Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phobia (attitude)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 04:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phobia (attitude)

Delete Non-notable neologism, should be deleted outright. Axon 09:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Huh? It's not a neologism, and is a topic of psychopathology and (for better or worse) in the popular press. This VfD nomination seems bizarre. Keep. -- Hoary 10:42, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC) ...... Sorry, I was so amazed by the notion that "phobia" was a neologism that my normal mental processes shorted out. I still think this is a bizarre nomination; but any new and sound content of the article should be merged with that of phobia or that of relevant articles linked from phobia, and it should then be redirected to phobia. -- Hoary 10:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
    • Please highlight what is "bizarre" about this nomination: it seems to me to be an invented term (i.e. neologism) and a quick google test only returns 200 or so hits, most of which do not appear to be for the usage as defined within the article. If it isn't I invite people to supply references in this VfD and I will happily stand corrected change my vote. Any "bizzareness" will be revealed by the outcome of this VfD. Also, please bold your vote (Keep or Merge) for clarity. Axon 10:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry about the lack of bolding, now corrected. But perhaps you and I are using different google tests. My own gets one million for "phobia". The word is hardly new: the OED says it has been in use for over two hundred years, defining it as "Fear, horror, or aversion..." (my emphasis). But perhaps you're treating its use for a mere attitude as a novelty. Let's see what the new article says: Usially [sic] it [sc. "phobia"] is described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the phobia. Thus it overlaps with the psychopathological usage of the word: the extension of a word with a strong meaning to everyday uses is normal in language: cf "starving", "famished", etc.; which I think are about as commonly used to describe the humdrum sensations I'm experiencing right now than they are for Oxfam's areas of concern. Here's Coleridge in 1801: "I ... have a perfect phobia of inns and coffee houses" -- thanks to his considerate addition of "perfect", this sounds like an attitude to me. So the word is widely used and two centuries old, the extension to mean mere "dislike" (etc.) doesn't seem new, and thus the description of the word or usage as a neologism seems bizarre. -- Hoary 11:30, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
        • I'm working on the basis that we are looking at "phobia attitude"[1] or "phobic attitude"[2] (hence the parenthesis) and not just phobia - it would indeed be bizarre to question the inclusion of phobia in Wikipedia, but the creator of this article has been linking to this page on numerous phobia articles[3] as "phobic attitude". Obviously some confusion here, a lot of it caused by the nature of the article in question which is why I think, given the lack of actual material within, it should be deleted. Axon
          • Ah, I'm starting to follow. But only starting. There doesn't seem to be any claim in the article, though, that "phobia attitude" is a set phrase. The creation of phobic attitude as a redirect to this article seems bizarre, since that phrase too seems little used. The article seems pretty innocuous, though: a collection of the dislikes of prudes and others. It also seems superfluous. I've no idea why the author would have wanted to create it. -- Hoary 11:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
            • "Phobic attitude" it is just a phrase, like "tall grass"; don't be picky. If you don't like this particular concatenation you are welcome to replace it by [[phobia (attitude)|phobic]] [[attitude]] . I am immensely surprised that you people don't see the difference between agoraphobia and Afrophobia. Not to say about Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. mikka (t) 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Given the above, I'm inclined to believe Phobia (attitude) refers to the phrase (phobic attitude) rather than being a qualifier for word phobia. The article itself gives no clues as to what phobia (attitude) refers to. Axon 11:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • Look into Attitude (psychology) and look into the previous version of (medical)phobia. If you think that I missed something, please improve. 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                • All you can derive from the Attitude article is that a phobic attitude would be a manifestation of fear vis-a-vis a given object. Ergo, a phobic attitude may consist of, say, running away from a lion. If someone is a "homophobe," he would run away screaming from homosexuals. The previous version of the phobia article (that you mentioned) is utterly flawed and a wikipedia article is no evidence that you are right (if wikipedia articles were always right, none would be edited and none would be deleted). ;-) HKT 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to phobia. There is already a list of phobias here. --Fazdeconta 11:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with phobia. Much of this can be entered under Non-clinical uses of the term. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. This article duplicates phobia#Non-clinical uses of the term. Some of the usefulness of the -phobia article is lost because of the size of that list - that might be better split into recognized medical phobias, non-medical phobias (purpose of this article) and neologisms not in use. Peter Grey 15:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Riposte. This article does not duplicate phobia#Non-clinical uses of the term. I specifically cut the piece out, leaving only a summary. mikka (t) 16:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If the -phobia article needs improvement, it will be more consistent to discuss ways of its improvement on the corresponding talk page. - Sikon 16:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing here to merge with phobia, and there is a much more complete list of phobias in -phobia. - Sikon 14:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So you want to put fear of height and hatred towards afroamericans back into one basket? 16:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, that is what you do if you misuse "phobic" to refer to prejudice and hatred. Afrophobia is a misnomer/neologism that has (unfortunately) a wikipedia article. Equating hostility with phobia confuses people and makes them think that, for example, the KKK is merely frightened of African-Americans (or that the KKK's hatred stems primarily from its extreme fright). HKT 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that some people misuse the word "phobia" is not particularly significant. --Lee Hunter 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • When sufficiently many people misuse the word it means that the word acquired a new meaning. That's how the lag]nguage lives. mikka (t) 16:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • How many is "sufficiently many?" If I say that cat means air-conditioner, and 1,000 people like my idea, should I change the wiki article cat? What about 10,000 people? 100,000? I think that when the term and the meaning you have attributed to it become standardized in most respectable dictionaries, it will have "acquired a new meaning." HKT 21:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong keep. I specifically cut out this piece from medical phobia in order to clear-cut separate the medical from non-medical usage of the term. Each and every "pseudo"-"Xfobia" or "anti-X" article, like anti-Semitism or Afrophobia, started from one and the same phrase "XXfobia is fear or hostility towards XX". And now you are telling me that phobia (attitude) is a neologism. The medical phobia article contained all these pseudo-phobias. So the topic is perfectly valid. mikka (t) 16:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh... There is a major distinction between saying that being anti-X is defined as anti-X and saying that being X-phobic is defined as being anti-X. A=A; A does not per-se equal B. Also, other flawed wikipedia articles shouldn't be cited as proof. Rather, they should be changed/deleted. At least you admit that they are "pseudo-phobias." The question is whether pseudo-phobias and neologisms should be on Wikipedia. At most, articles like Afrophobia should begin something like: "Afrophobia is a popularized neologism that is often used to refer to...." HKT 20:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sigh...Grunt... Since it is fashionable now to slap the label "phobia"onto any kind of dislike, we need one single article that says what you have just written: that this usage of the word phobia is not medical, that these are not "phobias" in the long-sustained meaning. mikka (t) 21:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Sigh...Grunt...Bypkl6qy&uge@ri... An addendum to phobia will fill this need quite well. It could go something like this: "In recent years, a misapplication of the term or suffix phobic has become popular; many use the term while intending to convey the meaning of unfounded hatred and hostility. Etc." HKT 22:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "You and me went to the store" is no more correct grammar for being common; the commonality of this mistake doesn't justify an article. HKT 17:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with -phobia for reasons given by others. It's not a misuse of the word but it's not a distinct usage either. I notice, for what it's worth, that all the other language links that I can understand on that page (not that many) seem to go straight to 'phobia', rather than 'phobia (attitude)' or some equivalent. Naturenet 19:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is a misuse. Wiktionary (for example) defines as follows: 1. An irrational or obsessive fear or anxiety, (usually of or about something particular). HKT 20:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then recreate as a re-direct to phobia. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What little is here is already covered elsewhere, as it should be. There is no need to reinvent this as a redirect since people don't normally do searches for such things as "phobia (attitude)", rather "phobia attitude" which will get them Phobia and -phobia [4]. Tomer TALK 20:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I I don't want people to click at phobia in Afrophobia and see that this is kind of disease. mikka (t) 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The way to avoid this happening is with proper editing. Instead of linking to phobia, if that is your fear, you should change the link to phobia. Tomer TALK 21:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What isn't already duplicated in better articles is a collection of neologisms and lossely-related concepts. illWill 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Which are better ones, I wonder? I moved the relevant piece out of phobia. Where else the term is covered? All these "loosely related concepts" have two things in common: misuse of the medical term and they are used to refer to any kind of negative attitude. mikka (t) 21:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm in favor of taking out large sections of excessively long articles and putting them into articles of their own, but this is not what's happened here. You're pulling out one use of a term and giving it its own article like a 2nd entry in a dictionary or something, specifically apparently because you don't like what you see as a confusion between the "real definition" and a false "popular definition". This looks a lot like POV pushing, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Your arguments make sense, but they're unconvincing. I'd prefer to see the material at Phobia#Non-clinical_uses_of_the_term be expanded and clarified rather than to see it split off into its own article...and at such time as it is sufficiently large to warrant its own article, I'd like to see a discussion of how to name that article on Talk:Phobia. I think that something with the word "Prejudice" in its name would be a much better title for such an article, however, than something containing the word "Phobia". Tomer TALK 21:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • giving it its own article like a 2nd entry in a dictionary: it is a second entry in the dictionary: it is a meaning IMO sufficiently different from the medical one. And please don't POV me here; please refresh the knowledge of WP:NPOV policy. What I did I split out a piece of the existing article; I did not add a bit of my POV into the article. mikka (t) 22:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • "it is a second entry in the dictionary" Could you provide a source for this? I think it might be helpful in furthering this discussion. HKT 23:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instead of bothering me, why don't you open a dictionary yourself?

