Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Other hole fear

Although not directly related to trypophobia, there's fear of holes in the ozone layer, fear of black holes, and fear of holes in, for example, home or computer security, fear of drains at the bottom of pools. Google orifophobia and find fear of holes. Google booking fear of holes brings up material for this article (e.g., An African-American child expresses her fear of holes, such as the bathtub drain,[1] fear of holes in the body.[2]. Abnormal Psychology[3] says something about fear of holes, but it doesn't show in Google books. Also see human botfly (holes in human skin). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Black holes are not holes! --2.245.188.175 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do no books use this word?

Who coined this word? Why can't it be found in usage in e.g. a Google Books search — only a few mentions that define the word self-consciously? Why is it in WP when it has failed verification at Wiktionary? 81.157.179.37 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See wikipedia's definition of notability. It does not require appearance in books. it does not require meeting wiktionary's guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked Google book and Google search. There are several books that include this in lists of phobias. The origins of the word are discussed in the Popular Science article[4]which is cited. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed Image.

I am sure I am editing this wrong and I am sorry. I literately had to hold my hand over the picture to read the text. Can this please please be fixed? Boxfresh151 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to have a image of the thing that causes the phobia, although this needs a solution such as the Arachnophobia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.171.183 (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC) TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you thank you. So much. I know images are important, but ones like this should be hidden and only seen by clicking a warning. I do not believe in censorship (!!), but this is a thing I'd never heard of and certainly didn't know I had until I was badly traumatized by something I saw yesterday, so the fact that a person clicks a link to the page does NOT imply that he or she came here knowledgeably and with consent to see the images. (Someone directed me here to help me understand my reaction, but I clicked the link with my hand over the screen where the first image usually is just in case something was there. I wouldn't have known to do that if I'd stumbled randomly onto the page a couple of days ago.) So yeah. Thank you. -- edi(talk) 05:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have this, so I likewise thank you. (I came upon this after seeing an image that I thought would send me past a seizure threshold. Of course, I'm already on medication that makes seizures more likely) It would be useful to have a link to a gallery of images one can show to someone else. I emailed my psychiatrist the link to reddit's /r/trypophobia forum, but I didn't see it first, and can't ensure its quality. (Maybe reddit can be linked if someone can open reddit.com/r/trypophobia, click "message the moderators" and discuss their quality controls. I can't risk seeing more images accidentally, I'm sorry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.30.227.51 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Nelumbo Nucifera fruit (show)

The holes in lotus seed heads have been reported to cause anxiety in some people.

Should an image such as the one that has been moved above and hidden (click the Show button) be used to illustrate the subject or does the inclusion of such an image cause undue stress to individuals who may be affected by clusters of holes if they come to the article to find out more about the topic?

discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Include the image - Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. There is no scientific evidence that such a "phobia" exists. The blanking of the explanatory image serves no value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • comment i encourage the admin closing the discussion to examine the policy basis of the positions presented and not simply do a snout count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the image - It is not necessary to explain the "phobia". If there is no scientific evidence that such a phobia exists why does there need to be an image which displays the object of the "non-existent" phobia?

Main Features of Diagnostic Criteria for Specific Phobia in the DSM-IV-TR:

• Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood).
• Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed panic attack.
• Note: In children, the anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing, or clinging.
• The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable.
• Note: In children, this feature may be absent.
• The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.Neutralmonist (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Remove I didn't write the above, they apparently left no signature. Anyways, I don't believe it's appropriate to have an image of the phobia in the article itself, as people who suffer from the phobia would obviously be visiting the page. A more neutral image, like what Arachnophobia came up with is a much better alternative, as it is descriptive of the subject, while not being triggering to sufferers from the phobia (in most cases). Considering the lotus pod image is one of the main images that is used as an example of a triggering image, I don't believe it's proper to use it in the article. Silverseren^C 23:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Include Wikipedia is not censored. If someone's psyche is so delicate that they can't stand the possibility of seeing a locust, then they probably already have turned off images using their browser setting. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't about censorship, this is about including images of phobias in the articles about the phobias that are most likely to be read by people with the phobias. There is absolutely no reason to do so. Finding an alternative representation, as what Arachnophobia came up with, is a much better action. Otherwise, you're just trying to be provocative toward the readers and worsen their reading experience. Silverseren^C 18:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It is censorship. You propose removing an image because you don't like it and don't want others to see it. That is the definition of censorship.Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between "don't like it" and "will have a subconscious fear reaction, possibly even a violent one". There is absolutely no reason to have actual pictures of phobias in the phobia articles. Unless you think causing our readers mental distress and a potential breakdown are what we're here for. If this was a simple "don't like it" issue that was based on politics or religion or something, I would be on your side. But, it's not. Silverseren^C 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

