Talk:Culture of fear

message: The concept of culture of fear should be merged with the article PSYOP, Propaganda,Fear, uncertainty and doubt and demagoguery given their relational context, please discuss.
Please lock page until  further instances  of vandalism  are tracked down.
--220.239.179.128 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture of Fear-extended/merged and protect  

message: This page should be locked - it is being vandalized. A wiki editor should remove all the referencese to "an article like this one." Example are at the beginning of the list under "constructed fear" and at the end of the paragraph under "Lack of fear." 
I changed "Examples" to "Potential Examples". Not all of them are universally agreed on. --24.118.206.25 02:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just reading the article and came to the same conclusion!  I see that nobody has fixed this as yet or given a good readon for including Miller in the list, so I'll fixc it now.--Tom (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Untitled Discussions

message: In it's current form, the intro seems way too wordy.  Can someone clarify?  --P-Chan 05:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction is confusing 

message: "Many commentators who endorse this view are found on the political left, and some make more specific allegations about cultural manipulation by opponents on the political right."
Is this true?  Are lefties the only ones who make specific allegations at their opponents? Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity aren't guilty of this as well?
I consider myself in the middle and I see fear mongering on both sides of the isle.  Should this sentence be re-written to apply to the tactic as it is used by both sides?  Something like...  
"Media commentators who endorse these views are found on the both sides of the political isle, periodically making specific allegations about cultural manipulation by their opponents."
or delete altogether...???
Johnny Smoke
:Using the antiquated left-right paradigm is implicitly US-centric with our two party system, and probably doesn't belong in this article at all.  Gigs (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph, last sentence? 

message: I think we should just delete the Case Studies section. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. It looks like the list at Moral panic except with a ton of typos in the descriptions. Onsmelly 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, certainly a link to Global Warming sheds no light whatsoever on the role of Fear. A section specifically targeting discussion of the role of constructed fears around environmental disaster would be relevant. Indeed, I have suggested something similar in Talk: Moral Panic. Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: The article states in one sentence: "Among those tending to argue that a Culture of Fear is being deliberately manufactured might be counted linguist Noam Chomsky, sociologist Barry Glassner or political filmmakers such as Adam Curtis or politicians such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney."
I'm just curious: was it actually meant to suggest that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney allegedly recognize that a Culture of Fear is being deliberately manufactured? I'm just surprised because I was under the impression that some people view the Bush administration as being the initiators of a Culture of Fear with the whole "War on Terror".
--lmcgign 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney 

message: confusing to the eye, and confusing to my brain. I don't see multiple theses in the first sentence, if there are, they should be sepperated out more clearly, and of course a word other than "theses" should be used. A very odd sentence. Another very odd sentence. fnord —Memotype::T 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  these theses 

message: Hey i think it is pretty unfair to link the Anonymous group directly to 4chan. a lot of the alleged actions have been performed while 4chan's administrator has been cracking down and banning instigators of such actions. in fact many of the raids are started from 420chan and the ebaums world forum. why not have a seperate page for anonymous? 121.45.208.52 04:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Hate Machine 

message: most share the basic claim that this is a relatively new mass media-related phenomenon with important and potentially harmful implications.
this is weasely, unless there is a reliable source to prove what 'most' people claim it isnt not verifiable. Cultivating fear is nothing new and i dont think the article reflects that. --Neon white 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: The "Examples" section provided zero sources, and was one big WP:OR violation and an open temptation for people to push varying POVs.  It is also unencyclopedic and provides no actual WP:V/WP:RS discussion of why the examples are included and relevant.  I removed the subsection.  Cirt (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "Examples" section 

message: I think its a good example of turning a once neutral terminology (socialised medicine) in something "dirty", and I have never understood why this vilification seems to "work" so well. It seems obvious to me that the state securing healthcare to it citizens would be a -good- thing, and other countries have proven it works. But just by connecting the term with "communism" its distractors have succeeded in it suddenly becoming a "bad thing"? Seems to me that this is a good example of the power of language to construct an irrational fear. The phenomenon of the political driven vilification process of this term has had extensive media attention, and there are plenty of references to be found! It has even its own -article- here. So what is this nonsense that it doesn't have "references", and must be removed, just because nobody has bothered to copy a few references from the main article to here. It pisses me off, so I have done what nobody seems to have bothered to do, and, (after I restored the removed text which was removed under the pretence that it was "unreferenced") I simply copied a few references from the main article, so this pretence cant be used again. Mahjongg (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of vilification of the term "socialised medicine"

