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

Please hide the trypophobia inducing pictures[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus to keep the image in the lead as only two people explicitly showed support for removal of the image, however there is no consensus to collapse. The main discussion was whether to leave the image as is or to obscure it in some way. Those who wanted to obscure the image suggested a number of possibilities, with collapsing the image the most popular, though other such as a gif, or moving the image to the middle or gallery were also suggested. The strongest arguments in favor of obscuring the image were to limit the potential for triggering in readers the physical and emotional distress attributed to the subject as documented in reliable sources. Proponents of obfuscation pointed to examples like arachnophobia which does not contain pictures of spiders. Those arguing for the status quo pointed to WP:NOTCENSORED, the content disclaimer, and the lack of precedent for collapsing objectionable images in an article. The numbers were evenly split between the two positions, both of which have reasonable policy based rationales for their side and so I'm loathe to discount them. While there was near unanimity in favor of retaining the image, there is clearly no consensus for obfuscation at this time. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As someone with a severe case of trypophobia, I came to wikipedia to extract some information that might be helpful for me. I guess that's the case with most people suffering from any kind of phobia. Let me just say this: It does absolutely not help if the first thing you see on a wiki page is a picture that triggers your phobia. Please show some courtesy and put all the pictures at the end of the article with a disclaimer that warns people from scrolling down too far - or find a more sophisticated solution where one has to click the picture to see it. IMHO this should be a rule for any kind of content that's related to phobia or showing otherwise disturbing content. I'll personally not be editing this article for obvious reasons. (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, IP. I also have trypophobia and I understand what you mean, although the image (not images) in question doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to; this is because I've been exposed to it so many times (which is akin to exposure therapy). But because we are an encyclopedia and readers who don't have trypophobia will want to understand what induces it, it's felt that an image that is known to induce it should be somewhere in the article. I don't see how having the image farther down will help, considering that those who read past the lead (introduction) will also come across it and, if those readers have trypophobia (as they likely will since it seems that most readers who visit this article have it and visit it to understand it), they will also be triggered by the image.
That stated, whether or not to include the image has been discussed before. At Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 1#discussion (in 2013), we can see that Robert McClenon (the closer) stated, "There was no consensus on removing the image, but the image has been hidden, and there has been no recent request for exposing the image." At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122#Images on phobia articles (in 2015), consensus seemed to be for not including phobia images in phobia articles, especially the Trypophobia article. Ian.thomson, for example, stated, "The policy WP:IAR is there to say 'you don't need to apply WP:NOTCENSORED when doing so involves trolling the readers.' There is a difference between censoring articles to accommodate chosen beliefs and not taking an action that obviously is going to cause a significant portion of the target audience medical issues (even if those issues are psychosomatic, they're still medical issues). Going out of one's way to include triggers in articles on phobias is WP:DICKish and WP:POINTy. [...] WP:NOTCENSOR has been seen, see WP:REHASH and explain how inserting phobic stimuli into the article on the phobia itself does not go against WP:DBAJ. We are not here to decide which phobias are real, only note which ones are notable, and note what scientists have to say about it. You have yet to explain how not causing medical problems for obvious target audiences is the same as removing images of Muhammad or information on evolution." Emphasis mine. And I tend to agree with Ian.thomson. At Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 2#RfC Should we include this image? (in 2015), AlbinoFerret, states, "There is consensus for including the image. The majority opinion cites WP:NOTCENSORED, in this section of the policy page we find that the main page is WP:DISC which warns of triggering by images. The minority argument is mainly that the image may cause physical harm, but offers no examples of physical harm happening from the specific image. It also cites WP:UNDO, but only for the image and not for the other uses of the same source. There is also discussion of collapsing the image, but there is no consensus to do so."
Personally, looking at that 2015 discussion, I saw no consensus for including the image. To me, that discussion was "no consensus." Also, since that discussion, more research has been done on trypophobia and researchers are clear that it exists and negatively impacts those it affects. The imagery can cause harm. The imagery does not only induce psychological issues, but neurovegetative (autonomic nervous system) responses as well. What researchers debate now is whether or not it should be classified as a phobia and what the causes are. Seeing stuff like this and this, and your comment above, which relay that our readers have expressed psychological and neurovegetative harm at seeing the image, I am worried for them and am open to hiding the image in the lead in a collapse box so that those who want to see it can see it. But, in the 2015 discussion, WhatamIdoing notes issues with collapsing images. You can also see that WhatamIdoing expressed concern for those who might be harmed by viewing the image. I think it's time for another RfC on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── WhatamIdoing, regarding this, why do you think moving it down will help? It's still going to induce trypophobia, and it will come as even more of a surprise to readers who think that the article is image-free until making there way to the end of it. I don't find the image to be decorative at the top. It's there to help readers understand what induces trypophobia. Also, an editor already tried moving it down and was reverted by one of the editors who have been most vocal on retaining the image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

My recommendation, and I do not have an aversion to the image, is that the image be moved further down the page. That way, a reader who takes a quick look at the article will not see the image, but a reader who scrolls down the page will see it. However, there should not be any sort of a warning that scrolling down the page will reveal an image. We can assume that anyone who reads down the page is ready for the image. I would make the same recommendation about an image of decaying or diseased flesh, for instance, if the article was about flesh-eating bacteria. Move the image half-way down the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, thanks for offering a perspective. I'm someone who would read the whole article, though, and I'm sure that there are a lot of others like me. I don't think that most readers who start reading the article and see no image will expect a trypophobic image later on; I think they will be surprised to find it lower and, if they have trypophobia, just as upset if they'd found it higher. That stated, if the image is placed where WhatamIdoing placed it, they would have read a good portion of the article before coming across the upsetting image. I still prefer that it be placed at the top but collapsed since it's not easy to describe to people what induces trypophobia unless they see the type of imagery that induces it. It's not as simple as stating "a fear of holes." People with trypophobia can see holes and not have a reaction. It's about the pattern, look and depth (what researchers describe as "images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies"). And it's not just holes that induce trypophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
My suggestion to move it wasn't about reducing or removing triggers (although, given how few people read past the first section, it might have that as a side effect).
I don't actually think this image is in the article for any educational purpose. I think it is more decorative than educational, and therefore, IMO it ought to be removed per policy. That said, if we're going to have it, it would make more editorial sense to put the image in the section that mentions a study involving lotus seed pods, instead of up at the top, where this plant isn't even mentioned. Therefore, I suggest moving it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I disagree, considering that, as made clear in the RfCs, what induces trypophobia is not easy to demonstrate. In the 2015 RfC, you even stated, "First of all, it's not 'a pattern of holes'; it's being disgusted solely by an irregular pattern of holes (or bumps). This is much more 'disgusted by skin diseases' than 'frightened by polka dots', and these patterns don't turn up very often in everyday life. I'm looking around me, and I don't see anything that qualifies. Secondly, surprise matters for things that are disgusting or frightening." In that RfC, Abecedare also stated, "I came across this discussion through WP:VPP, and frankly the description 'fear of holes', 'irregular patterns of holes' is not close to as helpful in explaining what is being talked about (I initially imagined something like caves or fishing nets), as the image. The image is not simply gratuitous, but useful to the general reader in understanding the subject of the article." And I've already noted above why I don't think moving it lower helps at all. Started an RfC below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The image can be removed on grounds it is off-topic. The image itself does not state it is related to the topic. The images that state they are related to the topic can be found here. QuackGuru (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The image is not off-topic in any way; we have reliable sources, such as this one and this one, making it clear that lotus seed pod imagery induces trypophobia. We state it in the "Epidemiology" section, which is why WhatamIdoing moved it there. In the "Society and culture" section, it is noted that lotus seedhead imagery is one of the top trypophobia-inducing images. In the 2015 RfC, Abecedare stated, "I am not the only one who seems to think so, since the editorial decision to include such images has been made by almost every source on the subject including the first scientific paper describing the phenomenon, as well as popular accounts in mainstream publications such as the Scientific American, Washington Post, Popular Science, CBS News, Smithsonian Magazine, NPR, The Atlantic, and The Independent (the Statesman Journal appears to be the sole exception, although only the first page seems to have been archived so that too is not certain)." This is true; this image is the most common one given as an example of inducing trypophobia. The images you cited in the "A Case Report and Comprehensive Review of the Literature" don't change that and those images are specific to that case -- that little girl who has trypophobia. Not everyone with trypophobia is going to react to those images. I sure don't. Those images are not noted as common trypophobia-inducing images, but the lotus seedhead imagery is commonly shown to be a trypophobia-inducing image. Of course, the lotus seed pod image in question is not cited in the sources; it doesn't need to be. It's not like researchers are going around using the same exact image of a lotus seed pod. All is needed is an image of a lotus seed pod if we are to show one. RfC below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Should the image be removed, retained in the lead but collapsed, or moved down?[edit]

There has been much debate about this image (of a lotus seed pod) at the Trypophobia article. So far, the debate has produced a 2013 RfC, a 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, a 2015 RfC here at this talk page, and now this one. The first RfC closed as no consensus to remove the image, the second discussion did not have an official close, but more editors leaned toward excluding the image (and other phobia images in phobia articles), and the final RfC closed as consensus for including the image. The discussions have concerned whether or not including the image is beneficial to readers, and whether or not it causes unnecessary harm to our readers. One view has been that the image is educational because demonstrating what induces trypophobia is not easy since a simple explanation of "a fear of holes" or "irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps" does not suffice. People with trypophobia can look at holes or irregular patterns and not have a reaction. Rather, the condition is about certain patterns, and in particular images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies. Lotus seed pod imagery is commonly noted as imagery that induces trypophobia and is used by researchers to test for trypophobia. Another view is that the image is irrelevant, decorative, or not needed, and that, even if it is educational, it causes unnecessary harm to our readers; this is seen, for example, here and here. WP:NOTCENSORED has been cited in past discussions. Some have felt that removing the image based on the possibility that it might harm readers, especially if the condition is not real or an actual phobia, is censoring. Others have stated that this is not a matter of WP:NOTCENSORED; it's a matter of whether we really need the image for the topic and whether we want to risk causing our readers harm. The imagery won't harm those without trypophobia, but it will harm those with it (they are the ones most likely to visit this article) and, with more research on the topic having been done since past discussions, researchers are are clear that it exists and does induce negative psychological or autonomic nervous system responses.

As a compromise, editors have suggested collapsing the image (although collapsing it has been noted as something that would cause accessibility issues), or moving the image far down the page. So should we remove the image? Retain the image in the lead, but collapse it? Or move it lower? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


  • Keep in the lead, but collapse. Like I stated in the #Please hide the trypophobia inducing pictures section above, I am someone who has trypophobia and I prefer that the image be placed at the top but collapsed since it's not easy to describe to people what induces trypophobia unless they see the type of imagery that induces it. It's not as simple as stating "a fear of holes." People with trypophobia can see holes and not have a reaction. It's about the pattern, look and depth (what researchers describe as "images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies"). And it's not just holes that induce trypophobia. In the 2015 RfC, Abecedare also stated, "I came across this discussion through WP:VPP, and frankly the description 'fear of holes', 'irregular patterns of holes' is not close to as helpful in explaining what is being talked about (I initially imagined something like caves or fishing nets), as the image. The image is not simply gratuitous, but useful to the general reader in understanding the subject of the article." Also in that RfC, DES stated, " I think that collapse is the best choice. An image is helpful, although not required, to allow readers to have a better idea of what sort of things cause this reaction in people (and there seems no doubt that there is a reaction, whether it is a 'true' phobia or not). But as was mentioned in the original VPP discussion, a lead image is displayed on previews before anyone even opens the article on the mobile site, and is instantly visible when a person opens the article, as people who suffer from this condition might be more prone to do than random people. The potential for harm is real, and a collapsed image that can be displayed with a single click is not censored. I have been strong in applying WP:NOTCENSORED in the past, but this seems to me a very different situation. This is not a matter of offending someone's beliefs, political, religious or whatever. This is a medical issue. " I agree with all of that; I think we should go with WP:Ignore all rules with regard to collapsing in this case. As for moving the image far down, I noted above that I'm someone who would read the whole article, and I'm sure that there are a lot of others like me. I don't think that most readers who start reading the article and see no image will expect a trypophobic image later on; I think they will be surprised to find it lower and, if they have trypophobia, just as upset if they'd found it higher. To me, that is sort of a WP:Principle of least astonishment issue. That stated, if the image is placed where WhatamIdoing placed it, they would have read a good portion of the article before coming across the upsetting image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    I would kindly request you to reconsider and take into account that this flies in the face of long-standing policy. Back in 2013 I wanted to get anatomical dissections collapsed, but this does fly in the face of CENSOR and presents a number of technical issues where some users will never be able to see the image. And seeing as trypophobia is not a phobia, it is not apt to remove it on grounds of WP:SHOCK. Carl Fredrik talk 02:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    I've considered all sides and I stand by arguments in this case. And no one can validly state "not a phobia and that's it" in this case anymore. This book source, which Doc and I have cited, notes that trypophobia may be considered a specific phobia. Researchers now discuss whether or not trypophobia is best classified as a phobia, but they are clear that trypophobic imagery induces fear, disgust, or both fear and disgust. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Leave in lead and collapse Agree with Flyer's analysis. Since the image is an ongoing complaint, collapsing would seem to be a good compromise. wp:IAR If it is collapsed, perhaps a few more images could be added which could give a more general idea of what can cause a reaction. Jim1138 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in the lead and do not collapse Seriously there are much much worse. But this image gets the idea across beautifully. Article is much much less clear without it. For those who have this condition to a serious degree, I am sure they browse the internet with images off. Exposure therapy is a treatment to phobias generally starting with a mild exposure (such as this) and moving to more significantly disturbing ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Doc, except we see time and time again that there are readers who have the condition, whether to a mild or serious degree, who apparently don't have images turned off. The IP in the #Please hide the trypophobia inducing pictures section seems to be the latest example. And in terms of "much much worse," lotus seed imagery is one of the top trypophobia-inducing images, especially when photoshopped onto human skin. It is perhaps the top trypophobia-inducing image, which is why researchers use it to test for trypophobia, and so many sources on trypophobia, such as this one, include a picture of it. Also, Wikipedia is not therapy (although repeatedly looking at the image here on Wikipedia has significantly desensitized me toward it). I would cite WP:Wikipedia is not therapy, but that is about the behavior of editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    And we have people who ask for sexually explicit images to be removed (supposedly harms young people). And people who ask for images of psychological test material to be removed (supposedly if the general populous sees it their usefulness will decrease). And people who ask for images of Mohammad to be removed (culturally insensitive). And people who want historical images of mental illnesses to be removed (not politically correct). And people who want images of drug paraphernalia to be removed (supposedly triggers addicts to use). And people who want images of smallpox removed (they find the images disturbing). Etc. We are an educational source. This image adds to this article.
    The statement "The potential for harm is real"[citation needed] however the potential for benefit is just as likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sexual images are not the same. Except for disgust, reaction to sexual images are not causing the same type of reaction that trypophobic images cause. As you know, I work on a number of sexual topics here at Wikipedia and I know that readers commonly object to images sexual images. Because of this, we consider WP:Offensive material and follow it at a number of our articles. If it's something like the Breast article, of course we are going to use an image of an actual breast. But at a lot of sexual topic articles, we use drawings or similar illustrations instead of real-life imagery because drawings or similar illustrations are less offensive to our readers, the real-life images tend to distract more and come across as pornographic rather than educational, and because the drawings or similar illustrations get the point across just as well as (sometimes better than) the real-life imagery. Religious issues like Muhammad are not the same. You've made that argument before and have been challenged on it. See the comment by DES that I quoted above. In the case of this article, I have not suggested removing it. I and others have suggested collapsing it because it can cause mental and physical harm to our readers. I don't understand why you are so against collapsing the image as a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    You have again made a completely unsupported statement "it can cause mental and physical harm to our readers". Are you going to provide evidence for your statement? The evidence for benefit is much greater than that of harm.[1] Keeping the image here may in fact help peoples mental health.
