Talk:Ophidiophobia

Untitled
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)


 * "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)


 * 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)

Famous People
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Who the stupid guy wrote this???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHLohrocks (talk • contribs) 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Melissa kaplan redlink
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)

Indiana Jones
His ophidiophobia is a big laugh line ten minutes into the first movie (at the end of the opening sequence, when he's about to fly off in the floatplane), and is given an extended sequence in the recent "Crystal Skull" movie ("Tell me it's a rope!" etc.). The relationship of Indiana Jones to ophidiophobia is much the same as the relationship of Dr. Strangelove to Alien hand syndrome... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the edit summary I clearly asked: do you have a proof from reliable sources that it was a phobia or a regular fear of snakes? People routinely scared dearly when suddenly seeing a snake, not to say a huge bunch of them, so what you see ina movie means nothing. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's nice -- "reliable sources" are actually most useful concerning issues which are truly disputed or controversial among those who actually know something about the subject. This would not appear to be one of those cases, to the degree of justifying the deletion of the Indiana Jones mention from the article.  Add all the "citation" needed tags you want, but do not delete something which is very highly relevant to this particular article (not "trivia"[sic]), and which is not truly disputed or controversial among those who actually know something about the subject.  Also, your added header of "known cases" is faintly ridiculous at best, since Indiana Jones is of course a fictional case... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Forgot the "well of souls" sequence in the first movie, of course. Maybe you should really take this to the Indiana Jones article, where his fear of snakes is prominently mentioned twice (once in the lead section). AnonMoos (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cool down and read what I wrote carefully. Once again, don't confuse "fear of snakes" with phobia, which is a disease. As for "known cases", what is your objection? Are you now telling me that the Indiana Jones case is not known? - Altenmann >t 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure your edits are incredibly well-intentioned, but unfortunately, they labelled something something as "trivia" which is simply not trivia with respect to this one particular article -- and your apparent status of never having seen one of the movies may not give you the best qualifications to make sweeping edits in this specific area. And unfortunately, the phrasing "known cases" contains a clear implication that Indiana Jones is not fictional, whereas in fact he is fictional. AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fictional" OK with me. However I disagree that "known cases" has any other implications except they are ...er... "known". I did see all these movies, but what I see in a movie has nothing to do with what I write in an article. See my answer to your "P.S." - Altenmann >t 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Monk and Indiana Jones are not too directly comparable, since Monk has an endless list of neuroses, while Indiana Jones is an all-round tough guy when dealing with just about anything other than snakes (which is why he's kind of the fictional poster-child for Ophidiophobia). I don't really see why the two should be lumped together.  AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you provide a reference for this statement, it would be a good addition to the article. - Altenmann >t 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Scroll down at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/quotes and form your own conclusions about whether he has a real full-blown phobia. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My own conclusions are called original research and cannot be basis of wikipedia article texts. The criterion is very simple: if not a single known movie critic mentioned that IJ has this phobia, then probably either he does not have it or it is a rather nonnotable character trait, regardless what you or I think. - Altenmann >t 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your abstract metaphysical devotion to the theoretical Platonic idea of exalted Wikipedia sourcing ideals, combined with your complete and utter ignorance of what is actually being discussed, is what I find to be somewhat off-putting (it certainly does not practically move things along in a constructive direction that will clearly lead to the real world improvement of the article)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding very polite words of saying that in our opinion I am stubborn moron. Still, this does not give you rights to ignore wikipedia most basic rules. Since you clearly demonstrated both disregard of wikipedia policies and disrespect towards me, I will no longer discuss this subject with you. - Altenmann >t 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I meant, and that's not what I said. However, what I did say is not everybody is suited to edit every article on every subject (I'm certainly not suited to edit every article on every subject myself).  I'm sure that your absolute devotion to Wikipedia policies is second to none, but that doesn't mean that somebody else might not be a lot more suited to improve this article in a practical common-sense way (say somebody who has actually seen an Indiana Jones movie, or who is not so deathly mortally afraid of the dreaded "original research" that they're unwilling to acquire a little basic relevant background knowledge on the side...). AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2017
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a case for this article and AnonMoos, you clearly don't know what a phobia is. An RS will be required.


