Talk:Hair fetishism/Archive 1

Archive 1

red hair?

How can Trichophilia be related to "red hair"? sure, it relates to hair in general, but how is it related to red hair specifically? I think it should be removed. Zero1328 13:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

see Red hair#Social implications 24.224.153.40 14:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Images

I'm removing the image here which shows part of a woman's face. It is unethical to use a public domain image of a person for a topic like this. Maybe if a person used an image of themselves or a consenting model, but if you do that and you (or the model) don't mind it being here then you should note that in the image data. Otherwise you might start looking for an image of just hair to display here. CDA 01:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't have to follow your's or anyone else's moral viewpoints. 24ip | lolol 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

isnt trichophilia the obsessive pulling of hair?

No; you're thinking of trichotillomania. 24.224.153.40 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of manga and anime to Trichophilia

Why in the hell is there so much irrelevant stuff about manga and anime in this page. It needs a complete overhaul. 60.234.235.120 10:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Haircut fetishism into Trichophilia

I've placed merge tags on these articles. I think the two sentences that make up the Haircut fetishism article should be written into this article, as a separate heading. Robotman1974 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I've merged the former Haircut fetishism article into this one. Robotman1974 13:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Haircut fetishism is the opposite of Trichophilia. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to be fiddling with this article, aside from, well, me. Perhaps we can work on a hair fetishism article else where and then split them. The only sources I'm finding about trichophilia just say that people love hair a lot and run around chopping hair off of strangers. I support splitting the article, content and sources pending. Or we can just remove all mention of hair fetishism, or start the stub article. This conversation took place in 2006, and Robotman, who did the original merge, is an inactive Wikipedian. Blahblahblah - let's do this. SarahStierch (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe trichophilia and haircut fetishism should be subsections of Hair fetishism. I'll rename the article, as suggested below. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, and yes, the more general term is hair fetishism. Good call on the move! SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does Trichophilia not exist in the literature? Rename the article to Hair fetishism!

I have searched for the term Trichophilia in various dictionaries and research publications that I have access through my university, but it only seemes to occur in articles about orchids. Parasites that like hair are called Trichophilic.

However, The term Hair fetishism occurs in several research publications. See for example [1]. Therefor, I suggest that the article should be renamed to "hair fetishism".

On the internet, almost all articles that mention the term Trichophilia seemes to be related to wikipedia or similar dictionaries. Longhairadmirer 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Article moved to "hair fetishism" per WP:COMMONNAME. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(→‎Famous Hair Fetishists) John Key hair fetish addition - Edit-Warring

Instead of the pointless editing cycles let us resort to DISCUSSION. See WP:BRD.

I see no reason a "Famous Hair Fetishists" section should not be created. A case could be made that the addition of John Key to this list would be cause for a Wikipedia:Recentism mark.

As such I would suggest the BELOW addition to settle both sides with included references.NZ4Life 12:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't vote for Mr. Key and am rather enjoying the scandal, but the fact that he has been accused of trichophilia does not mean he has been officially diagnosed with it (as yet). The Guardian article reports on Keys puerile hair-pulling antics but doesn't actually describe him as a hair fetishist. The second citation purports to be a TV3.co.nz headline, "The Prime Minister has been labelled a hair fetishist" . If you look at that TV3 article the actual headline is the more mundane "Brand Key tarnished by ponytail-gate". The Wikipedian who added that citation chose to quote the first sentence of the article as if it were the actual headline, which is a bit misleading. The TV3 journalist also uses passive and ambiguous language in her opening sentence to avoid saying who has actually labelled Key a hair fetishist. So, at this point I'd say we have a case of , , and . Muzilon (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, it is a fair call to remove the first article citation. The second citation on the other hand, could be interpreted as a journalist protecting their source; due to the political and potentially harmful nature of such a diagnosis for their career. Otherwise we would be essentially putting the journalist and 3news into disrepute. By such standards we would then have to question every journalist news source on wiki. However - I agree, a better source is needed. Good edit. NZ4Life (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think it's bending, if not breaking, WP:BLP rules to include Key in a list of (confirmed) hair fetishists before he has been "convicted" like the other guy in the list, Danilo Restivo. The accusations have a place in Key's Wiki bio, but I don't think it's appropriate here on current evidence. By way of analogy: there is a Wikipedia category called Category:American rapists, but you don't see Bill Cosby there just because the media have reported that he has been "labelled" a rapist. However, the allegations are mentioned, appropriately enough, in Cosby's WP bio. Muzilon (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the potential *bending rules* thought you have of WP:BLP, "Verifiability" - would be the only potential issue. If it were not a reputable news source (Verifiability-What counts as a reliable source) I would remove it myself if that were the case. As stated previously "Otherwise we would be essentially putting the journalist and 3news into disrepute.-[User:NZ4Life]" and you don't appear to be willing to challenge their reputation or accuracy as a credible journalist news group. As for your comparison; Bill Cosby furiously denies and maintains his innocence to this day regarding his potential act's of rape **allegations(Important word)**, John Key however both "Admits and apologizes" to one act of assault(or harassment depending on how you or your country/state view it) in accordance with this definition, where as in the greater context multiple incidents have taken place regarding this on-going behavior which is admitted by John Key himself and evidenced. I would also note: the issue is listed correctly on John Key's Wikipedia page as it stands - which serves as further credence to his applicability. God knows how hard to post anything to his Wikipedia page is - considering it's restricted/sealed and reviewed to even post to it. However, it appears to have not even been updated recently to reflect John keys public admission; where his wiki page used the word "claimed" in the victims statement which the victim was then later proven correct, making the terminology outdated. The real issue we both have here is "3news statement" and lack thereof a "listed" psychologist diagnosis(journalists have the right to withhold sources however) and to further elaborate on the issue. If we examine Danilo Restivo; where even in his quite obvious hair fetish case - similar arguments could be made to remove him from having a "Hair Fetish" due to the media labeling him as such and it could be linked to another psychological issue entirely considering all he did was "cut hair". He did not fondle it, such as John Key for any form of pleasure(Arousal is debatable subject in both cases - that is a philosophical can of worms) as far as we know in public reports. Over all however; your complaints are 'contentious' at best and as such we should ignore unsure feelings as you wrote yourself "I still think it's bending, if not breaking-[User:Muzilon]"

