Talk:Arachnophobia/Archived talks about spider images

Suggestion to remove the spider pictures in the discussion section
Considering the nature of the article, maybe there shouldn't be spider pictures in this discussion section. Just a thought.

Umm.. yes please. I am not aware of how things work on discussion pages (and in editing wikipedia in general) so I won't try it. If this causes problems because encyclopedic content should have pictures, wouldn't a link to spiders with "see images here" somewhere do the job? Are there pictures of murdered people in the murder article/discussion? 70.82.212.148 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Gaiacarra 11:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, totally agree here. Why exactly is there a picture of a spider (a large, threatening-looking one at that) on a page which a lot of arachnaphobes are likely to visit? It seems rather counter-intuitive. 62.49.128.72 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not 'a picture of a spider' on this (the Talk) page, but a template of the WikiProject Spiders that links the Arachnophobia page to the project. And, of course, the template contains pictures of spiders, just as a template for WikiProject Lepidoptera contains pictures of butterflies. There is no picture of spiders on the Arachnophobia page itself, and that's ok. but this template should not be removed, and we will certainly not change the template just because of this reason. I think the best way to proceed for arachnophobes is certainly to turn off image display in their browser. This is not to belittle phobics. but extreme arachnophobes (those that even panic when they see a tiny picture) *are* a very small minority, and there is an easy remedy (turn off pictures). in my browser (opera) it just takes one single mouse click. check out this list of phobias (i personally know ornithophobes and one very strong tonitrophobe). if we try to make it right for everybody we'll make it right for nobody. it's similar to allergies. should there be no milk/peanut/sesame/onion/etc. in industrial food because a small minority cannot eat it? --Sarefo 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. we could create a second template, exactly the same, just without the images. Gaiacarra 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The image will stay
Censorship will not be allowed. If we start doing this on slight whims, we will end in deletion half of articles.

I have strong impression that all this about picture is trolling. An acute arachnophobe shoul seek medical attention, not to keep peeking into this page to remove the image. I think the person who is doing this is not an archnophobe but an arachnomasochist or troll. `'mikkanarxi 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mild arachnaphobe with some common sense and consideration, mostly. The picture does not serve as an illustration of arachnaphobia any more than a picture of skydiving would serve as an illustration of acrophobia, though I'm sure it does an excellent job of deterring or otherwise making uncomfortable true arachnaphobes without presenting any tangible benefit. 209.107.107.45 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an illustration of arachnophobia. Your example is faulty, acrophobes do not afraid skydivers and I strongly suspect they are not afraid of pictures of skyscrapers either. `'mikkanarxi 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, replace skydiving with a panoramic view of a countryside. Better yet, tell me what about arachnophobia is actually illustrated by a picture of a spider, how is it essential to the article. Who doesn't actually know what a spider is? If it was on a phobia of a specific variety of spider, sure, but for spiders in general, it is sort of, well, useless. 70.65.133.246 07:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments below about the target audience. If a non-arachnophobe like myself wanted to read about arachnophobia and learn about arachnophobia, then it's much easier if there's a good illustration of the cause. The article discusses the possibility of the human brain sees faces and other body parts in discomforting juxtaposition in the body of a spider, and it's much easier to imagine that when given a picture to work with. Yes (almost) everyone knows what a spider looks like, but we still illustrate the article spider. It may be insensitive to put pictures of spiders in this article, but it's not "useless". --Stemonitis 08:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your justifications do not follow your suggestions for alternate photos well or at all. Furthermore, given the variety of spider appearances and the dubiousness of the trivia, a vanilla picture of a spider is all but completely ineffective in illustrating that point. 70.65.141.113 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The image will not stay, and you can live without it. There is absoluteley no need for it, and it isn't a good example of arachnophobia. All that it is is a picture of a tarantula with a description of the type of spider it is. It isn't "censorship", Some people have severe arachnophobia and may want to read about it here, and they dont deserve to see an image like that on this page. Image deleted. --Dallin Tanjo22 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please engage in discussion before imposing your point of view, in order to prevent edit warring; I have restored the image. If a consensus of general editors (i.e. not just arachnophobes) is for removal of the image, then so be it, but until that has been demonstrated, the article should not be changed. Even better, work on finding a photo that better illustrates arachnophobia. --Stemonitis 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority of people who have voiced an opinion thus far seem to oppose your viewpoint as it stands, I'd suggest you stop reverting things to suit your own tastes. 70.65.141.113 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But curiously, there seems to be a discrepancy between established users arguing in one direction and IP addresses which have only ever been used to edit this article arguing in the other. I wouldn't go as far as Mikkalai and call it "trolling", but I don't see that the opinions of the two groups of people can really be afforded equal weight (yet). It's perhaps unfair, but people who have shown a continuing desire to improve the encyclopaedia tend to get listened to more than people at IP addresses who only seem interested in making a single point. --Stemonitis 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet the number of people opining the removal of the picture in the talk page is... drastically... out of sync with your claims. (I had not looked at editing records, given their lack of reliability for distinguishing individuals). 70.65.141.113 12:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that determining the number of people is difficult when there are lots of anonymous editors involved. The picture has almost always been removed by anonymous editors (who we simplistically assume are not as well aware of policies and guidelines as more established editors) and has generally been replaced by registered users with many edits (including admins). In general, when determining consensus on Wikipedia, (primarily) single-use accounts tend to be discounted, which helps to protect the site against wilful abuse. I'm not suggesting that anyone is wilfully abusing this page, by the way, just trying to explain the background. --Stemonitis 13:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the fairly recent nature of the issues with the page and the length of time comments on the topic go back, I'd venture that it would be presumptuous to disregard the other users' opinions in this case, especially given their given restraint towards editing the article before consensus is achieved. While admins have been active in restoring the page, the number has been few and fairly consistant patrons, and Wikipedia itself views administrators as trusted custodians, not superior users. Ilurker 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong: I wasn't suggesting that admins are better or above the law or anything, just that they of all people should be aware of policies and practices in a way that new users might not. Nice that you've chosen to create an acount - welcome! --Stemonitis 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The account is ancient, I'm just criminally lazy and never remember to log on. Ilurker 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It isnt my POV or Opinion, Its obvious a page about arachnophobia shouldnt have a picture of a spider on it. If you want to see a picture of a spider, you should look elsewhere. --Dallin Tanjo22 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with spiders, but when I first saw this page I giggled thinking that there is a wikipedia page about the phobia of spiders with a picture if a big spider. Let's just say it's probably put a few people off further reading of this article.

