Talk:Fearmongering/Archives/2012

Al Gore, Fox News, Catholic Church
can we mention Al Gore being a fear monger? because even I think his claims were kind of ridiculous, and i am well aware that CLIMATE CHANGE is real, by the way, the name was changed to "climate change"because of the bizarre weather problems caused by the excess heat messing with weather patterns. By the way, Mythbusters confirmed that adding CO2 to an enviroment made it get hotter under a heat lamp as a small scale test (because naturally they coudlnt do a full sized test). Also, where's the section on FOX NEWS along with subsections on Glenn Beck, the tea party, and other such groups who have been proven to use lies to make people afraid of things we shouldnt be afraid of? 69.140.35.147 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * let me rephrase that, Al Gore TRIED to be a fear monger, but now one really pays much attention to him 69.140.35.147 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry about the triple post but can we add something about how the Catholic Church and other religious and political groups using lies and political buzzwords to instill fear of homosexuality. Thats an obvious one 69.140.35.147 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi 69.140.35.147,
 * Additions to any Wikipedia article need to comply with the policies on verifiability and original research. So to add any of these things you need to find a reliable source that explicitly describes them as "fear mongering".  Myself or others can help you add them to the article if you like, but we need a source first.
 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. New posts go at the bottom of the page.

Daily Show video clip reference dead
Reference #2, which points to a YouTube video of the Daily Show, is a dead link and needs to be removed. The video was removed from YouTube by Viacom legal action. Ubikuberalles 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that I'm not convinced that YouTube is the best source for anything. That ad looks fake to me and I don't remember ever seeing (or hearing about) it till I came to this article. Unless someone can reference it in an independent source (New York Times reaction, for example) it should be removed. And yes, this article violates NPOV by linking fear mongering to only one political party. The Daisy example is valid but the point should be made that all political parties (along with media outlets, newspapers, and so on) ALL use fear mongering tactics whether for votes or marketing.

Global warming is a fine example indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.135.84 (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. As of Jan 2009 someone should add something about fear mongering being used in TOUGH economic times. Not just in times of war.

--Filter33 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming
The article has has the following insertion

Similarly, the current question of global warming and how to best address such a problem has fallen into the hands of fear-mongering politicians in order to promote their own agendas.[1] Although there is still no scientific consensus on the cause or causes of global warming, these politicians have resorted to fear in order to sway public sentiment toward governmental and regulatory solutions.

I am a bit troubled by this because the edit displays clear POV. The words "fallen into the hands of fear-mongering politicians" implies that there are no justification for these fears. As far as I am aware (and the referenced to article confirms this), fears about climate change have come primarliy from scientists and not from politicians and contra views are heavily promoted by business groups that would be damaged by political actions against climate change (themselves finding doubters in the scientific community). Accusing politicans of "promoting their own agendas" seems highly disingenuous. The fears have been genuinely expressed in the scientific community long before the politicans began repeating them.

The text needs to be reflect a NPOV. --Hauskalainen 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic, because my intention was to bring the entire article into a more neutral POV. I should have taken a little more time with my word choices. I think I must have had the mindset of taking an opposing POV from the one that the article had at that point (or at least what I sensed it had at that point.) Can you suggest an alternative wording? I will work on it when I get some time. I agree, it needs to have a neutral POV. Smittz (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion on why the paragraph on global warming was deleted completely. Other than "Source does not support statement, and the comments about global warming are not supported by the wiki article". Can you please be more specific about this? I do see your point that the article somewhat waters down the accusations of fear-mongering, although there are many other sources out there that outright accuse global-warming supporters of fear-mongering. If you have trouble with the source, I remember a little while back a good article in the SF Chronicle about this very issue and speaking directly about fear-mongering involved with global warming. I'll see if I can find it. On the second point, I would like you to expound on why you think that the fear-tactics often used by global warming participants isn't germaine to this article, especially if it pertains to the very definition of fear-mongering (as it is defined in this article). Smittz (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(editconfict) 1. source did not say that Gore was using the video to advance his own agenda. (possible BLP issue) 2. 'still no scientific consensus on the cause or causes of global warming' is not supported by the global warming article.

