which you have set up - which are not the default ones - mark all your edits as "minor", that is no excuse for not removing the "minor" checkbox when you are making a non-minor edit. In using the minor checkbox in the manner you have been using it in contravenes the guidelines for editing, and makes it very difficult for other editors to keep track of the article. A non-trivial revision, over which there is a decided discussion on the talk page is not a minor edit - and you should abide by the guidelines and uncheck the "minor" box accordingly.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. I am repeating, in bold, since you like it for me: I DO NOT have setting to mark all edits as minor `'mikka 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You just stated that you did? Which is it? Either you've checked the option to "mark all my edits as minor by default", and are abusing it by refusing to remove the minor mark when they are not minor, or you haven't checked the option to "mark all my edits as minor by default" and are willfully ignoring the guidelines about what constitutes a "minor" edit. In either case, you're not abiding by standards, or the good faith requests on this page. --Haemo 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is your wild fantasy. <plonk>. `'mikka 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You, as a Wikipedia editor, choose to mark your edits as Minor or not. If you're using a "rollback" feature, that's part of some outside program which I am sure has settings for whether you set them as minor or not. Reverting vandalism is considered minor, as it would be undispited, but anything else should be left as non-minor. If whatever program you're using is functioning improperly, don't tell us to file a bug report, do it yourself - you're the one using the program, of course.
If you're using Wikipedia itself, then, as stated, it shows you when you write up your edit summary whether you're making your edit a minor one or not, and you can easily uncheck it if it is indeed checked by default (which you would set up in your preferences).
I think your attitude has been severely breaching WP:Civil for some time, but I've been keeping my nose out of it in hopes of avoiding trouble. However, I find my tolerance slipping and I'm at a loss as to what to do about it; fortunately you've stopped acting in a vigilante manner about the article itself, as otherwise I'd look to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for immediate help on this matter - yet I know we've already done a lot to get conflicts out of the way, but it appears to be a one-sided struggle. Please consider ending this. Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks; I know we all want to make Wikipedia better, but it's extremely important to be polite, courteous, and typing in a well-thought-out manner. This includes marking edits as minor or not appropriately, regardless of any "automatic" function - instead of getting upset at someone else for pointing out the errors and attempting to pass the blame onto another, it would have been better to simply say "Oh, thank you, I didn't notice it was automatically making them minor. I apologize for the mistake and will be careful to set the edit type correctly in the future." -JC 09:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The acrophobia picture you suggested is excellent illustration. I even felt a mild vertigo when looking at it. I guess it is copyrighted, unfortunately. As for "joke" part, the real joke is a swarm of phony arachnophobes on this page `'mikka 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what you're saying here - the point is that the acrophobia picture adds nothing to the article. Everyone knows what "heights" are, just as they know what a "spider" is - adding a picture to the article adds no encyclopedic content. All it does is clutter up the article and degrade the encyclopedia. Not every subject related to a topic needs a picture devoted to it - Shoe does not need a picture of foot, though shoes are as intimately related to feet as spiders are to arachnophobia. This is especially true of abstract, or conceptual, principles like "fears" or "ideas" - they simply muddy the page, while adding nothing to the article. Also, I am not an arachnophobe, and I would remind you of the guidelines under WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
The point is that "picture adds nothing" is your POV, live with it. `'mikka 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And that point that is does is your POV. What of it? Wikipedia is about consensus, not the suppression of all opinions on different topics. --Haemo 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
*And it will be done again. We are not going to replace countless images on a whim. `'mikka 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, here I am really confused, much as Hnsampat appears to be. What "countless images" - are we referring to unrelated images that add nothing to an article? I don't think there are countless numbers of those, since they are usually rapidly deleted. Again, you haven't addressed any of the arguments put forward, and are instead simply engaging in revert wars. It's totally uncalled for - will WP:AGF, and suppose you have a good reason for including the item, but since you don't seem willing to talk about it, we really have no recourse.
  • the arcticle about acrophobia, just like this one, sucks, written by nonprofessionals and I will not go into discussion about vertigo. In fact, I decided to abandon this one for a while. I have better things to do. I stay with my opinion that all this fuss with image is trolling, but I will not fight is alone. `'mikka 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, this really stretches the boundaries of good faith. I don't appreciate being called a troll, nor do I think it meets guidelines under WP:CIVIL. However, since you have decided to let this article be, I will leave it at that. Nonetheless, I urge you when (if) you return to enter into a dialogue with the users on the talk page before making edits which there appears to be a consensus against. --Haemo 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It stretches your idea of good faith because you didn't see how it started and how it was going. `'mikka 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That's absurd. Calling someone a troll is not WP:CIVIL, end of story. I read the archived discussion of this topic, and that frankly has nothing to do with this at all. I was the one assuming good faith on your part, and having a hard time doing it when you insist on namecalling. Furthermore, you haven't actually answered any of the questions here, and instead resorted to fingerpointing and terse, off-topic replies. --Haemo 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I see people are taking action on the picture issue and it's on its way to being settled, I've added my argument to the Talk:Arachnophobia/Archived talks about spider images page instead of this main one. Please let me know if this is proper form. Mishaneah 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New Image[edit]

