Jump to content

Talk:Moral panic/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Crime increase "...however..." synthesis

Reverted this for the second time. It was restored with edit summary "reverting Rhododentrites' deletion because reason given made no sense - if crime is not declining then fear of crime could be rational and not the product of mediated 'moral panic'". The problem isn't in the logic of that statement; the problem is that the section is about a moral panic over "crime increase". You introduced sources with a "...however" to contradict the idea that "crime increase" is a moral panic, using your own synthesis of research. That you found an exception does not mean there is no moral panic, and that reliable sources have written about it being a moral panic does not mean that everywhere, all the time, it is not the case that crime is increasing -- just that scaremongering and exaggeration of increases is common enough to justify talking about it as a moral panic. All of this is apart from the fact that the source you added even says the reason those numbers are higher is because they added a new type of crime in the statistics, which makes the comparison pretty meaningless. After all, that the crime was included this time doesn't mean the crime didn't happen previously, so apart from the numbers crime could still be decreasing for all we know. If they start including jaywalking and speeding in the figures, it'll look like the fall of civilization by the statistics... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You have put forward a very confused and incoherent argument. I have not synthesised the research or inferred anything at all from it. The source I have read argues exactly what I put in the section - that if there is no real 'crime decline' concern expressed about crime is not merely the product scaremongering promoted by government/media but based on a reasonable perception of experiential reality. This has been a standard argument in criminology since the emergence of left realism in the 1980s - see Lea and Young's 'What is to be Done About Law and Order' (1984) and dozens of articles and books up to the Hall and Winlow text I referenced - I referenced that one because it is the most up-to-date and it speaks in detail about the problems with the 'crime decline' discourse and the issue of experiential reality. The reason for the current critique of the 'crime decline' is that cyber-crime, which many have experienced, has not been considered by the statisticians who work on data gathered by victim surveys or the criminal justice system until very recently. This is now a standard critique in criminology, the subject in which I have expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.242.80 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian link doesn't even say anything about moral panics; the way you're using it here is clearly synthesis. Presenting an unrelated article arguing about whether or not crime is increasing or increasing in the UK, specifically (which isn't mentioned in the section at all outside the bit you're trying to add) is off-topic unless it specifically references whether or not that response in particular should be seen as a moral panic, and trying to combine it with an unrelated book commenting about moral panics in general in order to make a point violates WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Current status

The article cites certain conversations of and with a certain Dr. Cox from 1830. It parades a variety of examples. Then it contains a critisism section. The section Use as a social science term claims that The phrase was used again in 1831, in the same way it is used today, thats completely hilarious. Actual research about the topic is only a sideshow, the most references relate to the case studies, not to the term as such. Start with Kenneth Thompson. The arcticle deserves some tagging and overhaul. Polentarion Talk 20:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Polentarion: I fully agree that was reading very strangely. I might honestly prefer these two 1830's components, which are just not on task (and which are seemingly self-unaware as to how off-task they are), were removed. But moving them both to the end of the article, and adding a brief introductory sentence before that section, works as a first step (maybe not the last) toward better balance. Secondly, I think the article has a technically wrong definition of Disproportionality. Goode & Ben-Yehuda do not say that Disproportionality denotes that "The action taken is disproportionate". Instead, they place the locus of concern in how "community sensitization" overheats the perceived threat "above and beyond what a realistic appraisal could sustain". A little thought finds these options to be sort of close. But also finds that they are different enough that the logical prescriptive remedy to the "panic" is different. This is what I get from the 1994 edition. I don't know what the 2009 edition says - I may try to find out. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Frankly I'd delete that entire 1830s business. There's no reason for it to be in this article unless it was some editor's OR. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: Trimmed substantially. There are all sorts of people, and one of the oddities from my perspective, since I don't myself think it's important usually, is people who want to know "when the first use of x" was. I am not sure I will not come back and trim it yet again. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Importantly, for an encyclopedic article, "when the first use of x was" needs to be sourced, relevant, not WP:OR, and not given undue weight. In this instance, it really seemed like WP:SYN to include mention of this person, because I never saw any mention of him in the moral panic literature years ago. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

