Talk:Eurotophobia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 15 2005. The result of the discussion was going to merge and redirect.

Removing Tag

It seems that some new sources have been added, which I presume are far more accurate than the ones that they now accompany. I think it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the very clearly inaccurate and/or unreliable sources that remain on the article. If the information in the article is verified by what's left over afterwards, I think the factual accuracy tag can be removed as well. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, wikipedia permits sources in non-English languages.Hawaan12 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your misinterpretation of sourcing in other languages, I have removed the tags.Hawaan12 (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm well aware of that fact, I translated the articles and, regardless of language, they seem to be unreliable sources. Am I mistaken in that interpretation? If not, I feel as if those sources who are not really reliable should just be removed and we can leave the ones that make sense to keep. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 12:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the sentences were direct and unattributed, I would agree. However I expressly attributed the claims to the claimant; i.e. I said "John says x", not "X is the case". You see my point? Hawaan12 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply think that saying things like "some interpretations" and so forth, when referencing single non-authoritative sources is a bit of a stretch. It might make more sense if you could find more people agreeing with the statement, it might make sense. I would, however, like to point out that one of your sources provides that Eurotophobia is an aversion to genitalia in general (although especially female). I see no reason not to mention that in the article. I see your point, but why include claims, even if attributed, if they're factually irrelevant to the actual topic? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the mission statement of wikipedia is to be "the sum of all human knowledge"; not "the sum of widely-held human knowledge". As for the genitalia part, you are correct it mentions both genders, however, when it goes into further detail, it only discusses the female gender. Generalizing the sentence to include both genders would imo (a) be undue weight, and (b) it would feel like contributing to jargon/psychobabble since there already exists two words that allude to fear of both/any genitalia. Its sort of why in 15 years of wikipedia people haven't bothered to start an article called "witch" or "left-handed"; its because the issue is discussed sufficiently elsewhere. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is, as far as I'm aware, a page on Witchcraft on Wikipedia. There's also one on Handedness. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with that. I don't really see how it's possible to cherry-pick a source that way; taking what supports your idea and leaving what does not. I'm trying to assume good faith, but your tone is pretty combative, and I'm not sure why you're so against making some minor changes in the interest of accuracy. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 18:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally against it; go ahead make the change. I simply feel it would violate wikipedia's undue weight policy to include something that an author has markedly chosen to leave out of the article body and merely mentioned in the section heading. As far as I'm aware, words within section headings or book titles do not qualify as a source. But if you disagree, by all means ... (forgot the exact English phrase); edit your heart out? Hawaan12 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I tend to avoid getting involved in cases of article ownership. I'll just leave it alone. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd phrasing

The origin section has some phrases that sound like either someone with a very small vocabulary trying to sound impressive, or translation errors. A particularly egregious one is "some innate inherency". Innate means existing naturally and inherent means basically the same thing as intrinsic, so an "innate inherency" seems like it's someone trying to say "some people are just like that", but with slightly fancy words. 172.58.251.129 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "originate from some innate inherency" means "come from already being like that", which seems like a tautology. 172.58.251.129 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]