I'd just like the say that the new image is perfect. Good work! --Haemo 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly awful. A 6-legged clown on a string and 2 ugly fat kids who look like terrible racial caricatures (though of what race, I couldn't say). Anyway, there's still a picture of a spider on the talk:arthropod pages thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Haemo. I've read through the entire debate regarding the picture and this seems to be a perfect solution - it illustrates the idea of arachnaphobia (someone being scared, even at the sight of a fake spider) for those who don't suffer the condition themselves and are here to find out what it is, and at the same time it's extremely unlikely to scare any arachnaphobes who do visit. Whether you find the kids in the picture attractive or not doesn't really seem relevant. Danikat (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the image is a bit sexist. A mischievous boy, frightening a girl (with long hair and a dress) who was cooking. (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

She was eating her curds and way. Not cooking! :D (Little Miss Muffet is an nursery rhyme in the United States, not sure how well know it is in other countries) And sexism requires making a generalization. An example of a single person cannot be generalized at all. You might say that it is demeaning, inappropriate, or offensive, but this cartoon seems pretty tame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As an extreme arachnophobe I dreaded coming to this page; may I just say that the image is perfect, thanks. Ericoides (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the new image is ridiculous and silly. Something like the following depicts arachnophobia much better: link (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


I have a extreme fear of spiders, are there any pictures in the article that could scare me? I came here from the link from Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars which was directly to the talk page, although Wikipedia is not censored, I would advise against pictures put on wikipedia for the single purpose of scaring people. (Like the whole thing about the tarantula.) BassxForte 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there is only a cartoon image of a girl being scared by a spider-looking toy on a string. I am also afraid of spiders, and found nothing scary about the image. - Cowmeister88 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a pretty nasty picture on this page. Thankfully, we were able to put an end to the ridiculous justifications that were being made for it. The page is pretty harmless now. (Every now and then, though, somebody may try and vandalize the page though...) --Hnsampat 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I still flinch whenever I load the page, after looking back through the history and finding a spider picture about yea big as the only content of one edit. (don't worry about that picture; it's of an entirely different hairy monster.) Yellow Ant 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

When discussing pictures for any of wikipedia's pages involving the various phobias a person can have, I would suggest that rather then show a picture of the thing that causes the phobia, show a picture of someone reacting to their fear of said thing. BassxForte 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)BassxForte 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it natural to be afraid of anything small and wiggly that you can't see very clearly? That's why elephants are afraid of mice. It's not safe to allow something small and skittery to share your space, who knows what it could be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's surely insane/cruel/irresponsible to put a picture on an article most likely to be looked at by people with an intense fear of that thing.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an arachnophobe, but before I read this article I disabled any images in it, cos even cartoon pictures of spiders freak me out. If you go to your monobook thing and type name img {display: none;} (i.e. img {display: none;} then that should help. Anyway, more info here. londonsista | Prod 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The new image[edit]

Thanks for the new image. I remember once you had a tarantula on the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fear of the word 'Spider'[edit]

There used to be a kid back at school who was intensely arachnophobic, so much that the word 'Spider,' would make him actually shiver. In the article it is mentioned that pictures can evoke this response, how about adding that words can too?

