Talk:Necrophobia

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Separate article for thanatophobia

Should there be a separate article for thanatophobia and necrophobia because they are different things, i'm going to expand this article to have two sections first, then perhaps split it later into two separate articles?

You may expand only basing on wikipedia rules: WP:Attribution, no original essays and citing reputable sources. `'Miikka 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had always thought Thantophobia was fear of death and dying while Necrophobia was fear of dead things - antithesis of necrophilia.217.205.224.155 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture Section could mention episode of Aeon Flux titled Thanatophobia, and if I knew more about editing/citing I might have even done it. 71.106.25.211 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. `'Miikka 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

Isn't there a homophobia? I am not making a joke. Hyper Zergling (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

homophobia. - 7-bubёn >t 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging that up. I can only imagine the arduous research that went into trying to finding that. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Healthy" fear of death?

Isn't there such things as a "healthy" fear of death? Or does almost everyone have necrophobia/thanatophobia/whatever? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information to the article. All of it came from a reference already included. Feel free to clean it up a bit. To put it simply, though, just about everyone fears death, but this phobia is an abnormal fear of death or dying—a fear intense enough to interfere with one's daily life. Most people don't have that problem. TaintedMustard (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psy 101 Review

I think the information you added could have been a little more thorough here, instead of saying "With all types of emotions..." maybe be a little more clear, but other than that the information you added was good. Mp176418 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information was alright, seemed like it was somewhat of an opinion. though you did mention two treatments for this.

(Sterney21 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PhD thesis & cultural introduction claim

The work by Anastasia Tsaliki may have some validity but she didn't introduce the term in any sense. It has been around a long time.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -------

The PhD thesis is unpublished, but it comes from a top University and there is published work cited. The term has been around for a long time in medicine but she is the one who introduced it in social sciences. Credit should go where credit is due. Show me references that use the term "necrophobia" in a cultural context before she published her theories in 1997 and I will accept your claim. So, I believe that there is sound scientific ground, with published references, for the re-insertion of the part you deleted.

I argue that there should be a differentiation between "necrophobia" as a medical term and as a cultural term, based on Tsaliki's research, which you omit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. A cursory look shows "And while the psychopathic condition of necrophobia (an abnormal fear of death) would not be ascribed to most "normal" people, we do, as a society, suffer from a cultural or mass necrophobia. It adversely affects us all by creating a ..." Patricia June Anderson, 1993. Affairs in Order:A Complete Resource Guide to Death and Dying

Here is a discussion of the cultural aspects in Mexico in 1992.

Also, please show by reliable sources where there is a differentiation between the meanings. You have said that you would argue this distinction but it needs to be explicitly stated as such by references. We do not engage in original research ourselves.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Patricia June Anderson (1993), whom you quote, seems to be using the term in its original medical meaning (.."the psychopathic condition of necrophobia (an abnormal fear of death))". I tried to read more of what she means in the paragraph/page you quote, but I do not have full-text access to her work; I also tried to google the excerpt, without results. The meaning by Tsaliki, which I cite, focuses on necrophobia very specifically as "the fear of the dead returning to haunt the living", applied in a cultural anthropological context; so, my argument is that the term is not defined in this way in the medical descriptions provided by the various medical dictionaries or in the works of other anthropologists/archaeologists pre- 1997, at least to my knowledge. If you read the references I cited and you have the necessary background in Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology to fully appreciate the research, the methodology and the results, then I think you will appreciate the rationale. This is not in any way a personal attack or sarcasm, just a general point that, in my opinion at least, wikipedia editors should focus on their own disciplines, for knowledge is vast and none of us can be an expert in everything. This is peer-reviewed and published research, which cannot be dismissed as "nonsense"; I am not engaging in any original research in Wikipedia.

You ask for "reliable" sources. Following Wikipedia rules, as far as I am concerned, I have already cited reliable sources. See [[1]]:

- "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." - "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." - Read my references and see for yourself. - "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." - "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan."

And so on. Please, also note, that the medical part of the term "necrophobia", as it appears currently in Wikipedia, has numerous references of websites which would constitute "Questionable sources" with no editorial oversight, or "self-published sources"; e.g. ref. 3, 4, and 5. You don't seem to question these. Isn't this bias against me and my sources, which are fully qualified, as per above criteria? The reason I have not edited them, despite my disagreement, is because I am not a Medical Doctor or a psychologist, so I need time to search for more appropriate citations and respect the fact that there are more qualified people out there to do so.