    Treatment of specific phobias to common situations is NOT to avoid said common situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    We know from the sources, like this review in the article, that people can be psychologically harmed and have negative physical reactions from looking at trypophobic images. We know from the readers who have complained about the image. Do you think that that the symptoms mentioned in the "Signs and symptoms" section are positive reactions? They aren't. This book source you cited, which is also the book source I cited in the article and in this discussion, does not support retaining the image. You are citing that source because it mentions exposure therapy. It notes that exposure therapy may help, not that it will help. I noted that repeated exposure to the image has helped me, but it's also made me more sensitive to trypophobic images. For example, bubbles never used to bother me, but now some bubble patterns make me think of the lotus image or trypophobia. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not therapy. So I fail to see why you are suggesting that we use Wikipedia as therapy for readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Frontiers has been labelled in the past as a predatory publisher. A negative physical reaction does not equal physically harmed.
    Plus the journal article contains 8 potentially triggering images. The book you mention does not support hiding images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's obviously not just Frontiers Media that has documented the negative signs and symptoms. And I know that Frontiers Media was listed as a predatory open-access publisher, but the listing was controversial (as also noted in the Frontiers Media Wikipedia article). The listing is also currently no longer in the Predatory open-access publishing article. You and I define "physically harmed" differently in this case. The book you mentioned notes that trypophobia may be considered a specific phobia, and we know that phobias do cause mental harm. The source also notes that people report becoming physically ill from looking at trypophobic imagery. As for the review's images, those images are specific to that case -- images that affected that little girl. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    No one is claiming that "phobias do not cause mental harm". The question is does exposure cause long term mental harm or does it actually make people better in the long run. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    But, Doc, it is not up to Wikipedia to try and take on exposure therapy. That's my point on you suggesting we keep the image un-collapsed in order to help readers. We agree on a lot (on most things, really), but we won't be agreeing on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    We are also not specifically writing an article for people with this condition. Agree that we disagree. I see this discussion as similar to that with respect to the Rorschach test.
    I view this as very different than using "flashing image" on the photosensitive epilepsy article as epileptic seizures are significant and real physical harm. Making someone uncomfortable often occurs with nudity and religious symbols and this discussion is more similar to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    One does not have to think that we are writing an article for people with this condition. One only needs to recognize that the vast majority of the readers are likely the ones with this condition and that it is a good idea to not scare them away from the article, ensuring that they don't get the information they need from here. Yes, I think it is good to accommodate them and not prioritize those who don't have trypophobia over those who do, especially considering that those who have it are the ones most likely to visit this article. You speak of not writing for them, and yet you are suggesting that we keep that image up there for exposure therapy. What???? They are not going to get exposure therapy from this article. Exposure therapy is a process. They are going to see that image and typically not return. And we don't get to state that psychological harm is not serious harm or that panic attacks are not serious harm. Panic attacks are serious harm to the people having them when they are having them. Like Yobol (remember that medical editor?) stated back in 2015, "I happen to believe we should not intentionally invoke a physiologic disgust response, (or whatever the response is) in readers - make it collapsed, and let the reader decide. Doubly true since the people who have this reactions are more likely to be the ones reading the article to find out about it." And for goodness' sake, this is not the same thing as making someone uncomfortable with nudity or religious symbols. At all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    This "One only needs to recognize that the vast majority of the readers are likely the ones with this condition" is also unlikely to be true. Our article on Ebola in 2014 for example received about 100 million pageviews? How many were from people with Ebola? Likely very very few. We know that traffic to Wikipedia is often driven by media attention, most people coming here are those who have read a news piece about the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree. You are making comparisons that make no sense to me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    I noted to GoneIn60 below that trypophobia is not well known and that therefore common sense tells us that most people visiting this article are those with trypophobia. As made clear in the "Society and culture" section of the article, those are the people who seek to better understand this condition that they usually have no name for. Trypophobia generally does not get a lot of media attention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    It is "not well known" like Ebola is "not well known". A Google search brings up nearly a million hits.[2] with thousands of news items. So I doubt the majority of people coming here have the condition. But regardless we are not writing a self help article so either way it should make little / no difference as an argument. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Far more people know what Ebola is, and people with Ebola are often in too much physical pain to be up looking on the Internet about information on Ebola. Not the same thing at all. As for the rest, I'd rather not repeat myself. So I stand by what I've stated on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead but leave collapsing up to other decisions per Flyer22 Reborn and WP:NOTCENSORED. SemiHypercube 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know if it's appropriate to cite a humorous essay, but also see this section for a description of an incident not unlike this one. SemiHypercube 00:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Leave in lead and collapse BTW, the photo disturbed me greatly and made me feel nauseated the first time I saw it here a while ago. It was hard to get it out of my mind. The ones that were used for the study that QuackGuru linked to did not bother me at all. This one seems "alive" to me and menacing in a strange way. I like Jim's idea of including some of the less disturbing pictures. As much as this one bothered me, it fascinated me as well that a picture could effect to the degree that it does - so I'd hate to see it deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead and collapse to avoid deliberately upsetting the people most likely to want to read the article. SarahSV (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead and collapse (see permalink as found by Flyer22 below). Rules are great but they are not applicable for every situation and this outlier warrants an outlier solution. NOTCENSORED is not relevant for this unusual case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not collapse per WP:NOTCENSORED. The image does a lot to aid understanding. It should probably remain in the lead as well. Anyone who desires to carve out an exception to WP:NOTCENSORED for phobia articles should make a proposal on the larger matter at the appropriate venue. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead, do not collapse. This is an informative encyclopedic article, not a self help website. People looking for help with phobias should not be looking to wikipedia for tips anyway. The photo is encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Natureium, I think that people are usually coming to this article to better understand the condition rather than for tips on treating it. The only "tip" is exposure therapy, and exposure therapy doesn't work for everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Exposure therapy has excellent evidence and is in fact the initially recommended treatment for specific phobias. It is effective in about 90% of people. Kaplan, J. S.; Tolin, D. F. (2011). "Exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: Theoretical mechanisms of exposure and treatment strategies". Psychiatric Times. 28 (9): 33–37. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not therapy and no one should be suggesting that we use it as therapy. I'm also 100% certain that most readers with trypophobia who visit this article and see that lotus image do not return to the article and therefore get true therapy by seeing that image. Exposure therapy requires repeated exposure. What proof do you have that readers are returning to this article for exposure therapy? Also, trypophobia often presents with an autonomic nervous system response. Researchers generally don't believe that the reaction is due to societal factors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove the image completely and link to a gallery in the links at the bottom or at least Keep in the lead and collapse as a shitty compromise. Frankly, I can't believe this is an ongoing discussion or even something open for a vote. We might as well have a flashing gif in the lead of the epilepsy article. There are people who will become physically ill from such images who are also the people who are prevented from reading the article about their condition. This is a no-brainer. This is not "censorship". The image does not "aid understanding", quite the opposite as it prevents users who would most benefit from reading the article from reading it. Telling people who have the condition they shouldn't be reading a Wikipedia article anyway is just disgusting. —Pengo 01:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • So you consider a feeling of disgust to be equivalent to an epileptic seizure.... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Some people become ill and nauseous to the point of throwing up. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the condition. —Pengo 04:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the uncollapsed image, but move it to mid-article. The topic has been an "internet phenomenon" that peaked in early 2016, but has declined in interest by 70% since. Some 16% of people have this reaction,[3] indicating that the probable majority of page visitors (216,000/month) are ok with seeing the image. The image itself is relatively benign (as are soap bubbles or air-filled chocolate bars) compared to some of the pictures in the video at A reasonable solution would be to keep the image (or substitute it with a cut Aero chocolate bar -- I'd like the article to have more examples to show the range of stimuli, as shown in the Atlantic article) but place it in the Signs and symptoms section, perhaps with an infobox statement that the article contains images that may be disturbing to some users. --Zefr (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Zefr, I think that most readers visiting this article are ones with the condition looking for information on the condition. Furthermore, researchers are clear that aversion to trypophobic imagery is common. Like I stated above, the lotus seed pod imagery is one of the top trypophobia-inducing images, if not the top one. Just look at the comment by Gandydancer above. Bubble imagery is the far less tame of the two is significantly tame compared to lotus seed pod imagery. I don't think it's a good option to add even more trypophobia-inducing images. Also, this article is not that big and more images could overwhelm the article and cause WP:Sandwiching issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in the lead and do NOT collapse
    I've presented my arguments strongly before, I now defer to Doc James. There is absolutely no standard for collapsing mages, so that's just a no-go per policy even if the RfC finds that it wants to do that... (Hopefully it won't because doing so is just inane.) Carl Fredrik talk 02:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead and collapse Agree with Flyer22's detailed articulation. The WP:Content disclaimer does alert those who find it that Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions, but barely any readers are aware of this. In addition, Wikipedia in general needs to be more welcoming to more potential editors; I think it's worth considering that people with trypophobia (probably a disproportionate fraction of those interested in learning more and editing the page) are likely to be averse to working on an article that presents a triggering image at the top every time they save. FourViolas (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep in the lead and use progressively sharpening gif Keep in the lead, with an image that is sufficiently blurred (at least in the sweet spot, if not the whole image) that the adverse effect would not be triggered in the most sensitive person. Rotate the gif through five, progressively sharper images, of about five seconds each. This will give anyone sufficient time to notice what's going on, and to move away, before the fully sharp image appears. (Include a link in the caption to skip the intervening images, and go directly to the sharp image.) An example of an image of this type can be seen in the discussion section below. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead/collapse, or move it down. I don't think this case is covered by the spirit of NOTCENSORED, which you can see by looking at the pull quote in the NOTCENSORED section that discusses ideological objections. It's always seemed a bit weird that we chose this image. Do we have a view from a high place on the agoraphobia article? No. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Enterprisey: but we do have a picture of a wide open market. For the acrophobia article, we have a picture of people working on the side of a building, although I think both could do with more direct images of the situations that induce the phobia. But it's not a useful comparison in any case, because showing a picture of a wide open space is very different from being in a wide open space. Whereas here, it's the very image that's the problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • keep in lede/do not collapse readers should get use to per[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. A larger number of people suffer from arachnophobia, estimated in some studies at up to 6%, with perhaps 1% suffering from severe symptoms. So should we remove or blur all images of spiders? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Peter coxhead, it is worth noting that, except for a cartoon image at the bottom of that article, we currently don't include images of spiders in that article. As seen with List of phobias, we also don't include images in the vast majority of our Wikipedia phobia articles. The difference with trypophobia is that the vast majority of people have not heard of it, although many have experienced it, and many have no idea what induces it. As noted above, explaining it with text alone is insufficient. Arachnophobia has gotten far more attention than trypophobia has and people know what spiders look like. I am for retaining the image, but we keep getting readers who have panic attacks or other negative reactions (mental and/or an autonomic nervous system response) from seeing the image. These people just want to learn more about trypophobia here at Wikipedia, but are scared away from doing so because of that image. Gandydancer's experience with the image is my experience (except for the nausea). It is not pleasant at all to have that experience. I truly do think that, per DES, the best option is to collapse the image in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Flyer22 Reborn: You're talking about second-hand anecdotal evidence coming out of an online forum. One post to the crew on 4chan could have us debating whether viewing interracial couples has similar effects, if we let ourselves rely on that kind of information! As for your anecdotal evidence: you said you had the same reaction to Pinhead, but "don't anymore". If there's truth to any of this, I would take that to suggest that viewing the image desensitizes you to it -- which means that our featuring the image is actually beneficial rather than harmful, since it is better to expose people to disturbing imagery when they are calmly reading an encyclopedia rather than, say, when they are riding a motorbike on a dirt path through a lotus field in Cambodia. I mean honestly, I'm 100% for decisions like we made at My Lai Massacre where you don't have to have a mythical psychiatric condition to find the lead photo disturbing. Wnt (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Your comparisons are asinine. This is not anything like "one post to the crew on 4chan could have us debating whether viewing interracial couples has similar effects." You are being dismissive in the face of what the evidence states and you are being insensitive all because you have never experienced trypophobia. The Pinhead thing doesn't seem to be trypophobia since I'm over it, but I still have trypophobia. Either way, I've already noted that repeated exposure to trypophobic imagery has desensitized me to such imagery, but I still have trypophobia because it is an autonomic nervous system response, like the research states. I've been pointing to the available research, while you keep going by your personal "I'm skeptical of it" and "it's mythical" assertions, when none of the researchers studying it would agree with you. My trypophobia make me sympathetic to those who have it. It means I have a perspective you are missing, just like those with a fear of snakes working on the Ophidiophobia article, which, thankfully has no image of snakes there, would have a perspective that some others are missing. Obviously, just like others in previous discussions on this topic, I'm going to note that I have trypophobia. It doesn't mean that I can't be objective on the topic. I have considered all sides, and I'm not someone calling for removal of the image. I'm suggesting that it be collapsed, for reasons that others have made clear. Most of those others don't have trypophobia, and yet they have a clue. And if editors would have followed the consensus in that 2015 Village Pump discussion, the image would be collapsed anyway. I've stated more to you below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Flyer22 Reborn: First, I should acknowledge that I did see 16 references on PubMed: [5] But I see no way to take that primary research and turn it into a conclusion that trypophobia is accepted as a condition requiring accommodations. Compare, for example, the abundant hits for electromagnetic hypersensivity in the same database; some of the papers on the "best matches" list sound quite positive about that.
    Second, I should be honest: my attitudes are colored by a suspicion that there is some tricky politics going on here. You maintain a User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Past user page that goes on about your dislike for "gratuitous" illustrations of sexual acts. It is not a large leap to go from hiding images about a ... putative medical condition to hiding images about other things about which various claims could be made ("sex addiction" and a slew of Meese-era medicomoral panic research). So your appeal for me to believe you about your personal anecdotes is being counterweighed by my feeling that this is a very strategic demand. I should add that on numerous occasions during the sexual image-hiding arguments I have suggested the obvious alternative of having user script-based image hiders, which could compile multiple transcluded lists of images. Nobody ever seems interested in hiding images from themselves, though! I should add that while composing this I happened across the "accidental" deletion of an image from penile fracture via an edit to a "bad image list" that I doubt 1% of the editors know about ... and bear in mind, even college anatomy students often seem unaware such a thing is even possible, so failing to present them with a striking image for most of the past year may mean that someone has already suffered permanent physical imagery because we failed to do our job of getting the information across.
    Which brings me to the third point: this shouldn't be a level playing field. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to get the information across. That's what it's for, and the reason why there's an encyclopedia to do that is because getting the information across has value all on its own. So we shouldn't be arguing maybe-it's-helpful-maybe-it's-harmful. On Rorschach test, when the cards became public domain and the company was desperately trying to keep its lucrative sales going anyway, we had people making serious medical arguments, backed by sources, saying that publishing the cards could be harmful. And I am proud to say that we did not give a shit. We are a small handful of looters tasked to feed the minds of the global proletariat, and we should not be turned aside by anything short of the kind of firepower that would have been needed to turn aside George Washington's army when it passed a farm with meat on the hoof. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Wnt, no one stated "that trypophobia is accepted as a condition requiring accommodations." We have only stated that people have trypophobia and that it causes distress to those people, commentary that is based on the research.