moral panic in commitment to nation

hi i think this is the most important issue of todays social problems

RV Pieceofmetalwork's additions re immigration and Brexit

I reverted the additions re immigration and Brexit. Previous editing of this page has established that we do not add an example or topic simply because mainstream press has called something a "moral panic": this article is on the formal concept as used in scholarly literature, not on pop culture's misappropriation of the term. I'm sure you'll soon find a peer-reviewed journal article on muslim/nonwhite immigration as European moral panic one day, and then we can add that (per WP:SYNTH, we don't try to make the case on our own); from the other side of the Atlantic it certainly looks like something that would develop into one. But I doubt "something something Brexit" is a moral panic at all, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Chess

Chess was once the subject of a moral panic.[1][2] Benjamin (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://medium.com/message/why-chess-will-destroy-your-mind-78ad1034521f
  2. ^ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140613/08020527566/that-time-when-people-thought-playing-chess-would-make-you-violent.shtml

I think there's a difference between that and a "moral panic". The two articles' historical sources read more like admonishments to not fart at the dinner table. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

moral panic, social panic: suggest add "campus rape panic"

Currently going through a moral panic on campus rape, with exaggerated and highly questionable statistics, moral reformers (so-called 3rd wave feminists) with social agendas, presumed guilt (as in Satanic Sexual Abuse panic and Witch Burning and McCarthy's Red-Scare panic). I am not writing an article, but I hope someone does....MUCH information out there on suspension of usual legal protections. Laura Kipnis and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabradaly (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This has come up a couple times in the past couple years on this talk page. Most substantially, here: Talk:Moral_panic/Archive_2#Campus_rape. What it came down to at that point was whether scholarly sources could be found about campus rape being a moral panic. For the purpose of this article, moral panics are an academic subject, and the page only includes those which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, books, etc. as such. The high bar is because "moral panic" is tossed around in mainstream sources quite a lot, and we were unable to find sufficient top quality sources to include it. That may have changed since then. My recommendation if you would like to pursue adding it would be to compile the best sources that exist (keeping in mind that opinion pieces in newspapers, most blogs, pop culture magazines, etc. aren't going to be considered reliable enough for these purposes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree and also: simple problematization of a social problem through media is not a "moral panic", but it is often called so by people politically opposed to that problematization. That's why reliable sources on this topic don't include clickbait media articles or stories from political crusaders, only peer-reviewed scholarly articles that approach the study from a sociological perspective. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. It’s noteworthy that the nature of moral panic is its use by ″political crusaders″ which may in turn provoke counter-crusaders. The process of identifying a social problem may initially involve exaggeration to attract attention, and this sometimes leads to solutions that over-react (e.g., Prohibition#United_States). Regarding this specific topic, The Campus Rape Frenzy by Johnson and Taylor published this past January might have something quotable that meets scholarly standards. In the meantime, if you want to restrain the hyperbole that currently clings to certain social movements, you could refer to the Moral Panic page while commenting in Talk of pages relevant to those movements. Some people are not aware that a phenomenon like moral panic exists and is being studied. Martindo (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I've read the NYT review of that book, and I'd actually say that the crusade against "the campus rape moral panic" is a moral panic. As a tangent: was 1980s/90s feminism a "moral panic"? I remember rape shield laws, and laws against press identification of victims of sexual abuse, were both roundly attacked at the time as "attacks on due process". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It looks like Social panic should be merged here. The sources cited there use the term moral panic and both articles seem to be about the same phenomenon. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I had never even noticed the article Social panic or heard that term, but as you point out all the sources over on that article are actually talking about moral panics. If you google "Social panic" nearly everything you hit is actually a classic moral panic. I agree, it should be merged. --Krelnik (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (tentatively) - Though there's a distinction to be made, it doesn't seem like the subject is sufficiently separate to merit a stand-alone article. A merge seems to make sense. That said, I'm going to ping the instructor of the students who recently worked on this article, Alfgarciamora, to get his opinion. It may be that the sources presently cited and those I'm familiar with do not paint the whole picture. What we would need is a body of literature about social panics, defined as something other than, and independent of definitions of moral panics (i.e. it's an issue if they're not consistently differentiated or if one is almost always covered in relation to the other). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing me into the discussion Rhododendrites. I am fine with a merge as well. I think that the student did not clearly articulate any differences between social panics and moral panics. If anything, there can just be a sub-heading of "social panic" in the main page of "moral panic." Eperoton Krelnik Alfgarciamora (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Merge - you're right, the sources in the social panic article appear to mostly be about moral panics. Leave a redirect, and we can have a subsection here on social panics if there are actually enough sources to justify it. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like there's consensus for merge. I'd be happy to let someone else do it. Eperoton (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A Society can get scared or paniced for more number of things just not Moral panic. Moral panic is just part of social panic but not the entire social panic.Need of separate article for Moral panic is going to remain and so need for collective Social panic article.
May be articles are still to develope indipendantly but that does not justify merger of the articles.
Mahitgar (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article part of Wikiproject:Philosophy?

