Talk:Work aversion/Archives/2012

Link

The link "Myths and facts about Work Aversion Disorder" does not fit any of the categories for exclusion. It only provides information. It is not a personal web site, it does not promote any of my interests, and I have no affiliation with its cause. I became aware of it only through other informational sites. 141.157.90.131 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The site provides no backing or authority for its statements - it's a collection of original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably original research

A Google search for "Work aversion disorder" basically only gives this Wikipedia article, pages derived from this Wikipedia article, people mentioning this Wikipedia article, and the site "www.workaversion.org", which may simply be a joke. It's certainly not a recognized psychiatric condition. The article has lots of citations, but most of them simply seem to be using the phrase "work aversion" in another context; the list of "symptoms" seems to be a case of synthesis from various sources. Two of the cited sources are trapped behind pay gates, and I would venture to guess that, like the other sources, they don't really say what they are being used to cite. --- CronoDAS (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears as if this page stealthily promotes an agenda, particularly a religious and/or political one. There is a disputed neutrality note for "religious requirements" for "non-paying obligations" and another large section on the virtues of religion towards promoting work ethic. It also has several political statements, such as those with "work aversion" seeking Social Welfare implying that many of those on Social Welfare have psychological illness. If this was a real psychological disorder the symptoms would be far more general. For example, one of the main symptoms should be "aversion to difficult work" as everything involves work in different amounts. But instead there's a bunch of very specific cases often cited by conservatives or religious individuals as symptoms of the decline of work ethic and personal responsibility. Whether these religious or conservative viewpoints are correct is besides the point; the point is the article is poorly sourced and ideological. It should be deleted or entirely rewritten. 76.10.134.189 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Stealthily?? This article is so obviously promoting a religious and/or political agenda that it surprises me that is still here in its current form. This article is an insult to intelligence and at least a NPOV template is warranted. I will proceed to add it. See discussion in section Addition of NPOV template. --MaD70 (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur- with sentences like: "This is when one's main obligation should be to earn a living", there is no way this article should be on wikipedia. --Notquitethere (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this article was initially called "Work Aversion" (without the word 'disorder' at the end), and was about that concept. There are plenty of reliable sources on that topic that can be found under that term, under "aversion to work," or under various synonyms. Somewhere along the way, someone renamed this to the present title and changed it to focus on the concept as if it were a disease. Hellno2 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Treatment

I have removed the treatment section twice now. It contains many dubious claims, and is totally unsupported by citation. The only citation in it links to a page that has nothing to do with "aversion to work". Per WP:BURDEN it should not be restored. Gigs (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting me and discuss here. Keep in mind the burden is firmly on you to defend this pile of original research and synthesis with sources. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BATHWATER, we should look individual parts of this rather than taking out the whole thing at once. Hellno2 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the weakness of the sourcing and the extraordinary nature of the claims made, I could have stubbed the article down to a few sentences. Removing only the treatment section was being charitable. Keep in mind that WP:V is a policy. Stop violating policy by restoring challenged material without sources. Gigs (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think we should start from the top down rather than the bottom up. I have not gotten a chance to examine it yet, but I do want to look at each sentence, and look for sources on each. I have not had time to do this yet. Hellno2 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you time, but I won't wait forever. I'm removing that ref about aversion therapy, because it has nothing to do with what this article is supposed to be about. Gigs (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Tick-tock. "No deadline" doesn't mean we need to tolerate unverifiable original research forever. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited the treatment section and adding one on Criticism. I support the article being deleted entirely as it seems incredibly biased and invented, but seeing as it has not passed a vote for that, I decided to at least try to add some balance. Cheekyboots (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Importance?

For what disorders is "work aversion" considered a symptom? I have not found anything in the DSM-IV. People are adverse to many different things for many different reasons - how does this warrant an article? The entire thing should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.167 (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition of NPOV template

As I wrote above (in Probably original research section), it is blatantly obvious that this article is politically/religiously profoundly biased. In particular, it seems to promote reverence to the Protestant work ethic and some form of Capitalism as the healthy condition for a human mind. Not only is trying to introduce the "disorder" object of this article, but between causes it introduces yet another fanciful "disorder", "hierarchy aversion":

• Aversion to hierarchy: Some persons refuse to subject themselves to rules imposed by others higher in the capitalist social hierarchy, such as managers, and may even dislike running a business because that would require them to be subjected to rules imposed by the government or the tax authorities. This aversion may be due to politics (e.g. anarchism) or a psychological phobia. For those whose hierarchy aversion is not caused by psychological complications, they may be capable of joining an alternative community or living in anarchist squats where they may grow vegetables in abandoned gardens. Generally such people do not have aversion to work per se, but suffer from hierarchy aversion.

Emphasis on "suffer" is mine.

Let me use a rhetorical device, an hyperbole: why not a "Slavery aversion" article then? It was so common in the past in most cultures/civilizations, would be a good thing, why it was abolished? Let's promote the concept of "slavery aversion" as a "disorder", let's know the world the virtues of slavery so we can "enjoy" slavery again! You understood what I mean.

Contrast this with Wage slavery and Work-leisure dichotomy articles.

--MaD70 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty terrible. Most of the sources are being taken out of context, or are just plain inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have seen much more interesting and substantiated articles deleted on Wikipedia. I confess to not understand why this is reputed to be of any worth. --MaD70 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The prior AfDs are linked at the top. I strongly think this article should be deleted as well. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Work Aversion Made Me Write This Section

I really ought to be working right now, but due to work aversion, a symptom, disease, whatever it is, I am writing down some very important spur of the moment thoughts on the matter.

First of all, this whole article makes way too much medical blah blah. Why would you include whole sections talking about how the community of medical blah blah doesn't recognize this as a medical problem? You know as soon as they make a pill that makes you want to work like a motherfucker, they will start calling it a medical problem with a medical solution.

Actually, they have a pill for that. It is call the study drug. It is called adderall.

Shit. Disregard everything I've said up to this point.

Ok, my second big criticism of this article is that the style overall could use a little more of a dramatic delivery. Why can't we pull some big statistics and ask a pressing question at the end. I'll give you an example:

Five hundred million people on this planet don't work. Are they work averse, or are they posessed by Satan?

That would at least keep people tuned in through the commercial break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.85.104 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Complications section

What is the point of this section? If you don't like to work, you may not have much money and you could end up homeless? Okay, that's probably true, but why is this here on WP? Without a source, it's original research and it shouldn't be. Msnicki (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's both a holdover from when the article was purporting to document "work aversion disorder", and a dumping ground for the random sources that mentioned the string "work aversion" or "aversion to work" that were used for window dressing during the AfDs. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

While appreciating that, most of "Complications" could be deleted with no loss at all. Possible issues with not liking work are losing all your money in get-rich-quick schemes? That's not a fact (sourced or otherwise), its a random example of a circumstance. I'm appreciating your work cleaning this, but its still barely clear why the article exists, and unclear why it contains most of its content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.75.148 (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)