then we should remove pictures of Muhammad because their are certainly people who because of the culture they have grown up in will have a a subconscious fear reaction, possibly even a violent one" - in fact I would bet dollars to doughnuts the number affected by such an image would in fact be greater than the ones potentially affected by this image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless, the policies seem to indicate that we should aim for "least astonishment" in this case. An actual triggering image does not seem to fit that criteria. Whitecroc (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1) if we are to attempt to pander to potential emotional distress, using your rationale to remove Muhammad to remove potential emotional distress is exactly equivalent. and 2) Least Astonishment is primarily about redirects and article subjects/titles - and only relates vaguely to images. least astonishment would apply in the context of using a pic of John Wayne as the lead image in the article Partner because his catch phrase was "pardner" , it is not at all "astonishing" to illustrate an article with one of the prime aspects of the article's focus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not about Muhammed, it is about trypophobia. The dichotomy you are presenting is not particularly relevant. I will concede that I am not overly familiar with the principle of least astonishment. Regardless, I am not asking for censorship. The picture is used in other articles, there is no political agenda, and there is an established precedent for this in at least one other article on phobias. I am arguing for the inclusion of a different picture (which I concede might never materialize, which would be unfortunate), not the wholesale banning of an entire category of images. You seem to have a very broad definition of "censorship" in mind. If the consensus is that the picture stays, then so be it, but at the moment there is clearly no consensus. Whitecroc (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a negative personal opinion of a subject for religious or other reasons and a negative biological reaction that is a phobia. The former can just hurt someone's feelings or make them angry. The latter can cause them physical harm, whether that be from migraines to other symptoms. Do you seriously think WP:NOTCENSORED is meant to cover causing physical harm to our readers? Silverseren^C 06:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing it is censorship. There are plenty of images on WP that can cause physical and emotional responses, sometimes harmful ones. This is true throughout the internet. A survivor of Pol Pot's Killing Fields might suffer real harm upon seeing his photo, but we do not remove his photo to prevent this harm. Red Pen is correct in his analogy- read through the debate on the Mohammad images- the arguments for removing his image are almost verbatim the same as the ones being used to remove the lotus image, that the possible harm caused to a subset of the population overrides the rights of everyone else to see an image. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Silver seren: there is ZERO evidence that there is any biological cause for any reaction or biological harm done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove While I realise that this is not an officially recognized phobia in any capacity (yet), including a picture of the object most often used to determine if a person is suffering from the phobia is unnecessarily provocative. I looked at Arachnophobia and thought the picture included was a delightful compromise. A simple minimalistic pencil drawing of a seed pod might be the way to go. Also, I would like to point out that turning off pictures is a very drastic step for dealing with a phobia that is only triggered relatively rarely. I had not seen a lotus seed pod for years until I looked up the picture a few weeks back, and putting a picture in an article where the primary readers are likely to be sufferers smacks of trolling. Whitecroc (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Remove, insensitive. If you don't think the phobia exists, find some other way to express that. Images can be linked to without having them embedded on the page. —Pengo 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC
  • Think of the children!!!!!. if anyone is so sensitive as to be harmed by seeing such an image, they will have images turned off on their browser. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It has absolutely nothing to do with being "sensitive", as you mean it. It has to do with having a biological phobia and being likely to look up information on that phobia by going to this wiki page. Including an image that will then trigger that phobia is specifically negative for our readers. Silverseren^C 23:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Include. Showing a relevant photograph is highly helpful for understanding this neo-phobia. Lots of people fear beehives for other reasons, and ant holes and lotus seed heads don't necessarily come to mind immediately so that people will understand the issue; we need an image that depicts the subject of fear, and I can't understand how an image of an anthill would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are ways to show a relevant photograph without having to show a detailed image that causes the phobia. Arachnophobia found an alternative image and we should be able to find one here to. Otherwise, we're doing a disservice to our readers, many of which coming to this article will probably be suffering from the phobia. Silverseren^C 06:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Remove, I came onto this page for information and the image triggered the condition for me. Uncontrollable itchy feeling over my entire body, especially my scalp, and general uncomfortableness. Let's please be a little more sensitive, this was very unpleasant 140.180.244.145 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove I don't see any difference between including the iconic deliberate trigger image for this and covering the Arachnophobia article with close-up photos of tarantulas and orb weavers. 76.84.37.238 (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include I needed a reference image to show a friend.. was sad to see the image gone from the article. It really helped making the article better, IMO. (though yes, its easy to google the word..), and as previously mentioned, Wikipedia is not censored Divinity76 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Remove or keep hidden behind a warning. "Censorship" refers to restriction of information; that does not apply here. This is a matter of taste. Would we want a graphic image to pop up on a page on, say, beheading? Or rape? The image is extremely disturbing to those of us who do experience this primal reaction. The sponge on the present page isn't that disturbing to me, but this may be an individual variance. If it was coral it would be nauseating. Literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.255.199 (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question - I am intrigued by the suggestion above to hat the image in the article so that it is there for people who want to see it with a simple click on "show", and hidden for those who didn't want to have seen it. Is there any precedence for this in WP and is there anything that bars doing that? If so, seems to be an elegant solution that everybody could potentially live with. btw, I know articles are meant to be useful in other formats (the only place I recall seeing that is WP:CLICKHERE which is not exactly on target) and this approach simply ducks the issue of what would be done in a print version of the article.... but if it solves this impasse and lets everybody move on, maybe it is good enough. Jytdog (talk)
• Include and do not hide Hiding images is against policy. I would imagine that most people who have this difficult would simply turn imagines on the internet off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. First I feel that WP:Censor isn't relevant to the decision whether or not to include the image but it is to how to structure this discussion some articles may include images ... that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image. Whether we like it or not, something causing a phobic reaction is about offense and therefore not relevant to this discussion. The image doesn't portray the phobia, doesn't add to understanding of the phobia nor does it illustrate a point in the article on the phobia. I can see no reason to include the image other than "images make articles more visually appealing" and while I would sometimes concede to that argument, since there is already objection I do not see a reason to include the image. SPACKlick (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Include and do not hide As per James. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Survey" of south african women