Who added this page to Wikiproject:Philosophy, and what was their justification? Can we remove it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

Snopes has an interesting article (with sources) that is much more in-depth than the section here. I don't have time to expand the section myself, but for those interested, here is the link to the snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/23/satanic-panic/ Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Satanic ritual abuse article here at Wikipedia has enough, people can follow the WL to that article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Aspects of moral panic that might be researched and included

1. Presumed guilt (noted by Sabradaly in the initial comment on Campus Rape Panic above): this was a key feature of certain witchcraft trials, such as the absurd "if the person drowns when dunked that proves she was innocent". This dovetails with due process and possible panic among parties who insist on due process (noted by Hypnotoad above).

2. Conflation: for example, crusades against child prostitution as the most abhorrent aspect of Human Trafficking use stats that rely on the WHO definition of 18 as the age of biological adulthood, even though the legal age of consent is lower in numerous countries.

3. Crusaders and counter-crusaders (noted in the exchange between Hypnotoad and myself above): panic can flow in both directions as noted by Hypnotoad regarding rape shield laws and the US Sixth Amendment, specifically the right to confront witnesses. However, the panic could be political in both directions while being moral panic in only one direction. For example, some articles about the 2015 outbreak of measles at Disneyland exhibit moral panic disproportionality by focusing on the alleged threat of unvaccinated children without mentioning that five of the cases had been fully vaccinated (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-spread-20150122-story.html). However, the political position of people who decline specific vaccinations might be better described as suspicion (or anti-authority) rather than moral panic (e.g., rumors in India that vaccines contained sterility drugs -- see http://everylifecounts.ndtv.com/how-an-ias-officer-is-crushing-sterilisation-rumours-in-assams-muslim-dominated-villages-13686). Martindo (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sex Robots

What with the wave of news articles about them over the recent months, maybe they should be added to the list?

Wait, what? There's a moral panic about sex robots now? Links please? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/04/27/sex-robots-epitomize-patriarchy-offer-men-solution-threat-female-independence/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/ban-sex-robots-dolls-market http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/826579/Sex-doll-robot-watchdog-warning-report-foundation-for-responsible-robotics http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/sex-robots-paedophiles-child-predators-sexual-offenders-paedophiles-sextech-professor-report-a7824231.html https://www.thetimesbrief.co.uk/users/39175-the-brief-team/posts/20449-ban-sex-robots-that-normalise-rape-urges-barrister https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/07/05/023222/call-for-a-ban-on-child-sex-robots to list only a few...
I haven't read the sources, bit unless they describe the "moral panic" then it would be our POV. Koncorde (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
So, when they talk about "sex robots" they're actually talking about Realdolls with an Alexa add-on, i.e. they're full of shit and there's not even any such thing as a sex robot yet. Well, that kind of abject stupidity is one necessary condition for a moral panic. Now let's see a mass criminalization or social exclusion response. As far as this Wikipedia article goes, though, we'll wait for the peer-reviewed journal article on the topic. As above, WP:NOR. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Switchblades?

