Talk:Moral panic

Concern about "Editing" of this "talk" page.
This page contained many issues. They were all deleted. This is very weird. Is somebody trying to rewrite the history? Please recover the old page with all of the discussions. A.H192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A discussion with no recent edits was archived by . The discussion is now archived at Talk:Moral_panic/Archive_3 — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I object. This archiving is rewriting the history, by hiding important discussions that were made in this page. Even if there is access to archives almost no one sees them. Most read the Moral panic page itself, few read the "Talk" page, and almost no one reads archives. A. 192.114.3.241 (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to induce a moral panic over talk page archival. 2600:8802:5913:1700:9437:A29C:2134:C0C0 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the discussion that was archived for further discussion on the issue:

Title: Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions (2020–present)

Fear of Covid-19 pandemic that was followed by governmental policy was postulated to result in global economic recession. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Infection Fatality Rate for Covid-19 is around 0.5-1%, describing the true severity of a disease. Accordingly, fear of losses, and potential burden on health system have lead governments around the world to impose policies (e.g., lockdowns, tests for Covid-19) that are likely to cause worldwide economic recession.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Explanation: According to definition of moral panic it does not have to be irrational. Accordingly, HIV, Islamic terror, Human traffic, sex offenders are described in this Wikipage. Thus, reaction of Covid-19 can be also a Moral panic. It would be great to read your thoughts about it. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hrm. I was gonna say I don't see sources making the connection, but there are some sources that do discuss how the theory of moral panic can be applied to studying reactions to infectuous diseases - eg. Toilet Paper Thrones and Heated Tweets: Applying Moral Panic and Social Network Theory to Responses Over Panic Buying during COVID-19 is one connecting it to panic buying specifically, and here is one talking about how it relates to panic over COVID in the Philippines. But I'd be cautious - these sources are more talking about how Cohen's framework can be repurposed to analyze other types of panic than saying that it is (or created) a moral panic, so it wouldn't make sense to put it in the list of moral panics directly. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Looks like there is some interesting similarity with "Cohen's stages of moral panic": 1. Perceived and defined as a threat to societal safety. 2. Amplified by the mass media. 3. Social anxiety(? not sure about this term but anxiety for sure). 4. Politicians respond to the threat. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC) At this point, I would say that such an addition would be an NPOV violation. There is little or no evidence from reliable sources that matches the responses of health agencies and governments to a moral panic definition. If anything, there is a sort of inverted moral panic, where legitimate responses are opposed and deprecated on ideological or propagandistic grounds. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Very interesting. It is not my field but googling it up I can see some publications supporting this claim (1, 2, 3, 4). If some of these were peer reviewed than they should be Neutral. Meaning, it is probably not a Neutral point of view (NPOV) violation. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Also, considering the fact that the great majority of Covid cases (confirmed by PCR) are simply healthy as they have no symptoms, it does seem like panic. Panic which is highly promoted by the media. This results in governmental regulations that violate freedom. Again, without being an expert in the field, reading the wikipage about moral panic, the Covid seems like moral panic to me. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC) More researchers supporting the idea that reaction to Covid may have been a moral panic [see 1234] or an anxiety epidemic 5. The first is an opinion written by by John Scott, an honorable Professor of Sociology (Fellow of the British Academy, a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.). I dare say that article of such an "heavy weight" Sociologist is a case against the NPOV violation claim --192.114.3.241 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC) According to the definition, a moral panic demonizes an "other". What is the "other" being demonized in the case of Covid-19? Just because someone uses the words "moral panic" doesn't mean that it counts as a moral panic for the purpose of this article. This article is on a scholarly topic with a rigid definition. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Demonization is already here across the board. The "other" have been: children demonized for being the vector for transmission of Covid, Medical Doctors and scientist that dont agree with governmental regulations, those who did not take only the booster shot, people that don't put on facemask, those who don't take any of covid vaccinations; all of these groups have been terribly demonized by being accused to cause direct or/and indirect death to others. This was done by the the media, and democratic governments reacted by new laws and regulations. Again, I am not expert in the field, but seems very similar to stages of moral panic. Here are some examples: stop-demonizing-students-for-covid, hear-scientists-different-views-dont-attack-them, open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science, Don’t demonize parents who are hesitant to vaccinate, why-demonizing-the-unvaccinated-wont-work, unvaccinated-different-from-antivax, Stop demonizing one anothe, new-wave-of-covid-19-is-not-the-fault-of-the-unvac, medias-all-out-blitz-to-demonize-the-unvaccinated, millions-unvaccinated-risk-losing-civil-liberties, children_acused_fo_transmission_of_COVID. Speaking of scholary rigid wiki-article- see article of expert in the field- Professor Scott (Fellow of the Royal Society of Art) Risk and Moral Panic: A Sociological View of Covid-19. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I think this example would be clearer if reframed as "reaction to Covid 19 restrictions". Recommendations from medical authorities changed rapidly during 2020 (e.g., usefulness of masks, which types were best, whether fake N-95 were proliferating), which might seem like panic but it was often simply urgent adaptation. IMO, the real *moral* panic is condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices, justified in moral terms as banning "dangerous" misinformation rather than supporting free speech and open scientific inquiry. The role of the media fits the classic definitions of moral panic given in this article. In particular, authoritative pronouncements have closely mimicked many of the exaggerations seen in the early years of the AIDS crisis. If the latter qualifies as moral panic, then it seems logical to include an aspect of Covid 19, which has more widespread political and economic implications than HIV did. Martindo (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Following your insightful suggestion: changed the Title of the suggested section into "Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions (2019–present)". Suggesting to write this revised content instead of the content suggested on top: Condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices during Covid 19 pandemic, justified in moral terms as banning "dangerous" misinformation rather than supporting free speech and open scientific inquiry. See examples: stop-demonizing-students-for-covid, hear-scientists-different-views-dont-attack-them, open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science, Don’t demonize parents who are hesitant to vaccinate, unvaccinated-different-from-antivax, Stop demonizing one another, new-wave-of-covid-19-is-not-the-fault-of-the-unvac, medias-all-out-blitz-to-demonize-the-unvaccinated, millions-unvaccinated-risk-losing-civil-liberties.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I reverted an addition related to this today. The sources I spot checked did not mention moral panic at all. I believe an addition of this type would need better sourcing to not be WP:OR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The citations should only illustrate that Condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices were part of reaction to COVID. Since they play a role in moral panic it is enough to illustrate we have elements of moral panic (as discussed above), and therefore there is no need for these citations to contain the wordings moral panic. However, it is possible to add also citations correlating reaction to COVID-19 to moral panic if you think it will strengthen the suggestion above. See for example: 123456. We can add them to the suggested paragraph. A. --192.114.3.241--192.114.3.241 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC) I disagree. In my opinion, the relevant policy is WP:SYNTH. do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. Sources used need to mention moral panic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC) But it is the opposite of synthesis: 1) There is enough scientific literature to call some aspects of reaction to Covid a moral panic; as given by sources 1 to 6 cited above (see also 7th example: 7). 2) Since condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices were part of reaction to COVID (as explained above) it is enough to show that reaction to COVID had this characteristic of moral panic. Each one of these two is enough. They do not need each other to support the claim. Thus it is not a synthesis. Considering two independent evidences support the same claim, it only makes it stronger. A.--192.114.3.241 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC) A public health crisis isn't a moral panic. There may be instances of people promoting moral panic type that align with the framework, but those reactions happen to any sufficiently divisive political decision. The sources presented are then the media themselves, and then of the next 6 are all over the shop, and 7 is specifically about panic in and of itself (which is probably a broader response to the pandemic than specific "moral" issues). Koncorde (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC) The health crisis argument is invalid because a public health crisis could be certainly associated with moral panic. For example, AIDS is associated with Moral panic in current Wikipage. It appears because the reaction to this crises has some characteristics of moral panic. Similarly the reaction to COVID19 has characteristics of moral panic. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC) The argument that such reactions are found in any sufficiently divisive political decision is invalid, because it excludes other politically-divisive cases which are considered as moral panic in this wikipage, see for example Terrorism and islamic extremism and Gender and transgender panics. Thus, the only way wiki editors can agree that reactions to certain events (e.g., health crises) are considered a moral panic is by scientific literature supporting this claim. As previously mentioned in 123456 see also Meida framing moral panic and Covid. Since real case of moral panic is supported by the media and policy makers, it is very hard to recognize it for those which are involved. Some may argue in the future, that the difficulty to add "reaction to Covid as moral panic" to this wikipage was stemming from this argument. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Here is another scientific publication illustrating reaction to COVID was moral panic: "... public health guidelines was construed as a moral imperative and a civic duty, while those who failed to comply with these guidelines were stigmatized, shamed as "covidiots," and discursively constructed as a threat to public health and moral order". How long can it be ignored in Wikipedia? -- Let's vote on this suggestion. This way, everyone gets to the decide on which side of the history he/she wants to be :). Here is a revised suggestion: Title: Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions (2020–present) Content: Study of public health guidelines during COVID-19 pandemic in Canadian newspapers has illustrated that public health guidelines were construed as a moral imperative and a civic duty, while those who failed to comply with these guidelines were stigmatized, shamed as "covidiots," and discursively constructed as a threat to public health and moral order. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.3.241 (talk)
 * Please don't pull months-old massive walls of text from the archive and quote them here; it makes the page unwieldy and unreadable. Archiving is automatic and normal. If you want to start an WP:RFC on some question you feel is unresolved (including things that were discussed before), you can follow the instructions on WP:RFC, and even directly link to archived discussions if you think they're relevant. But discussions do end eventually, and that one was largely from last year; pulling them out in their entirety just to keep discussion going until you get a specific outcome goes against WP:BLUDGEON and WP:DEADHORSE. --Aquillion (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, so people don't have to exposed themselves to the collapsed text wall, this was all about COVID and whether it counted as a moral panic.