 * Please explain why you think that Indiana Jones' case is allegedly "not a phobia". It sure looks like the symptoms of a full-blown case to me (basic hatred, fear, and revulsion, plus the need to semi-fool himself in the Crystal Skull movie sequence before he can even bear to touch a snake in order to save his life -- "Tell me it's a rope!" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An RS is required per WP:ONUS WP:BURDEN for you to restore. It was painful to read the above where you suggest that the other editor is ignorant when your responses clearly reflect that you are the one that does not know the proper definition of what a phobia is. This is the second paragraph in the article:
 * "Care must also be taken to differentiate people who do not like snakes or fear them for their venom or the inherent danger involved. An ophidiophobe not only fears them when in live contact but also dreads to think about them or even see them in video or still pictures."
 * ...and you are disregarding such care because you've missed all of that. I can tell that you've never had a psychology class in your life or you were absent when they spoke of phobias.
 * To humor you, Indiana Jones does not apply here because his fear is rational because he keeps getting into circumstances where there are real snakes. Someone with a phobia has the irrational fear such that it would be debilitating in life. If he had the irrational fear of a true phobia, he wouldn't have ever considered going on his excursions.
 * A photo test accompanied by a physiological response is one indicator. None of that exists with IJ's fictional circumstances.
 * You are, in effect, working against the true subject of the article when you throw such suggested trivia in there and perpetuate ignorance. You do not have a true understanding of what a phobia really is.
 * You can post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology and ask for more input if you don't believe me.
 * This article may help you learn what a phobia really is.
 * was the one that was correct above.


 * You're a pretty good theorizing armchair psychologist for someone who clearly has no professional qualifications or real knowledge of the subject, but unfortunately for you, your ranting tirade is far more of original research than anything I wrote above, or that was ever on the article itself. A rational aversion to snakes means that you calmly avoid them when you think that there's a possibility that one of them might harm you.  That's not what Indiana Jones does -- as already explained above, he has a little emotional freakout ten minutes into the first movie, and in the most recent movie he has an extreme aversion to touching a snake even when it's necessary for him to save his life.
 * As I've said before, Indiana Jones is the fictional poster-boy for Ophidiophobia in the same way that Dr. Strangelove is for Alien hand syndrome ("hence the condition's common association with the character"), so it is NOT "trivia"[sic] for this particular article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A while ago I found a simple cure against obsessive compulsive phoboiphiles: Create articles titled Fear of....  insteadd of ...phobia. Unfortunately i am indefbanned from the subject. Please dont ping me again. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Burden vs. Onus
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)


 * 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)

Suggested sources
How about this source:? The publisher, John Wiley & Sons, seems ok, so it´s not an SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Here´s another one:. "Juvenile nonfiction", but doesn´t seem terrible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not very good with Google Books (which at times crashes my browser, or comes close to doing so), so it will take me a little time to process those links, but thanks for being the first one in this talk page section with a reasonable approach -- the others have started out by deleting text from the article first thing (thereby creating unnecessary antagonism), and then have either insisted on adopting a pose of profound personal ignorance and snidely shot down my attempts at sourcing in a passive aggressive manner (see "22:28, 12 January 2010" above), or have declared in advance that they will disregard any source that conflicts with their inaccurate personal opinions (see "16:14, 29 October 2017"). AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I like "In Popular culture" (or whatever variant an article use) sections, but I´m firmly of the opinion that these sections should be restricted to items that can be reasonably sourced, otherwise they tend to bloat out of WP:PROPORTION. When I saw this at ANI, I thought "Come on, someone must have written about that in a source we can use..?". Anyway, we´ll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We need much better sources than that. In Why Did It Have To Be Snakes..." that author is actually applying the term broadly to simply mean fear of snakes and speaking about mankind having a general fear of snakes...that is a misuse of the term. A book about the Indiana Jones franchise is not going to be an RS for an article on a medical condition.


 * Scared Stiff... is a walking BLP violation where that author decides to have fun naming "famous phobics" for each chapter. Interesting that modern day authors are doling out these labels for undiagnosed medical conditions...I wonder what qualifies them to make such assertions? On page 88, they try to describe the phobia related to failure and then on page 89 they have "famous phobics" but then go on to write "Many famous people have overcome failure and their inspirational stories show that failure itself isn't a true obstacle to success". They then list five famous people that had failures but then went on to success. The author never even bothered to qualify any of the individuals as ever having an abnormal fear which is what a phobia is. So, Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, Albert Einstein, Steven Spielberg and Steve Jobs have been labeled as "famous phobics" when it comes to a named phobia...without any qualification whatsoever. None of them have ever been qualified as having an abnormal fear of failure. That is now to be considered an unreliable source.