With the gentle prompting of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I'm willing to concede that switchblades are not the key - the panic was about "Juvenile delinquency". Will do some work in the next few days to reflect that, change the section heading and bring things "up to scratch" re sourcing. Snori (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Why the use the American term 'switchbade' instead of the English term 'flick-knife? Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.55.115 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sections

Perhaps the sex harrassment and sex offenders sections should be merged? Benjamin (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the War on Drugs a moral panic or an actual societal ill?

The examples cited in the introduction are all fears of something which is provably false under scientific methods, except for one: War on Drugs. The U.S. went through an intense heroin epidemic and later on a crack addiction epidemic. The reference cited to support the idea that the War on Drugs was a moral panic is no longer available and can't be confirmed that it actually says that, i.e., justification for removal. It's probably best to remove the example of the War on Drugs, but I post here for consensus of those maintaining this article. Wikipedia has pages on the Crack Epidemic, the Heroin Epidemic, and War on Drugs for further info confirming that this wasn't a moral panic, at least in the U.S., but an immense and very destructive societal ill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, today, we're suffering from the Opioid Epidemic, which is the same Wikipedia page for the Herion Epidemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

War on Drugs cuts both ways

Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory paedophiles, belief in ritual abuse of women and children by satanic cults, the War on Drugs, and other public health issues.

The original War on Drugs was a moral panic, but so is much of the recent counter-reaction. I think this deserves to be more clear. — MaxEnt 21:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Circumcision/Foreskin?