I would like to offer an additional opinion on this matter from an arachnophobic point of view. As expected, I am in favor of removing the spider picture from the front page. My reasoning is this: The picture causes harm to a certain percentage of the readers, specifically those with the greatest interest (A personal one) in the article. The point of this article is to discuss the concept of arachnophobia. Not to cure it, not to talk about how little sense it makes, and not to purposefully inflict un-needed pain, trauma, or discomfort on any of our readers; no matter how small the percentage may be. As another example, placing a flashing gif on the Photosensitive epilepsy page may be a perfect way to describe the phenomenon, but the damage it causes certain readers is not worth its descriptive value. When I read this article, I held up a sheet of paper over the image (Yet was still nervous that my fingers were on the same side as the photo) The trick worked and I was able to read the article but the picture is certainly a barrier to entry for those more seriously afflicted then I. For those who spend the most time on this article, think of yourselves as architects. You have a responsibility to make your work as accessible as possible to the public, even those with disabilities. It may be because of my fear of spiders, but I also don't gain much information on arachnophobia by a spider photograph. How does the photograph describe the fear, does it address the interaction between man and spider, etc. A more informative picture would be one of a person holding a spider or as Stemonitis suggests, an illustration of the offending parts. (Face and leg movement for myself) If this idea is something that people feel seriously about, I may be able to provide an illustration of this type. Mishaneah 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Surely there shouldn't be a picture of a spider on a page about aracnophobia -- visitors with the condition may be looking for information and would not be pleased to be greeted with such an image. -- Oniony


 * I agree, pictures of spiders should go on spider and related pages but not here. I've removed the picture. --Theresa


 * Yeah, I was wondering if that would be appropriate. Sorry aracnophobes. --Mr Anthem 01:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) (An aracnophobe with a sick sense of humor)


 * Seriously, what the hell. Startled me. Why doesn't somebody just remove it? (PowerGamer6 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Thanks,I took the precaution of switching images off in the browser. Anyone tries that immersion technique on me will regret it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PrivateWiddle (talk • contribs).


 * I deleted the image. Seemed like it was meant to be offensive to arachnophobics.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panoz (talk • contribs).


