Talk:Ophidiophobia

message: Shouldn't ophidiophobia either have its own page or redirect to "snakes?"  Redirecting to "phobia" doesn't give any information about what the word means, since probably most people already know the "phobia" part.
:a case of the talk page cropping up before the article. now i've created it. will expand it too. Idleguy 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fear of snakes is much more prevalent than other animal phobias due to the fact that snakes have been able to survive in almost all terrain from the jungles, to farm lands to urban areas." This seems weak. --Wetman 06:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: redirecting to snakes would make a person who is searching for their phobia get even more scared. (as I'm sure there is a picture of a snake on that page, although I wouldn't be sure. I am an ophidiophobic and looking at a mere picture is horrific for me.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.215.36 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There needs to be a reference for each person in this list.  I am considering deleting the section if no fellow editors provide sources.  TheRingess 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted two names whose articles don't mention about this phobia and retaining the other two. btw, isn't an entry in Wikipedia source enough? If any, the issue should be raised in the Indiana Jones article (however by looking at his movies it should be proof enough of his phobia) and not here. just my opinion. --Idleguy 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a wikipedia entry for a person talks about it, and gives a source, then in my opinion that's enough.  If the source is not mentioned in their article then the contributing editor needs to provide it here.  For example, I saw no reference in the Salma Hayek article, so where did the original editor get the info.TheRingess 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But I didn't add Salma, AFAIK only Indiana Jones is a confirmed ophidiophobic. And he's not even real! --Idleguy 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous People 

message: I'm kinda in a hurry, so links for article to do:
*Meet Melissa Kaplan: Educator and Animal Welfare Activist
*Iguanas for Dummies
*Rehabilitation of reptiles & amphibians
*Jim Cherry, " Loco for Lizards",  a chapter about Melissa
*Captive Care of the Green Iguana, Adam Britton PhD & Melissa Kaplan MA
*autobio
`'Míkka 07:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Melissa kaplan redlink

message: Above, I had to correct my shortcut to point to WP:BURDEN as the reason something needs an RS to be included. For this article, WP:ONUS would also certainly apply. Some random author stating that IJ has Ophidiophobia would not be sufficient as an RS. If a pop culture author from Rolling Stone offhandedly refers to Indiana Jones as having Ophidiophobia that would not merit inclusion on its own. If that author interviewed someone who could make a proper diagnosis that would perhaps be relevant. Misuse of the term by authors does not qualify misuse of the term in this article. Consensus for sources is required and should be discussed first for "pop culture" references. Indeed, this article is subject to a higher standard as set by WP:MEDRS. — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your ranting tirade above is semi-incoherent, not to mention stuffed to the brim with original research, I'm really not feeling much of a burden or onus so far. AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden vs. Onus 

message: :Here is the source that you may look for. or at least enough to cite his name.
:This one too
:Not a clinical review but good anyway. Jones is a fictional character.
:Alone would not be enough but just confirm the fact it is well known and admitted
:...
:Pluto2012 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential sources 

message: This article is marked as a stub.  What more is needed?  RJFJR (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: "About a third of adult humans are ophidiophobic" is not a credible claim at all.  About that many people find snakes really icky, but they do  have a phobia, which is a psychiatric condition, and irrational fear so strong it interferes with their lives.  This article is abusing sources that clearly fail WP:MEDRS to make psychiatric (medical) claims.  It's possible the book cited says something like this, using a vernacular, over-broad meaning of "phobia", but even this is dubious. What's happening here is obviously a fallacy of equivocation, when we're talking about the phobia as a psychiatric condition, then veering into popular culture about dislike of snakes, but using the same term as if we're talking about the same thing.  This is impermissible original research of the worst sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, if third of adult humans have "abnormal fear" of snakes, that would mean that abnormal is normal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-credible psychiatric claim