I don't have a source or any idea how common it is but I know this happens to me too. It's much, much milder than the reaction to an actual spider but for example I'll try to avoid putting my fingers over the word spider when reading a book. I have no idea why, all I can think is it's something to do with the fact that I tend to create mental images when reading - if I see the word I'm liable to think of a spider - but that doesn't explain why I don't like touching the word. I might try and find out more about it, but if anyone else has any info I'd love to see it added. Danikat (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why we have arachnophobia[edit]

There are some good hypothesises of why we have arachnophobia one of my favourite which I doubt I came up with, is down to our ancestors, our 400-500 million year old aquatic ancestors were eaten by arthropods, the sea scorpions, the ancestors of spiders and scorpions, also in 300 million years ago, our ancestors which were in that time gecko-like reptiles were eaten by the arthopods in the form of a giant spider and that is why we have arachnophobia, our ancestors gave it to us as our ancestors which were not scared of spiders might try to eat one or may go next to one as they were not scared of them and die so our ancestors developed arachnophobia. (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

We would need a good citation to include it here. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion really happening? Even if somehow we had the technology to find out if we were somehow eaten by giant spiders because we weren't scared of something 5 stories high over 500 million years ago, would it really explain that's why we have arachnophbia? I'm not trying to be rude or anything. Just realistic. Rob657 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Rob657

A much more likely evolutionary explaination would be that a fear of spiders was an advantage for early humans living in areas where deadly/dangerous spiders exist(ed). Those who were scared by the site of a spider were much less likely to come into contact with one, and therefore less likely to get bitten. Of course there is nothing to say the trait didn't go even further back but it would be almost impossible to prove. I've never even seen a source for that version though, but I've heard it suggested often enough that I'd be suprised if someone hasn't looked into it. Danikat (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I struggle to believe the evolutionary ideas after my daughter learned to fear spiders at school. Before school she would happily handle any spider. We, her parents, deliberately behaved calmly around spiders and encouraged her to be interested in them. Then, after her first year at school she developed the fear - having seen how other children react to them, she began to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Where arachnophobia originated[edit]

In the last full paragraph an unattributed statement is made that is incorrect. Or at least it is incorrect if you agree that the Czech Republic is in Central Europe.

"....For example, there are no deadly spiders native to central and northern Europe that could exert an evolutionary pressure, yet that is where the strongest fear for spiders began[citation needed], suggesting cultural learning. In contrast, many non-European cultures generally do not fear spiders,..."

My mother's parents were Czech, and growing up my mother aways told me that spiders are considered good luck [to the Czechs and Slavs] and that finding a spider in the house isn't something to fear. See this link for corroboration. -- (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arachnaphobia IS DISCRIMINATION I TELL YA![edit]

If homophobia is a form of discrimination, then why isn't arachnaphobia? They are both phobias, and they both mean that they can tell what's a human/arachnid and what's not.-- (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See homophobia.--Ar-Pharazôn (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fear of the word spider may actually be true[edit]

I have really really bad aracnophobia and I do actually become hyper alert and have a slight panic when I hear the word spider. So maybe what that guy said should be looked into, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, I am phobic about the creatures themselves and shudder/panic when I hear the word. I wish they were called angels or butterflies or something else, although I guess I'd be scared of those words then. An interesting avenue of research, in any case. Ericoides (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor Reference[edit]

"Studies have shown that a fear of spiders can develop before birth.[2]" The reference given for this statement is an MSNBC article, which is hardly worth linking to. I am not familiar with the article's writer, but given the general trash that comes from science departments at major media outlets, and given that the article fails to name a researcher, research institute, peer reviewed journal in which the study is found, etc, I feel this reference is totally worthless and should be removed.

