Talk:Fear, uncertainty, and doubt

message: I removed the bizarre reference to a CVE-2008-5353 proof of concept under the "Security FUD" section. The applet in question worked for months, and then was disabled when Apple patched their software. I don't see how that can be considered "FUD" -- especially FUD intended to sell a security product -- since the vulnerability was known and unpatched for a year, the demo applet was widely reported to work successfully before the issue was patched, and author of the applet in question doesn't work in security and doesn't sell security software.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.127.172 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: I always thought of FUD as a term used in the IT industry.  Seeing the use of the term FUD expanded into politics, etc. is just total POV fluff.  You could argue that FUD has been around since humans first learned to communicate with one another, or, to make it even fluffier, you could say that FUD is a tool that has been used by many organisms in the natural selection process since life began on this planet (or galaxy, or universe, or multiverse).  But what would be the point of that?  This whole article is just a one line definition of FUD, followed by a bunch of non-neutral POV fluffy examples.  Did I mention how fluffy this article is?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.14.113 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FUD refers to something more specific than just human "lying", it's more akin to industrial sabotage. Either way, the examples don't illustrate any POV problems whatsoever... Maybe you're suggesting another problem with the article? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FUD in and of itself

message: This needs a re-write. Drop the mention of Apple as mentioned in the section below. Remove all the vague references to unnamed groups of people spreading supposed FUD. Remove the stuff about FOSS advocates being accused of FUD. The keener FOSS advocates are accused of rabid zealotry by their foes and not FUD. Remove the references to Slashdot - one is an ad hominen attack and the other is a really dull post about FUD-Lite. Reomve the stuff about 'Werewolf' as it's irrelevant. Rewrite what remains into something better approximating English. Something like this perhpas:
"Since the 1990s the term has become associated more with industry giant Microsoft than IBM. The Halloween documents, leaked internal Microsoft documents whose authenticity was verified by the company, use the term FUD to describe a potential tactic: "OSS is long-term credible … [therefore] FUD tactics can not be used to combat it."[3] More recently, Microsoft has issued statements about the "viral nature" of the GNU General Public License (GPL), statements which Open Source proponents purport to be FUD.
The SCO Group's 2003 lawsuit against IBM, claiming intellectual property infringements by the open source community, is also regarded by some as being an attempt at spreading FUD. The suggested fear is that using Linux without a licence from SCO leaves the user vulnerable to intellectual property infringement lawsuits of their own. IBM directly alleged in its counterclaim to SCO's suit that SCO is spreading FUD.[4]"
:I agree, rewrite this. The section on the Consoles and Video Games is hardly an example of FUD. I'm not saying the industry doesn't have any FUD, but the examples given or cited do not qualify. 165.206.43.5 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a FUD war, with Microsoft supporters claiming FUD on the part of FOSS advocates. It needs a lot more of "[referenceURL they] say," and in general, sources for all statements, or else the unsourced statements need to be removed.Cherlin 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent  developments

message: "Although once it was usually attributed to IBM, in the 1990s and later the term became most often associated with industry giant Microsoft and Apple Computer."
This sentence is followed by accounts of Microsoft's relationship to FUD, but Apple never appears in the article again. Why is Apple mentioned?emw 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's the whole FUD campaign against the Zune, and the one against PCs - but it's weird that it's not mentioned, yeah. Aerothorn 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mac VS. PC ads are classic FUD. Jmical (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think there are statements from Steve Jobs that can be classified as FUD? Can we have them included? 180.191.84.124 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple

message: I'm moving this to the Talk page until it can be attributed, especially as Google returns no hits for it:
In a 2004 interview on the growing prominence of Linux, Steve Ballmer's FUD-based ideas had  racist undertones, when he commented, "Are you going to trust some guy in China?"
63.172.187.134 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to your questioning of the racism charge. Ballmer's choice of China as an example resonates most with my perception of the unaccountability of Chinese programmers and China's unwillingness to enforce international law and intellectual rights. However, for someone sensitive to issues of racism, I am surprised at your hyperbolic generalization about when racism is assumed.Jojalozzo (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It isn't FUD when it's factual. We can quote CERT and numerous industry experts on the security failings of MS products, including Windows, IE, Office, Outlook, and IIS.Cherlin 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the same can be done for OSS products thus validating Microsoft's claims about increased TCO of competing products. It's not FUD when my side says it might be more appropriate. Right now the FUD article is clearly biased and at least online there is far more FUD spread regarding Microsoft products than the other way around. 63.241.31.130 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballmer quote

message: I'd always heard it as FUDD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, Despair, but it appears that this is merely a variation on the original. I see this term used a lot to describe Intel's business tactics. Anybody else use FUDD? dreddnott 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FUDD

message: I removed the link to http://fudforum.org/forum/ from the external links section, since the forum does not appear to have anything to do with FUD as described in this article at all, but is the name of some forum software. If I am mistaken, feel free to add it back in with a comment here explaining how it relates.
W 08:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, FUDforum is an abbreviation of Fast Uncompromising Discussion forum. Naudefj (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fudforum.com 

message: I'm not aware of anything in the 2004 campaign that could be considered FUD.
:LOL. What about the attacks on McCain, implying that his adopted daughter was illegitimate; on war heroes Max Cleland and John Kerry, accusing them of cowardice, treason, and other offenses; the constant claim that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for Al Qaeda, and other campaign slurs and dirty tricks? Continuing into the 2006 campaign, as it happens.
Perhaps the writer was thinking of George HW Bush and his use of Willie Horton in a quite cheap and base play towards racial fears in the 1988 race against Dukakis? Might this be a good example of political FUD?
:That and much more, with a very long history. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, for example, or the 200-year old Federalist charge that Thomas Jefferson was, in effect, a Commie Pinko radical/Liberal wingnut intending to bring the Terror of the French Revolution to the United States. The Republican Southern strategy is more than a century old. They allied themselves with so-called Democrats in the South to support segregation overtly or covertly. Sen. Trent Lott's election as Minority Whip of the Senate is more than a little ironic.
:Or Johnson vs Goldwater, with the nuclear blasts in the ads.
:"I offer my opponents a bargain: If they will stop lying about me, I will stop telliing the truth about them."--Democratic Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson
The Swift Boat Vets campaign most certainly was FUD, and I changed the sentence in the article to accurately reflect the reference given. It was incorrect anyway, citing that critics of Bush accused Kerry of FUD, which doesn't even make sense. Jmical (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof?  Nah!  Talking points all the way!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.74 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W Bush vs. George HW Bush 

message: Hmm... ever since I first saw this term on Slashdot, I'd assumed that FUD stood for Fucked-Up Data. You learn something new everyday, lol. --Crnk Mnky 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wern't too far off, and judging by most fud around at the moment, it comes down to that. Laurielegit (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fucked-Up Data? 

message: Considering (if recently) the Gates Foundation has made a commitment to (for example) eliminate the Top 20 diseases in the world within a lifetime, I'm sure Microsoft donates $lots to AIDS research and etc, doesn't Gates' quote about a laptop being useless to a dying African family actually show no FUD at all? Maybe the explanation of the FUD is just poor here, but it's hard to dismiss the viewpoint of a guy who's working to (overstated example) eliminate AIDS instead of giving laptops to people dying of AIDS. In this instance at least, I see more honest concern than FUD (they could just donate that money to a foundation seeking to teach sustainable agriculture, or cure diseases, or fund hospitals....). I'm not putting down the project here, mind you, but in this instance, Gates has a big-time trump card on this front. Again, maybe I'm missing something.209.153.128.248 16:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  $100 laptop 