message: I've got to say that, after comparing the original version of this page, that it has come a long way from the wildly disorganized ramble that it once was.  It still needs some work, but it's a tribute to the way Wiki works, and the individual contributors that it got to this point. Smittz (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: I've been perusing over the sources in the article (at the bottom in the "See Also" section) and think that we need to add some examples that are conspicuously missing.  There are many more examples of fear being used to manipulate the public.  Most of the sources given here fall in line politically to one-side, (i.e. Michael Moore, Robert Greenwald, and so on).  There are a few that might be construed as being on another philosophical side, but it is sparse.  I'm not trying to accuse anyone in particular with bias, but saying that there is an appearance of such bias.
I can think of a few areas where fear has been "manufactured" and writers/filmmakers who have attempted to illustrate it which aren't included in this listing.  Using fear to manipulate is not a solely "conservative" tactic.  Such as the people who are up in arms about the politics of global warming (in the text, I already included one example of a person who mentioned the fear-based language in the arena).  I can think of several documentaries that are also along the same lines as Moore or Greenwald, but are on different extreme politically.  I realize the topic itself lends itself to polarities of politics, but let's try to be fair in reporting the tactics of extremists on all sides.  Notice I didn't say we should agree with any particular philosopy or political group -- who cares about what we, the authors, think.  In journalism (and Wiki) the idea is to make a strenuous attempt to be objective, and here we should strive to be.  We can blog our hearts out with our single- or multiple-sided politics, but let's keep this article as apolitical as we possibly can.  I don't have time right now, but I'll try to find some other sources, documentaries, books, that deal with this issue but that reside on a different political plane.  Or some that indirectly deal with the issue as it were since some of the given sources seem to be very peripheral in their relevance to a culture of fear.  I'm not going to get into the relevance at this point, since I don't have the knowledge (or haven't had time) to evaluate many of the sources. Smittz (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political balance in sources 

message: Many parents experience a "culture of fear" and risk aversion which affects the liberty they offer to their children. I think this topic deserves a section in this page, although I recognise it is not the main theme of political manipulation. See Slow parenting, Tom Hodgkinson, Frank Furedi, Talk:Parenting styles. This is kind of a note-to-self. Rixs (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenting 

message: "The phrase "moral panic" has been used to describe a widespread, irrational scare brought about by a lack of scientific or general education among the public, intrinsic human biases in the assessment of risk, a lack of rational thinking, misinformation, and giving too much weight to rumor."
Wow. That is one of the best sentences I've seen on wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.161.189 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome sentence 

message: i'm going through the process of removing some of the WP:OR and non-WP:RS now. if any editors can specify some content they believe should remain or possibly be merged to the fear mongering article, make your suggestions here. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm gone ahead and removed most of the original research and poorly sourced content, the only significant content that is left really are the "Language as a conditioner for fear", "Books", "Documentaries" and "External Links" sections; and i'm sure these can be greatly reduced as well. i tried to aptly summarize my removals in the edit history so it would be easy for editors to go back and retrieve content if they believe it shouldn't have been removed. maybe it's easier to see now why this article should probably be merged. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: for those who wish for this article not to be merged, it would probably be a good idea to use the refs from the "books" or "external links" sections to create some new content to justify this articles existence. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose.  The two are significant different from one another. This article is the more important of the two politically and socially. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose, for the same reasons. -Welhaven (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose, indeed for the same reasons. Fear mongering though related isn't as important a subject as this article, in fact fear mongering is just one instrument that can be used to create "a culture of fear". Also merging this article to "fear mongering" seems just to be a creative way to kill this article. Mahjongg (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, as feared you managed to impose your own POV, and effectively censored/killed the article. well done... Mahjongg (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: please... i haven't imposed anything. i've been here on the talk page discussing/detailing all my changes, i have yet to be engaged by anyone wishing otherwise. if you disagree with my changes, feel free to discuss/dispute them here. fuck, even edit war, i don't care. just don't accuse me of "imposing" anything while no one else has even so much as voiced an opinion on any content. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I simply observe you now own this article, and I don't care. Mahjongg (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: really, i've been doing nothing but encouraging other users to participate, asking for opinions, etc. but do/think whatever you like i guess, doesn't make a difference to me. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

text: the merge tag has been gone for a while. and yes, i can blame the people who automatically assumed bad faith before even discussing my motives with me. the article was just a jumble of various unrelated ideas with no clear definition and was full of some pretty terribly sourced OR before i got here. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge to [[Fear mongering]] 