Finally, the use of Tsaliki's work by other anthropologists/archaeologists post 1997 using the term in her way can be seen e.g. Sublimi Saponetti S, Scattarella F, De Lucia A, Scattarella V. (2007) Paleobiology, palaeopathology and necrophobic practices in early Iron Age burials (IX-VII century BC) in Capo Colonna, Trani, Apulia, southern Italy--the state of health of a small sample from Iron Age.,

If you or any other editor still disagree with me, despite all the supportive evidence I have provided, please contact the appropriate Wikipedia arbitration team to pass final judgement.

> Preceding comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012‎

While discussing here, you may convince me or other editors that some aspect of your edit should be added but edit-warring your addition into the article while it lacks consensus violates WP:BRD and won't stay.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments above should be posted to my talk page, not here. But since they are here, you are the one who started the edit-warring and you continue it by reverting the edit and stopping the constructive talk in here. I'll go for dispute resolution, although I can see how the "circle of editors" in this place works. Btw, the "IP" address is far more eponymous than a username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do you actually read all these Wikipedia "rule pages" you are referring me to?! I don't think so. WP:BRD clearly states "There is no such thing as a consensus version" and "Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert". So, I don't.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read them. Interesting how you choose to interpret them.

You have not made a compelling case for Tsalikis. There is no new definition of the word necrophobia and Tsalikis didn't invent or coin the word. Her unpublished thesis may have have been referred to in other works but that doesn't make the case for her popularizing the term. Quite frankly, this looks like refspam.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time:

1. I don't claim that Tsaliki "invented or coined the word". My claim is that Tsaliki's work gives a more specific meaning to necrophobia specifically in the disciplines of Anthropology and Archaeology. I supported my claim with several published and unpublished refs. which, since you cannot debunk, you conveniently choose to call "refspam".

2. Wikipedia rules: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan." Frankly, I don't think you even comprehend the worth of a Ph.D. thesis and wish to ignore the fact that PhD theses are peer-reviewed works and in some countries are considered automatically publications (e.g. Sweden).

3. What you write is entirely your personal opinion, which you keep repeating, not addressing my many points in my messages above. This is against Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy. In addition, your wish to keep reverting my edits and your contribution to this talk is essentially an "I just don't like it" attitude, which of course is against Wikipedia policy.

For all the above reasons, I consider this two-part talk between me and you to be futile. I engage in academic debates on a specialist subject with peers, and in talks with the general public that is open to new knowledge. It is a waste of time to try and persuade hobbyists, generalists and the like on such a specialised issue. It is unfortunate for Wikipedia that it attracts this kind of editors and the reason why no teacher or academic ever recommends Wikipedia as a valid source of knowledge. I will take appropriate further action in due course.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to google scholar, Anastasia Tsaliki's most cited work as three citations. For the routinely cited in footnotes measure, I'd be expecting hundreds of citations, at least. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very specialist and narrow topics as such never have "hundreds of citations". Also, I have used Google Scholar and have noticed that it covers the anglophone bibliography only and it does not cover all publications made by an author. It also finds irrelevant and non-academic articles of all sorts. In short, I don't consider it to be an accurate tool to measure academic impact. In addition, what about the references of websites which would constitute "Questionable sources" with no editorial oversight, or "self-published sources" in this article, as I have mentioned before? Those don't seem to matter anyone.