There are no tricky politics going on here by following the WP:GRATUITOUS guideline with regard to illustrations of sexual acts. Sorry, but editors like you claiming WP:NOTCENSORED in such cases no longer works. We temper that policy with the WP:GRATUITOUS guideline, which states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." As seen at the Fisting talk page with Alsee, who also voted in this trypophobia survey below, we go with the less offensive drawing or other illustration when it demonstrates the sex act just as well as the real-life sex act. Alsee stated, "The discussion on this page is not should we have images of fisting, the discussion is which of the available images best illustrate fisting. The only rule that is kinda-sorta helpful for what you want is: if we have two equally good fisting images then we go with the less offensive one. If you'd like to propose alternative images then I'd be happy to consider whether they are more informative and better illustrate this topic." That is the type of thing I go by. Like I sated in my interview with Gawker, "going with a drawing or a painting, or computer-generated image, of a sex act is usually less offensive to our readers than going with an image of a real-life sex act. Our readers are less inclined to call such images 'porn' when they think of them as simply drawings, artistic paintings or as cartoons." Many others feel that real-life images of sex acts give off an unencyclopedic feel. And they have a solid point about that. We want our articles to feel like an encyclopedia, not like a porn page. I've worked on enough of our sexual topic articles to know all of that. You don't have to like Seedfeeder's drawings or other such illustrations, but they work and there has been far less fighting and exhibitionism with regard to sexual images because of them. We still include real-life sexual images occasionally, such as at the Fisting article, but, for the most part, we don't need to. I would never suggest we hide sexual images, and I highly doubt that hiding this trypophobia image would lead to that or similar. The trypophobia case is what I and others feel is a WP:Ignore all rules case. WP:Ignore all rules does not hold up very often, and people would need consensus to collapse an image at some other article anyway, and it would need to include solid rationales. Do stop looking through my past to try to discredit my opinion on this because you like to unnecessarily go with more gratuitous images. Interesting that you are all for going with a misleading image of female ejaculation, a topic that is far more debated than trypophobia has ever been. At least the researchers who have studied trypophobia are not stating that it doesn't exist. Those who have studied female ejaculation? They lean more toward the liquid being urine and female ejaculation not truly existing. Also take note that Doc James and I are in agreement to not include that female ejaculation image you were so keen on including. I noted above that Doc and I are usually in agreement, but not about this trypophobia image case. Collapsing the image isn't failing to get information to people, in most cases anyway. It would still be right there for people to click on. And others have offered the blurring option. It's clear that you and I will not be agreeing. I didn't fully follow your penile fracture commentary, but anyway. On a side note: Since this article/talk page is on my watchlist, there is no need to keep pinging me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words, and it is well worth including it to show what something is, and indeed, even to show when something is implausible. Wnt (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
And again, I have not argued for removing the image. As for "implausible," I assume you mean female ejaculation...because what the lotus image induces what induces is fact. And I was already clear at WP:Med about why I object to the female ejaculation image, but that's a different topic, obviously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead, no preference on collapsing – I'm not familiar with policy or precedent surrounding the collapsing of images, but it would seem pretty obvious that this image enhances a reader's understanding of the subject matter in a way that words alone cannot. Its importance undoubtedly trumps the concerns that it causes harm, since Wikipedia places a higher priority on educational value, especially when the effect from harm is not serious and completely subjective. I understand the request to collapse the image, but if this causes accessibility concerns, particularly among mobile readers, then it should be avoided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    GoneIn60, always good to have your thoughts even when I disagree with you. I'm obviously for retaining the image in the lead, but I disagree that the harm in this case is not serious or is completely subjective. Some people have a really bad case of trypophobia, and some of have reported being physically ill from such imagery, which is harm. Yes, the Panic attack article currently notes in its lead that "panic attacks themselves are not typically dangerous physically," but panic attacks still result in unpleasant (sometimes very unpleasant) reactions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    I think if anyone digs hard enough, they can find a study on just about anything to support a specific stance. I'm not discounting the one cited above, but we should be mindful to not allow a small minority to detract from the benefits of the majority, unless there's strong evidence to indicate otherwise. With that said, I stand by "no preference", since the evidence is limiting either way. Just so it's clear, "no preference" also means "not against"! ;-) --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    GoneIn60, I'm speaking of what the general research states on the topic. The general public can believe whatever they want to believe, but researchers who have studied the topic are clear that trypophobia causes unpleasant reactions in those who have it. There are no majority of researchers stating otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    "The prevalence of trypophobia in the general population is not known". That source also calls this "preliminary research", meaning take the results lightly with a grain of salt. While it very well may be factual to some extent, the likelihood that a potential reader will suffer a serious reaction can't be stated with any kind of certainty at this point. Therefore, we should not proactively react in a way that is detrimental to the obvious education value the image provides. If research on the effects becomes more definitive later on, we can always revisit. Again, I'm not against the collapsing, but I also don't think we need any knee-jerk reactions either. I have nothing more to say about the option to collapse (and the proposal below may make this a moot discussion). --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    GoneIn60, preliminary research or not, the research is clear that trypophobia causes negative mental and physical reactions. And per what I just stated below to Wnt, I completely disagree with you that "the likelihood that a potential reader will suffer a serious reaction can't be stated with any kind of certainty at this point." We have reliable sources noting serious reactions like panic attacks, and we have our readers telling us. Are we to think that our readers are lying? That our editors are lying too? Is Gandydancer lying? Am I lying? Are other Wikipedia editors who have noted involuntary negative physical reactions to trypophobic imagery lying? Our we delusional? Not according to the research. Furthermore, as others have noted in past discussions and this one, since trypophobia is not well known, common sense tells us that most people visiting this article are those with trypophobia. As made clear in the "Society and culture" section of the article, those are the people who seek to better understand this condition that they usually have no name for. Collapsing the image is taking both sides into account. It's not prioritizing one readership over the other. It's not stating, "Sorry those with trypophobia, but we care more about those who don't have the condition, even though they are the minority visiting this article. You are just going to have to tough it out if you want to learn more about the condition on this site." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Feelings of disgust that lead to symptoms like goose bumps, itchy skin, or the feeling of your skin crawling are not what I'd consider serious reactions. Cross those off the list. Obviously panic attacks are more serious, but nausea may or may not be. Some of this is subjective is my point, including how often a serious reaction occurs. Obviously not everyone with a negative reaction is having a serious reaction. Is it .001% of those exposed, .1%, or even as high as 1%? That's the uncertainty I'm speaking of. A small minority can always seem pretty vocal, especially in this day and age with social media. We shouldn't be judging this based on our personal experiences and interactions with others. Actual evidence based on strong statistical methods would be needed to back that up. And while collapsing has the appearance of appeasing both sides, we shouldn't lose sight of accessibility. If it becomes more likely that a mobile reader (or any reader for that matter) misses the image, then it may not be a good compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    GoneIn60, for those with trypophobia, feelings of disgust are sometimes intertwined with fear, or result in the person feeling distressed and/or obsessed over the image. The lotus image can stay in people's minds for hours or days bombarding them. As noted on my talk page, it happened to me and it happened to medical editor Yobol. As noted by Gandydancer above, it also happened to her. That stated, I'm not basing my views on the topic, including on collapsing the image, on my personal experience. I'm basing it on the available research and what our own readers have told us. After all, this discussion is about what affects our readers. The image being up there un-collapsed keeps being a problem because of those with trypophobia coming to this article and immediately having a hard time because of that image. The available research indicates that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common. Even non-trypophobic individuals have experienced more discomfort when viewing trypophobic imagery than when viewing neutral images. What people consider serious can be subjective, yes. But my point is that the negative reactions have caused psychological and/or physical harm. Something like goose bumps, itchy skin, or the feeling of your skin crawling can lead to anxiety. The article notes that people with trypophobia likely have generalized anxiety disorder (not all of them, of course). Anyway, I don't see what there is left for us to debate. I appreciate you at least being open to collapsing the image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The article says there is no specific diagnosis for this "disease", which it says was named on an internet forum. Provided this is true, we don't even get to interesting philosophical issues. Without a way to professionally diagnose who "has" this and who doesn't, we certainly aren't near to knowing whether viewing the images is beneficial or harmful. So we should sail on straight without considering any special maneuver at all. I can say, sure, yeah, that there's "something weird" about a lotus, maybe due to the eye-like appearance of the sockets ... but if you want to talk disturbing, how about the guy at the supermarket I went to last night who had literally 20 earrings in an ear. That's disturbing, but I'm not running to the store telling them to start discriminating or make him wear a niqab or whatever, I just gotta deal. Ditto Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wnt, how is one to state that we don't know that the image is harmful when we have reliable sources noting that people have experienced panic attacks, have become physically ill, etc., from viewing such images? How are we to question it when we have IPs like this one noting the experience of their partner from visiting this article and IPs like the one at the #Please hide the trypophobia inducing pictures section above, or our own Wikipedia editors such as Gandydancer stating this? I don't see any of the researchers who have studied the topic questioning whether or not such imagery causes harm. They are clear about the negative reactions, which many would classify as harmful. Panic attacks are no walk in the park. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Flyer22 Reborn: I am skeptical about the entire idea, but if [6] is to be believed, trypophobia normally causes disgust toward an image, not fear. "This disgust response may thus develop fear over time and then turn into a specific phobia due to negative reinforcement by avoidance as avoidance behaviour has shown to contribute to the persistence of fear and the amplification of anxiety over time (37). This way, anxiety, and anxious expectation would grow with time, adding symptoms of fear on top of the innate symptoms of disgust." In other words, your prescription of hiding the image ("avoidance behavior") is actually what they speculate may cause the phobia. That is what might happen if you start making amateur medical interventions. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wnt, as should be clear, I don't see how you can be "skeptical about the entire idea," when we have reliable sources (what we go by) and anecdotal evidence in that our very own readers and Wikipedia editors attest to having the condition. You act like we are all lying or are all delusional. Like I've stated on my talk page, I don't understand how anyone can be afraid of clowns, but that phobia exists and it's not in the DSM-5 either. You can be skeptical about the entire "idea" as much as you want to, but the researchers are clear that it exists and more and more research on it will keep coming out while you are over in the corner denying its existence with your fingers in your ears and making insensitive jokes. You, sir, are exactly the type of person that Ian.thomson described at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122#Images on phobia articles. How nice of you to assume that I'm making "amateur medical interventions," as though you know that I am without medical qualifications or as though I am trying to treat our readers. I'm not the one insisting that we keep the image up there under the pretense that we are treating readers via exposure therapy. Like I stated above to Doc James below, "Wikipedia is not therapy and no one should be suggesting that we use it as therapy. I'm also 100% certain that most readers with trypophobia who visit this article and see that lotus image do not return to the article and therefore get true therapy by seeing that image. Exposure therapy requires repeated exposure. What proof do you have that readers are returning to this article for exposure therapy? Also, trypophobia often presents with an autonomic nervous system response. Researchers generally don't believe that the reaction is due to societal factors." As for disgust, I repeat what I stated to GoneIn60: "For those with trypophobia, feelings of disgust are sometimes intertwined with fear, or result in the person feeling distressed and/or obsessed over the image. [...] I'm not basing my views on the topic, including on collapsing the image, on my personal experience. I'm basing it on the available research and what our own readers have told us. The available research indicates that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common. Even non-trypophobic individuals have experienced more discomfort when viewing trypophobic imagery than when viewing neutral images. What people consider serious can be subjective, yes. But my point is that the negative reactions have caused psychological and/or physical harm. Something like goose bumps, itchy skin, or the feeling of your skin crawling can lead to anxiety. The article notes that people with trypophobia likely have generalized anxiety disorder (not all of them, of course)." In that same review, despite the commentary on disgust being the more common reaction, Martínez-Aguayo et al. state that trypophobia usually involves "an intense and disproportionate fear towards holes, repetitive patterns, protrusions, etc., and, in general, images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies." They state "usually" for fear rather than "sometimes." Anyway, trypophobia may cause disgust more than it causes fear, but it comes with involuntary, unpleasant physical reactions in either case. And I see no need to unnecessarily subject our readers to those involuntary, unpleasant physical reactions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead/do not collapse. I'm sympathetic to the arguments for collapsing, but ultimately, as others have pointed out, having the image is vital to understanding the topic of the article, and hiding it only makes it harder to find. The comparison to the lack of a picture of a spider on Arachnophobia doesn't help, because most people already know what spiders are (and if they're so keen, they can immediately click through to the Spider article and see some), but most people don't know what a trypophobic image is (is that even a word?). Simple aversion or disgust is not sufficient grounds to remove the image. Even more significant psychological distress is questionable; there'd need to be some kind of immediate danger, such as that of a flashing image in producing an epileptic seizure. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurred image per Mathglot. I initially found Flyer22's case opening statements entirely convincing, but Doc James has presented equally compelling counter-arguments. Mathglot's suggestion seems to me to be an unusual but workable compromise - although I'd suggest having a 'click here to unblur' link rather than a timer. If it's gradually resolving on its own, a reader might not notice as they read the text in the lead, then get a shock when they look at the image again (which was 'safe' when they first looked at it). GirthSummit (blether) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Girth Summit, Doc James has been arguing for therapy via Wikipedia. That has been his main counterargument, and that's not what we do here. And either way, exposure therapy often does not completely cure disorders. It more so helps to better manage them. There are so many people with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) who get exposure therapy, but it has not cured their OCD. Also, trypophobia commonly presents with an autonomic nervous system response, such as a person shuddering, feeling their skin crawl, experiencing panic attacks, sweating, palpitating, or feeling nauseated or itchy. It's usually not attributed to societal causes. As someone who has trypophobia, I doubt I'll ever be cured of it (if I should even view it as something that needs curing rather than a natural biological response), although repeated exposure to such imagery has helped (and hasn't helped in that it has made me more sensitive to such images). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    My main argument User:Flyer22 Reborn is that the image in question is encyclopedic and useful for the article in question. My argument about therapy is simple countering your claims about "possible harm" with evidence that the arguments for "possible benefit" are just as if not greater. In fact I do not think either of these argument should get any weight as both are weak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    You are suggesting that we use the image for exposure therapy, as though it always works or as though trypophobia is just any other specific phobia. We know that it comes with involuntary negative physical reactions and that researchers are not sure whether to classify it as a phobia or something else. It is not like exposure therapy has proven beneficial for this condition. Your "possible benefits" claim can only work, if it is to work at all, if readers stick around and repeatedly expose themselves to the image. They will not be sticking around. If you believe that they will, we disagree on that as well. We can define harm differently, sure, but the evidence is clear that involuntary negative physical reactions come with trypophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Flyer22, I don't think that's an entirely fair summation of the discussion above, but anyway it's clear from the comments posted above that there isn't currently a consensus for removing or collapsing the image, and I wonder what you think of Mathglot's proposal (possibly modified by my suggestion below). (FWIW, I have arachnophobia, and I know what you are talking about regarding automatic responses to triggers. I can cope with looking at pictures of spiders, and I've got to the point where I can trap one in a glass and take it outside rather than killing it - but if I see one close to me and I'm not mentally prepared, I'll be on the other side of the room in the time it takes you to blink). GirthSummit (blether) 15:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    We disagree on the summation as well then. As for Mathglot's proposal, I don't favor it and I don't believe most editors will support it since it warns and so many of our editors are against any kind of warnings on Wikipedia, except for the aforementioned disclaimer. But it's better than nothing. I do not want to keep seeing our readers in distress over this image. I do not understand why everyone will not just vote to collapse the image in the lead as a compromise. The "it causes no harm" or "maybe causes no harm" arguments, or similar, are weak in the face of the evidence. Fear and/or distress is also harm to many people -- psychological harm. And, of course, the physical reactions that result from this condition are unpleasant. It's like some people have to experience this condition for themselves to have empathy on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Flyer22 Reborn However we each feel about Doc James's line of argument, I'm not sure that I do disagree with you on the substantive point here - I said initially that I find your arguments convincing, and I still do. The page is clearly causing problems for some people, and I think we should do something about that. I also said that there are persuasive counter arguments, which is obviously the case given the other comments here, and that's what made me hesitant to support your proposal.