Unless someone can provide a valid reason why we would include an informal survey by a financial services company conducted as part of a marketing campaign, I am going to remove the ridiculous content from the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Introduction

I believed the section below to be redundant. Two other sentences already state:a)that the "disorder" is not recognized in the DSM and b)that it is a "claimed phobia", not proven by science or medicine. The descriptions of beehives, etc. , are also sufficient to point out the most common type of holes believed to induce revulsion in sufferers.

"… is a claimed fear of or revulsion from clustered geometric shapes, especially small holes,…" Neutralmonist (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Link to poisonous animals and unnatural geometry

This is a nice source that discusses the believed reasons behind trypophobia and its relation to other phobias and the ancient subconscious ability to scan for threats. Should be useful in expanding the article. Silverseren^C 06:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

and do you know what your link is filled with, as is just about every other source cited? PICTURES (plural) to expand and elucidate the reader about the issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And they went for the far more innocuous images. Latticework is far less likely to activate the phobia, thank goodness. There is an absolute difference between including something like that and including one of the major, main images that is known to trigger the phobia. Silverseren^C 23:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Latticework is far less likely to activate the phobia" Really? got a source for that? Oh no, you wouldnt because there is no source for any of this being actual phobic reactions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Official

I officially regret creating this article. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If you hadn't created it, I would have, as I found this article in the first place by checking to see if it had been created yet. Silverseren^C 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just come on this page after seeing a different article, and my sister and I were quite freaked out by the pictures discussed. Why is TheRedPenOfDoom so against this article existing? Just because they personally haven't experienced it? 90.206.43.205 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a rampant breed of Wikipedian who feels it his honor-bound duty to delete every last article he can get away with deleting. This illustrates his superiority, somehow. Atario (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Categories of Trypophobia?