 * Look, if it is a medical condition then it needs diagnosis from a doctor. Even psychologists and psychiatrists need to actually examine a person in order to make that diagnosis. It would be conjecture on their part to speak of someone having a specific phobia if that person hasn't been properly examined. People in general aren't free to use these terms as they wish. That is like people using the term schizophrenic when they don't know what it really means but they are trying to imply that someone is crazy. You can't do that because it is ignorant.


 * Trying to use made up characters in articles on medical conditions is flawed from the onset and should be dropped. It won't be a good match. General authors will not be considered reliable here.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Did a doctor ever diagnose Indiana Jones? If not, use of the term is completely incorrect. If someone wanted to list a real life person, we would have to have very good sources that actually would show that they have been properly diagnosed or it would be a BLP violation. We shouldn't drop standards to let Indy or Bart Simpson through the door.


 * The idea of a professional medical diagnosis of a fictional character is somewhat ridiculous, which makes your particular personal approach to sourcing unfortunately also ridiculous... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not nearly as ridiculous as adding a fictional character that hasn't had a diagnosis to a real-life medical condition and then believing that a quality content contribution has been made which improves the article.


 * No, it is not ridiculous. It is clear to everyone that Indiana Jones is afraid of poisonous snakes but not at all clear that his reasonable fear rises to the level of a phobia. The screenwriters could have created a scene where a psychiatrist tells him "You have ophidiophobia" but they didn't. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- I am not a psychologist, and I cannot and will not pretend to offer a professional psychological diagnosis, but as has been discussed several times before on this page, the fact that in a scene from the most recent Indiana Jones film, he has a strong aversion to touching a snake even when it's necessary to save his life would more than adequately indicate to the ordinary reasonable person viewing the movie that he has a fear of snakes. AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Your overall approach to film criticism is rather mechanical and useless -- "Orson Welles could have written in a line where Kane says Rosebud was his childhood sled, but he didn't." AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! Spoiler! ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO you take this "In fiction" part of the article way to seriously, this aspect don´t need the whole WP:MEDRS steelbath. It´s not medical science so much as percieved appearance. Like the phobia articles notes, things are sometimes called phobias that aren´t actually phobias. But that´s me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed a source that isn't reliable. That author should have never used the term because he doesn't understand it. In any event, some pop culture trivia called out wrongly does not belong here.

Potential sources

 * 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)
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Most Common?
Is there any real evidence or source saying it is the most common phobia? I know a lot more people afraid of spiders than snakes. This just sounds like inaccurate make-believe nonsense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.26.54 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 33% of the population has a diagnosable fear of snakes? Not likely. -- 13:10, 28 May 2013‎ 216.7.252.92