On another note, I was informed by an experienced editor that User:Berean Hunter used the rollback tool to revert my edits. Wikipedia:Rollback says: "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." Very civilised to use a specialist tool and call my 1st edit "nonsense". --92.118.252.49 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where did this "informing" take place? You haven't received any such messages on your IP talk page. That experienced editor isn't so swift and misinformed you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me. Editors can be contacted in other ways too. The article History proves what you did and the rollback list proves you have the rollback tool as well as User:Stuartyeates.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? How do other editors contact you by your IP address? I do have rollback but there has been no misuse, I can assure you.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use the user talk pages? I try to use your talk page for issues not directly connected to the article. I thought you knew better. As for any misuse or abuse, third parties will judge this, as well as being confrontational and argumentative.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do other editors contact you by your IP address? Again, that is a new one on me.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, trying to sort some things out. First, this IP also seems to have an account, User:‎H tan H epi tas. I am the "experienced editor", and this user talked to me on my talk page. There seems to be a misunderstanding; when I referred to "misuse of rollback", I was talking about User:Mean as custard, not User:Berean Hunter. David¹²¹⁷ 02:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up, David.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. David¹²¹⁷ 02:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To sort some things out too. In late May I came to this article and made a two-sentence addition out of good faith using my IP. I had an account in the past but lost its password. After I saw the way IPs are treated in here, and how my edit was reverted, I created a new account to have the availability of more features. However, I kept using my IP in this "talk" to avoid misunderstandings and avoid being accused of signing in with a different account as a different person. User:Berean Hunter you should have left User:David1217 out of this specific talk page. After all, some editors like yourself, can be contacted via email or noticeboards as well, so what's the big deal. Following me around is ridiculous. User:David1217 made a comment out of good faith to help a newbie. You read it yourself. I examined the rollback feature he mentioned myself, and in my judgement it explains the swift reverts you made to my original edit, using the exact phrase "nonsense", and without leaving any comment on "talk" in here. Only after I attracted your attention by reverting back (I was not very familiar with the "talk" page and its use) only then you started a discussion here. I tried to engage up to a certain point, but I was already insulted and it was subsequently clear that you are argumentative for the sake of it. I notified you that I would take the matter further, as any more content discussion between us would be futile, and I posted the issue for a Third Opinion. For anything else, I asked you to use the user "talk" page, which you won't. Frankly, I am getting fed up, because I have a life outside Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, again discuss it outside the article's "talk" page and stop bugging people I am talking to. You can voice your problems when it comes down to a dispute resolution.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- ...and they will find this thread very interesting. Let me see if I get this straight. You accuse me of misusing rollback and when I ask you about it, you don't respond and I have to go find out what the basis of your accusation is. When we get things cleared up finally, your response is to tell me that I should have let things be. You would be willing to have let that false accusation stand? And I don't care whether an editor is an IP or a named account...how on earth did you reach the fallacy that I was treating you a certain way because you were an IP? I would have called this edit out either way.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hope people right at the top of Wikipedia find this whole thread very interesting indeed. No, I told you not to bug people I contact. Your backtracking my moves and whom I contact is creepy. I'd have apologised if I were wrong, but instead of providing proof for your point, you kept asking who informed me, which I found it to be irrelevant to the point raised. Why should I give you a name? I don't snitch people. In any case, User:David1217 made a comment that opened my eyes, because I was wondering about your first revert myself. Why he backed off, I don't know. You read his original comment yourself ("By the way, the user that reverted you shouldn't have used a particular tool to do that: see the discussion here"). Maybe he did realise it was a misunderstanding on his part. It happens.

However, explain this: "17:59, 28 May 2012‎ Berean Hunter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,232 bytes) (-557)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 92.118.252.49 (talk): Rm nonsense. (TW))" from Article History.

Did you or didn't you use rollback and /or special Twinkle tools on that occasion?
Did you or didn't you call my 1st edit "Nonsense" in your summary?
Is this acceptable Wikipedia behaviour towards a good-faith edit?

And if IP vs. username changes don't matter in here, as a seasoned Wikipedian please also explain this to me: why the article got Semi-Protected (I had asked for Full protection) against IPs only, clearly to your advantage, with the comment "21:01, 3 June 2012‎ The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,203 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Necrophobia: There hasn't been a single constructive anonymous edit to this article in over a year, and I don't see signs that's going to change (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC))))". Very unbiased decision indeed!

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. You accused me of abusing rollback and I didn't. If you think I did, go file in the appropriate venue. With regard to the content of the article, the floor is yours to convince editors why Tsalikis needs to be added. I'm not convinced.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never asked who informed you at all. Look at the above sentences and reread my comments. You told me "not to bug people". Where? You seem to be imagining quite a lot.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay 92.118.252.49, let me clear things up once and for all. I was confused about the "misuse of rollback" reference. I was talking to the wrong newbie. I was not talking about User:Berean Hunter, and I didn't even know you had this dispute! David¹²¹⁷ 05:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandings do happen. No hard feelings.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here as a third opinion volunteer. It seems much of this debate hinges on whether, in publishing her theories in 1997, Tsalikis introduced the application of the term necrophobia in a cultural sense, which I understand to mean a fear of the dead coming back to haunt the living, as opposed to the medical sense of the word, which I understand to mean a fear of death. I found a video game called Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny which dates to 1993. Someone published the Installation Guide for this video game here. In the guide is the following paragraph:

Necrophobia (NE): A particularly terifying fear of death and anything connected with it, especially the undead, mummies, zombies, and skeletons. A character with a high necrophobia value will sometimes refuse to fight against undead and may run away instead.
— Installation Guide, Negative Attributes

Does this help? Coastside (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Coastside: Thanks for offering your opinion and for reading the content argument. My original edit, which was reverted, wrote:

Necrophobia is a medical term.... - That is I had inserted the term "medical" to make a point that the explanation given in here referred to the medical use of the word. And then I had added
"In Archaeology and Anthropology, the term was first introduced by Dr Anastasia Tsaliki in her PhD thesis and related published research to denote the fear of the dead returning to haunt the living, found in several cultures worldwide." I had also provided related references.

Your contribution is very interesting because it shows that somebody else had made the connection between "necrophobia" and the "undead", giving to the term a sociocultural meaning. I think that your point compliments and does not negate mine, which referred to the disciplines of Archaeology and Anthropology in particular, whereas yours is not in an academic setting. I believe that your point strengthens my position that for the Wikipedia article to be rounded and up to date, there needs to be a differentiation between the medical sense of the word and the cultural sense, with references, as it appears in Tsaliki's work and the above game guide. My argument is that such a "cultural" vs. strictly "medical" differentiation exists indeed.

So, I suggest an addition in the article such as:

"In a cultural sense, "necrophobia" means a fear of the dead coming back to haunt and hurt the living. The use of the term in this way can be found in popular entertainment as early as 1993 <game ref> and in the disciplines of Archaeology and Anthropology since 1997 <Tsaliki's refs>."

What do you think? --92.118.252.49 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem reasonable, as long as Tsaliki is a reliable, published source as per WP:VERIFY. However, I have to admit there are some things I find a bit confusing. Your definition of necrophobia in a "cultural" sense seems too narrow in that it is exclusive of the medial term, i.e., you seem to consider fear of being haunted by the dead as specific to the cultural definition and fear of the dead and things associated with it as specific to the medical definition. Are you saying these are mutually exclusive? The game quote seems to contradict that in that it is a "cultural" context and rather explicitly includes both senses of the word. Furthermore, I would think the medical definition as written would also include the fear of being haunted by the dead. If someone were to express to their doctor that they were terrified zombies would break into their house at night and attack them, wouldn't necrophobia be an appropriate diagnosis? I guess it comes down to the degree to which these applications of the term overlap. I'm not sure what Tsaliki or any other reputable source would have to say about that. Perhaps it would be sufficient simply to change your suggested addition to say "In a cultural sense, "necrophobia" ~~means~~ [may also be used to mean] a fear of the dead coming back, etc." Coastside (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 1992 use in the cultural sense if there be a division in the meanings at all (there isn't really). I would ask where credit is being given to Tsalikis by an authoritative source for being the first to "introduce" this term to any field. Who claims within the etymology of this term that Tsalikis had this effect?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Coastside: The medical sense of the term is broad. In medicine, necrophobia is "an abnormal/morbid/irrational fear of death or corpses", i.e. it is a disease that causes a series of specific clinical manifestations (similar to a panic attack). As I said before above, unfortunately the article as it is now lacks proper refs. Apart from the first two refs., the rest are not reliable and create confusion to those who visit them. If my IP were not blocked from editing this article, (courtesy of User:The Blade of the Northern Lights) I would have edited them. So, I am not saying that the medical and cultural meanings are mutually exclusive; on the contrary, I believe that since the term is the same, the definitions are inherently linked and may sometimes overlap. A clinical psychologist's or psychiatrist's view would be valuable here to set this argument of how a medical professional interprets the term.

I only pointed out as additional info that the cultural sense as introduced by Tsaliki is within a different context, and as a result more narrow, because it emphasises not the clinical symptoms but the supernatural fear, something medicine is not studying per se. A group of villagers who are afraid of vampires and dig up corpses are not necessarily diagnosed with necrophobia as a disease with clinical symptoms! In this case, the term enters the area of superstition, an area not studied by medicine. My argument is about these specific fields no matter how User:Berean Hunter with his negative and disruptive attitude is trying to make it about "any field" just because he does not want to agree.