I myself don't experience fear when faced with repetitive geometric shapes (circles, holes, chevrons, lines, jagged holes, spikes, etc...) but rather a strange and odd compulsion to physically attack/destroy the object. I do sometimes get the "heebie geebies" however most of the time my emotional reaction could be summed up with the phrase: "aah, I just want to sand that woodgrain until it doesn't exist anymore." or "I want to stamp on the worm holes in that cluster on the ground".

Same condition? different emotional response? worthy of mention in the stub?80.229.9.24 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

its not worth a mention unless you have reliably published sources that specifically discuss those topics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe it to be as you said. The trigger is there, but the response is different. For instance, when I see skin-related disease or stuff like scabs especially multiple ones in one area, there's this intense urge to rub them with stuff that's supposed to heal them or make them disappear, or urge to scratch or scrape them off of the surface, flatten them, or just in-general remove these uneven, odd-looking clustered things out of the picture.

I don't think it's a sub-category for the phobia though, but the reaction is worth at least a mention. When are we ever going to have reliably-published source about this though, no idea.

However, if the reaction is not fear, then it isn't a phobia? And that maybe it is just merely a trigger to...whatever this feeling is? This is probably why trypophobia is not too phobia-y in that sense, but still the trigger is there and that's what we're calling it for now. It's difficult to explain, but we try anyway.

...Actually, there was already an article about this, spot-on mentioning that "trypophobic images set off a “trigger feature” in some people, much like the “fight-or-flight” response to the perceived danger of a snake." Lloyd Dunamis (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a link to OCD. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Talk Page

There was an open-ended HTML comment hiding half the content on this talk page. Please remember to check the preview before finalizing. 108.18.30.61 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Buttons

I wonder if this is the root of button phobia since they tend to have holes in them? 86.159.192.211 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't heard of that before.. Koumpounophobia for anyone who's interested Jimw338 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not hide images

See WP:MOS -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

VP discussion about image and Show Template for Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this discussion at the Village Pump, I have moved the image in this article under a Show template, per the principle of least astonishment, as our readers are likely to be ones suffering from this condition when visiting this article. Silverseren^C 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Having that discussion there and not here is not conductive to creating consensus and neither does it seem applicable. Trypophobia is not a recognized condition and the image is purely informative. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: Come join the discussion at VP. For anyone interested, it can be found at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Images_on_phobia_articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You will need to change policy if you want this changed, this has been discussed before both here and at WT:MED. Also NOTE that the talk page carries tags that this type of deletion omission is against Wikipedia policy. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit is not deletion, so which policy specifically are you talking about? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is site-wide consensus in policy documents that images may not be hidden like this. It amounts to deletion for the reader as studies have shown readers highly unlikely to engage in content that is hidden like this. This page was protected because of IP-edits to remove the image. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to this policy document, please? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content. This is a perennial discussion and I suggest it be taken up at WP:MOS before trying to shoehorn non-consensus driven edits into main space articles.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trypophobia "not recognized" is incorrect

I'm removing the sentence that says, "It is not a recognized diagnosis or condition in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or other scientific literature. I will make the wording more clear that the word "trypophobia" that doesn't appear in the literature, however that's not to say the concept isn't accounted for in the literature. The WaPo journalist consulted a paralegal who said her therapist didn't take her fear seriously, so the journalist's statement that it's unrecognized is just his opinion and he isn't a reliable primary source on what's recognized by medical literature. On the other hand, Pop Sci did consult with multiple psychologists, but they didn't say the condition doesn't exist; they said most people self-diagnosing online probably don't have a true phobia and that the term "trypophobia" doesn't appear in the literature and they explained that

with the exception of a few terms (agoraphobia, claustrophobia and arachnophobia among them), professionals who study and treat phobias tend not to use all the Latin and Greek names that get tossed around on message boards and in the press. Martin Antony, a psychologist at Ryerson University in Toronto, past-president of the Canadian Psychological Association... wasn't surprised to hear that some people have an intense aversion to clustered holes because "people can be afraid of absolutely anything."