However, as you say, this video/global warming in general has been attacked as an example of fear mongering. This can be sourced and summerized neutrally, as someones opinion, not represented as fact. Edgepedia (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the source was incomplete. However, it isn't for us to judge whether or not an article is someone's opinion or not, merely that the article exists. We should leave the debate to the arena of debate and report the "facts" of what is stated in the article, especially as it applies to this somewhat vague subject. If we have to have "facts" then the whole article is thrown into question, because there are many out there who have taken the opposite side entirely. We have to be very careful of what we decide is relevant or not in the article here in order to remain unblemished in the fight, we are supposed to be neutral and not take sides on a particular issue. Saying that accusations of fear-mongering tossed out in the global-warming debate aren't as valid as accusations of fear-mongering tossed out in the political debate isn't our call. It's all about politics anyway. And we can have our own political opinions, but please, let's leave that to our blogs. Also, I've found a few more sources that clearly illustrate the tactics of fearmongering as defined. Reverted and modified the text slightly, bringing it into a NPOV. Smittz (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's better, I've tidied up a bit. No need to link something several times in the same paragraph. I've removed the POV tag. My thoughts are:
 * The trouble with fear mongering, is that it's something you accuse your opponets of, no-one would admit to it.
 * A problem with using fear as a motivator is also that you will get diminishing returns as time goes on. What normally happens is that the claims become more extreme.

No sources for either of these, (it's just my POV) so I'll leave these on this page. Edgepedia (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your ideas and I agree. The term "fear mongering" is almost too insignificant for a complete encyclopedic article, more suited to a one or two part dictionary definition. Like the word "chicken" being used to mean "coward". The way I see it, fear mongering is a label almost always used to denigrate an opponent, and there isn't really a universal definition since the idea itself is vague, and implies an opinion. Like most political terms, it's used by politicians to set them apart from their opponents by implying extremism. "He/she is fear-mongering, *I* on the other hand, am simply being realistic and truthful."

I think that there may be some way to source the "diminishing returns" ideas if we can find an article on how shock-ads are getting more intense. If an advertiser/other increases (subjective) the shock-ness of an ad, then it sort of implies that it's a result of such diminishing returns because of a jaded (or shell-shocked) audience. Maybe the David Altheide book, Creating Fear, could be a source for the diminishing returns idea. I haven't read it all the way through, but it has some good input on the subject. Smittz (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire section reeks of POV; the two 'sources' cited were two newspaper opinion pieces! Would it not be best to simply not cry "fear mongering!" in relation to contemporary issues? I cannot see how that can possibly be separated from a user's POV. 98.223.98.68 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure Work (TBD) - discuss
I wonder if "Campaign Advertisements" is just a subset of Political Uses, instead of a separate entity. Just thought I'd throw that out there to get some feedback. I can see the point of keeping it separate, or merging it as well. If we keep it separate, we should clarify the distinction between the political uses outside of campaigning and campaign ads.

Also, the section on political uses needs a source for the part that says 'fear ... has been exploited ... to maintain control' Smittz (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction on that. The whole section needs a reference. Sounds like a POV unless we can remember what source was used when writing it. Original author? I know I don't want the task of tracking down where the original author sourced their text :) Smittz (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding a references section. I was going to do that, but I didn't remember how and didn't have time to go looking up the tutorial at the time. Smittz (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference link works, but the text is missing. Working on figuring that out atm. Shows up as simply the brackets instead of text. Smittz (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, it's just the way that Wiki lists duplicate footnote references to the same source. I need to whip out the old Chicago Manual of Style, I guess. :) Smittz (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

 * The link Republican Party under "see also" was removed as non-NPOV. Please don't bring your political beliefs into Wikipedia. And if you absolutely must, at least be more specific in your bashing; there are many Republican parties. --128.172.69.21 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, but wheres the section of FOX NEWS? they have been proven without a doubt (except by the people who they make afraid) to be fear mongers. 69.140.35.147 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
I know you wiki-gods are massively anal retentive about things, but I'm actually rather stunned that you have allowed this article to be titled "Fear mongering" when Merriam-Webster's spells the word as "fearmongering." Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fearmonger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.54.132 (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that you were stunned suggests that you, yourself, were a victim of spelling fear mongering. Yes, us wiki-gods do such things as split words apart to stun mere unwiki mortals such as yourself. When you've stopped shaking in your boots, why not provide more of a case for switching the title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And the M-W Collegiate isn’t the only dictionary published. The M-W 2nd. and 3rd. unabridged; the American Heritage unabridged and college dictionaries, 4th ed.; and the Shorter OED do not show the closed-up form. Now the case could be made that the M-W 2nd., and perhaps even the M-W 3rd., are too out of date to govern, but the last three dictionaries are current, so I think changing the title would need more that a citation of the collegiate. There’s a redirect from the closed-up form, so finding the article should not be a problem. JeffConrad (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Scare Tactics
Wait a second, 'Scare tactics' redirects here, but 'Scare Tactics' is an actual TV series with a page on Wikipedia... so if you don't capitalize the full name when you search for the show, it redirects you here instead? Could somebody who knows how maybe fix that? 98.65.162.95 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeap, that's confusing. I've redirected Scare tactics and Scare tactic to Scare Tactics, and placed a dab note at the top of that article. The alternative is a disambiguation page. Edgepedia (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)