    I have seen the comparison to the page on arachnophobia in this thread, and it's been pointed out that there aren't actually any pictures of spiders on the arachnophobia page, except for an entirely unproblematic cartoon near the bottom. I think it's worth noting that the triggers for trypophobia and arachnophobia are quite different however - if our articles are correct, trypophobia is an aversion to images of holes, not to the holes themselves. As an arachnophobe, I can deal with images of spiders on websites or in books - they make me feel uneasy, but it's not a serious reaction. If, however, visiting a Wikipedia page caused an actual spider to appear, I would freak the fuck right out, and not because it's a physical impossibility, but because there was a spider there and it might touch me. With trypophobia, we are presenting the actual thing that causes distress to the trypophobic reader, right there in the lead of the article about their condition. I do think that we should do something to address that.
    Mathglot's suggestion seemed to me to be an avenue worth pursuing, in the face of a lot of opposition to removing or collapsing the image. We'd still have an image in the lead, nothing would have been censored, people could see it whatever platform they were on - I think it's worth discussing further. GirthSummit (blether) 23:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    As seen above, I've agreed that the trypophobia and arachnophobia matters are different. Also, trypophobia is not just about an aversion to images of holes. For example, before the news and media sources were removed (except for those in the "Society and culture" section), Cole and Wilkins also stated that "given the large number of images associated with trypophobia, some of which do not contain clusters of holes but clusters of other objects, these results suggest that holes alone are unlikely to be the only cause for this condition" and they "consider that the fear of holes does not accurately reflect the condition."
    Mathglot's suggestion is unlikely to get enough support. If we start a different RfC on that suggestion, we will still have the same people insisting "not censored" and "let's unnecessarily trigger those with trypophobia; this is Wikipedia, and I don't have trypophobia, so [...]." Anyway, Girth Summit, I thank you for your empathy on this. Let's see how this RfC plays out since views are divided, and RfCs last for a month unless prematurely closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough Flyer22 Reborn, let's wait and see. Just 'for the record' though, I'd like to make a couple of things clear: I appreciate that you agreed that trypophobia and arachnophobia were different, and I only mentioned it because I thought the distinction between things and images of things was worth noting, and hadn't been properly discussed; my statement about trypophobia being an aversion to holes was taken directly from the first sentence of our article about it, so it that's wrong, we ought to fix it. I hope that we will be able to find a way to accommodate both the 'Wikipedia isn't censored' and the 'this image causes actual harm to me' camps, and will support any proposal that will achieve that.
    I'll also add, since I've just noticed the comment below this, that I think the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer argument is worthless. Nobody in human history has ever read that disclaimer[citation needed], and we all know it. Disclaimers like that exist purely for legal purposes, as a defence against legal claim, but this discussion isn't about legal protection, it's about how best to avoid doing harm to people. A legal disclaimer does absolutely zero to achieve that. GirthSummit (blether) 01:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Girth, well, trypophobia is most commonly, in the basic sense, described as a fear of holes. But because it's more specific and broader than that, the lead states "an aversion to the sight of irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps." I attempted to add that "it has also been described as an aversion to high-contrast energy at midrange spatial frequencies" to the lead, to go along with what is already there. But it was cut as "jargon" and replaced with "and similar repetitive patterns." I objected, stating, "Partial revert. 'High-contrast energy at midrange spatial frequencies' is important per the source and the ones that note math's impact. This is discussed lower in the article. Stating 'similar repetitive patterns' is too vague. [...] Furthermore, repetitive patterns alone is not the issue. People with trypophobia usually do not have issues with repetitive patterns alone. It's about the irregularity/spatial frequencies of the repetitive patterns. And not all trypophobes respond the same way." Then it was tagged by the same editor as "impenetrable jargon." I objected again, stating, "Things aren't jargon just because some people don't understand them." The same editor then gave in-text attribution. I then stated, "Was wondering if 'high-contrast energy at midrange spatial frequencies' could pass without quotations per WP:LIMITED and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. I've seen it stated in another source and seems there are limited ways to state this. I will look into a layperson way to word it." As seen at Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 4, whether we should give in-text attribution and whether coypright or plagiarism is a concern regarding how we use that source has been debated, though. Anyway, a different editor changed it to "is an aversion to the sight of irregular high contrast patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps." I disagreed with that, commenting, "Removed 'high-contrast.' Stating 'high-contrast' without noting spacial frequencies is not accurate with regard to what the researchers are stating. I will find some other way to note that aspect in the lead." So now we have what you see in the lead. It's still accurate; it's just not noting the "large number of images associated with trypophobia" aspect. But we do state in the "Causes" section that 'Martínez-Aguayo et al. described trypophobia as usually "involving an intense and disproportionate fear towards holes, repetitive patterns, protrusions, etc., and, in general, images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies." I'd rather not discuss that aspect of the lead right now. The RfC discussion is enough.
    I agree with you on the disclaimer. Common sense. On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Also, as the case study on the girl shows, trypophobia is not simply an aversion to the images; it's about the holes themselves as well. I doubt that those with trypophobia would only react negatively to an image of a lotus seed pod and not when seeing the lotus seed pod in real life. In this CNN source used in the "Society and culture" section, we see it documented that people have reacted to real-life instances. And to state more on my personal experience since we have discussed our personal issues, it's not just images for me. I've had trypophobia all my life; it's always been the case that certain things have given me an occasional trypophobic reaction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Point taken about the pinging - I feel differently myself, I find that stuff gets lost in the watchlist (which probably means I should clear out my watchlist...), and I find pings useful for attracting my attention if someone has actually said something to me. Thanks for letting me know your preference.
The history you've described is disappointing. I can see the point that phrases like 'high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies' would be hard for a non-expert reader to understand, but I'd have thought that we could craft some wording that would be more easily understandable. But you're right, that's not what we're talking about here.
WRT the things/images of things point, I do appreciate that the things themselves will also cause the effects - I thought that was self-evident, but I wasn't very clear so apologies for that. The contrast I was trying to draw was that while arachnophobes' symptoms are triggered spiders (we may be made uncomfortable by images of them, but really it's the thought of one touching me that makes me panic), trypophobes' symptoms are triggered by the sight of 'irregular patterns or clusters', whether it's images of clusters or the clusters themselves, so we ought to be mindful of that when presenting such images. GirthSummit (blether) 04:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep uncollapsed per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If it ends up collapsed, our content disclaimer is obsolete. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 16:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead, do not collapse. Wikipedia's job is to provide information, not to be a safe space. And frankly, I think that this has already been discussed to death. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I've thought more about this, and I want to say something further, even at the risk of rubbing some editors the wrong way. Wikipedia's role as a reliable source about mainstream science, and not as a reflection of whatever might be bouncing around the Internet, matters very much. My understanding is that trypophobia can be described in a way that is consistent with a broader definition of some kinds of phobias from the DSM. But that is very different from being recognized by the DSM or any other mainstream medical authority as a genuine diagnosis. Maybe some people are in fact affected by an image of a lotus seed pod, I don't know. But it is just as plausible that some users who comment here are trolling us, and we should not extend WP:AGF so far as to discount sourcing in favor of periodic anonymous pleas for sympathy. I know some users will be offended by my having said that, but I'm saying it anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish, just which users here do you think are trolling us? Why don't you go ahead and name names since all I see our longtime Wikipedians commenting here. And if not longtime ones, ones that have proven themselves to be good or decent Wikipedians. Just who do you think here is lying about having this condition that a number of reliable sources are clear is a real condition? Why do you think that they -- we-- would be trolling you or others? I mean, I know that Wikipedia is full of juvenile-acting males, but who's pulling your chain? Or are you only talking about the IPs? Since we're on the topic of offending, though, I'll go ahead and say the following: I don't give a damn what you or others personally think exists. For this discussion, I only care about what WP:Reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources) state and unnecessarily harming our readers. But when people like Wnt, Bluerasberry, or you mock, joke and/or question a condition that WP:Reliable sources state is very real and harms people in the sense that they get unpleasant autonomic nervous system responses, I sure as hell am going to challenge you on it. Like I noted in the #Discussion section below, experts are clear that people can have a phobia to just about anything. It is also a fact that the vast majority of phobias are not in the DSM by name and are rather handled under the broader category of specific phobia, which is in the DSM. Trypophobia is a newly researched condition, which, like the vast majority of phobias, may never be in the DSM by name, but that doesn't make it any less valid. More research will continue to come out on trypophobia, showing how real it is, regardless of the Internet fascination that people have with it. The DSM is not the be all and end all of medical authorities. And even it recognizes how unique phobias can be and that it's never going to cover all of them, and so has the specific phobia category. Trypophobia isn't even being analyzed as just a phobia, but also as an involuntary biological reaction to imagery that looks diseased or otherwise threatening. The research shows that even those who don't have trypophobia would rather look at neutral images than at a lotus seed pod image. So there is definitely something alarming about that image ether way. I've stated before that I don't understand how anyone can have a fear of clowns (coulrophobia), which also is not in the DSM, but I don't question that people have it. Why should I? Why would so many people lie abut having coulrophobia, including to the point where it is debilitating? Why would so many people lie about having trypophobia, including to the point where it is debilitating? That's a lot of acting to put into something. And to what end? Fleeting attention? Attention and trolling editors did not drive me to work on this article. Trypophobia and wanting to create a descent article on it did. Attention and trolling editors did not drive Gandydancer to have the very unpleasant reaction she had when looking at the lotus seed pod image. Trypophobia caused it. If you want to state that some disorder such as histrionic personality disorder is driving many people to openly state that they have trypophobia, that's not supported by evidence.
Looking at Talk:Coulrophobia/Archive 1, I see editors making similar WP:NOTCENSORED and "skeptical that it exists" arguments (as if their personal experiences of never having experienced a fear of clowns matter at all). If this were the Coulrophobia article (meaning if it weren't currently redirected), I think editors would also be insisting that we include an image of a clown, as if we all don't know what a clown looks like. These discussions, including this trypophobia discussion, are just as strong as any other indicator that Wikipedia is dominated by male editors. For any discussion on Wikipedia involving empathy, this always happens and I see more female than male editors showing empathy. I know some editors will be offended by my having said that, and view it as sexism, but I'm saying it anyway. Perhaps those editors should read the literature on empathy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
(1) Thank you for sharing your opinion. (2) You know perfectly well that I am not going to single anyone out. (3) Nobody needs to tell me about research or reliable sourcing. (4) I'm not joking about anybody. (5) The concept of the "scary clown" is widely recognized and is even the subject of numerous horror films. (6) You seem to be badgering every editor with whom you disagree here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish, coulrophobia is so widely recognized and yet editors still challenged its existence, and seemingly couldn't find good scholarly sources on it, and it is currently redirected to the Evil clown article. I noted in the Discussion section below that it should not be redirected there and that I will fix it if no one else does. And challenging nonsense is not badgering. I have only challenged comments that should be challenged. As anyone can see, I did not reply to you until you made that latest provocative comment you made. You knew it would get a response, from me or someone else, which is why you stated "I know some users will be offended, but [...]." Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I won't be replying any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
(Gandy has a good laugh when she reads, "I know some users will be offended by my having said that, but I'm saying it anyway.") LOL, I did not feel in the least offended that a Wikipedia editor with no authority to tell editors and readers anything about what we should or should not feel "offended" about re this subject. Please get a grip. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
And I'm not offended by being told to get a grip. Anyway, keep in lead, do not collapse. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
In case it might be helpful to anyone who was indeed offended, I want to clarify that I did not say that in order to make some kind of global argument about trypophobia, but to provide a further reason for my position about whether or not it is appropriate to use the image as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't help. It's one thing if you only meant that IPs might be trolling us, although I believe that the IPs are being genuine; it's another if you mean that certain editors here in this discussion and/or in previous discussions on the topic (including those expressing concern for those with trypophobia) are trolling people. You didn't clarify. I'm the only editor in this discussion thus far who explicitly stated that I have trypophobia. Gandydancer didn't explicitly state that she has it, but she did note that the image greatly disturbed/distressed her, just as lotus seed pod imagery has greatly disturbed/distressed many people and even a number of those who don't have trypophobia are bothered by lotus seed pod imagery in some way. Either way, we can move on. We clearly disagree. There are so many phobias that are hard for people to believe in, and trypophobia isn't anywhere close to the top of the "hard to believe in" list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I would have thought it to be self-evident that I would not be describing long-term and productive editors as trolls. Trolling, pretty much by definition, is not consistent with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
You could have made that clear before instead of saying you wouldn't be naming anyone. I clearly asked, "just which users here do you think are trolling us? Why don't you go ahead and name names since all I see our longtime Wikipedians commenting here. And if not longtime ones, ones that have proven themselves to be good or decent Wikipedians. [...] Or are you only talking about the IPs?" Even if you meant registered editors who haven't been with us for long, in addition to IPs, that could have been clarified without naming names. Your commentary on the matter, except for the "periodic anonymous pleas" part, was vague, and gave reason to believe you might be talking about some of us in this discussion since you spoke of offense. In my experience, editors are less offended by IPs being offended, which is why they have to be reminded that IPs are human too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not human. I'm a fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but collapse - It seems like a very reasonable and sensible precaution to avoid causing undue distress to people who may be affected. Clearly not a matter of WP:NOTCENSOR as that does not refer to this kind of material, and in any case the material is not being removed, just being flagged accordingly so that readers can make their own decision as to whether to view. Having a little consideration costs nothing. Bonusballs (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep don't collapse. The image is absolutely essential to understanding this article. While approximately everyone can fully understand what "fear of spiders" means, approximately no one is going to have a clear grasp of what "fear of holes" means if they haven't come across this topic before. And as for collapsing, aside from accessibility and other problems, and aside that we don't do that *anywhere* else and I seriously don't want collapse being demanded elsewhere, collapsing the image won't actually work. The foundation semi-recently built a PageImage feature. Regardless of whether the image is collapsed or not, the image still shows up in PagePreviews for this article. The image also appears if you start typing "try" into the search box. The image also appears when social media or other websites embed Wikipedia-snippets via the new web API calls for that purpose. And it probably shows up in other places. Alsee (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Just a quick note, but I have seen a collapse box on a particular flashing image, but it was some time ago and unfortunately I can't remember where it was. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Found it, in case anyone cares and is reading this; I'll put a link below under the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep do not collapse I came here from WikiProject Medicine. Trypophobia is not a medical condition which routinely gets disability accommodations. Censoring images of the light and educational sort which Wikipedia presents is not a health care treatment. Controversial photos on Wikipedia are not harmless, but also Wikipedia does not promise a harmless experience, and the small risk to readers from including this photo is in the range of what Wikipedia has found acceptable in the past. The applicable policy here is censorship of Wikipedia. If someone is violence-phobic, sex-phobic, or politics phobic we do not censor our articles on those topics. Having an image here of a lotus plant might be slightly unnerving to some people but exposure to content which people request by search is what Wikipedia provides. If anyone searches for this term in a search engine they will see similar images. Reddit hosts the largest community of people who claim to have Trypophobia, and at /r/trypophobia, it seems to be trendy for people to post pictures of holes and for other people to volunteer to be creeped out as entertainment. I expect that the typical audience to this article is like that one - people who hear this strange word and expect to see a weird picture. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Good points regarding censorship, and an excellent one regarding the search engine angle. I imagine that most who stumble across this article did so because of an internet search result. Since similar images aren't being censored there, there's no point in censoring it here; most visitors have already been exposed by then. I hadn't thought of that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    Bluerasberry, Reddit has all sorts of creepy forums, including forums to watch people die. It is odd that you would suggest that we treat this article like a forum where people come to be creeped out simply because it includes a trypophobic image that is disturbing to many people and Reddit hosts a forum to creep out those who may or may not have trypophobia. We already state in the "Society and culture" section the following: "Because trypophobia is not well known to the general public, many people with the condition do not know the name for it and believe that they are alone in their trypophobic reactions and thoughts until they find an online community to share them with. This has led to an increase in trypophobic images on social media; in some cases, people seek to intentionally induce trypophobia in those who have it by showing them trypophobic images, with the most trypophobic-inducing images being holes and clusters (especially the lotus seedhead) photoshopped onto human skin." So, yeah, the social media aspect is not a surprise. There are always people who are fascinated by their psychological condition in that they may seek to confront it head-on. Yes, trypophobia is considered by researchers to be a psychological part. Yes, enough people with trypophobia are fascinated by their trypophobia and seek to tackle it head-on. People on Reddit have heard of exposure therapy. But Reddit is hardly representative of those with trypophobia, any more than it is representative of the general population in any other way. Like I stated before, most people do not know what trypophobia is; it is those with trypophobia who are usually looking for a name for it, who type in something like "goose bumps from looking at [so and so]," in order to understand what they have. And enough of those people have made it to this article and have been surprised to see that lotus image there. Even if they aren't surprised by it, we know that many people with trypophobia have a difficult time reading about trypophobia with trypophobic images on display. And exposure therapy takes time; so GoneIn60 stating, "Since similar images aren't being censored there, there's no point in censoring it here; most visitors have already been exposed by then." is a weak argument. And, as others have stated, this is not about censorship. It's about common decency. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Flyer22 Reborn: I am having trouble taking this seriously but since you call for decency I will try more and I am open to change.