I believe there is enough evidence that circumcision may boil down to being a sort of moral panic over the foreskin, with the very common belief that healthy natural foreskin is a 'scary thing harboring germs'. Similarly the Puritanical motivations for circumcision (e.g. historically to curb masturbation or foster chastity) also have strong elements of a moral panic. I honestly think it should be considered to be listed on the main page here. Granted that if viewed from within our current cultural lens (where it's still a common norm) it probably doesn't seem 'obviously' like a moral panic, but I think as the culture shifts increasingly away from this practice, it will become more obvious. 2.52.72.75 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Masturbation was the moral panic of the Victorian Era- Dr Kellogg (yes inventor of Kellogg's Cornflakes) had the answer- circumcision! He was even a proponent of FGM as a solution for girls masturbating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9F00:5260:488:207D:2D06:A042 (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think part of the issue you will have sourcing such moral panics, is the lack of reliable sources describing them as such. Masturbation was a pet peeve of Kellogg rather than a moral panic, he was an outside even with his own theories at the time. Puritanical belief via the church meanwhile was longstanding, but their opposition was no greater than to children outside wedlock etc. You could by extension argue anything that goes against the church is a "moral panic". The existence of workhouses in the UK might even support some semblance of that claim.
Circumcision meanwhile isn't much of a moral panic, in contrast to FGM, as it is culturally normalised by one of the largest Western nations (US). The justifications given for the medical practice don't reference stopping masturbation, and not sure there is any evidence it would actually do so. As someone from the UK I still don't understand how the US got to the point that it did, but a "moral panic" seems unlikely. Koncorde (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
So if the *response* to a moral panic happens to become a cultural norm, then it's not a moral panic? Among the most common reasons given for circumcising by parents today are e.g. 'Foreskins are nasty and death' or 'foreskins are full of germs'. That's my point, that the only reason we don't THINK of it as a moral panic is because we happen to be living in a society where the response to that moral panic has become such a cultural norm that we just think it's "culturally normal". Take for example the War on Drugs - it's listed on the page, and yet, society outlaws the practice, i.e. the War on Drugs is the 'cultural norm' - yet it's listed. Circumcision has been touted as curing various ills over time, even tuberculosis. Here's an actual quote from someone explaining why they circumcised their sons: ".. adult foreskin ... It’s a nasty stuff that no one needs on their body. It’ll probable turn to cyst one day" ... this is basically the definition of a moral panic, applied to foreskin (i.e. believing it's a grave issue threatening public health) ... many people also say it's 'full of infection' or 'full of germs'. This is pure false (mass-)hysteria by definition. As to the masturbation aspect, I've seen quotes from medical professionals from around 1915 advocating the practice deliberately in order to curb male sexuality, claiming that male sexuality is some sort of blight and threat to society, and that circumcision helps because it dries out the glans and dullens sensation. All of these fit the definition of moral panic to a tee - literally THE ONLY thing preventing us from SEEING that, is we're looking at it through the LENS of it being the current cultural norm - we're looking at it through current-cultural-norm-colored glasses. 2.52.72.75 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am British. I do not see it as a cultural norm. I do not see it through the "current-cultural-norm-colored glasses". I cannot be argued with on that basis because I am not one of the people who subscribes to its belief, nor could I because I find the whole thing utterly bizarre and alien to my cultural norm (it is advanced in the UK only as a cure for physical illness, recurring or chronic, or medical requirement, or as a religious observation). We do not hold any equivalent US opinion on the subject.
However I also do not disagree with what your first sentence implies. A moral panic can lead to long term changes to society. For instance the forced religiosity of public spaces etc can be seen as an example of a moral panic that is a cultural norm in the US. Similarly the introduction of "under god", or the swearing of allegiance, can both be seen as extensions of moral panics about communism and godlessness. However they can also be seen as culture wars not founded in any 'moral' panic, but in an extension of cultural identification. By the same extension the response to kneeling during the national anthem could be seen as a moral panic. The War on Drugs follows a similar logic in being cast as a moral panic, because it was identified as a requirement because of a need to be seen to be doing something about drugs in a public way during the fallout of the Vietnam war. In particular as a means to direct attention away from the dysfunctions experienced in US society during the return of servicemen scarred physically, mentally and emotionally, and as a result of the growing protest movement, and counter culture revolution. All of which was seen to be promoting deviant behaviour. The moral panic was against the threat to normalcy, but was also seen as critical by US government policy towards eliminating black market trade.
Back to the statement however; what I said is that I do not believe you will find that a "moral panic" is what led to the propagation of circumcision, nor do I believe that you will find a source that agrees with that stance that isn't fringe. I have no doubt that some people, such as Kellogg, definitely tried to advocate for in it in some way, but he also said yogurt squirted up the bum was a great thing, and plenty of religious observances already exist that did not create a panic but have become common observances. If you can find reliable sources discussing the practice and how it became popularised directly as a result of a moral panic, or talk about it in such a way, then there is a section on Public Health and also the option to introduce it, but you haven't presented anything as yet. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of graphic

I removed the graphic because this is NOT the burning of a witch, but the burning of an Anabaptist. The engraving is from Martyrs Mirror. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Involuntarily Celibacy

In recent years, after the mass shooting by Elliot Rodger and mass killing by Alek Minassian, there has been a focus by the media and national Governments on incels and by extrapolation, single men failing to attract a partner being labelled as such. There is a lot of source material regarding incels from numerous sources which would be considered reliable and enough to justify its own example beyond any mention in an existing example.

Incels (and single men by extension) fit all of the Cohen stages of a moral panic:

  • Someone, something or a group are defined as a threat to social norms or community interests: - the out-group of a few thousands within incel communities extrapolated to a larger group of single men as mentioned earlier with the perceived threat of unwanted attention on dating apps to incels turning to Pick-Up Artists to potential for mass shooting.
  • The threat is then depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media - the single man who lives with his mother in a basement reading 4chan.
  • The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern - see the recent media portrayal of the Joker movie as merely one example.
  • There is a response from authorities and policy makers - The US Government and the US Military have mentioned incels as a threat and a UK politician demanded Government take action against incels.
  • The moral panic over the issue results in social changes within the community - Reddit's closing down of incel and bachelor subreddits as one example. Expanding to Pick-Up Artists, YouTube closed channels as a result of a BBC Panorama investigation. More will likely follow in future considering state acknowledgement in the US and the UK.