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

Indiana Jones BRRD, if anyone is interested
What policy or guideline says/hints they are not? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Putting sources here for convenience: . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not RS as I posted in the thread further up the page. Last time I checked, fan fiction authors aren't qualified to hand out a medical diagnosis. The applicable sourced passage is from the article:
 * "Care must also be taken to differentiate people who do not like snakes or fear them for their venom or the inherent danger involved. An ophidiophobe not only fears them when in live contact but also dreads to think about them or even see them in video or still pictures.[2]"
 * Fancruft isn't to be taken seriously and he doesn't serve as a real example...he's not an example of anything real. You need a psychology book.
 * And my view is that the sources are quite reasonable in this context, use "Ophidiophobia", and are not fancruft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So are you looking for sources like       ? Or can this be WP:BLUE?   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not BLUE, but I like the scientificamerican and howstuffworks. "You need a psychology book" is just wrong in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering fear of snakes redirects to this page, the article should cover the common fear of snakes and those psychological degrees of the fear. But stating that Indiana Jones is a commonly cited example for an ophidiophobe, even if it's technically at the mildest level, is not an extraordinary claim. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable., Do you think the removed section was ok, or would you like to change it somehow? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would phrase it as: "The movie character Indiana Jones is an often cited example for an ophidiophobe." And if you have books and news articles concerning the psychological analysis to the degree of his fear, you can put that in. But the idea of associating Indiana Jones with this condition should be reinstated. Heck, it even got a DYK back in 2006.  The news reports about babies and the fear would be something interesting to add for the article in general.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If he were an ophidiophobe, he wouldn't be going on his escapades in the first place because his irrational fear wouldn't let him. You have sought sources saying that he fears snakes. That isn't the same thing. The reason for needing a psychology book is to get better sourcing and an understanding of what a phobia properly is. That y'all are equating a regular fear of snakes with a phobia is incorrect. I gave you a sourced paragraph that you skipped over and haven't addressed. Instead, you are precisely guilty of of that. stated that above. I'm going to point out that having a standalone example and that example is fictional is a poor representation for any effort to have a serious treatise on the article subject. Folks that really have it don't need to see a caricature of what is a debilitating condition for them.
 * "article should cover the common fear of snakes" No, it shouldn't as that would be trying to hijack an article that isn't about a common fear of snakes. Once again, "Care must also be taken to differentiate people who do not like snakes or fear them for their venom or the inherent danger involved. An ophidiophobe not only fears them when in live contact but also dreads to think about them or even see them in video or still pictures."

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "...is an often cited example for an ophidiophobe" Well, that would be patently false wouldn't it? Of those refs that you produced only one actually suggests that he has that condition by name. None of the others do at all. The fact that you are still commingling the name of this article with a common fear of snakes is telling. You don't have sources backing you up.
 * "If he were an ophidiophobe, he wouldn't be..." now you're deep into OR. More of that: I he weren't he wouldn't have that problem in the quicksand-scene in #4.
 * "...is an often cited example for an ophidiophobe" is problematic, since, well, doesn't exist etc. I prefer the original formulation"Ophidiophobia is a characteristic ascribed to adventurer Indiana Jones." It was under "In fiction" so it's clear that he's not real. Or how's this: Indiana Jones has been described as ophidiophobic and/or afraid of snakes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the AngusWOOF sources, both scientificamerican and howstuffworks use the O-word, as does the original two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article-text "Care must also be taken..." is problematic, it's not good to "command" in WP:s voice like this. Psychologists differentiate between..." could work, if it is what sources say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't cover the common fear of snakes, then the redirect should be removed. However, the term is associated with common fear of snakes, and within that mainstream media, they do use Indiana Jones as a prime example. See "Good news for Indiana Jones and others with ophidiophobia: a new study shows snake populations have declined worldwide."  "Harrison Ford has portrayed many famous movie characters, but perhaps the most iconic is Indiana Jones. Ford expertly molded the ruggedly handsome (and ophidiophobic) character that starred in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), The Temple of Doom (1984), The Last Crusade (1989), and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). "    "To quote the immortal Indiana Jones, “I hate snakes!” Oh but the universal fear of such slimy, slithery reptiles – or ophidiophobia – has long been a cinematic tradition on which to set a tale of terror."   "All things considered, Walter Pierce Park might not be the right spot to go if you suffer from ophidiophobia, fear of snakes. That means that if Indiana Jones were real - though he would be brave enough to track down the Ark of the Covenant and Holy Grail - he might not be man enough to ride a seesaw in this community park."  "While the Coulee Region’s timber rattlesnake strikes fear into the hearts of Indiana Jones and ophidiophobes everywhere, it’s really a “beautiful, docile creature,” snake expert Armund Bartz says."   The burden is now on the opposite, to show that psychologists do not want to associate Jones with the term because it's technically not who they are treating.  But if that's the case, then the text should read how it is often associated with Jones, although technically Jones isn't ophidiophobic and explain why. Where are your sources for that?  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The term has been applied to a normal fear of snakes: 51% of Americans 1-5%   one-fifth   And with the ABC network: one of the ten most common phobias     So I agree that perhaps Jones's fear is not severe, but he is still strongly connected to the term. It's not clear he would cringe/flinch at a picture of a snake or the sound of something hissing. But it's a characteristic that's been established and well-covered by many sources. Regardless, it should be mentioned in the article as many folks are going to go to the link for the term for fear of snakes, and would be disappointed if it warrants not a single mention, even if it's "often associated....but technically not severe".  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mild and severe cases can be sourced like this.    Would you rather list characters like with Odd Thomas  "I'm nervous about serpents, because, as I noted earlier, I have a mild case of ophidiophobia".  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So "About a third of adult humans are ophidiophobic, making this the most common reported phobia", but not really, because they haven't been tested for looking at a picture? This is rather ridiculous to limit it to the extreme cases. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "now you're deep into OR" Not at all. It shows that I have an understanding of the article subject matter but I will cite that to show you.
 * It's the third diagnostic criteria from DSM-5 for specific phobias: "The phobic object or situation is actively avoided or endured with intense fear or anxiety".
 * "Doing everything possible to avoid the object or situation or enduring it with intense anxiety or fear" from the Mayo Clinic. 1
 * "Exposure to the object or situation brings about an immediate reaction, causing the person to endure intense anxiety (nervousness) or to avoid the object or situation entirely. The distress associated with the phobia and/or the need to avoid the object or situation can significantly interfere with the person's ability to function." from WebMD 2
 * Pages 280-290 of The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice by MacKinnon, Michels and Buckley. Page 287 in particular has a full section on avoidance.