 * I thinking of replacing this picture with | this one. Should I? Josh215 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of glad I only have mild Arachnophobia. Like I don't have a problem with pictures of them or knowing they're in the same room, but get them any closer than 10 feet and I'd probably try to kill a moose. Stormscape 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever for censorship in encyclopedia. Image restored. Mukadderat 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should be removed, not in censorship, but because if someone who is extremely afraid of spiders sees this page that would most definitely frighten them. There is no picture of a snake at Ophidiophobia nor is there a picture of a lizard at Herpetophobia. If it was absolutely necessary that there be a photo, it should at least be a smaller, less "I'm a giant tarantula that's right in your face" photo, possibly of a non-poisonous spider. I am removing it. If it is needed for encyclopedia related reasons, these articles and all the other phobia related articles should have pictures as well. Lizzysama 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone agrees that the image shoud be permanently removed? It's not like people actually need to see a picture of a spider to know what the article talks about (or, if they really need to, they can always check the link), so it's not for knowledge sake. It's a matter of respect, since the phobia itself comports anxiety by the mere looking at spiders images; don't make me laugh with such a lousy excuse as 'censorship'. I mean, just like others said before me, the article on ophidiophobia doesn't show a photo of a snake, since there's a great chance whoever is looking for informations about a phobia suffers from it.. it's quite taunting to put a detailed tarantula image on a page that should be visited by arachnophobics looking for insight about their fear. Not really something that should happen on Wikipedia, lol. I'm going to remove it again for now, in the name of respect. Siggie 23:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic has "scary" pictures, and you will not be allowed to censor wikipedia either. `'mikka (t) 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing completely unnecessary pictures is not "censoring". National Geographic may have "scary" pictures, but Wikipedia does, too.  Check out the spider article.  This article is on arachnophobia, so while it does have something to do with spiders, a picture of a spider will not help explain the condition.  Perhaps a picture of a person showing fright at a fake spider might be appropriate, with a caption like "even a toy spider can cause some people severe fright."  Otherwise, a big and in-your-face tarantula picture is not necessary on this page.  Save it for the tarantula page. :) There's a place for everything.
 * As a side note, you won't see videos of rapes at rape, for example. That's a combination of censorship, good taste, and making sure the encyclopedia doesn't have anything unnecessary.  If it's needed to have an image to show something (like what a spider looks like, on the spider page) that words can't fully and accurately describe without becoming overly technical, that's fine... -JC 12:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I think it definitely should be permanently removed. If people want to know what a spider looks like, they should look at the article for "spider". It's just more respectful to people with this fear and the picture is not necessary at all. Lizzysama 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture is not necessary for the discussion page. It's freezing out arachnophobes and may make them not be able to edit the page about their own condition, making the article worse. Thereby, having the picture anywhere on the discussion page is detrimental, not illustrative to the article. Thereby it should be removed. 88.104.217.89 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the paragraph about the face perception issue, and though I could understand the logic of doing what is necessary to illustrate relevant issues, I agree that showing a giant detailed spider picture is not only inappropriate, but pretty sick. It's only a picture of a spider, and does nothing to illustrate what's necessarily scary in arachnophobia to non-arachnophobes (other than being large and detailed&mdash;traits that will not necessarily help the non-phobic understand), and it only succeeds at torturing real arachnophobes.  I think the use of this image is here unencyclopedic because it is not sufficiently illustrative and seems to be intended solely to be cruel to arachnophobic readers.  I agree with someone else's suggestion that it would be more appropriate to show only an arachnophobic human being reacting phobically to a more typical house spider of average size, and leave giant spider portraits on their appropriate articles that deal with those subjects directly.  So I'd vote remove image for now, and later replace with a photograph or diagram showing a typical everyday phobic reaction.  This article is psychiatric description, not Eight Legged Freaks. - Gilgamesh 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that a reaction would be easy to convey in a photograph, but I'd happily see it included. Without any kind of illustration, the article looks bare. At the moment, the current inclusion is the best illustration I've seen, although it is evidently not without its problems. A web search for images of arachnophobia will give you a selection of photos which are just as bad for arachnophobes or even worse, so it's obviously not an unusual choice of illustration. If anyone can find a more illustrative image, then please change it (or if the page is still protected, just ask me to add it), but for the moment, nothing better is available. And no, no image at all is not better, in my opinion. --Stemonitis 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

heh
I have to admit, even as an arachnophobic I had to laugh at the "im gonna get you" comment under the picture in the page history.