 * Of course some aspects of (particularly the American) reaction did, but most of the 'discussion' was just ranting and no one is missing much that they haven't already heard from one side or the other of their family. — Llywelyn II   11:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Pedophilia Section Edits
The section entitled 'Sex offenders, child sexual abuse, and pedophilia (1970s–present)' contains some problems that I have noticed which I was hoping could be discussed. I am a new user of Wikipedia so please bear with me for any mistakes I may make.

Here are the issues in question that I would like to bring up to start with: The source used for the entirety of the third paragraph provides no sources itself to backup the claims that are made in this section. I am not sure that one PhD thesis published in an obscure Brazilian gender studies journal provides sufficient evidence for, or is representative of, a majority consensus on this topic.

The sources used regarding low recidivism rates in the fifth paragraph uses non-objective language (what is considered "low" or "high" rates of recidivism regarding sex offenses?) and appears to suggest that there is an objective majority consensus on recidivism rates, which is inconsistent with other articles on Wikipedia exploring this topic already. The sources used are also repetitive, at least two of which reference the same meta-analysis to backup their claims, and only one of which being an actual academic reference.

The source used for the sixth paragraph down is an opinion piece published by the Washington Post.

I'm personally of the opinion that this section needs to be majorly overhauled if not completely removed, but again I am new to Wikipedia and not sure how things work here so this is why I am hoping to generate some discussion around this. Thanks again.

Pray4sleep (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. It is unfortunate that the entire third paragraph is sourced so badly, as you note. However, I do recall a few of the authoritative SRA sources going into detail about how the criminalization of child sexual abuse and incest during the 1970s did cause anti-abuse activists' goals to dovetail well with conservative Christians. (Actually I did an essay on this for uni ages ago.) So the source is poor but the assertion is correct.
 * But yes, generally, I could see this entire section requiring a very heavy rewrite: the subsequent paragraphs all use quite piss-poor sources when I'm certain we have a lot of good scholarly literature available for this topic. This article has generally been held to a much higher standard than the rest of Wikipedia, so this whole section should be very heavily rewritten and properly re-sourced.
 * By the way, for every one of these "example" sections, we always have to ask "has the section cited an authoritative third-party source that identified this topic as a moral panic according to the standard sociological definition?". On cursory reading I don't see this section meeting that standard; we usually delete any section that doesn't meet that standard, since otherwise this article would become a cruftjungle of thousands of examples where some kid writing for Buzzfeed called something a "moral panic" once. An entire paragraph sourcing from one person's thesis is a big red flag to me.
 * So, thank you indeed for flagging this. Let's give some time for other editors to wade in to discuss whether this section should be saved, or just deleted - I no longer remember if "pedophilia" was identified as a classic example of moral panic in the literature (my area of interest was SRA, specifically). But yes, I agree with you that this section needs a major overhaul, or just removal. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response, and I'm glad that I could generate a thoughtful discussion.
 * It is reassuring for myself to see that someone else with more experience on Wikipedia has also came to the same conclusion that many of the sources in this section are seemingly dubious at best. I also agree with you that many of them likely have better and more authoritative sources available to back up their claims.
 * However, after reading your comment and taking another look at this section - I realized that many of these paragraphs could perhaps be refactored somehow under the 'Satanic panic' section instead. By comparison, the 'Satanic panic' section is undeservedly short, when, at least in my opinion, it is probably the most well known, heavily researched, and agreed upon example of moral panic. Several of the paragraphs currently under the 'Pedophilia' section are referencing events that are inextricably tied to the 'Satanic Panic' era anyway (the mcmartin preschool trial, ensuing child abduction panic, serial killer sensationalism, etc).
 * There is also the article 'Day-care sex-abuse hysteria', which references many of these types of events occurring well into the mid-to-late 1990's as a result of the 'Satanic Panic' era.
 * I think migrating some of these paragraphs over to the 'Satanic panic' section with some light editing and better source references could be a good alternative to consider compared to complete deletion. This way, the article itself is not losing otherwise valuable information, and instead is expounding more upon topics that people are likely interested in reading more about anyway if they are on the moral panic Wikipedia page. Pray4sleep (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cites from FiveThirtyEight, Slate, and other pop media won't improve the Satanic Panic section: that topic alone is supported by something like 10 scholarly books in the professional literature, plus loads of good documentary/journalistic literature. (Check out the main article, it even has a bibliography - that's how we used to do things in the old days.) But it's sad that the "Satanic panic" section here is 4 lines, while cruft sections are pages long. So I guess the proper solution is replacing the section in this article with a larger summary of the Satanic ritual abuse article - or, alternately, trimming the crufty or less-scholarly sections to shorter lengths. My reasoning here is that WP:WEIGHT requires more weight be given to the traditional exemplars of moral panic, and less weight to what's been less-studied.
 * By the way, upon rechecking after my trim was reverted, I'd go further now and say the whole pedophilia/child abuse section should be removed as WP:OR. It is obviously trying to make the case that it is a "moral panic", but (1) Wikipedia articles are not supposed to make a case (because that is WP:OR); and (2) the cites do not seem to make reference to sociological (Stanley Cohen) moral panics.
 * Moral panic is a sociology topic, so we cite sociology and not pop media; and the job of Wikipedia is to report, not to present original research. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitionally limited to 20th century & later? Why use that definition?
'''If so, we should clarify that. Right now we're clearly suffering Americentric and modern in the coverage.''' For example, Red Scares were not an exclusively or even importantly American phenomenon. The German right coalescing behind the Nazis was far more impactful given that the Cold War would've happened anyway. We're not discussing anti-Americanism/anti-"Rightism" within Russia, Iran, or China here for reasons that seem obvious when it's someone else's culture.

