Talk:Haphephobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


2007-05-20 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Names[edit]

Please provide references for all this kitchen latin. `'Míkka 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Haphephobia, per Consistency, see Category:Phobias and List of phobias Mike Cline (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)



Fear of being touchedHaphephobia – 1) It should be consistent with other phobias. 2) Haphephobia is the most common term. Regards.Kürbis () 19:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support "Fear of being touched" is not what it's called, it's a description of what it is used by people who don't know what it's called. I don't think there is a really common name, but among experts in this area, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Chrisrus (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Per the majority of phobia articles. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks for teaching me a new word (expanding my mind is why I watch these move requests). Technical term is preferred usage for this. (Also I looked at a dozen sources using 'fear of being touched' and half used it in a metaphorical sense, as fear of intimacy, not describing any of the content on this page). SLawsonIII (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose See the recent move of Trypanophobia to Fear of needles. Conceding the nominator's first point, that -phobia is more prevalent than "Fear of" in Category:Phobias, no one has provided any evidence that haphephobia is more common. I'm seeing 227,000 Google hits (417 in Scholar) for "fear of being touched" -wikipedia, and none of the first page results seem to use the phrase metaphorically. Compare to only 24,100 (23 in Scholar) for haphephobia -wikipedia. For what it's worth, haphophobia gets the most hits, at 312,000, of any of the terms listed in the article. Only four in Scholar, however; Google seems to think it's a misspelling of haphephobia. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you support or oppose a move from Ophidiophobia to Fear of snakes based on the same reasoning? Chrisrus (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. Ophidiophobia sounds more familiar to me, but maybe just because I know the Greek. So my first reaction is no, I wouldn't support that move, but by the same logic, perhaps I would. Perhaps only commonly known -phobia terms should be used when there's a straightforward "fear of" alternative. I suppose that doesn't include much. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, your position seems to be that, except for claustrophobia and maybe two or three other words like that which are commonly known, all these articles should be entitled "Fear of (x)" instead of their proper names, because of WP:COMMONNAME? Chrisrus (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose so. I like WP:COMMONNAME, though I'm sympathetic to criticism that it "dumbs down" things. But there's a lot to say for using common terminology for titles; the articles themselves can mention and explain alternative terms. If you tell someone you have claustrophobia, they'll probably know just what you mean. If you tell someone you have haphephobia, explanation will be necessary. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

symptoms[edit]

the list of symptoms that was here was a) sourced to spammy, non-MEDRS refs, and b) is not specific to this condition, but is true of any specific phobia. It is unclear what value they have here at all, but if we are going to have them, they need to sourced per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:The1truesushiboy this is the place to discuss content. Please reply here. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Specific or not, it is relevant information that serves the purpose of informing people of what haphephobia may entail, which is the purpose of the page. Nothing linked was "spammy", as they, themselves cited reputable sources and were reviewed by medical professionals. The latest edit cites perhaps the most reputable source able to be provided for specific phobias. If anything more credible needs to be cited, then, in all honesty, the page shouldn't exist, because what existing medical publications that mention haphephobia do not go into any detail, only mentioning it in passing. It is not a widely studied condition, and not written about in detail. This makes any more selective citation impossible. This information I am trying to provide is relevant and informative. And the only reason I care about it being on the page is because I suffer from haphephobia and have had years of first-hand experience with its symptoms as well as with medical professionals regarding my condition. However, seeing as anecdotal evidence is not acceptable, I have tried to provide whatever I could, but, like I said, it is not a condition that gets any notice, nor is it written about in any detail, so that makes it impossible to satisfy criteria for citation, despite the fact the condition and it symptoms exist regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1truesushiboy (talkcontribs) 00:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not the wild west. You cannot just throw stuff into WP about health based on whatever crappy sources you find. We need WP:MEDRS refs and I don't know what I can do if you won't be mindful of that. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about the wild west. I have no idea what you're going on about at this point. The source currently provided is not "crappy". It's from the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, which is a medically reliable source of information on the information provided. You're the one taking this personally and thinking it's some kind of war. I'm not sure you even read what I wrote before you responded, because your reply seems entirely unrelated. Please stop being petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1truesushiboy (talkcontribs) 05:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:MEDRS. Then you will know what I am talking about. And please indent and sign your posts.Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

1.) I did, and the ADAA does fall under the description given therein for "Medical and scientific organizations", and it actually cites examples that are directly analogous to the ADAA, e.g. the American Heart Association, a non-profit research-funding organization. 2.) It makes zero amount of difference if they're indented or signed. You've been able to respond to them fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1truesushiboy (talkcontribs) 13:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Indenting and signing is as fundamental here as "please" and "thank you". Please follow this basic convention.
you wrote something earlier about the article not existing if it cannot have the symptoms. We could resolve this by merging to specific phobia. Would that work for you? Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't stress enough that it really is not that important to format replies specifically in this way, but I'll acquiesce. And I wrote about the article not needing to exist, only facetiously, because without it providing any meaningful medical insight into its symptoms, an article on this specific condition would not serve the purpose that an encyclopedia should, i.e. explaining what the condition can come with, rather than only the most basic, superficial definition of the word. The article on specific phobias is a broader, more holistic explanation of specific phobias as a whole topic, and not solely their symptoms, so I do not recommend they be merged, because providing information on haphephobia is my intended goal, and having an article on the condition would be helpful to those unfamiliar with it. Merging the two, by adding a section on haphephobia, specifically, to the special phobias article would invite adding further sections to it on other specific phobias, which would make it no longer an article about the broader topic, and could lead to overcrowding if other specific phobias were to be merged to it as subsections. Listing specific phobias and what they entail, in the Specific Phobias article, would not be ideal, and having an article on haphephobia is useful for educating people unfamiliar with the condition, and, to that end, having symptoms listed on it is important. The1truesushiboy (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of symptoms here is not specific to this condition is the list of symptoms for specific phobias generally -- not for this condition. If we merge and redirect the same list will be there, and the content will be verified. (the content as it stands now is not verified)0 Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
That is not intuitive, and makes little pragmatic sense, for the reasons listed previously. An article on the condition itself is a useful, convenient tool for information on what it entails, and having the list of symptoms readily available on the article improves its usefulness as that informative tool, in a more convenient way for readers than merging or linking would. And again, the nature of the condition being as uncommon as it is means that there aren't sources for the symptoms as being of haphephobia, specifically, that the guidelines of citation seem to permit, evidently regardless of whether they are attributable to the review of medical professionals, which means that listing the symptoms of specific phobias is a way to provide that information to readers looking for medical information on haphephobia, in a way that these citation practices allow. If there existed any substantive formal publications on the condition, those would be the sources used, however, since it's such a niche topic, to be able to make the article serve this informative purpose, a more general description of the symptoms is needed, at least until the medical community publishes works about the condition. Plus the fact that the article on specific phobias is in need of other citations for verification. As it stands, the addition of list of symptoms on the page serves to provide relevant medical information on the condition. The fact that it describes symptoms of the larger umberella of specific phobias does not make the information irrelevant to haphephobia, as it still serves to improve the article's educational content, and it has been cited in accordance with medical citation standards. I would not recommend merging the two. Essentially, if somebody were to look for information on what haphephobia might manifest as, having an article that outlines that serves the intended function of Wikipedia more readily and conveniently for the average person than linking or merging. The1truesushiboy (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Nothing that you wrote there has anything to do with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. Not a thing. I will start a merge proposal when protection expires in a few days, and will seek wider input that way. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)