Tsaliki's refs are Wikipedia reliable, as I have extensively argued in the beginning of this section. In addition, as a specialist myself, I have read many books and articles related to folklore, and although the "fear of the revenants" has been studied extensively before, no one else used the term "necrophobia" to describe it in an academic context pre-1997. Not even JG Frazer in his fundamental work. But esp. since 2001, it starts being used in the discipline, as, again, I argued in the beginning of this section.

So, I agree with your edition "In a cultural sense, "necrophobia" may also be used to mean a fear of the dead coming back to haunt and hurt the living. The use of the term in this way can be found in popular entertainment as early as 1993 <game ref> and in the disciplines of Archaeology and Anthropology since 1997 <Tsaliki's refs>." and I would ask you to edit the article accordingly, since IPs are not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be two questions here: 1) should there be a distinction between the uses of the term necrophobia in a "medical" vs. "cultural" sense? and 2) assuming there is a distiction, was Tsaliki the one to apply it the disciplines of Archaeology and Anthropology? In my opinion, the second question isn't important for this article. The article is about necrophobia, not about Tsaliki. The first question can be broken down further as a) is there a difference between the medical and cultural definitions? and b) if there is a distinction, does the article make such a distinction clear? The first part (that there is a distinction) is something that Tsaliki clearly asserts, as per this article which says

In some cases unusual disposal is accompanied by evidence of practices, which appear to indicate fear of the dead (necrophobia). Necrophobia can be defined as a morbid fear of death and the dead. It is a term used also within medicine, which implies that the phobia may cause extreme and morbid reactions, such as intense anxiety, obsessions, or even a panic attack associated with acute distress, mental confusion and fear of impending death.

Tsaliki, Deviant Burial in the Archaeological Record, 2008

The second part (does the article make this distinction clear?), in my opinion is answered with, no it does not. The article clearly focuses specifically on the medical condition. It refers to a specific phobia, defined as an "anxiety disorder", and lists medical symptoms, shortness of breath, etc.. Tsaliki is clearly not talking about cultural groups of people having anxiety disorders, but rather a more generalized fear of dead people.

Given the above, my suggestion would be to add a sentence such as "In a cultural sense, necrophobia may also be used to mean a fear of the dead by a cultural group, e.g., a belief that the spirits of the dead will return to haunt the living.{{cite}}", using Tsaliki for the citation. Thoughts?

- Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Coastside (? according to History) 22:31, 14 June 2012

The preceded comment was unsigned (what is SineBot doing!?) so I added a signature manually assuming in good faith it was from User:Coastside as indicated by the "talk history". (Yes, it was me.Coastside (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

At last! Somebody who takes the time and effort in good faith to follow my rationale and actually read the material I cite, and also backs up the arguments with quotes and deductive thought.

I accept your revised suggestion and I believe that it will be to the benefit of the Wikipedia readers, because it will open their knowledge horizons and they will be able to do further reading and consult the related citations, if they wish to know more.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the point raised by "In a cultural sense, necrophobia may also be used to mean a fear of the dead by a cultural group, e.g., a belief that the spirits of the dead will return to haunt the living.{{cite}}" is a fact then it may also be attributed by other substantial works other than Tsalikis, right? What other RS states this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tsaliki clearly meets the definition of a WP:RS. Specifically, according to WP:SOURCES "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Why do we need to find another source?