    I bring up reddit because it has a community of 40k people who are subscribed to an entertainment feed treating trypophobia as a hobby. I linked to that because it is a stable public record showing years of people celebrating this phobia for fun. YouTube search is the same. I scrolled through the top 100 or so YouTube videos and I see all of them as scares for entertainment, and none of them as providing support services. Wikipedia is supposed to be a mirror and summary of the information on a topic and the available media treats this phobia as a form of entertainment. This article gets traffic in spikes which probably match to entertainment media mentions and the amount of traffic it gets daily is high enough to indicate that the majority of the readers are treating this as an entertainment article, because obscure medical conditions do not get high traffic like this.
Can you show me a community or sources who treat this as a medical condition to be taken seriously? We are not linking to any support services in the external links, and I take that as supporting evidence that this is not a condition for which people seek support. If I said that the majority of information sources treat trypophobia as something spooky, like a Halloween scare, would you disagree? If the majority of readers were seeking entertainment, to what extent is that a good argument for this article meeting their needs in priority over those seeking medical information? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bluerasberry, how are you having trouble taking trypophobia seriously...if taking the time to read sources like this or this one? Or the research articles that continue to come out on trypophobia? Do you think researchers are wasting their time on a fictional condition? Do you think the people with trypophobia are lying? Do you think they are delusional? I have trypophobia. It is not something I can control. It is an autonomic nervous system response. Do you think that Yobol was lying when he stated this or this? That Gandydancer was lying when she stated this? That the people in this CNN source are lying? Trypophobia exists and the physical and psychological issues that come with it are unpleasant, whether you want to accept its existence or not. Experts note that people can have a phobia with regard to just about anything. Take the time to read the literature on specific phobias. In the case of trypophobia, though, it's not just psychological. It comes with involuntary, negative physical reactions. Yes, the research on it is new, but the researchers who have studied it are not stating that it doesn't exist. Not even Doc believes that it doesn't exist. He took the time to discuss my trypophobia with me on my talk page; the discussion is still currently there. You are asking for links to legit support groups and similar even though we have sources like the CNN source noting that because trypophobia is not well known to the general public, many people with the condition do not know the name for it and believe that they are alone in their trypophobic reactions and thoughts until they find an online community to share them with. I don't go looking for forums about trypophobia because I'd rather not see the images, but I know that blogs like this exist to help people with it. Like that blog notes, some people with trypophobia speak of a weird fascination with it and that they are drawn to look at such imagery. I went on a trypophobia binge in early 2017 year and got desensitized in different ways. The lotus image doesn't bother me as much as it used to. But I will still get goose bumps from looking at the image and some other trypophobic imagery, and the goose bumps are not pleasant and the imagery can be distressing when my mind keeps flashing to it. If the researchers are correct that trypophobia is a biological revulsion that associates trypophobic shapes with danger or disease, and may therefore have an evolutionary basis, then it makes sense that I and others with trypophobia have those involuntary physical reactions when seeing such imagery.
    Like I stated, Reddit, which is dominated by males, has all sorts of creepy forums, including forums to watch people die. They have forums where watching people die is a form of entertainment. That doesn't mean that such people are the norm. The fact that Reditt hosts a get-together to scare those with trypophobia is not surprising. We state in the Trypophobia article that people looking for an online community to share their trypophobia experiences "has led to an increase in trypophobic images on social media; in some cases, people seek to intentionally induce trypophobia in those who have it by showing them trypophobic images, with the most trypophobic-inducing images being holes and clusters (especially the lotus seedhead) photoshopped onto human skin." Some of these people on forums are trying to intentionally harm others with these images. Other people are trying to treat their trypophobia by looking at these images. We see one woman in the CNN source state the following: "I've seen an exponential increase of trigger images on Facebook and across the Internet. We'd had people join our Facebook support group, be welcomed into the community and then post a trigger picture and do harm to the group." When asked "Why do people do that?", she stated, "I suppose they enjoy seeing the reaction. They are not only bullies but cowards as well, hiding behind their false name and the anonymity of the Internet." No one is coming to this Wikipedia article for trypophobia entertainment. They have other places on the Internet they can go to for that.
    Regarding what you called "violence-phobic, sex-phobic, or politics phobic," I will go ahead and state the following: Sexophobia is not subject to serious academic study, for the most part, and especially not under the neologism "sexophobia." It's a word thrown around without much of anything on it. Trypophobia is getting serious academic study. People with an aversion to sexual activity or genitals are not going to go to a sexual topic article or a genital article. Not typically anyway. They might go to the Sexophobia article, but they won't find any images there because no sexual image is needed at that article. I agree that we should retain the lotus image at this article; I'm only asking that we collapse it, and I and others above have noted why. A fear of violence has no Wikipedia article and I'm not aware of fear of violence having serious academic study. We typically don't include images of violence on Wikipedia unless it enhances readers' understanding of the text anyway. See how the Violence article currently is? Fear of politics has no Wikipedia article, although the Culture of fear article exists, and I'm not aware of fear of politics having serious academic study. And politics is not something that an image can adequately represent anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do not want to draw you into endless conversation and labor, and I want to acknowledge the thought and stress you have put into having conversation here. I appreciate what you have already said, and I cannot expect more from you. If you want to reply feel free. Otherwise, I am replying and anyone else can answer.
Regardless of whether you reply I have apologies - you say elsewhere that I mock the concept of trypophobia. Although I will not admit to that, I apologize for failing to show as much respect as I should have. If I was disrepectful then I would further apologize for that and cease disrepectful behavior, but right now I am not aware of any offense. I wish for everyone involved to get fairness out of their experience with this article. We customarily avoid shocking people who visit Wikipedia articles by avoiding the publication of unexpected images.
I confirm that reliable medical literature on the condition exists and that it is reliable as you say it is. I deny calling anyone a "liar" - my disagreement is not an insult and my disputing points is not my intent to call anyone a liar. I admit that I have ignorance of some basic facts and I could be wrong, so even my disagreement could be my own ignorance and error.
In the midst of the lack of data, I am going to ask some questions state my answers to them. I want to communicate my view of things. To anyone reading this, I would like your answers to these same questions, to see if you have different answers. My expectation is that people reading this will have the same answers as me, but if anyone's answers differ, then please speak up.
  1. Is there published evidence in the media that a substantial number of people treat trypophobia as a genre of entertainment media?
    • Yes, the thousands of publications and hundreds of thousands of comments in Reddit, YouTube, and other media forums establish that there is a demographic which publishes trypophobia media to trigger an emotional response for people who enjoy that feeling.
  2. What sort of media genre is trypophobia?
    • Perhaps this is similar to "don't look down" images of heights or thrilling movies. Perhaps it is like a horror movie, where people watch shocking and fearful depictions to enjoy feelings of fear or surprise.
  3. What is your personal estimate of the relative sizes of the communities treating trypophobia as an entertainment genre versus a medical condition?
    • Judging by online publication through contemporary Internet search, a human can find and count 100 posts treating trypophobia as entertainment for every 1 post treating it as a medical condition. Beyond 100:1, anyone might guess at the scale. My own personal guess is that the count seems like 10,000 comments among people who enjoy the posts to every 1 where there is a medical discussion, but obviously browsing online community engagement is not an accurate reflection of experiences in a population. 10,000 :1, entertainment to medicine, is my guess based on online publication. I do not know how to get more precise information. My guess at the lowest reasonable ratio guess is 10:1 entertainment:medical.
  4. How reliable is Internet forum browsing as a Wikipedia-compatible reliable source?
    • Entertainment publications are reliable sources for establishing the role of pop culture topics. Media icons like the most popular YouTube personality, PewDiePie, publishing videos like "(WARNING GROSS) CURING MY TRYPOPHOBIA, are representative of the popular audience experience of trypophobia. These many responses by entertainers and entertainment publications, like Buzzfeed 1, College Humor 2, and SciShow 3 establish mainstream media engagement in this entertainment genre.
  5. To what extent can a topic simultaneously be an entertainment genre and a medical condition?
    • These dual concepts can coexist and use the same term as their name. One word, "trypophobia", can refer to both a genre and a medical condition. The Wikipedia article on the topic could cover both, or it could cover them in two separate articles.
  6. Should Wikipedia present trypophobia as a medical condition and avoid presenting it as an entertainment genre?
    • We can talk about this. By default, Wikipedia's coverage matches the bias of published media, and covers topics in proportion to the weight of reliable sources. It seems that there are reliable sources covering the topic as a medical condition, and other sources covering it as an entertainment genre. Beyond the sources Wikipedia reviewers commonly check WP:GOOGLEHITS for insights to determine a relative weight. It seems that the sources cover both, and both perspectives should be in Wikipedia, until and unless someone establishes consensus contrary to the presented weight and reliability of the media sources.
I would appreciate responses from anyone who has a different perspective. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, again, there is no need to ping me to a page I am obviously watching. I must be blunt in stating that your "a source of entertainment or a source or mockery" arguments hold no weight at all. And here's why: That people have mocked this condition has been part of the discussion on this talk page since 2013, and is noted in the "Society and culture" section. The article includes MEDRS-compliant sources. And as research is continuing, the topic will no doubt include more and more MEDRS-compliant sources. The researchers are taking the condition seriously; they are the ones treating it as biological and/or medical issue, and they have been clear why. The academic sources treat the matter that way, and so should we. It matters not that some random people online who do not have the condition are finding entertainment in the topic. Unless reliable sources state that some random people online who have the condition are fascinated by it to the point of entertainment, it matters not that some random people online who have the condition are fascinated by it to the point of entertainment. I don't see the researchers focusing on those people. So why should we focus on those people, give undue weight to those people, other than mentioning them in the "Society and culture" section? The researchers are focused on the people who are suffering from this condition, whether or not any of them have engaged in an "entertainment" aspect of it online. Going by the researchers, people with the condition don't want it and are not having a good time with it at all. We can see that there are various unpleasant reactions that come with this condition by looking at the Trypophobia Questionnaire. And again, some people with this condition are fascinated by it to the point that they try to "cure" themselves of it via YouTube interaction or other social media interaction.
Some people with it might be having a good time with it, but reliable sources are not stating that. And either way, there are people who joke about their fear of clowns, fear of snakes, fear of death, fear of serial killers, etc., and look at imagery about those things, in part, to get creeped out. There are people who make fun of people who have a fear of clowns or other phobias. So what? It does not make the fear of clowns any less real. Have you seen List of phobias? I mean, actually scrolled through it? Do you understand people being afraid of some of the things listed on that list? Looking at that list, I fail to see how trypophobia is one of the more difficult things to understand, given that the reactions seem to based on things that look diseased or otherwise ominous. What you are seeing on YouTube regarding trypophobia are people perplexed by the biological/mental affect it has on their bodies or others' bodies. Even well-known YouTubers like PewDiePie don't seem to be making light of it. He is sharing his condition with others who may have it, and is clearly triggered by such images and includes a warning for those who may have it. That he also profited from the video is beside the point. There is some therapy in experiencing the condition with others online, which is why you see things like the YouTube sharing with regard to it. I watched trypophobia videos (including PewDiePie's) sometime after discussing my trypophobia with Doc and others on my talk page. I treated watching the videos as educational and therapeutic. Most of those people are not actually mocking the condition; most of the people are fascinated by it. Their reactions clearly indicate it to be a real condition that they are absolutely stumped by. If you had it, you would no doubt be perplexed by it as well. Again, researchers are not only looking at this condition in terms of a phobia, but also in terms of it being a biological revulsion that associates trypophobic shapes with danger or disease, and may therefore have an evolutionary basis. For whatever biological reason, I have it. You don't. To be honest, since the effects it has on me are innate/involuntary, I find it odd when such imagery has no effect on other people. Guess I'm just one of the lucky ones who had this ability (yes, ability) passed down to me from an ancestor. As we speak, researchers are looking into why trypophobic imagery effects some people and not others.
As for offense, it's offensive to imply that this condition is just some "Ooh, we're spooked" Halloween matter. I objected to your argument on that and you pointing to Reddit to make your arguments. This condition has real negative biological effects on people. Going by the academic research, it is not fun for people with the condition. You stated that "We customarily avoid shocking people who visit Wikipedia articles by avoiding the publication of unexpected images." Not really. There is WP:Offensive material, but it's only followed under certain circumstances. People are quick to point to WP:NOTCENSORED, as if it's always a matter of censoring. WP:NOTCENSORED focuses on offending people. This matter is not about offending people. It's about causing unpleasant (very unpleasant, in some cases) biological reactions in people. In any case, I accept your apology because I know that the condition is difficult for some people to understand and that you looking at all of the media stuff on it is you trying to understand it. Consider looking at more of the academic literature on it, though.
You stated, "I confirm that reliable medical literature on the condition exists and that it is reliable as you say it is." Good.
Regarding the data, you know that research on this topic is still new. So I don't understand why you are asking for such data, unless it is to make the topic look shaky. We note in the article that the understanding of trypophobia is limited and that few studies have been done on it. So, no, I can't answer all those questions, which pertain to the media stuff. PubMed shows that the research on the topic is steadily increasing. But to address your questions, which I don't think anyone but you were wondering: No, there are no reliable sources stating that a substantial number of people treat trypophobia as a genre of entertainment media. There are reliable sources like the CNN source noting that people seek to intentionally induce trypophobia in those who have it by showing them trypophobic images. The source doesn't state that the reactions are pleasant to people with trypophobia. I see no sources stating that trypophobia is pleasant for the people who have it. I see no sources stating that trypophobia is a genre of entertainment, or covering it that way. Your questions and responses to your own questions are based on your conclusions that are not stated in any reliable sources.