* By the way, of the 3 mentioned (agoraphobia, claustrophobia and arachnophobia) only agoraphobia is in the DSM-5.

Trypophobia isn't named in the DSM and the ICD, because they hardly name any specific phobias individually. They group them into categories based on the ones that are the most common and give examples, but it's not meant to be an exhaustive list. According to the DSM-5, these are the groups of specific phobias and the examples they give with the equivalent ICD-10 code (F40.2xx):

• F40.218 Animal (e.g., spiders, insects, dogs).
• F40.228 Natural environment (e.g., heights, storms, water).
• F40.23x Blood-injection-injury (e.g., needles, invasive medical procedures).

Coding note: Select specific ICD-10-CM code as follows: F40.230 fear of blood; F40.231 fear of injections and transfusions; F40.232 fear of other medical care; or F40.233 fear of injury.

• F40.248 Situational (e.g., airplanes, elevators, enclosed places).
• F40.298 Other (e.g., situations that may lead to choking or vomiting; in children, e.g., loud sounds or costumed characters)

For example, a clinician would write the diagnosis as "F40.218 Specific phobia, animal (dogs)" or "specific phobia, B-I-I (needles)" or "specific phobia, other (clusters of holes)." By definition phobias are irrational and provoked by an object or situation that "does not objectively justify such a reaction," so to imply in the WP article that any type of phobia doesn't exist, perpetuates stigma against mental illness. I don't think that was anyone's intention. I think it was just a lack of familiarity with the field, so that's why I'm over-explaining this. And also because I don't want anyone to think I'm removing this sentence because I'm somehow affiliated with the authors of the study (which I'm not).PermStrump(talk) 19:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes everyone agrees that phobias are recognized in the medical literature. It is just this phobia that is in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Doc James: I didn't mean someone was denying phobias in general exist, but this article makes it sound like no one could have a phobia of holes. One of source used to make that argument quoted a psychologist that said, "people can be afraid of absolutely anything," and the source also said, "with the exception of a few terms (agoraphobia, claustrophobia and arachnophobia among them), professionals who study and treat phobias tend not to use all the Latin and Greek names that get tossed around on message boards and in the press," which is has the opposite meaning of the statement that the source is being used to support. The point the source was making, and the point I'm making, is that trypophobia isn't recognized in the medical literature because almost no Latin/Greek terms for different types of fears are mentioned in the literature. Trypophobia is a specific phobia, other type. PermStrump(talk) 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the argument is that people find certain things disgusting, like excrement and puss. Another one of these things is groups of holes. Does these mean most of humanity have a "feces phobia"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not everyone, but hypothetically, someone could have a phobia of poo and I doubt they'd get doubted so much. I never heard of the word trypophobia or all of the hubbub about it until I stumbled on the article 2 days ago. But I've worked with one person who was at least approaching the end of the spectrum towards a phobia. She'd have a strong reaction to unavoidable everyday objects if there were a lot of irregularly shaped little things in one place. (It first came up in discussion because I had floam on my desk that everyone else loved to fiddle with during session, but she reacted like I had poo on my desk.) I didn't actually diagnose her with a phobia, but because of that, it doesn't seem unrealistic to me that there are some people out there who meet the criteria. Besides, people can have a phobia of literally anything, especially once you already have a phobia of something else. I think most of these people writing about it online don't have a phobia; they just think it's really gross. Some people in the study apparently did report panic symptoms though. PermStrump(talk) 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

http://trypophobia.co/

What should we do about this link? Not reputable IMO. Have removed it a few times per WP:ELNO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia App Version

The article in the Wikipedia App shows "Of Nicki Minaj" under the header of "Trypophobia". It does not appear in the web version, and I can't figure out how to edit it (to delete it) in the app version.

162.115.236.103 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is Wikidata related vandalism that has been in place since Sept 24th[5]. Fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

wow nice that you figured that out. horrible that there is a whole new way to vandalize Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes have seen a half dozen or so cases like this. IMO all admin on the WPedia should be automatically made admins on Wikidata so that we can take care of these issues more efficiently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)