On a potentially bias note: In my opinion, the deepest issue with this situation is(Trying hard to remain neutral)as far as I see it; regarding the confirmation of the "Hair Fetish" label towards any person in general. Is that in all cases at some point a psychologist needs to come forward from the shadows without fear of their career being destroyed and *publicly* needs to announce or denounce people deemed "Hair Fetishists" through the media and until then, all we have is the media's surety. Which seems reasonable as they have our trust as far as Wikipedia is concerned - However it might not be, yet I feel that is a matter I am not qualified to judge on; nor *probably* yourself. As such I include notation of the potential bias and me being perfectly happy to agree to your addition of a included(Which even that, I am not sure of). NZ4Life (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. If WP needs to expose the dirty laundry of New Zealand's Prime Ministers, why does Sir Robert Muldoon's WP bio only note discreetly that "When Muldoon was aged eight, his father was admitted to Auckland Mental Hospital at Point Chevalier, where he died nearly 20 years later in 1946."? It's very well documented by reliable sources that Muldoon's father James was probably driven insane from the untreated syphilis he acquired during WW1. Now, Sir Robert was born in 1921 (after WW1), and syphilis can be passed on from parents to children. Intriguing possibilities here... Muzilon (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's insanely interesting! As such, dig deep my fellow wikipedian and get the man saying he had it or some media verifying it to some extent. To think he could have been suffering through that his whole life secretly is quite astonishing and could add greater context to his life. I checked the Sir Robert Muldoon talk page and see that in your discussion on the subject, further clarification was needed. But they were not willing to dismiss it's possibility entirely! Which is good news. You might have to do some sleuthing through maybe government OIA requests for medical history or maybe some old biography's or relatives. Very cool, I'll definitely keep an eye on it! NZ4Life (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed an OPINION article/blog due to WP:REDFLAG,WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:YESPOV. "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." user (114.23.235.73 (talk 6 June 2015 (UTC))....... NZ4Life (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops, it's gone again ... Muzilon (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I must concede; if further discussion is ignored, a report to WP:VAN will be the only way forward for clarification/redress on this matter due to repeated attempts at "Blanking". NZ4Life (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, Wikipedia's guidelines on living people are stricter than on other topics. Claiming that a current politician is a hair fetishist is a contentious claim. The 3News article simply states "has been labelled a hair fetishist", by whom? A single user in Twitter? Too vague and such an addition does not add anything to this article, really. --Pudeo' 21:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read Verifiability and the above discussion which you are intentionally ignoring on the subject. While the statements "claimants" is vague; it is also definitive and specific regarding the label, 3News article is considered a reliable source. As such, you are ignoring WP:BLP and engaging in "Blanking" which is strictly against community guidelines. It is however now a repeated issue on your behalf. As such; I have reverted your in good faith "unintended" vandalism and have now submitted a report on this issue so we may have clarification. NZ4Life (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hair fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2303022.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hair fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709085136/http://www.thorshof.org/sif.htm to http://www.thorshof.org/sif.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)