I don't see that we need to make the "Society and culture" section any bigger and have the never-ending, pain in the ass "In popular culture" section. A summary in the "Society and culture" section is enough. Someone already tried to add Kendall Jenner having trypophobia to the "Society and culture" section, and it was reverted. I don't see a need for us to start adding celebrities to the section. The medical and cultural aspects are both covered in the article, but we are naturally more focused on what the academics state rather than what the media states for this topic. There is no need for a WP:POVFORK; that is not how we do things here. Like WP:POVFORK states, "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry, thank you for what I think was a very thoughtful comment, and I hope that other editors will agree that it was constructive. I do not have an answer for every one of your questions, but they prompt me to make a few general points. I had not, until now, realized the extent to which the subject has been made a target of entertainment, or, let's face it, online mockery. That aspect seems to me to be, for editorial purposes, an "in popular culture" topic which should be treated entirely separately from the medical aspects. (In other words, popular "entertainment" is of zero value in rebutting MEDRS content, as well as belonging at a different place on the page, if at all.) At the same time, there is a danger of WP:RGW here. It's not a reason to see the page as needing to "defend" anything, nor a reason to assume bad faith about editors with whom one disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As noted above, I know that the condition is difficult for some people to understand and that Bluerasberry looking at all of the media stuff on it is Bluerasberry trying to understand it. But like I stated, the "a source of entertainment or a source or mockery" arguments hold no weight at all, accept for covering the material in the "Society and culture" section. The article does cover the media aspect -- in the Society and culture section, where it should be. There is no need to significantly expand the section or create a WP:POVFORK to cover the media aspects. If we are going to have editors editing the article in a way to disprove or undermine the condition, or add a bunch of media material, yes, there is a danger of WP:RGW. But as the article stands, it is put together well and has some solid editors watching it. As for "assum[ing] bad faith about editors with whom one disagrees," I don't see that it has happened in this discussion. Since 2013, editors have responded to dismissive or mocking comments because they are dismissive or mocking. If I misjudged you, I apologize. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:The Last Word, WP:TLDR. Enough, already. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Enough already indeed! This is not about you or your false "I'm not a jerk" or "I'm not a dick" claims any time someone rightfully alludes to you or those who acted like you in this RfC (or in past discussions on this topic), or getting the last word. Bluerasberry pinged me. He responded to me, even though he stated "I would appreciate responses from anyone who has a different perspective." You felt the need to respond, with more of your doth protests too much angle. Don't expect someone, including me, not to respond to you if you comment. You said you were done posts ago, but kept commenting and commenting, and you don't see me telling you to shut up even though I wanted to. Funny how you have no problem with Doc commenting and commenting, but time I say something, well, we see the result. Both Doc and I have repeated ourselves in this RfC, but I have at least kept my responses somewhat unique. And I certainly have not responded to everyone in this RfC. It's a few editors I've responded to time and time again in this RfC, and you are one of them because you (like the others) kept commenting/replying. If you want me to keep my mouth shut, I cannot oblige, but you can try telling some other woman to shut up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep that up and I'll take you to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
For what? You'd be laughed right out of ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? So, if you go there, you are going to complain about me responding too much (because, apparently, my responses must be limited, even when pinged), me complaining about your trolling commentary and "Yes, enlarge!" commentary when others, such as Gandydancer and Galobtter, have also complained about it, and me responding to you essentially telling me to shut up? Really, that's all that you have. ANI will not care that I doubt your sincerity and used the word false in relation to you above. You clearly haven't been to ANI often enough to know how it works, because you have no case. At this point, it is you who is focused on getting the last word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and collapse This, this (warning - lotus head pic used) and this. More people may be affected than we know. It's not that hard for someone to click the image open if they choose to. Also, while it may be considered "treatment" to look at the image, shouldn't someone have a say in whether or not they "undergo treatment"? LovelyLillith (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Treatment for a lot of health conditions involves education. This is like suggesting we delete Wikipedia's medical content as we do not want to make education about health conditions easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Not it is not. In the first place, we are not debating about removing the photo. And secondly, we have laws about forced treatment and they strictly forbid it without a court hearing to find the person not competent to make their own decisions. Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah seriously are you suggesting we are forcing those with this condition to come and read about it? We do not force anyone to come to any page on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc, your analogy is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater; mine is making sure the water is tepid before the baby gets in. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead and do not collapse per WP:NOTCENSORED Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ping B. I think you accidentally !voted in the wrong section. Alsee (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead and enlarge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, enlarge! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, maybe I should WP:Canvass like others, but with calls to combat silly statements like "made up on the Internet 13 years ago." Wonder how many others have been directed here with such silliness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I would not have expected such childishness from experienced editors. I find many of the recognized phobias hard to understand, but I certainly would not make fun of people that have them. Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Since you said above that you were not offended, I'm glad that you are not offended, and I certainly would never tell you to get a grip. (If anyone cares, I'm not making fun of people who might have the phobias, but that is, or should be, a completely separate matter from responding to what editors have been saying to me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's your "Yes, enlarge!" commentary above that comes across as insensitive and as mocking to people; it's one reason anyway. Only in death certainly did not state that out of the goodness of his heart; I linked to what discussion he came from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
What I said is in this diff: [7]. Context matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, context matters. And the context of that comment is clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Gandy, it goes back to what I stated above. I'm not surprised in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Since the most effective treatment for specific phobias (of which there is zero consensus 'Trypophobia' is one) is CBT/Exposure therapy, consider it free treatment for which you would otherwise have to pay large amounts of cash. You're welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
People can go on and on about "Is it a phobia or not?" as much as they want to, but the researchers who have studied it are very clear that trypophobia causes negative autonomic nervous system responses, including panic attacks in some people. They are very clear that it induces fear in some people, including persistent and excessive and/or irrational fear, which is what makes a phobia. They discuss whether or not it's best classified as a phobia, but they are not disputing its negative effects whatsoever. And as has been noted, exposure therapy works with repeated exposure, and not for everyone. Further, trypophobia is not a typical phobia since it causes involuntary biological/physical reactions. Readers with trypophobia who come to visit this article and see that image are unlikely to return to it enough, if at all, to get any potential exposure therapy benefits. It also is not for Wikipedia to try and provide such therapy. It is up to Wikipedia to consider whether a rule is best followed or not, which is why WP:Ignore all rules exists. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
IAR requires that ignoring a rule improves the encyclopedia. This would not do that. Like every other request by people who find content objectionable, not censored applies. Its bad enough we have articles on non recognised conditions without them also being deliberately and intentionally made less informative. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Nah, DES (who I quoted in my vote above) has it right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
And "not in the DSM by name" doesn't equate to "not recognized." Enough researchers have recognized this condition, and the research will only continue from there. Yay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Only in death does duty end, who said anything about making this article less informative? No one has suggested that the photo be removed. I, for one, though strongly affected by the image, am fascinated with it and strongly believe it should be included in our article. Gandydancer (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Making the image smaller was a compromise arrived at in the prior discussions. I do not think that was unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that making the image smaller would help, especially since trypophobia is, in part, about small holes. Making it bigger, which was a mocking suggestion, wouldn't help either since something like the big lotus image shown here or here is just as triggering for people...although there may be less of a reaction or a stronger reaction, depending on the person and how big or small the lotus plant is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This image perfectly shows the type of pattern discussed in the article and is therefore of great encyclopedic value. Do not collapse per NOTCENSORED. (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but either move it to the middle or bottom of the page. I also like the blurring suggestion. My tendency is say to remove it, since it does nothing to illustrate the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and collapse Anyone who is willing to engage in the assumption of bad faith that everyone here is making it up and this phobia is fake/hoax/trolling is welcome to find the sources and change the article to say that. Until then, let's not be jerks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, this time I'm going to respond to a post. Speaking only for myself and my own comments, I am not a jerk, and I have never said that "everyone" is making it up. This is not an RfC about whether or not trypophobia exists. It's about whether or not there is a sufficient rationale for altering or relocating the image. I've been saying that this does not meet the threshold for being treated that way, and it sure looks to me like there is some WP:ABF being directed towards editors who feel as I do. One can argue that the statements by some, not all, users are not convincing, without saying that everyone here is making it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional comment about my thoughts on how policy might apply to the decision here. Obviously, arguments that are based on policies and guidelines are much stronger than arguments that are not supported by them. I spent some time looking at the relevant policies. WP:NOT is a very fundamental policy, and WP:NOTCENSORED is part of that, as already noted by numerous editors here. And it says that ""being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Here, it seems improbable that editors actually want to remove the image, but there are considerations of making it less visible. WP:Content disclaimer, also cited by editors above, gets more specific about content that could have health implications, saying that there may be content that contains triggers for people with PTSD, or that there may be "images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions." It goes on to say that "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted." So it seems that the general policy position is that there is not a valid basis for limiting the visibility of images that may be objectionable because of their health implications. Of course, common sense dictates that we should still use a reasonable amount of judgment in not presenting readers with something that would be seriously harmful. Based on what the page says about signs and symptoms, mostly these are problems that could be described as being uncomfortable, with panic attacks the most serious possibility going beyond that. It's not clear to me to what extent the lotus image, as opposed to images of wounds, would be likely to cause a panic attack. But following up on the material about skin worms in dogs, I see that our page on veterinary surgery contains numerous images that involve holes or bumps, and which are far more graphic than the lotus image. And in any case, if we permit triggers of PTSD, we could permit a trigger of panic attacks, which I think is a worst-case scenario. Since the disclaimer says that we do not necessarily remove content that actually would elicit seizures, the typical symptoms of trypophobia seem to me to be something where there would have to be an awfully good reason to limit the visibility of the image. The guideline WP:MEDMOS#Images applies here specifically. And it indicates that we should not use images for their shock value, but that is not what is happening here. It seems to me that, based on policy, the educational value of clearly presenting an image that explains the page subject outweighs any expectation that we should avoid making some people uncomfortable. Arguing the contrary seems to me to be WP:RGW. So, since this is a medical condition, WP:MEDRS applies to source selection, which means that most popular accounts are not informative about the use of this image. And I don't think that there are really MEDRS sources that indicate that there would be much more harm to anyone than what the page now describes. Some arguments have been made based on Wikipedia editors saying that the image makes them uncomfortable, and some other arguments have said that we should significantly take into account the experiences of those editors. But editors are not reliable sources, and basing the decision on editor experience is contrary to the core principle of WP:NOR. Contrary to popular opinion, my saying that does not mean that I disrespect the experiences of long-term productive editors, but rather that I want to base this decision on policy. And I think that the "keep, and do not collapse or otherwise reduce the visibility" arguments in this discussion are much more policy-based than are the arguments to the contrary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Many people have an opinion that "arguments that are based on policies and guidelines are much stronger than arguments that are not supported by them." I've had that opinion as well (most times), but it doesn't always hold up. You speak of WP:NOT being a very fundamental policy, and WP:NOTCENSORED being part of that. Well, WP:Ignore all rules is also a very fundamental policy; it is a part of WP:Five pillars. Regardless, a number of editors have argued that this is not truly a WP:NOTCENSORED issue; we see that in the 2013 RfC, the 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, the 2015 RfC that took place here at this talk page, and above. WP:MEDRS states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." Regardless of editors pointing to readers or to themselves for proof of harm when looking at the image, we have MEDRS-compliant sources noting involuntary negative physical reactions, which is indeed harm. This one notes that people have reported being physically ill from looking at trypophobic imagery. And just like many other sources on the topic, the source notes lotus seed imagery as trypophobic imagery. People feeling their skin crawl, experiencing panic attacks, palpitating, feeling nauseated or itchy, having visual discomfort such as eyestrain, distortions, or illusions, is harm. I know of no reliable sources describing such feelings as positive or as "not harm" (unless it's in the sense of "not dangerous/life-threatening"). Something like panic attacks is not just "being uncomfortable." I doubt that anyone would describe palpitating, feeling itchy, nauseated or otherwise physically ill as just "being uncomfortable." And I don't see readers or editors stating that the image simply made them feel uncomfortable. Gandydancer, for example, was clear that the image disturbed her greatly and made her nauseated. It was a combination of psychological and physical harm for her. And let me be clear again that fear is also harm. No one is engaging in WP:OR here. And the WP:OR policy is clear that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages anyway. Also, editors have been clear that no one reads WP:Content disclaimer; they are right. That disclaimer only comes up in discussions such as this one, where certain people try to justify not taking our readers' feelings into consideration. This is not a WP:Offensive material case, where we do take our readers' feelings into consideration. This is not about being offended; it's about inducing psychological and/or physical harm in our readers, which the researchers are clear is induced with trypophobia. Yes, more research is needed on trypophobia. But the available research does not dispute psychological and/or physical harm with regard to trypophobia. As for the Veterinary surgery article, you make it seem like any ole holes or bumps induce trypophobia. They don't. Personally, none of the imagery at the Veterinary surgery article induces trypophobia in me, and you won't find any reliable sources showing images such as those as trypophobic imagery. What you state about epileptic seizures is a valid point, but, like the Epilepsy article notes, "The cause of most cases of epilepsy is unknown.", and I see no images in the Epileptic seizure article that are stated to trigger an epileptic seizure. In fact, I don't see imagery listed there (at the Epileptic seizure article) as a cause at all. In its Causes section, I do see that the article notes that "Of those who have a seizure, about 25% have epilepsy." Anyway, just like with epilepsy, what causes trypophobia (meaning why trypophobia happens) is not known, but we do know what type of imagery induces it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I guess we could say that there are multiple policies (including WP:NOT and WP:NOR) pointing one way, and pretty much only WP:IAR pointing the other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And to repeat, a number of editors feel that this image discussion has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:NOT. I've already addressed WP:OR above; it doesn't apply at all since no editor is engaging in OR and the OR policy doesn't apply to talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep per—you guessed it—WP:NOTCENSORED. IAR, of course only trumps policy if it enables us to improve the encyclopaedia: the suggestions that we improve the project by removing images that few WP:READERs find objectionable (itself a rather subjective demograph, it appears) is wholly unconvincing. ——SerialNumber54129 11:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, nobody here is suggesting that this image be removed - merely collapsed so that the reader has a choice whether to view it or not. Surely simple and uncontroversial. Bonusballs (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Bonusballs, exactly. Making the article more accessible to readers is improving the encyclopedia. If one wants to argue that collapsing the image causes problems for certain devices, well, below (in the #How about this idea? section), we are debating using a different (less trypophobia-inducing) lead image and a gallery. Serial Number 54129, could you be okay with that -- what is being proposed below? Bonusballs, what are your thoughts on what is being proposed below? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Pinging all of those who were involved in the past discussions or edited regarding the image, except for those that are no longer editing (meaning they haven't edited Wikipedia in a year or years, whether because they stopped or were indefinitely blocked) and those already aware of the discussion (WhatamIdoing and QuackGuru): Silver seren, Vkil (Edgar Vekilnik, Jr.), Pengo, Nyttend, Jytdog, Doc James, SPACKlick, CFCF, Ian.thomson, EvergreenFir, Masem, NeilN, DESiegel (DES), Alanscottwalker, Thisisnotatest, Ozzie10aaaa, Wikimandia (МандичкаYO), Looie496, Roches, Godsy, Rhododendrites, Jerodlycett, Comatmebro, Stickee, Mangoe, Gobonobo, Trystan, Anthonyhcole, Wongba, Yobol, B, Someguy1221, Inomyabcs, Jim1138, Vorsipellis, and Robert McClenon. The IPs obviously can't be pinged. I will also alert the relevant WikiProjects, the WP:NOTCENSORED talk page, and Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: @Flyer22: Perhaps you could edit, adding a collapsed image, then revert. Add a link to that version to give an idea what it might look like? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Jim1138, back in 2015, this edit by Silver seren showed what it will look like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Some kinda caption here.
Warning: the focused image contains patterns of holes that may be disturbing to some viewers.