Considering the contentious issue of incels in itself, I'm putting it to discussion. --tgheretford (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources:

Not sure it qualifies as a moral panic in and of itself. The moral panic element is about subcultures on the internet in general, and more specifically is tied to the same sort of thing that leads to the Mass Shootings category (I.e. rock and roll music, rap, video games, the internet, satanism, goth culture). Functionally for the purposes of this article the sourcing needs to state that there is a "moral panic". Our interpretation of events is SYNTH.
There is a marginal "moral panic" about the new Joker movie which has been married to the "Incel culture" but that has to be taken with a pinch of salt as a new movie / video game / music triggers that sort of reaction every year. Koncorde (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

page needs to be updated

this page takes the concept seriously until about 2000, then loses the plot. it really needs to have those ideas removed and have them replaced with more substantive examples, as we've actually seen many examples.

- black lives matter
- QAnon
- occupy wall street
- me too
- russiagate
- internet censorship
- etc

There's now substantially more sources discussing QAnon as a moral panic (partially because it so closely resembles the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic, which is the example that the term was coined to describe), so I've restored the section on it with new sources, but rewritten to reflect that aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of those things fit into the category of moral panics, though "Russia", rather than specifically "russiagate" could maybe qualify one day. "Antifa" might too, it ticks all the boxes as a barely existing thing that is attributed with characteristics of nefarious universality. In any case, within a few years the sources will tell. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the "Black Lives Matter" movement and the associated fearmongering of "systemic racism" deserves some consideration. NOW, is it prudent to have this discussion at this time? I would think not. The resulting conflict between both sides of the aisle on the issue will get this article locked faster than one could blink and anything good that could have come out of exploring the topic will be lost to the partisan posturing which will invariably result. My personal recommendation would be to wait until it's off the front page of every news outlet before trying to tackle it. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

None of those are moral panics unless they have been studied and written about in peer-reviewed journals by authors who are familiar with the existing body of work on moral panics beginning with Stanley Cohen, Goode & Ben-Yehuda, etc.; this article is on a sociology topic, not a "things we don't like" topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

About sources

Always add sources. For this article, only add sources if they are scholarly and are in the tradition of the study of moral panics. Do not add any source simply because it uses the words "moral panic". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a few other recent additions based on this. I agree that it's untenable to turn the page into a catalog of every time any news or opinion piece has used the term "moral panic" to refer to anything at all - the list is supposed to cover notable examples, and I think the appropriate bar for that should be academic coverage (or similarly high-quality coverage) that unambiguously relates it to Cohen's research or to other researchers who have studied the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. There's especially a tendency to use the term "moral panic" to denigrate a social phenomenon, without any apparent awareness of what the term means. Ironic, that... sort of a moral panic about moral panics. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Mass shootings

The section on mass shootings is a little strange, it does not seem to tie in to the definitions of moral panics provided in the article. And they are an undoubted rational source of concern, given their frequency and lethality, certainly more so than, say, Islamist terrorism. Is there a source which defines them as a moral panic? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem so. Feel free to be bold and delete any section that doesn't explicitly explain how something is a moral panic by utilizing the definitions set up by Cohen. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Social and mainstream media shitstorms

The article is peculiarly only listing right-wing moral panic incidents. But the left-wing ones are increasing, many of these include accusations of racism, sexism or other 'isms. There are very many examples of companies, cultural customs, place names, statues etc. accused of being offensive or contrary to modern, humanist norms. Not all of these discussions, but certainly some of them, evolve into moral panic situations, including smearing one's opponents and promoting radical interpretations of the issue. And obviously, some will disagree, but the examples mentioned in the article will also divide people. Being polemic is an intrinsic part of moral panic. (I know the word "shitstorm" mostly from Germany, but it appears to be also sometimes used in English. Is there a better word?) --Sasper (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cohen's stages

