Talk:Mobile phone overuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Problem mobile phone use)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Psychiatry  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force.
WikiProject Psychology  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photo wanted[edit]

I was thinking of adding File:Cell phone use while driving.jpg to the article. But the problem with that photo is that it implies that this article is about "usage of cellphones in unsafe situations". In truth, the article is about something more like "overuse of cellphones which causes a person to fail in school, fail at work, or lose friends".

A photo of a man and a woman sitting at a beautifully-set table for two, one preoccupied with text messaging, the other frustrated and sad, would be better. Though see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Please get permission from the participants for their likeness to be used in any context, including in articles about addictions.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please expand[edit]

Please expand the article. I did a Google search. I found that some possible CC-BY-SA-compatible Creative-Commons-licensed sources include:

Various publishers might put out public domain material, including selected US federal government agencies. I haven't looked for public domain sources.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Text removed from article[edit]

Our article said:

Two Monash University researchers point out: "Mobile phone use is not without its disadvantages. There are certain mobile phone behaviors that are considered to be problematic, and as a result, there are an increasing number of legislative and societal controls seeking to govern aspects of their use. Mobile phones are consequently banned in a variety of settings, including hospitals, planes, and petrol stations." Source: Bianchi, Adriana; Phillips, James G. (2005). "Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use". Cyberpsychology & Behavior. New York: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 8 (1). 

I have removed the text for now.

For one thing, it's an overquotation. Please see Wikipedia:Quotations.

For another thing: True, many calls placed in inappropriate places (like hospitals) might be placed by overusers. Perhaps even most such calls. But surely not all such calls. So I'm not sure that we should discuss the problem in an article about overusers. Instead, perhaps we should leave it up to some more-general page about cellphones and society to discuss this problem.

Any thoughts?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations[edit]

This article was first created by Pivada7 (talk · contribs), who is probably a University of North Carolina student. I looked but could find no evidence that the article was created for an educational assignment. Early on, this article was entitled "Smartphone addiction". It was kind of Pivada7 to create the article. But it is clear[1] that Pivada7 is not always careful about copyright.

S/he wrote our article's last paragraph. S/he wrote:

In the article Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use, the authors says that there are also concerns that some mobile phone users incur considerable debt, and that mobile phones are being used to violate privacy, and to harass others. In particular, there is increasing evidence that mobile phones are being used as a tool by children to bully other children.

Pivada7 lifted text almost word-for-word from the paper s/he mentions. (You can get a copy of the paper at <>, even without paying.)

But anyway, that paragraph is mostly about spying, harassment, and bullying. Anyone can engage in these unkind deeds. Technology makes many tasks quicker easier, including these unkind actions, but we need not mention these deeds in an article about cellphone overuse. We should simply keep (and rewrite) the bit about debt.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Phone#Health Effects[edit]

If the page links to a sub-section of another wikipedia article ("Health Effects" section in "Mobile Phone" article), is there a way that the name can be given as something along the lines of "Health Effects, in Mobile Phone" as I don't feel the link clarifies what the page states. A revision I made was reversed (, as the user felt that the change may cause confusion, leading people to think there was an article "Mobile Phone Health Effects".

If anyone knows what I should do, or if anyone can do, with this link, it'd be great, because it's actually really annoying me... the "#" in the middle of a sentence... (call my crazy...)

Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

While the article needs cleaning up in general, having a link contain the # key is not unusual, as it lets the reader know exactly where they'll be taken to. -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement "People are substituting, on a grand scale, the experience of talking with people face-to-face with simply sending a text that consists of a few words and abbreviations." is absurd. It's clearly a technophobic point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that in fact this statement could be more specific because "on grand scale" is not well defined, which could lead someone's understanding of a technophobic point of view; there is a citation for this paragraph but I still would consider the paragraph vague. I just edited including a broader perspective about connectivity issue (not only a cell phone issue), adding one citation from Sherry Turkle's work. Tell me what you think about it; my intention was to update this part of the text to a NPOV.

AlessandraDavid (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move to: Mobile phone addiction[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: page moved. MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 14:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem mobile phone useMobile phone addiction – The current title (problem mobile phone use) is awkward and does not conform to other similar articles (see: computer addiction, video game addiction, internet addiction disorder, television addiction) MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Current title makes me thing of "can't get a signal", or perhaps "using a mobile phone as a hammer". bd2412 T 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. 'problem' is very ambiguous; addition is not, and as stated conforms with current terminology. --LT910001 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2013 (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.

Moved again, this time to "Mobile phone overuse"[edit]

I have BOLDly moved the page again, this time to the title "Mobile phone overuse".

I agree that the previous move was well-intentioned. (I didn't see the discussion in time to chip in.)

I agree that "problem mobile phone use", a term used by doctors, might imply to non-doctors that it means "the use of a broken phone as an expensive paperweight". And I agree that the related articles computer addiction, video game addiction, internet addiction disorder, and television addiction all use the word "addiction" in their titles. (Though I am not convinced that any of those conditions are true addictions.)

Still, it seems to me that reliable sources have not established any consensus that such a thing as "mobile phone addiction" exists. (See our Internet addiction disorder article's discussion of the matter. Perhaps mobile phone overuse is always a symptom of some other disorder, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder.)

And so it seems to me that use of a title like "mobile phone addiction", which the reliable medical sources do not seem to have standardized on, might violate our WP:TITLE policy.

This is why I have chosen the title "Mobile phone overuse".

If you would like to instead use the title "mobile phone addiction", first please establish here that the consensus of doctors and scientists is that this condition is an "addiction" instead of an overuse problem. Please cite textbooks, literature reviews, and/or meta-analyses; see WP:MEDSCI.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am Zach, and I have made and posted a "Cell Phone Addiction" page so many times a decade ago that I am not surprised there still isn't such a page. At least this page exists. Some douche posing as Malcolm X kept deleting the posting before. It was pretentious and annoying. Now I just think that some corp is trying to keep cell addiction under wraps.


Unclear edit by User talk:, I assume they were trying to reference a source, but this isn't clear, and is not even in Standard English (poor grammar/no capitilisation)

Meeeeeeee39 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing in the Digital Age: Evalution[edit]

The article was very informative and the division in each subject of the overall topic on mobile phone overuse was well organized. Although the 3 effects divided were social, health and psychological but while reading the article health and psychological were both similar to each other. They were connectd because the results from both of them were from Radio frequency. Other than that, this article was very useful and related to my argument essay topic very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)