message: Why is there a link to fanboyism? I don't really get the relevance.
:Fanboys often like to FUD about rival products; see ATI fans vs. Nvidia fans, AMD vs. Intel. Rarely will there be an argumented debate, but often FUD tactics will be employed to convince an audience of the holy truth that ATI is way better and the GeForce cards just aren't reliable. Such is the relevance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.95.236.155 (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: As somebody already stated on this talk page, it isn't FUD if it's true. Scientific evidence, which has not been refuted, has been provided on global warming that if we do not pass certain laws, it WILL result in a global cataclysm. That makes environmetalist scare tactics a rather bad example of FUD, since they are actually not spreading doubt or uncertainty, only justified fear. And if they do FUD, add a citation and specify the exact group that does, because it is a VERY far-fetched statement to say that global warming awareness campaigns are FUD tactics.You can't call ANYTHING FUD if it's backed with consistent logical and empirical arguments.
However, the FUD here on both sides of the argument are (assuming global warming is true) that:
1. It is empirically proven to be man-made, and thus preventable or reversible by human intervention.
2. That a law or set of laws will subsequently force the correct human intervention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.242.83.15 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a fact tag. 98.216.65.79 (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Most extreme examples (such as "global catacylsm") come across very much as scaremongering rather than outright FUD (such outcomes are usually right at the extremes of predictions and aren't terribly plausible). Complete FUD, as opposed to scaremongering, is largely the tactic from the other side, which appears to rely almost entirely on fear ("It's all an excuse for the government to control you!") and uncertainty and doubt (constantly trying to cast doubt and uncertainty on research and researchers instead of actually doing some serious studies that show contrary results). Riedquat (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalists FUD? 

message: I'd have thought that a warning isn't (necessarily) designed to spread FUD if:
* A) It's telling people something true which they might not know and would effect them, or
* B) It's a threat primarily aimed at getting something specific from the threatened party.
Since Microsoft's threats & warnings against GNU can be defended on these grounds, the existence of these threats doesn't act as strong enough evidence for FUD-tactics for Wikipedia to make the connection itself. (See WP:OR.)
Somebody needs to add a citation of a reliable commentor saying that they are FUD tactics before they can be offered here as evidence of Microsoft's perceived FUD spreading. (Again, please see WP:OR.)
--Wragge 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When does a legitimate warning become a FUD tactic? That MS press-releases spread FUD is Original Research. 

message: I remember that there used to be a separate article about Fudzilla. Where did it go? Was it deleted and why? Did my mind play tricks on me? Not a fan of that site. Just wondering. MadIce (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fudzilla 

message: Wasn't the McCain campaign a good example of FUD?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.81.85 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCain v.Obama 

message: As I explained in my edit comment, which the person who removed the tag ignored despite looking up the edit to see who did it to mention it by name, "This article states over and over that certain things, acts, etc. were FUDs: That's someone's opinion, not a fact, and must be cited and worded to follow NPOV." Cited means explicitly to reliable sources arguing that the example was of FUD, woded to follow NPOV means that we specifically say WHO makes the claim instead of saying the claim is true, and we also would have to include info from sources that say it isn't FUD if any exist.
This are pretty basic rules. If you aren't familiar with the concepts, see WP:RS, WP:NPOV and some of our other fundamental core values here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the real estate section, the source provided  (source 19 in the article) returns an Error 404, and I was unable to find the article on Google.  If the article or a new source cannot be found, I propose that the real estate section be taken out, as the second reference  (source 20) doesn't sound like FUD to me by any stretch.  I don't want to remove the section without finding a new source, but this entire section is in no way following NPOV. ..."suggest that consumers are weak, intellectually lazy and fearful" hardly seems to be a NPOV to me, but I wasn't able to see the original source, so I'm probably not getting the whole picture, which is why I'm not trying to delete this section yet.  Any advice / suggestions? SudoGhost (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation 22 in this section is a dead link (404 error) and citation 23 is a link to an article concerning a brainstorming session at a meeting by one association of realtors, it does not provide evidence that what was discussed was actually put into practice, thus until further citations are provided it will remain my opinion that the information in this section is insufficient to constitute encyclopaedic proof that FUD tactics are actually widely used by the real estate industry. Washuchan (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That tag has been there for a year and a half, so I'll go ahead and comment out the section.  I won't remove it outright, at least not yet, if someone can come up with reliable sources that support this or somehow find an archived version of the first reference we can see about restoring it.  However, I have no problem with someone just removing it outright. - SudoGhost 10:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is traditional to move the offending section to the talk page (sometimes "quoting" or denaturing the refs, sometimes including a  section) rather than commenting it out.  With it commented, only experienced editors know it was there and is not in the visible article.  If moved, editors who read the talk page know it was there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems 