  • A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.
  • A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
  • an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations; "phobic disorder is a general term for all phobias" [syn: phobic disorder, phobic neurosis]

If you don't see the major difference between a disorder and simply a "strong dislike", then I don't think references to dictionaries will help you. mikka (t) 06:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • No,no,no. I can read a dictionary myself. I cannot, however, find one that defines phobia as (to quote from the article in question): "Prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility." A phobia is something that leads one to experience emotional responses correlated with extreme fright: Increased pulse, high blood pressure, extreme sweating, trembling, etc. That type of "strong aversion" can be defined as phobia. I doubt that most racists experience these symptoms when they encounter objects of their hatred. HKT 18:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • OK. It seems you almost nailed me here. But I added some of these from all listed "pseudophobia" articles, quoting:
      • Afrophobia is an fear of or hostility toward...
      • Caucasophobia ... denoting hostility towards
      • Christianophobia, also called Christophobia, refers to fear or hatred of
      • Islamophobia is a contemporary neologism defined as prejudice against
    etc. These definitions are phrased differently, but you have to agree that basically they speak of something common, a kind of negative attitude to the object of "-phobia". mikka (t) 05:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok. To tell you the truth, Mikka, I think that all of the articles that you've cited should note that they are neologisms. I see that what you have done by creating this article is try to make a link for people so that they understand what "phobia" is meant in all those various articles. Your efforts are admirable and I see that you have only tried to be helpful. However, I think such an article is liable to confuse people and lead them into thinking that defining phobia (even as an attitude) as "prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility" is technically acceptable. Therefore I suggest the following (and I hope we can achieve some consensus on this): The common (but technically flawed) use of the term "phobia" should be placed prominently in the wiki article phobia, and discussed more thoroughly there. The links (Afrophobia, etal.) should also be placed in that section. You have mentioned that this usage of the term is too inconspicuous in the Phobia article, and I hope this suggestion would resolve that. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, HKT 06:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • You don't have to tell me the truth;-) yes, they are neologisms, so what? They are in wikipedia, not deleted.
        • "technically acceptable" thingy: Words have their semantic ranges. (I feel very uneasy when I have to teach someone English, which is not my native language.) Take the word "cretinism" and tell me how many usages of this word are "technically correct", i.e., refer to the deficiency of thyroid hormones? The same with "phobia". Want it or not, all dictionaries quote two meanings: the "techically correct" one, ie a kind of disorder, and "common parlance", i.e., "fear, dislike, or aversion", which does not necessarily produces high blood pressure and sweating.
        • I am also well aware of a natural resistance of many people to propagating new meanings of the words. The life of a language is a combination of both flexibility, to accommodate the changing world, and conservatism, to keep the language from turning into a mess. Therefore I am not planning to wage edit wars over the issue.
        • I am aware as well that some people go over the board with words, and I anderstand your concern about encouraging the "nontechnical" usage of the word. Recently I have found an amazing example at this lovely website:
          The expert phobia team at CTRN's Phobia Clinic is board-certified to help with Russophobia and a variety of related problems. The success rate of our 24 hour program is close to 100%.
        So I guess it is time to send congrats to Vladimir Putin.
        • This is my last post on the topic. I am afraid I am becoming way too repetitive here. mikka (t) 18:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This completely misses the point. If it is a second entry in the dictionary, that simply supports my earlier assertion that it should not be moved to a separate article. Tomer TALK 23:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • In this relation I would suggest you think about reasons for the existence od disambiguation pages. Wikipedia does not collect all entries for a word into one article. mikka (t) 06:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If you feel that strongly that the content of Non clinical usage of the term should not be included in the article, the proper way to handle this is by taking it up on the talk page. Since it's a bit late for that, perhaps you would consider renaming those parts of the article you've taken out and put in Phobia (attitude) and putting a disambig note at the top of the Phobia article. I wouldn't personally be in favor of such a move, but I wouldn't oppose it as strongly as I oppose what you've done in the absence of discussion. (And no, let me clarify, I oppose what you've done, not the fact that you did it without discussion. If you'd be willing to discuss a change of name for the article and to put a HUGE {{cleanup}} on the resultant article, I'll be more than happy to reconsider my vote, and possibly to even urge others to do so as well.) Tomer TALK 09:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you all to move technical discussions into Talk:Phobia, leaving this page for votes only, with brief statement of the position. Certainly the talks above are very relevant to the article(s) in question and may serve for its/their improvement. mikka (t) 15:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.