  • Suggestion: use a progressively sharpening gif as proposed above, with the aid of the Wikipedia Graphics Lab (pinged to this location) who can hopefully comment on the feasibility of this approach. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Wow! Practically no sooner had I posted, than User:PawełMM came up with exactly what I was imagining. Graphics Lab folks are the best! Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Seems like a great alternative, except for one thing. Clicking the image to actually view it (which we assume readers who are not bothered by it might do) takes you to the animated gif and not the still image. Would there be a way to redirect clicks to the still image? --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    As I noted above, the blurring is a good idea, but having it sharpening progressively automatically might cause distress readers. If you're reading the text, with the image in your peripheral vision, you might not notice that it's sharpening. A trypophobic person might open the page, see the image and think it's not going to trigger their phobia, and then get a shock when they look at the image again a few seconds later. I'd prefer a link that you could click on the replace the blurred image with the sharp one. GirthSummit (blether) 13:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Note big fan of gifs generally and blurry gifs even more so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Agree with Girth Summit. Also, wouldn't this require the reader to stop reading the page to avoid the focused image? So even if it works, a trypophobic reader would not be able to read the page. Jim1138 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    Example of linking to a different image. Formatting can be found on Help:pictures#Links [[File:Flag of France.svg|20px|link=File:Drapeaux français.jpg|France]] Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    This links to the non-gif image.

─────────────────────────There is lots of good research showing that trigger warnings serve to worsen problems, not just on a population level, but for the individual themselves. Also, this goes against WP:CENSOR which explicitly denounces such practices. Carl Fredrik talk 01:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggestion Instead of a collapsed image, why not have a link to a page of trypophobia-inducing images? Such as trypophobia/Trypophobic images? Jim1138 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Option use an annotated image. It can be difficult to set the parameters get what you want with {{annotated image}}. I usually end up clicking on Show preview fifty or a couple hundred times... One can load the image in an image editor such as to pick off the parameters. See example: Jim1138 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Annotated image Click to see full image
  • Ehhh - Revisiting the topic after all this time, I'm strongly leaning toward making the last section of the page a gallery and putting everything there. That's not too far from what Arachnophobia does (although it was possible to go a step further and show a cartoonish depiction of arachnophobia without having to show real spiders). It's not censoring the images (in fact, it'd give room to include more examples, to clarify that it's not simply holey plants or whatever), while largely allowing readers to avoid seeing the images if they so choose (though it might make checking the references a little tricky without unnecessarily padding the "See Also" section). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - the animated blurred image would be horribly unencyclopedic. This would be a completely different case if, for example, we were talking about adding a Strobe light that can cause seizures. That's a real medical issue. This is not. We don't have trigger warnings on articles about rape or other acts of violence. We don't collapse pictures of penises, nor of grotesque-looking medical conditions. There is no reason not to have this image as it is where it is. --B (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    "That's a real medical issue. This is not" If there isn't already an essay, WP:INHOISIDE (I never heard of it, so it doesn't exist), I think this would be the right time to create it. Mathglot (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    Except that it doesn't have anything to do with who has heard of it. From RTFA, the term was coined in 2005 on a message board and it is not a recognized mental disorder. That's patently unrelated to a real, recognized medical condition (strobing causing seizures). A scientific paper on the subject from the NIH [8] has pictures of sidewalks and bread and says that those trigger this one girl in their case study. (So if we're supposed to be taking our guidance from what reliable/scientific sources do, they include the images.) It's unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to censor every image with holes because someone might be triggered. It is reasonable to expect that we're not going to trigger seizures with flashing images because that effects a large swath of the population (estimates range from 2% to 5%). --B (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The vast majority of phobias are not officially medically recognized by name, and that includes a fear of clowns. This is why many, or rather most, of them fall under the broad category of specific phobia, and sources like this one note that trypophobia falls under that category if the fear is excessive, persistent, and associated with significant distress or impairment. Your comment of "censor every image with holes because someone might be triggered" is an oversimplification. As discussed with Girth Summit above, trypophobia is not simply a "fear of holes." People with trypophobia are not afraid of any and every hole. It's about the patterns, depth, bumps, protrusions and, like the Wikipedia article states, the imagery must "present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies" to trigger trypophobia.
Wongba stated it best in 2015: "I've noticed this condition about myself since I was in elementary school 30 years ago and my friends all thought I was a little nutty when I would tell them about it. Finally, I looked on the internet about 5 years ago, and found a significant number of people that describe pretty much EXACTLY what I've felt since childhood. If it's a delusion, it's apparently a singular delusion shared by thousands of people with very similar symptoms. Why would we make this up? The amount of arrogance displayed here with people who have no idea what they're talking about and have not studied it telling people who have lived with this their entire lives that they're making it up is astounding. Also, would you force someone who wanted to know more about torture to experience it first hand literally? Because that's exactly what putting that picture on the top is for some of us. I have to expend serious self control to avert my eyes when looking at this article. I frankly find it amazing people can talk so confidently about something they know nothing about. If you don't know, you don't know. On the other hand, if you've lived it your entire life, maybe you have some inkling about what bothers you, whether it's a delusion or it's real. The people who make it their mission in life to cite style guides that only a tiny percentage of editors read or care about are what's killing Wikipedia. "
I responded more to you below on trypophobia effects and comparing one plight to another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just an FYI, a potentially similar issue is at Benham's top, where there's a flashing image, and is collapsed by default. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, fear of clowns redirects to evil clown, which includes a number of pictures. Your fear may be real to you and if so, it is what it is. But for the question of whether Wikipedia should include this potentially-triggering image, (1) other sources - both Google and the various academic and news articles that we cite in the article - include photos, and (2) other articles about phobias or things that potentially trigger people like rape, death, blood, etc, include photos or other appropriate pictures. A picture is specifically relevant here because unlike, say, fear of feces where every single person reading the article can imagine what feces is, you can't really do this topic justice without a photo. --B (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Fear of clowns only currently redirects there because Jytdog redirected the Coulrophobia article there earlier this year after cutting material from the article. Before that, there were complaints on the article's talk page about having clown images in the article: Talk:Coulrophobia/Archive 1. And eventually, the article had no clown images since clown images absolutely were not needed there. Everyone knows what a clown looks like. Stuff like rape and death are not comparable. We don't need images of rape in the Rape article, which is yet another article I work on. And our lead image there does not actually show rape (although it's a painting leading up to the act). And the vast majority of our articles about phobias don't include images. The difference with trypophobia, as has been noted, is that a simple description does not suffice with regard to detailing what induces it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, "fear of clowns" should redirect to the Clown article if it's to be redirected. Coulrophobes are afraid of clowns, not just evil clowns. I'll have to fix that if no one else does. Or just recreate the article, except in better form. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Seizures are far more significant medically than feelings of disgust or fear. Besides, I don't enable the Wikipedia scripts, so the image plays for me just fine when I visit the page. (Except, I didn't notice any colors, and I'm suspicious the black-and-white circular bands I see are a browser rendering artifact) I wonder if Wikipedia is running a fundraiser banner this time of year ... I have no idea. ;) Wnt (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
People have panic attacks from seeing such images. And it's not for us to judge what is far more medically significant. Phobias can be debilitating, and trypophobia is considered a phobia by enough researchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is for us to judge. 2% to 5% of the population can suffer a seizure and need to be hospitalized if we show them a flashing image. How many people, umm, suffer, from trypophobia and how many of those have severe reactions? The number is statistically insignificant. By the way, if you google "trypophobia", you will get plenty of pictures of irregularly shaped holes, so Google doesn't seem to share this "concern". --B (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it isn't. This is Wikipedia, not a hospital. Neither you nor I gets to tell people that their panic attacks from trypophobia aren't serious. For this person on the other side of the screen it was serious. For a woman named Jennifer Andresen it was serious. Have you taken the time to read the Panic attack article? Have you ever experienced a panic attack? Apparently not. Or if you have, you feel that your personal experience of it not having been serious applies to the general population as well. Yes, the Panic attack article currently states that "panic attacks themselves are not typically dangerous physically," but this doesn't negate the fact that they are harmful. This is not the Medical Harm Olympics. It is not always easy to measure harm and what conditions cause more harm. For some people, a psychological condition is just as debilitating as a physical condition, if not more so. Further, trypophobia does affect people physically in ways they may deem harmful, such as an aforementioned panic attack. You state "the number is statistically insignificant" regarding people who suffer from trypophobia. And yet the research tells us that the extent to which trypophobia exists is unknown, but the available data suggests that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common. We know that many people with trypophobia don't look into the matter, but wonder why they have that type of reaction to certain imagery. We know that many find out out what they have via the Internet. We also know that many or most people don't spend a lot of time on the Internet or use social media at all. Google and websites do a lot of things that we don't do here on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
You're right. This is wikipedia, not a hospital. We are writing encyclopedic articles, not helping people to avoid triggers for their fears by indulging the small percentage that may find these images disgusting. Natureium (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I was expecting B to repeat "This is Wikipedia, not a hospital." Anyway, it's not the same when coming from the opposing camp. After all, it's a couple or a few in the opposing camp arguing to keep the image up there for exposure therapy. And then there are those arguing to collapse it for reasons noted above. Claims such as "the small percentage that may find these images disgusting" are not supported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Put them at the bottom of the page. Seems like an easy way to prevent people from immediately becoming triggered by the image. I don't think an explicit warning needs to be on the page. I felt like I read the intro and had an understand of what the subject may do if I continued on. If I felt like I was going to be uncomfortable with what I saw, I could simply leave the page before seeing anything. Comatmebro (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Comatmebro, that's been suggested. I countered that suggestion in the beginning of the #Survey section. I commented: "As for moving the image far down, I noted above that I'm someone who would read the whole article, and I'm sure that there are a lot of others like me. I don't think that most readers who start reading the article and see no image will expect a trypophobic image later on; I think they will be surprised to find it lower and, if they have trypophobia, just as upset if they'd found it higher. To me, that is sort of a WP:Principle of least astonishment issue. That stated, if the image is placed where WhatamIdoing placed it, they would have read a good portion of the article before coming across the upsetting image." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Flyer, I understand you are passionate on the subject and feel obligated to defend your position. However, please be mindful of other editors' opinions in the sense that not every opposing view needs to be addressed or challenged (see WP:BLUDGEON). You've easily replied to more than half of editors who disagree, and more than 1/3 of the text in this discussion was posted by you (at the time of this writing, you have over 9,000 words to the entire discussion's approximate 17,000, not counting the RfC description or your ping post above). I didn't say something earlier out of respect, but I think it would be appreciated if you were to take this into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Considering that I have not responded to every editor with one or more views different than my own, and that I have been with this site since 2007, there is no need to point me to WP:BLUDGEON. WP:BLUDGEON is often (not always) pointed to in cases where it is invalid, such as this one. It's often used to try and silence editors who are merely responding to different points by different commenters, and are not letting poor or inaccurate arguments go unchallenged. Such comments can influence others, which is why editors respond to them and challenge them. Tryptofish's trolling comment in the Survey section was a different point, for example, and he knew that people would disagree and likely respond to him. It is silly to state or suggest that I shouldn't have responded to him simply because I've responded to several others in the Survey section. It is silly to state or suggest that I shouldn't have responded to Comatmebro, who might have overlooked my argument on moving the image down. And, of course, if someone responds to me, I am likely to respond back. There have been discussions where I could have stated that you were engaging in WP:BLUDGEON, but I didn't because I viewed doing so as silly, given the arguments you were making to different people, and I was usually in agreement with you anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
But if it takes care of your WP:BLUDGEONing concern, I don't see that that there is anything left for me to state in this discussion, unless, of course, a new point is made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks for taking it into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion I like the idea of the blurred image, but I would add another option: if there is another picture of a Lotus that obliquely shows the pattern but not as triggering as the current one (such as the present lead image at Nelumbo nucifera), then that can be used for the top image, with a caption "People with trypophobia are frequently troubled by close-up image of lotus blossoms due to the pattern of their seedheads." (or something like that). You have a good image but hopefully non-triggering at the top, and a specific image that you blur and can unhide to show the specific effect later. --Masem (t) 17:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Masem, I'm not aware of an image such as File:Sacred lotus Nelumbo nucifera.jpg inducing trypophobia. Sources on the topic of trypophobia use an image of a lotus plant like the one currently seen in the Trypophobia article, or ones with just the holes (meaning without seeds being visible) one of the ones seen in File:Nelumbo nucifera5.jpg. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that assuming that an oblique shot of the holes (or a shot lacking the holes but suggesting the pattern) that does not trigger trypophobia, with an appropriate caption, could be used as a lead image, but with the caption telling the reader they have to take that extra step of imagining the image with holes instead as being the triggering element. These lotus images without holes would be fine for all and show the idea of the irregular pattern at the center of this. --Masem (t) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
An image that does not pertain to the condition in question would not be a very useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Except it does pertain, just in a manner/state that doesn't trip up readers with the condition as the lede image. A true image that does impact these readers would be appropriate later in the article, and the use of blur to even mitigate that on first pass is reasonable. But there's nothing wrong with showing the irregular patterns on a lotus blossom and how if you imagined those as a holes as how that then triggers the conditions. --Masem (t) 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Masem, I understand what you are suggesting. Thanks for another idea. I was simply noting that something like File:Sacred lotus Nelumbo nucifera.jpg is related to File:Nelumbo nucifera5.jpg, but not to trypophobia. Notice that the second file is specifically in a section at the Nelumbo nucifera article titled "Seed lotus." To me, File:Sacred lotus Nelumbo nucifera.jpg looks to have a uniform pattern (mostly anyway) rather than an irregular pattern. Personally, it doesn't induce trypophobia in me at all. Also, not every irregular pattern of holes induces trypophobia (it's about the depth, spacing, contrast, and often what the holes are on...such as a living thing), and it's not just holes that induce trypophobia. That stated, someone could photoshop a lotus seed pod image with the holes filled in and see if that helps. The caption could focus on the pattern, like you suggested. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I like Masem's idea - use a less "effective" photo in the lead. Since the seed pod is the only photo that I've seen (when looking on the web) to produce a strong effect in myself, I'd want to be sure that we keep it in our article, though farther down in the article as a clickable photo. Gandydancer (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Gandydancer, maybe Mathglot is interested in contacting the editor Mathglot contacted before. This time it could be about filling in the holes, but making sure the pattern is visible? Or we could go to someone else about photopshopping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of monkeying with the photo. How about this quahog shell which is the same one used to illustrate a trigger here [9] (Taking a second look at the image, perhaps it is too effective and many people would find it quite disturbing? - It seems OK to me though...) Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That animal isn't used as a top example of inducing trypophobia, though. It doesn't work on many people, including on me. It also seems to have no effect on you. Lotus seed head imagery is used as a top example, which is why it's in so many trypophobia sources, including often as the main image. Researchers have a very good chance of knowing if someone has trypophobia based on the person's reactions to lotus seed head imagery. In fact, it doesn't seem that one can have trypophobia without having had the noted reactions that trypophobes have to lotus seed head imagery. But the image you suggested is at least significantly less trypophobia-inducing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Sequencing note: The messsage above timestamped 00:20 1 November 2018 is out of sequence in the discussion, and actually occurred on 2 November, following the message below. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Flyer, I'll do that. Watch for a ping from the Graphics Lab. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In the #How about this idea? section below, a spectral pattern without it being on a plant (or skin) is suggested. It's shown in a source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The depictions of rape or war in those article are more likely to trigger people. Should we collapse or blur them? What we are suggesting here will potentially be used to justify trying to remove a lot of historically significant or encyclopedic images from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
See my "18:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)" comment about rape, etc. above. Or my comment "20:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)" comment to Bluerasberry in the Survey section. Not the same thing at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
People with PTSD are well aware that they may find triggers at a war or rape page (though most, by far, triggers are not encyclopedia pages). At any rate, though highly unlikely, it is their choice to risk a trigger since it is assumed that the article will contain a few photos. As for the "slippery slope" problem, that seems pretty far fetched to me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Doc James, nobody - literally NOBODY - is saying that any images should be removed. In the discussion so far there is a 100% concensus that this image should remain. What many (most) are suggesting is that the image is collapsed so that it is the reader's choice as to whether they look at it or not. Why is that bad? I don't see why that's controversial. I find it hard to understand the rather careless "encyclopeadias are not for sissies, people should expect to be triggered without any warning, plus I don't have this phobia and don't think it's real but if anyone does and they have a panic attack then it will be a good lesson for them"-type strongman/twitter troll kind of attitude which some are displaying here. Bonusballs (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Slow clap to Bonusballs for summarizing the heart of the matter with erudition and succinctness. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The reason for the controversy is that encyclopedias are supposed to have a fixed format, not be a Choose Your Own Adventure book. You should be able to take a Wikipedia page, hit Print, and hand it out to the class. The content should not be tied to that rat's nest of Javascript on this site that I generally keep disabled. (To be sure, disabling Javascript now simply stops image hiding, as on that page with the flashing black and white, but if people start relying on image hiding then I expect to get told that keeping that crap out of my browser memory is an intolerable danger!) Wikipedia is not a service, it is a document! Wnt (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question from a technical perspective – If the image were to be collapsed, would it use code similar to the hidden image at Benham's top (an example provided above by Deacon Vorbis)? The reason I ask is because I noticed that image wasn't collapsed as expected when I opened the article on my cell phone. A technical glitch like this should be taken into account as the debate to collapse rages on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How about this idea?[edit]

I have a good idea! How about using the clam shell (which we have at Commons and is used here: [10] as the lead photo and then have a gallery at the bottom. This will not only improve our article but the addition of a gallery will give fair warning to those that read our article and make it easy to read the entire article while skipping, or more likely quickly moving away from, the gallery.