 * Even though they were in poor taste, I have to admit it was funny myself. Stormscape 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A note about images and the audience
Without necessarily wishing to take sides here, I would like to point out that the readership of this article is not necessarily composed solely of arachnophobes. People will read this page to find out about arachnophobia, and may therefore find a picture of the animal in question illustrative. Certainly, a larger than average proportion of the readers of this article may be arachnophobes, trying to find out about their problem, but it must not be assumed that only arachnophobes will read it, and that we should cater only to arachnophobes. That was all I wanted to say. --Stemonitis 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If an arachnophobe will browse web for arachnophobia, xe will most certainly find plenty of spiders around, so I think all this campaign of anons against the picture is simply kids' trolling. `'mikkanarxi 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

this is so funny, i dont know if i am an arachnophobic person so i come here and see a big nasty spider hence i know i am. Imagine looking up vertigo and see a hight, goraphobic and seeing a box, it is academically cruel. here is another one vegan and seeing some raw meat, Muslim and a big piece of pork. u catching me?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the fuck is the picture still there? THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT. I came here wanting to read up on the condition I have, and see that fucking picture staring me in the face scared the fucking shit out of me. I yanked the god damn power cord out of the wall. I now have images turned off so it doesn't happen again, and looking at the edit history it seems there's been quite the edit war over it. So listen up you assholes. If you don't have the condition, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT IT'S LIKE. I would say its on par with sending someone to tubgirl or goatse and then saying "haha" except for me its a thousand times worse. This isn't a damn article on spiders, there's no reason for the pic to be there. Akaces23 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture will be here, as in many other places over the web that describe arachnophobia, I am not going to repeat all what was written in the talk page. But you watch you words, please, or you will have problems with editing. `'mikka 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you just link to the spider or arachnid page or something? Shouldn't that be enough? If people absolutely need to see what arachnophobes are scared of they can click once and they'll see it. People still get to see spiders, and arachnophobes on this page don't have to read with their eyes closed (which is a very difficult thing to do). The picture causes more harm than good. MK141
 * There will be absolutely no censorship in wikipedia under pretexts that something may be offensive or frightening or disgusting or whatever. There are several billion people on the Earth, most of which have various idiosyncrasies. Following your logic we have to delete all articles about pornstars and sick sexual practices such as Dirty Sanchez: surely there are much more worried parents than arachniophobes, 80% of which here are probably trolls unless proved otherwise. `'mikka 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, following my logic we should delete all images of the dirty sanchez in articles about the dirtysanchezphobia. You're not going to get to these pornstar and sex articles unless you want to, in which case you're not exactly going to be offended, probably. This is an article about a fear, that is likely to be accessed by a large number of people with that fear, with a picture of the thing they're afraid of right there, unavoidable as soon as the page loads. It's not about censorship, it's about knowing your audience and not turning people away from the article based on some misguided anti-censorship crusade. If I'd said "Hey, let's remove all images of spiders from all of Wikipedia because that'll scare arachnophobes!" then maybe you would have had a point, as it is... not so much. Also, why is that arachnophobia is the only one that gets a picture? Aquaphobia has no image of water, androphobia no image of a man, mysophobia no image of a germ, dental phobia no image of a dentist. Just clicking through some of the list of phobias the only one I found with an image was taphophobia... and it's not an image that would actually frighten a taphophobic. Why are arachnophobes singled out here? (Edit again: I just saw that the fear of bats has a bat image too... which I also don't agree with, of course) MK141
 * "Why singled out?" the question is pointless. There is no cabal. It just happened. Someone added it, and there is no reason to delete it now. That's it. I don't edit androphobia and I don't care  what they have there.  `'mikka 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not supporting the censhorship, I don't know however in which way the image improves the article, Mikka :) --Brand спойт 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read discussion in this page (lots of trolling, though). Part of arachnophobia is visual perception of something hairy and ugly. Let me compare: people instinctively hate hyenas (hyenophobia, a missing article :-) because they look like hyenas, but they don't hate lions or tigers because they look royal, although a tiger is much more dangerous. What is more interesting is that during a whole year I am looking at this page the content is basically  unchanged, and people here do only this bickering about this freaking picture. I say, if they were really caring about wikipedia, they would be doing research and adding content. Since no one of these arachnoiconophobiacs does nothing else useful, I classify this activity as trolling, and I strongly recommend no to engage with them. Don't feed trolls, you know. `'mikka 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)