message: I would like to include Mr.Benn's opinion, but citing ripped videos from YouTube that I think are copyright violations seems widely innapropriate. Are we sure that we cannot find some other source for him? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Benn 

message: As I said earlier, the Catalán article makes the same connection between an alarmist fear of the Soviet Union that certain people in the Curtis films do. The CIA analysts make it plain that the Soviet Union was in a near state of collapse whilst at the same time the politicians were playing the "red danger card". I chose to highlight that element of Catalán's piece because it so neatly ties in to the article and shows that it is not just people like Curtis that sees this connection between engendering fears and gaining powers as a result.  The other element from the Catalán piece that has been cut in to the article is the further issue of whether people have given too much power to their government. That is a very good point from a political standpoint but it is conjecture and an issue which is tangential to the issue of a culture of fear (i.e. this is about consquences of conceding powers to government, and therefore comes AFTER the issue of whether or not there IS a culture of fear, who is behind it (if anyone) if there is a culture of fear. I am not saying it is not relevant but it addresses a slightly different issue. Maybe we can incorporate both.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jonathan M. Finegold Catalán

message: This seems well suited to be an example in this article:
:"The people don't want war, but" they "can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering, during the Nuremberg Trials.
:-Welhaven (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think it requires a source to see this is an example of "some in society incite fear in the general public to achieve political goals."? -Welhaven (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Goering quote

message: See Obama's War on WikiLeaks -- and Us. I don't have time to add this properly just now. It describes abuse of law by the US government, allowed by the culture of fear. Perhaps this article isn't the very best place for it, but it might be. -- Rixs (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material on abuse of law 

message: "Teaching by fear" is a related concept where teachers think that terrifying the student is an effective teaching technique - used for example in  schools in Victorian times in the UK. --Penbat (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching by fear 

message: plenty on politics but little on the sociology and bullying of culture of fear--Penbat (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  culture of fear as bullying and sociology 

message: Abstract of paper by Geoffrey R. Skoll: "Building on the work of social analysts who have identified the emerging culture of fear in the United States, this article argues that the current fears about terrorism derive from deliberate campaigns by the world capitalism’s elites. It traces the history of political scares since the late nineteenth century to show an evolution from Red scares to terrorism. While acknowledging the complexities of cultural constructions, the obsession with terrorism is shown as an outgrowth and offspring of earlier, anti-communist hysterias in the United States."
Suggest adding synopsis to "Analysis" section. Buboetherat (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructing an American Fear Culture From Red Scares To Terrorism 

message: I propose integrating this article into the article Strategy of tension as a new chapter "USA" regarding the situation in the USA. Reason 1: Both articles have the same topic: A government creates fear in its citizens by suggesting to them they would be under permanent threat/attack by foreign or domestic enemies. Reason 2: The article Strategy of tension describes documented historic events which present more importance. Reason 3: This article describes only the US situation whereas the Strategy of tension article relates to several countries. These two articles are also tightly interconnected with the articles McCarthyism and Red Scare. This connection should at least be stated clearly through links between the articles or mentioning in chapters. Icarus4 (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrating into article [[Strategy of tension]] 

message: Is this WP:OR and WP:SYN?
Culture of fear (or climate of fear) is a term used by certain scholars, writers, journalists and politicians who believe that some in society incite fear in the general public to achieve political goals. For example, Nazi leader Hermann Göring explains a case:
It doesn't look that way to me. Derntno (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. 173.108.127.23 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, no it isn't Yes it is back and forth gets nobody anywhere. The quote descrives the culture of fear, but doesn't use the phrase and shouldn't be in the lead. Consider working it into the article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermann Göring quote 

message: absolutely nothing about culture of fear or climate of fear in the workplace. --Penbat (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I think a section could and should be added to this article relating to the workplace Penbat, possibly leading to management by fear?Mrm7171 (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best placed in the opening paragraph? eg "culture of fear can also operate in the workplace"Mrm7171 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even just one cited sentence is a start although ideally there should ideally be about as much text for workplace as politics. It also, of course, applies at the interpersonal level, eg abuse as in domestic violence - power and control in abusive relationships. "Ambient abuse" on Google gives some interesting results.--Penbat (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  workplace perspective completely missing 

message: Needs to cover culture of fear in the workplace. --Penbat (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The workplace 

message: Does not appear to be working 121.73.92.60 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 13