Gallery of trypophobia trigger images[edit]

Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Basically, my one issue that I would insist on is that the result be informative to readers, rather than making it difficult for readers to find the information. I think this approach satisfies that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If the afflicted editors think this is an agreeable solution, I would say yes to it as well. I also like the fact that it shows different objects that might be considered triggers. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:Gallery, we usually don't use galleries, but this topic is the "can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" exception it notes and so I could support that, Gandy. A gallery was mentioned by someone above. I would trade the "Fungal infection, Bone Marrow" image for some other image, though, because that imagery isn't commonly cited as a trypophobia-inducing image. Neither is the clam shell, but it's an improvement in the sense that it's significantly less trypophobic-inducing than the lotus seed head image. For the caption for the clam shell image, I'd rather not have to use that Popular Science source. It was a source used in the article before, but the article was cleaned up so that it doesn't use media sources except for the "Society and culture" section. Other than that, it uses academic sources. For the caption for the lotus seed image, we state, "The holes in lotus seedheads elicit feelings of discomfort or repulsion in some people." And that's supported by two scholarly sources. With the clam shell image, I'd rather we have a source (preferably a scholarly one) noting that such clam shell imagery induces trypophoba. Instead, what the source does is point to pictures it feels might induce trypophobia; it's not a scientific visual test. So, in its place, I would prefer that we use an image such as Swiss cheese with holes or aerated chocolate with holes (though not File:Aerated chocolate (28400819983) (cropped).jpg considering that it barely has any holes and is not a quality image), bubbles, coral, or honeycombs. This is because we have academic sources noting these as inducing trypophobia. We could use this source (which has been cited times before above) for any of them except for Swiss cheese. But I'll go ahead and note that imagery of honeycombs is also a top trypophobia-inducing image (not for me, but for a lot of others). And certain bubbles patterns seem to be common with regard to triggering trypophobia. So we'd have an issue similar to what we have with the lotus seed head image if we go with honeycombs or bubbles, although to a lesser degree. Out of honeycombs or bubbles, bubbles would be the safer choice. I'd also make the caption for the "Nelumbo Nucifera fruit" image clear that it's a lotus seed head image since the article mentions it in two different sections and since it's one of the top trypophobia-inducing images, or the top one. Surinam toad imagery is a close second and is the top trypophobia-inducing image for many people. The section wouldn't be titled "Gallery of trypophobia trigger images," though. We'd simply title it "Gallery." Some readers with trypophobia will still see the gallery before realizing that they've scrolled to it, but we might also have some who might stop before getting there. Plus, "Gallery" will be visible from the table of contents. And either way, many people with trypophobia will have made it to through the article before reaching the gallery. All we need now is Doc James on board with this compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I made a couple of changes. Replaced fungal disease with honey comb (there are about a million choices, so perhaps there is a better one). Fixed seed pod caption. About the frog - Actually I'm surprised that it is an acceptable trigger since IMO it falls into the area where both triptos and "norms" would find it revolting. Do you remember where you read that it's a trigger? Yes, I agree that "Gallery" is the way to go. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, both triptos and "norms" find the lotus seed imagery revolting as well (not all "norms," though, of course), but those with trypophobia will usually have one or more autonomic nervous system responses to these images. As for the toad, if you are asking about academic sources, I'd have to look at the sources again. But the Popular Science source you cited is one media source that points to it. Other media sources have as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I favor the gallery with additional common subjects to include, such as those added to the gallery above. The encyclopedia should convey the disorder by picture to common objects encountered in daily life (possibly not the toad or lotus seed pod). --Zefr (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Zefr, regarding your addition to the gallery, I prefer Gandydancer's version. I think it's better to display what the common or most common triggers for trypophobia are (rather than the less trypophobic and/or more obscure ones). I've read just about all of the literature on trypophobia (if not all of it), and, except for the sponge, strawberries are not cited as often as the triggers in Gandydancer's version. I especially never see the eyes of a housefly eyes cited as a trigger. Eyes have been subject to the study of trypophobia, but in the pattern sense...meaning eye clusters or many eyes, as seen with this source. When it comes to eyes, some who have reacted to the lotus seed image in this article, or have personally analyzed it even though they don't have trypophobia, have noted that it looks like eyes are staring back at them. Where did you get the housefly assertion from? Also, except for bubbles (which, for enough trypophobes, has no effect...although they start to have an effect on some who are exposing themselves to a lot of trypophobc imagery), the imagery that induces trypophobia is usually imagery we don't see in everyday life. For most trypophobes, they have had trypophobic reactions every now and then, not on a daily basis (except for the cases where they become more sensitive to considering imagery as trypophobic due to much trypophobic exposure). If we do include the less common triggers, I think we should note that the top examples are the most trypophobic-inducing and the bottom induce trypophobia to a lesser degree. I think we should look to source those two statements. We can also just source the top statement, and not have a statement for the bottom row. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I also think it's important that the gallery does not get out of hand, as galleries often do (which is a reason why they are commonly avoided). All we need are a handful of examples or a little over a handful of examples. That's why sourcing and sticking to quality sources on the matter can keep people from adding any and every image reported as a trypophobic image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Flyer22 Reborn The gallery from this source used in the article gives a list and clear illustrations of common triggers, including the house fly eyes, although I acknowledge that the gallery should display images verified by a reliable source(s) that are most common as triggers. I typically don't accept Healthline as a reliable medical source, but it serves a purpose here, although without sufficient documentation of its editorial process; its sources are displayed at the bottom of that article. The WP article can be patrolled for editors randomly adding additional images, with WP:NOTGALLERY applied as needed. --Zefr (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Zefr, thanks for explaining. I'd rather not go by what that Healthline source shows for imagery. I'd rather use a stronger source, like the one I pointed to. Again, I haven't seen the housefly commonly cited as a trigger for trypophobia. The Healthline source states "a cluster of eyes," and I noted "eye clusters or many eyes" above; your housefly image doesn't demonstrate eye clusters. The source shows a very close up image of a fly's eyes, but not the eye clusters shown in this source. Just like with your fly image, I don't think that the fly image the source shows would induce trypophobia. Plus, people would need to see the fly's eyes up close, which can only happen online or via a picture in a book or magazine. I know that the gallery can be patrolled, but I'm stating that we should source it, and with an academic source (one or more), per what I stated above. Also, remember, there is no need to ping me here since this page is on my watchlist and I make sure to check for replies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer that galleries can and do cause problems. I know from experience that it is painfully difficult to tell an editor that their image is not suitable. (For example a brand new editor with his child's wonderful birthday cake that his wife do you say your's is not as good as the others? I usually can't, even though I know better.) It's going to happen here just as Flyer said in this discussion, that is for sure. Zefr, about your photos, would you be willing to exclude the fly eyes? I think the magnification would need to be larger to include them? We WILL work this out! Face-smile.svg Gandydancer (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with adding a gallery. The lotus pod however is the most iconic image for this condition and thus IMO is best in the lead of the ones listed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
My choices of images for the gallery were not intended to prioritize any, including the closeup of house fly eyes, but rather I chose them for their consistency of "holes" after reviewing a few lay sources. I recognize what seems to be the general impression that the lotus seed pod is "iconic", but who says so? Do we have WP:RS/MEDRS sources to justify which images are included in the gallery? --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I think what Doc James means is essentially what I've stated about the image -- lotus seed pod imagery is usually the main example or imagery, or sole example or imagery, that sources use to describe or illustrate what induces trypophobia. In addition to media sources or scholarly book sources, we can see that on PubMed. Some people with trypophobia may have trypophobic reactions to bubbles or a strawberry, but it seems that everyone with trypophobia has a trypophobic reaction to lotus seed pod imagery. It is imagery that has been used to test for trypophobia, and the spectral pattern seen in this source (which bothers me because there are examples of it on human skin) appears to be a lotus seed pod spectral pattern. If not, it's similar to it. Sources emphasize certain patterns inducing trypophobia. The source states, "In the images with a cluster of dots, a cluster of 42 dots on each side, 84 dots in total, was placed on the original image. Among them, the dot size of the 24 dots was 0.3° in diameter, and the dot size of the remaining 18 dots was 0.4° in diameter. We placed 84 dots on the original images based on the study by Le et al. (2015), which suggested that stronger disgust is invoked when the number of dots is between 64 and 256, rather than 16." The source also shows the spectral pattern without it being on a human face, and I think we could use that for the main image if copyright allows. It is significantly less trypophobic-inducing (the experts are clear that such a spectral pattern is much more trypophobic-inducing when shown on human skin), and it's educational. Making the article more accessible to readers is improving the encyclopedia.
So, Doc, could you go for just showing the spectral pattern (without it being on a face or a plant) as the lead image, and having the lotus seed imagery in the gallery? If not, can you at least agree to go with some other lead image that is less trypophobic-inducing? Why must we start with the lotus seed head image when we know the reactions it induces in people and that it keeps some people from even reading the article?
Masem, any thoughts on going with the spectral pattern without it being on a plant (or face)? This is similar to what you suggested in the #Discussion section above, where I suggested that we photoshop the lotus seed head image with the holes filled in; Mathglot has undertaken requesting that from WP:Graphics Lab. We could do another RfC, but on which lead image to go with, but I'd rather that we come to an agreement without another RfC. The gallery, for example, appears to be a go, but we are still discussing which images to include and sourcing for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but I interpreted what Doc James said as being he was ok with the gallery as long as the first picture in it was the lotus head, and (presumably) the clamshell would be acceptable for the top of the article. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
IMO we should be concentrating on writing the best possible article. The lotus image is the most classic for this condition and thus IMO should be in the lead. I am fine if people want to add a gallery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
He is okay with the gallery, but it seems that he is still for the lotus seed head image being the lead image. I don't see that he supports the clam shell as the lead image at all. I also prefer that we don't use it (as noted above). We've been conversing via email about the lotus seed head image. He may or may not come around to being open to using a less trypophobia-inducing lead image as long as the lotus seed head image is in the gallery, but I don't think he's open to it at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Flyer, Filled-in image by PawełMM is now available; see image captioned 'PawełMM proposal #2' at this link to view it (it's about 1.25 inches wide); it is directly adjacent to a another image which is a less-modified version of the original which may be more problematic. If you want, I can copy the newer one to my sandbox or someplace where it's isolated. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mathglot. Looking at it and what I stated about spectral patterns above (and trypophobia being about more than just holes), I'm certain that the image will still induce trypophobia, but maybe to a lesser degree since the holes are filled in and since the eye-like sockets are therefore not shown. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Np, Flyer, here it is, stand-alone: User:Mathglot/sandbox#Modified trypophobia image. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It would be better if the areas where the holes are filled in were the same color as the rest of the image instead of a lighter green. I state this because that lighter green contrasts the darker green in a way that enhances those areas and protrusion aspects that they wouldn't if they were all the same color. The alternative image might also be worse for some readers because it might remind them of papules and they can see where holes can be created/punched in. Again, either image will induce trypophobia, but maybe the alternative would be easier on readers. Anyway, I thank you and PawełMM for going about creating the alternative imagery. I'd still rather that we use the spectral pattern I pointed to without it being on a plant or human skin (or any animal) and have the caption note that this pattern is a pattern that induces trypophobia, with a brief explanation as to why. Either that, or just use a different less trypophobia-inducing image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Filled-in, and color-matched version in my sandbox, thanks to PawełMM; in the small, gallery-size image, the holes are barely noticeable now. Mathglot (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot and PawełMM, the color-matched version is better. Thanks. But either version still has the protrusion pattern right around the edges of the holes, and that -- along with the filled-in hole spots -- will still induce trypophobia. The latest version might not trigger trypophobia as severely as the hole version, but it will still trigger it. I would suggest a smoothed surface of that latest version, where the protrusion areas are smoothed and therefore the plant looks even throughout the top, but it seems it wouldn't matter. As long as Doc is not on board to go with that image as the lead image with a caption noting that it's a pattern that commonly induces trypophobia but that the holes have been filled in, or with another less trypophobia-inducing image (one that isn't too weak, but isn't as strong either, such as pomegranate imagery), then it means going through yet another RfC and possibly getting another "no consensus" outcome. It seems that I will need to start another RfC, though. This one will be based on which lead image to go with, while noting that the lotus seed head imagery is more triggering and why and that we are therefore looking to use a less triggering image for the lead image. That the lotus seed head imagery will be in the Gallery section will also be noted. Of course, we might still get editors claiming WP:NOTCENSORED, but their WP:NOTCENSORED arguments will be significantly weaker. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The race goes not to the swift or the strong, but him that lobbyeth until the end... and supports removing, hiding, deleting stuff. So... how about just a plain old AfD? The whole image-hiding thing basically revolves around having a medical article without any MEDRS-grade sources, except maybe one "comprehensive review" of a very thin literature. It might be most straightforward to just put that to the test, and that way nobody can cook up any precedents. Wnt (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've stated everything I need to state to you above, including the fact that this article uses WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, except for the "Society and culture" section (which is standard). Those book sources? They pass, which is why I use such book sources at a number of our anatomy or medical articles and they are accepted by medical editors, including Doc. It's also why Doc has cited one of them in the RfC above. We also occasionally use primary sources at medical articles, especially in the case of few reviews. Furthermore, you can't just delete stuff you do not like. But, yeah, go ahead and try if you want to. But to repeat, we have a lot of articles on phobias that are not in the DSM and ones that are not even phobias in the clinical sense, such as technophobia. We also have articles like Vaginal steaming, which has few academic sources (as noted on its talk page), and was therefore (and still is) a challenge for editors to cover it with regard to WP:MEDRS, but you see that it still exists. You can hate it as much as you want to, but the topic of trypophobia is WP:Notable and is studied by academics. Even if the article were deleted, it'd be validly recreated a year or two later. If you want to see about deleting an actual bogus phobia article, then head on over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phobia, where I and other medical editors have weighed in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)