The National Institutes of Health have a paper about this worded as follows: [2]

  1. An event, condition, episode or someone is defined as a threat to the values, safety and interest of the wider society.
  2. The media then amplifies these apparent threats through inflammatory rhetoric These portrayals appeal to public prejudices, creating villains in need of social control (folk devils) and victims (the moral majority).
  3. The publicity surrounding the threat creates a sense of social anxiety leading to a public outpouring of concern.
  4. Government then responds to the public outcry and frames the alleged threat as being symptomatic of a wider social malaise that must be addressed.
  5. The moral panic and the responses to it transform the regulation of economy and society with the aim of tempering public outrage.

Probably a little more descriptive and accurate view of the process.Progressingamerica (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not an article of the United States National Institute of Health, but merely made accessible through PubMed, their database of public articles from medical journals. The affiliation of the two authors is Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK and Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, UK. It is more of an opinion piece than a scientific article. (Very evident from their critique of "neoliberal" policies already in the introduction.) I think they have interesting points, but it is obviously about specific health policy issues – when diseases are being over-exposed and turn into a moral panic. Obesity is their prime example. --Sasper (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know of the opinion-nature of this. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The list given leaves out moral entrepreneurs, which iirc are an important part of the development of the moral panic. As for the noted non-neutral language of that article, if so then it's better to skip that article entirely and stick with a good short summary of Cohen instead. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Video nasties

There should be a section on the UK video nasties. JAF1970 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to add section: "Reaction to Covid 19 restrictions".

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)

dogs

This was by no means limited to the UK. Numerous US states passed similar laws in the '80's and '90's. In fact, the article Breed-specific legislation is tagged as focusing to much on the US. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Q Anon

Suggest removing "Q Anon" from the list of moral panics and replacing it with what the panic is actually about: paedophilia, satan worshipping, etc. The panic is not about "Q Anon"; instead, Q Anon followers are the ones who are panicked about x, y and z. Choc eclair (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The section isn't about a moral panic about those things though. It's about the fact there is a very specific conspiracy theory that promotes a moral panic about a broad range of topics. By the same token the "War on Drugs" section isn't about a MP about the War on Drugs but about what it signifies and encapsulates. Koncorde (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a section named "Infectious diseases" (under Historic examples).

Suggesting to add the following information: New section name Infectious diseases (Under Historic examples).

Content: Scholars have previously mentioned that Real infectious diseases have a powerful psychological effect. For example SARS quickly became a “moral panic”, which spread worldwide, being accompanied by a true sense of stigma. (see The Lancet at 2010). --192.114.3.241 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is practically a citation from a publication in highly respected peer reviewed journal. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion was a added, and than deleted few weeks after. A discussion is needed. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for section: the furry scurry

For a brief bit, there was a minor moral panic surrounding the furry fandom. This feels to me as though it bears mentioning. 99.19.68.61 (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Racism and White Supremacy Section

While I want to say that I am not against the idea of having this section per se, I do not think that this section currently comports to the rigor of the rest of this article. Currently the section is only 2 sentences long (although one is a run-on), and says "any statement, belief or action construed as going against the leftist/globalist narrative is labelled as white supremacy or racism."

This language is not only conclusory, but also rather conspiratorial. It premises itself on an Infowars-style cabal of 'globalists' who have a singular narrative and control over the media, which is characteristic of a different moral panic in the article. Finally, while there are citations all four are just to opinion articles, two of which are from explicitly conservative sources. While one of the articles is by an academic (John McWhorter), he is not an expert in the field of sociology, and more to the point he does not characterize anti-racism as a moral panic in the article cited.