According to WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. [emphasis added]" Given that Tsaliki is a reliable source, we are obligated to include her view with proportionality. And there is no argument here that some other reliable sources have a different opinion on this. Have we found any other reliable sources that are calling Tsaliki's work bogus or somehow unreliable? Have we found any other reliable sources that maintain that necrophobia should always and only be used in a narrow, strictly clinical sense, and that other broader uses of the term are inappropriate? The burden here is not to find a second source to back up the statement that necrophobia has a broader meaning, but rather to find other sources that state a different point of view, so that we can make sure we represent "all significant views" with proportionality. Coastside (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant views. Why is an assertion and possible misuse of the word by an individual considered a significant view? From the very beginning on May 28 above, the IP editor made it clear that they were here trying to introduce this because "Credit should go where credit is due." They began with this emphasis on Tsalikis but as you point out "assuming there is a distiction, was Tsaliki the one to apply it the disciplines of Archaeology and Anthropology? In my opinion, the second question isn't important for this article. The article is about necrophobia, not about Tsaliki." which I agree with. Given that this user has stated that they hold a PhD in Anthropology (now obscured after being found out) and they are editing from an IP in Greece and seems to be fighting just to get Tsalikis included, I'm inclined to believe that this is a conflict of interest. If it really is the statement of supposed fact that is important here, it should be trivial to substitute sources which have nothing to do with Tsalikis or the immediate few who have mentioned her to back it up. That seems like a very sensible compromise here. It would remove my concerns about COI.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to be sceptical, but it's also important to assume good faith. The conflict of interest policy doesn't guide editors to remove material added by someone simply because there is a suspicion that there may be a conflict of interest. Also, we need to be careful about the editor's disclosure about having a PhD in Anthrolopology, because even if this, combined with knowledge that the IP address is from Greece, were to in fact constitute a conflict of interest (and that is a presumption), the policy on COI says "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor."

Even if the editor were Tsaliki herself, this would be a straightforward case of self-citation (you might argue there were some self-promotion here in the Talk page, but at least in the latest version of the single-line addition to the article suggested above, it's a simple citation, not a promotion of Tsaliki or her work). The self-citation policy says "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to... content policies...." The material in question is clearly relevant. The article describes necrophobia in a narrow medical sense pertaining to a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder, and it's relevant to point out that it can be used in a broader sense as well. You implied that this is a "possible misuse of the word". It's hard to make that argument when, in the foregoing thread, you and I both separately referenced uses of the word necrophobia in a "cultural" sense. The only argument that inclusion of the broader ("cultural") use of the term is not relevant is that it's is a fringe view that "is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field" and therefore "must not be given undue weight." I don't see any evidence that a majority of scholars would find a broader application of the word objectionable and that it should be narrowly defined only as a medical diagnosis. On the contrary, your reference regarding Mexican beliefs about death and the quote from Anderson show just the opposite.

The guidance on self-citation says "citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article." The final suggested version of the line above is in the third person and doesn't place undue emphasis on Tsaliki's work. On the contrary, it's a reasonably concise clarification that the word can be used more broadly and constitutes a single citation to Tsaliki's work. This is hardly a case of "undue emphasis". Bottom line, there doesn't seem to be a strong COI case to exclude the material, even if the editor were in fact Tsaliki herself. If you think there are other sources who should be used for this citation, then go ahead and make the case for replacing the Tsaliki citation with another source. Until then, there doesn't seem to be a strong justification for excluding this material or the citation to Tsaliki. Coastside (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness I should have pointed out that I agree with you that earlier versions of the material, such as the one you reverted here, clearly did place undue weight on the contribution of Tsaliki. A simple citation, as per the latest proposal above is more appropriate. Coastside (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are articulate, well thought out and convincing enough that I'm willing to go with your suggestion. Thank you for assisting us with this matter and if no one else has an objection, you should be able to proceed with adding it to the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that we reached a consensus at last. However, I am surprised at the level of suspicion in Wikipedia, when in fact it advertises "good faith". When I tried to help giving a Third Opinion on the etymology of Assam a few days ago, I was accused immediately for Sock puppetry! If I had wanted to persist on my original entry with "undue emphasis", I wouldn't have initiated a request for a Third Opinion or accepted User:Coastside's modifications, so promptly as well. I have also disclosed in this talk that I am a specialist more than once. No need to look at my user page for something I had already admitted! Nevertheless, I don't think that if I had started this discussion with "I am so and so, teaching at so and so University, so everybody else shut up" it would have gone down that well and it is not an approach I like. Neither did I hide the connection of my signed posts here to the account I later created. I have also stated that to keep good faith and not to be accused for Sock puppetry I tried to constantly sign in the same way. This does not mean that my IP necessarily reflects my country of origin or residence.

Many thanks once again to Coastside for his voluntary assistance and his level of professionalism.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dying and being buried

Afraid when I die and get buried underground that I will know it.. Like ur soul is trapped or something and I will kno it.. No one will kno till they die.. So I'm afraid, scared... Samantha Honeycutt (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get a message from u. I thought I did but now dnt see it.. Samantha Honeycutt (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]