A) More importantly, obviously moral panics have been around since prehistory but at the moment we lead the article with an image of a witch hunt that we don't bother to include in the #History section. Given the article has 100k bytes, 2.5k edits, and 500 page watchers, I assume that's because someone ruled it doesn't meet Cohen's definition (?) and assume the reason is because it prominently features media that wasn't technologically possible before the advent of radio (?). Is that right?

B) If our definition of a major social phenomenon is restricting us from discussing the quintessential example of that phenomenon, why are we using it? Mods/rockers weren't important to British culture to begin with; they happened after the empire was over and Britain wasn't important to the world generally (outside of their occasional ability to leverage access to the US pop music market which didn't happen here); and they shouldn't even be here, seeming to get focus because they're in his book. (It's valid to discuss them in the section on his book as part of his argument but they aren't historically relevant let alone notable enough for inclusion in what should be a greatest hits overview.)

C) Meanwhile, is it his fault or ours that we're ignoring Greek debates, Roman and Chinese public postings and addresses, and early modern pamphleteers in a way that leads to us ignoring Athens's reaction to just about anything; Cato the Elder & co. in the late Republic; the Catholic Church and pointy shoes; early modern Europe and witchcraft; up and coming Britain and anything that got in its upper class's way (up to and including industrialization); China and (for worse or better) the on-the-ground implementation of any given 5 year period under Mao; and many of the issues contributing to AIDS in Africa? Any of those is a bigger deal than the 6 churches who actually gave a 'darn' about D&D in the 80s and it's utterly silly we're pretending otherwise or acting like (on the basis of the current list) this is a peculiarly American issue. — Llywelyn II   10:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The answer to nearly everything you ask is, basically, that (1) (I assume) the sociological scholarship on moral panics has limited itself to what we have in the article (aside from the cruft that's constantly added), and (2) us limiting ourselves to what is in third-party scholarship in moral panic studies enables us to stop this article from getting filled with WP:SYNTH from everyone who wants to add an example based on a Buzzfeed article that uses the words "moral panic".
 * Now I'm 20 years removed from studying this, but I'm pretty sure that Cohen concentrated on "mass media" examples of moral panic because mass media is an integral part of the mechanism by which a "Cohen moral panic" spreads. You need a moral entrepreneur (generally someone who uses mass media to persuade), a mass media network that is motivated to spread panic for business reasons, and a hype loop caused by feedback between those two. Non-western conspiracist race libels like the Sudanese penis-melting Zionist robot combs panic, for example, may not count because the functionalist purpose of a moral panic is to reinforce morality in the subject population by driving out its own evils, not by ascribing evils to an outside other (I'm not sure if I've got that part right). And state propaganda like Soviet/Maoist anti-rightism won't count because the moral entrepreneur is the state - that's just top-down propaganda. Similarly anti-witchcraft (and anti-Judaism) in medieval Europe was driven by the Sovereign and the Church, who don't count as moral entrepreneurs. (I think Cohen and/or others must have clarified this themselves at one point.)
 * Anyway, maybe the best answer to your question is that this article itself is failing to satisfactorily answer your questions about what counts and doesn't count as a "moral panic", and that therefore we need to concentrate on improving the definition part of the article! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media
— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)