Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Information addition, restructuring, etc.

Hello! I made a few edits. Added a source for education reducing chemophobia, and added another bit of Francl's writing (I will probably relocate this Francl piece in a later edit). I intend on making several more changes, including but not limited to the addition of as many recent, peer-edited sources as I have access to. Clearly there has been some extensive argument over what should and should not be in this article. If anybody takes issue with my edits, I would be happy to discuss them. Elpardack (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Probably the biggest change I intend on making is the shift of the definition. There seems to be very little (one IUPAC citation) support for Chemophobia as a clinical disease or treatable phobia (no studies treating people for medical phobia with classic characteristics of a phobia) Whereas there are countless news and editorial articles (Google->Chemophobia) and many peer-reviewed journal articles (I will provide citations on request but cannot be bothered to do so at the moment) documenting a pattern of social aversion to synthetic chemistry, agrichemicals, additives, etc.. I will also likely be attempting to get Chemophobia added to the phobia page under 'Terms for Prejudice.' Again, I welcome any input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpardack (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final notes

I will be progressively submitting my edits to the article starting now, starting from the top down. Elpardack (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems

There are numerous comments on the talk page here about POV issues with this article and yet there is no POV tag. Why is that? 24.194.19.74 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because they relate to an old version of the article (which was completely different 5 years ago, when the POV comments you commended in your last edit were made). It's currently nice & neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it's very much not neutral but rather presents a minority viewpoint in Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do still seem to be missing something. The chemical industry has tended . . not so much to overstate benefits, so much as lack recognition of risk issues. The DDT story is a useful example. It's true tht there was a tendency to assume it was a permanent solution to the problem it addressed. Eventually evolution in insect species reduced its insecticidal effectiveness. That was an issue of overstated benefits. But meanwhile Rachel Carson (Silent Spring) opened up a whole new dimension to the debate around DDT - in effect, the environmental debate as a whole. Thalidomide was (is) a chemical, and is a case study simply in unrecognised risk. It changed the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. (It used to be said, in England, tht the era in which a General Practitioner ("family doctor") was trained was evident from his/her attitude to drugs: post-penicillin, or post-thalidomide.) Yet even now the lede of our thalidomide article makes no mention of the disaster. Love Canal is an even simpler case of commercial irresponsibility over chemical waste. The long slow withdrawal of carbon tetrachloride from use in fire-extinguishers and as a dry-cleaning agent is a current experience of denial and deferral. And for a different part of society, there's organophosphates to remember.

It's tempting to conclude tht chemical technology has a problem, not yet effectively addressed, of nuanceless advocacy and disregarded downsides. And so long as those with the relevant scientific knowledge decline responsibility, it will be those without that knowledge tht answer the call. The industry accurately describes them as ignorant, and designates their attitude as chemophobia.

The popular movement, meanwhile, suspects important similarities with big tobacco, big oil and the nuclear industry - and fears tht the industry's wake-up call may be a Chernobyl rather than a Three Mile Island.

Our article on chemophobia needn't - shouldn't? - say all this. But it should not confine itself to the conventional chemical industry point-of-view on chemophobia. And it should refer the reader to articles dealing with the environmental record.

-- SquisherDa (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The Wikipedia page for "Chemical" states that: "A chemical substance (also called a pure substance) is defined as "any material with a definite chemical composition", and includes common substances such as water.

So, saying that chemophobia is an irrational aversion to chemicals is the same as saying that it is an aversion to any material with a definite chemical composition, including water.

It would be better to state that the aversion is to laboratory and industrial chemicals, a does not refer to naturally occurring chemicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.174.236 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first paragraph makes it quite clear that the issue relates to "synthetic chemicals". Can you suggest an alternate wording that would make it clearer for you? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory // POV issues

This article is presented as psychology but it's not such. Or else it's fringe in that area. It's certainly not a psychological diagnosis that's reflected in the general literature at all but rather it's a pseudoscientific diagnosis presented by a very tiny group of people who have an agenda -- the very definition of the worst of fringe. SageRad (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't seem to be about a psychological affliction, but more a (not necessarily debilitating) psychological phenomenon similar to disgust or homophobia. The article is quite well-referenced, including references from IUPAC, Journal of Chemical Education and Nature Chemistry, none of which are fringe journals and all of which mention the concept by name, so I'm not quite sure what's objectionable here. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Spurious complaint which has no connection to what the article actually says. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, the complaint is indeed spurious. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bega24, Kylela20 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bega24, Kylela20.

— Assignment last updated by Bega24 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

introduction of the article is not neutral

especially the long bracketed text 2A02:3100:3C31:A801:89E5:D6C:B43D:C76C (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not aim for 'neutrality' in comparison to some imaginary absolute standard. Instead, the objective is 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. And given that any remotely reliable source - or indeed any source at all which acknowledges the discoveries of science since the late 18th century -is going to concur that consumer products (and ordinary matter in general) consists of chemical substances (molecules, or elements), there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the passage. It is a statement of fact. I've just drunk some water. It is a chemical substance. I've just eaten a tomato. It consisted entirely of chemical substances. And come to think of it, that's all I consist of too. Chemistry is what's keeping me alive, and allowing me to write this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]