message: There are major problems with this section. It lacks a neutral point of view and makes unsupported claims. At least one editor has felt it should be removed entirely as "Company posted propoganda[sic]". It is not clear to me that this is company-posted nor would that make any difference to me as long as the information is basically correct.  I would prefer to have any errors corrected and the claims substantiated if they are true. As it is it's not a very good example of FUD since the only evidence presented is a court case that ended in favor the supposed FUD perpetrators. Jojalozzo (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antivirus vs. Remote-Anything 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the opening of the article:
: FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but said paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled.
Not only is it not encyclopedic, it's completely irrelevant.  This isn't FUD, it's just a lie and an argument from authority.  Neither one of these things makes it FUD per se.  I can't foresee any (less than total) modifications to this paragraph that make it appropriate for this article, so I took it out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido del Confuso (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research paper example 

message: Okay, what's going on with this edit war with adding and removing doubt as a wikilink?  Although not happening all in a day, it's still an edit war, and frankly it's silly.  I'm hoping maybe someone will come here and discuss it (and resolve it) before reverting again.  What's the deal with this whole doubt v. doubt thing? - SudoGhost 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Absurd" per Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin.  Make sure to look into the View History tabs.  Thank you for your attention.   (",)  99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon wants to Wikilink everything, in spite of WP:OVERLINK.  In this case, fear, uncertainty, and doubt all are common words, and doubt links to an article which doesn't carry the same meaning as the common word.  It seems likely that the common meaning is the intended one, making that one wrong, in addition to being an WP:OVERLINK.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, 99.56.123.175, WP:OVERLINK is pretty clear on what shouldn't be linked.  Doubt is a word that most readers will understand, and if there are concerns that the article linked doesn't correctly explain the word as used in this article, it would only serve to confuse, not inform.  Given this, do you still disagree with the removal of the wikilink?  If so, why? - SudoGhost 11:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doubt]] wikilink? 

message: The article states that the term FUD originated in the computer hardware industry, but I'm not so sure this is true. I've read the term (unabbreviated) in an old, not very tech-savy marketing textbook as something salespeople have to overcome. In other words, it didn't mean deliberate negative misinformation, but natural emotions that a prospect has and a salesperson tries to dispel, whether rightly or wrongly. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Which book said this? It might turn out to be a useful source for the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: What does this reference mean? It doesn't link to anything, it is in quotes and included as if the general reader will know what the heck it refers to. Please either link it to some page that explains it, provide an explanation or delete it. 63.143.218.107 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic Pearl Harbor? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Fear, uncertainty and doubt. 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/20131003140504/http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html to http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003140504/http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html to http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003140504/http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html to http://www.calderathin.com/legal/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ddj.com/documents/s%3D1030/ddj9309d/9309d.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109190233/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081105224359/http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/ to http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked and fixed mess created by bot. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The term FUD is so overused in crypto context, it became a descriptor of people ("fudders") and synonymous with "pessimist" or non-believer. In 2022 I think a reader can see more usage of the term FUD in this usage than the original one, which is a descriptor of a communication tactic. This may worth mentioning in the introduction as I think a lot of page lookups are nowadays from crypto context. If someone is expert enough for this change and can look for sources for it. 89.134.73.8 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent crypto usage of term may change the meaning 

message: In the 2000-2010 era of computer security cracking, those who programmed and handled malware source code would refer to their development as “FUD” which stood for “Fully Undetectable” (by antivirus software). Please add this. Twillisjr (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUD True Definition (virology)