 * Procuring more examples of journalists misusing the term does not sway me. They are not reliable sources when it comes to this subject. Journalist misuse of the term phobia and its variants is verywell-noted and it lead to AP guidelines recommending that they drop using it altogether. 3 This article should have proper academic sources and not references from people that don't have a full grasp of the subject. This isn't an internet meme or colloquial term that writers can just banter around as they wish...not and be accurate.


 * You have presented conflicting sources because this one states that "Studies show that about 10 percent of the world population has Ophidiophobia." What studies? If it turns out to be a poll that wouldn't mean much.


 * A poll of who thinks that they have a phobia isn't very relevant. 51% of Americans aren't diagnosed with this article subject. They may have a strong aversion to or even hate snakes but that doesn't mean that they have a true phobia.


 * Because the article exists does not mean that a regular fear of snakes should be addressed within the same article. Anyone that wants to write about the Fear of snakes can do so. That redirect can be made into an article itself or can become a DAB page to distinguish between the two articles. Pop culture references are more appropriate in a non-medical article anyway. That article would be valid and I imagine that there would be a plethora of sources for it as opposed to this article's subject.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So were Indiana Jones be allowed to stand as an example, it would imply that we have an ophidiophobe that time and time again overcomes his phobia to embark on his journeys. It would mean that he continuously conquers his affliction (cured? healed?). If true, it would be a reason to release him from that diagnosis because he doesn't seem to suffer from it any longer. He hates snakes but that doesn't mean that he has a psychological phobia because of it. Casual colloquial use of the term by journalists should not be attributed as being knowledgeable or authoritative. We shouldn't propagate the error. Regular fears, even strong ones should not be equated to being the same thing as a real phobia.
 * Can we approach this on a higher level? It seems that is arguing that this article should maintain a medical focus. Is there any guideline from any relevant WikiProject (Medicine, Psychology, etc) to support this? I emphasize with  and  on wanting to mention Indiana Jones's fear of snakes somewhere. I reviewed phobia-related articles and saw similar "popular culture" sections, but that does not immediately justify inclusion. I did not find any Featured Article about a phobia that could have lent some guidance. One possible solution (that technically side-steps this debate about popular-culture coverage in a phobia article) would be to simply go ahead and create a Stub-class Ophidiophobia in popular culture or Snakes in popular culture article that could be linked here in a "See also" section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * On the higher level, I think somehow connecting this article to "ordinary fear of snakes" is an interesting idea, that research that said fear of snakes and spiders is probably evolutionary etc. It could be one article that deals with both, or it could be two with sections/"see mainarticle" on the other. "Non-phobic snakefear" as a section could be added to this article, it seems fairly clear that it's so common it deserves coverage somewhere on WP. This article should adress the use of the o-word in everyday sources that has been brought up here, BTW, it seems many use it to describe ordinary fear, but that's common with whatever-phobia. I don't think Ophidiophobia in popular culture is a good idea (can't think of anything beyond IJ), and I'd rather see a Cultural depictions of ravens for snakes.