The entire sentence should be removed, as it provides little information, and is misleading. The "study" cited dealt with insects, while the statement's context implies human or higher primate research. The effect observed was due to stressing the parent while pregnant, not due to some genetic change, and so the statement is in the wrong paragraph (this paragraph dealing with evolutionary causes).

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidence according to sexes[edit]

I remember being a kid, and scaring the hell out of my little sister by saying we would put a spider in her bed :-). The article confirms the notion that arachnophobia is a "gendered" fear. Are there any hypotheses why this occurs so much more in women than in men? Steinbach (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Spiders as cuisine[edit]

The article makes an unreferenced connection between arachnophobia and cuisine. This should have a citation. The millions of people who fear sharks yet eat them belie the assertion. DaveDixon (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How about This article features a cookbook actually entitled "From Spiders to Water Lilies". Could this be a reliable source? Another good one is [1], but I would not suggest arachnophobes read the description... Anyway, it would seem that there are plenty of references out there. A simple Google search elicited these results, among others. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello... 10:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Psy 101 Review[edit]

When giving treatments for arachnophobia, like medicine and cognitive behavioral therapy, maybe list specific types of medicines that are used and explain them a little bit, I would also explain what cognitive behavioral therapy is and how it can be helpful. Mp176418 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do. ~E : (talk)


The numbers (people with arachnophobia) in the article are inconsistent / contradictory.

  • Lead: "...some statistics show that 50% of women and 10% of men..."
  • Culture: " many as 55% of females and 18% of males..."
  • Treatment: "Arachnophobia affects 3.5 to 6.1 of the population." [no units: is this percent?]

~Somehow, this needs to be clarified. ~Thanks, ~E : (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pursue the consequences"?[edit]

'As with all phobias, the strength of the associations means the individual must not actively pursue the consequences, and outsiders should not in any way undermine and "play" with the phobia in the meantime.'

What does this actually mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You are quite right, this is a confusing sentence. It wasn't sourced either, so I removed it. I think it means that someone with arachnophobia should avoid spiders (must not actively pursue the consequences), otherwise they can become overwhelmed (the strength of the associations), and that others should not tease ( "play" with the phobia) the person with arachnophobia. But I am not sure.... Lova Falk talk 06:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Dynamic list"[edit]

At the BLP noticeboard, Andy the Grump made the excellent point that with the apparent ubiquity of this condition, such a list becomes of questionable value. Another editor then added the "dynamic list" template. While it was no doubt done with good intentions, I don't think that "encouraging editors to expand" the list is such a great idea. If the condition affects up to 55% of women and 18% of men, such a list could be expanded ad infinitum. I think it would be better to remove the list. Any egregiously notable examples of celebrities with arachnophobia could be discussed in prose. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd remove the template, but that would mean that editors would simply fill it up again with unsourced links. And while it could be expanded ad infinitum, the number of notable people with documented arachnophobia is finite. If it gets too large simply create List of notable people with arachnophobia or similar.--Auric talk 10:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the list. Being afraid of spiders does not equate phobia. Even telling the media that you have a phobia does not equate phobia. Even if you do have a phobia, is it a notable phobia? If you are already famous is your phobia automatically noteworthy? I'd think not. Beach drifter (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Cartoony picture[edit]

Someone is trying to give a little undue prominence to the Little Miss Muffett cartoon. It's a cutesy picture, but it shouldn't be something that is given more prominence on the page than the lead itself, which documents the medical condition. This cartoon has been stable in the "culture" section for a while now. If it becomes contentious, we should probably remove the image altogether.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is common practice to have an image in the lead. We often use "cartoons" and its placement in the lead is perfectly appropriate. If it becomes contentious we could have a RfC I suppose Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's also common practice to not have an image in the lead. This article has an illustration, there's no reason to make it look like an article primarily about the nursery rhyme. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arachnophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)