 * Back to the topic, I think it's fairly well established that any WP-article can have pop-cult-ish section if there's sources for it, see for example Parasitoid or Puck_(A_Midsummer_Night%27s_Dream). Wether this article should have one is of course up to consensus.


 * There's the argument that IJ is not a "true" psychological O, and does not act as one would, at least not a lot of the time. Sure, that's probably correct, but in this context it is irrelevant. Good enough sources (for a WP "In fiction" section) call him that, and that's enough. Here's another suggestion of possible phrasing: "In non-medical press and literature, the movie-character Indiana Jones has been used as an example of someone with ophidiophobia or just fear of snakes." Sources can be picked from this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, please decide whether phobia articles should only focus on the clinical definition or the case in general. Many of the -phobia articles here wrap both "fear of X" and "X-phobia", and refer to both general and clinical. Example: Fear of spiders, Fear of flying, Fear of heights. If it's intended to be a general article, then IJ can be added in a "Society and culture" section. The technical percentages are what they are; you have mass media surveys with all sorts of numbers, and then you can have medical articles and journals that suggest more accurate numbers for general fear of snakes and diagnosis for O. My point is that IJ having a fear of snakes is strongly supported by RS and he is a name that comes up when discussing O in general, as supported by RS, but any deeper analysis of whether he meets the clinical definition of O would require more appropriate sources.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Back to higher level, so a third of adult humans have "abnormal fear" of snakes? Seems counter-intuitive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this before, but I was having medical problems during the 12th to 14th. Indiana Jones's aversion to snakes is clearly NOT "at the mildest level", since he has strong emotional reactions, and in the Crystal Skull movie has a very hard time making himself touch a snake even when doing so is necessary to saving his life. As I said before, a person with a rational mild aversion to snakes calmly avoids placing himself in situations where he would be likely to encounter them, and calmly moves away from them if he sees them near -- but this simply does not describe Indiana Jones in any way. That said, there's unfortunately an element of the ridiculous in demanding that a fictional character be properly diagnosed by a certified medical professional (as was touched on in a previous discussion). Since Indiana Jones is the well-known fictional poster child for Ophidiophobia in more or less the same way that Dr. Strangelove is the well-known fictional poster child for Alien hand syndrome, it would be very unfortunate if Indiana Jones were to be removed from this article for narrow technicalistic reasons, even though in the broad picture it's very clear that he should be included... AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please, skip the OR arguing about what happens in the movies, it's entertainment, not medical text. Many kinds of interpretations are possible. Sources are what matters, and sources use the O-word. They may use it in a non-formal sense about fiction, but they use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As for Alien_hand_syndrome, I'm going to go through that section at some point and remove what I can't source. Pop-cult sections yes, crappy ones, kill with fire. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Berean_Hunter has set up a situation where it would be almost impossible to find a source which meets his particular set of demands. I refuse to play the game according to Berean_Hunter's rules, nor do Wikipedia policies require this as far as I can tell.  And a claim that Indiana Jones has an aversion to snakes "at the mildest level" fails the most basic plausibility test, and most definitely should not be included on the article.  Dr. Strangelove is quite a bit more just than a random "in popular culture" item for  Alien hand syndrome, since large numbers of people were introduced to it through the character of Dr. Strangelove, and it's fairly widely known as "Dr. Strangelove syndrome" (obviously this is not formal medical terminology, but the NIH has no problem referring to it under that name ), though this seems to have been removed from the current version of the article.  Indiana Jones has a somewhat comparable status with regards to Ophidiphobia (though it's not as exotic as AHS, and isn't named after him), so it violates common sense to remove him from this article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a paper that again informally calls the fear "Indiana Jones syndrome":  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-credible psychiatric claim
"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)


 * 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)

Illustration
Do we have no image illustrating the fear of snakes? I expected to find one on the Commons but had no luck. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Indianajones4 (cropped).jpg
 * Harrison Ford (36201117635).jpg
 * @Surtsicna, Assuming a bunch of snakes would be considered unkind to certain readers, how about these? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In one sense, we can't illustrate it. Fear is an emotion. It can't be seen. We can see the reactions of a person experiencing fear, but not the fear itself. --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My wife is severly ophidiophobic, and she would not be able to read the page on her very condition, because of the current illustration. Is an illustration really necessary? If yes, could it not feature snakes? 92.169.114.20 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)