As it currently stands I think the section should be heavily reworked to remove its conclusory and conspiratorial tone and to furnish it with reliable news and academic sources. Until then I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabirius (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to alter the specific wording as needed. I was attempting to summarize what the sources have to say on the topic, and while I was generally accurate, there are other means of getting the point across. It's also true that the sources were rather lacking in rigor, although I wasn't aware of any conservative bias. My idea was really just to get a start on the concept, and then develop it further. if you peruse the initial sources, they all agree on the basic point that opposition to racism and "white supremacy" have taken on the characteristics of a moral panic. Xcalibur (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
It really wasn't accurate Dan/Xcal. Pretty much nothing summarised was in the sources, and actually conflicted entirely with the sources.
Concerns about racism and white supremacy have recently taken on the characteristics of a moral panic given the sources are 4 opinion pieces from people with no particular authority on these matters we really cannot attribute this in wikipedias voice.
in which any statement, belief or action construed as going against the leftist/globalist narrative is labelled as white supremacy or racism. this is completely absent from the sources, and also is irrelevant commentary and editorialising. It's also demonstrably false; for instance Charlottesville was full of White Supremacists - one even managed to kill people and be sent to jail - but they were not called White Supremacists or Nationlists or Racists because they opposed orthodox globalist narrative, but because they chanted "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us"[3], walked around Charlottesville unironically waving Swastika and Confederacy flags (among a wide variety of other White Supremacist associated imagery and colours such as the League of the South[4]), had active KKK present, and so on. The moral panic isn't because they oppose the political status quo, but because they present a long rejected ideology.
Individuals or groups branded this way are then "cancelled" I am not aware of the Proud Boys being cancelled, and Fox News is still on the air among a variety of other mainstream media sources repeating / duplicating a lot of the same arguments.
that is, publicly denounced, persecuted, demonized, and attacked by the political establishment at least 50% of the political establishment stood by. They stood by so long that on January 6th 2021 they assaulted the Capitol in order to overthrow the government.
In short there may be some content to write about, it's going to need actual authoritative sources to make bold claims like that, and we would need to attribute to those people, and it would need to reflect something like the actual weight of coverage. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I beg to differ. For example: This White Scare occurs against the backdrop of challenges to the liberal order expressed in different ways in different places — Brexit in Britain, the Gilets Jaunes in France, and of course Donald Trump in America. These phenomena have inflicted psychological wounds on those who man the moral barricades in our societies and have helped to propel them into panic territory that they could well pull us all into. which seems pretty consistent. That article refers to a book, The New Class War by Michael Lind, and the summary says: In this controversial and groundbreaking analysis, Michael Lind, one of America's leading thinkers, debunks the idea that the insurgencies are primarily the result of bigotry and reveals the real battle lines. this book may be useful as a source, though I'd have to check through first. I am not aware of the Proud Boys being cancelled the Proud Boys were labelled as a terrorist group in Canada, which I think qualifies. Fox News may be on the air, and there may be insurgent groups openly representing fringe ideas, and even rioting at the Capitol, but the existence of opposition doesn't negate the mainstream trends I've observed.
Overall, it's true that the sources are rather inadequate. As I said, this was meant as a start, a kind of brainstorming, and I'll have to dig further. Finally, I'm not denying that racist/supremacist ideologies are an issue, just as in the McCarthy era, there undoubtedly were a few Soviet spies. What sets apart a moral panic is the disproportionate response that ends up targeting ppl who are largely innocent. Xcalibur (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
To criticise the source: Brexit has nothing to do with White Supremacy - racism was has been referenced very specifically about immigrants - but the moral panic is ABOUT the immigrants (much as it is in the US with regards to The Wall), neither does Gilets Jaunes (a largely successful popular movement in a country with a long history of protest, which has been accused of being exploited by fringe elements), which leaves Trump - who pretty much ticks the nationalist demagogue box that Lind talks about[5] and echoes Achieving Our Country.
Linds book in particular talks about how an urbanite elite has controlled politics, a "technocratic neoliberalism", a political viewpoint associated with Thatcher and Reagan, that later became the default of most Western governments (under Gingrich in the US, and Howard / IDS / Hague in the UK, the whole Neoconservative pushback took place). To quote Lind “greatest threat to Western democracy is the gradual decay of North America and Europe under well-educated, well-mannered, and well-funded centrist neoliberal politicians.” There's no way to interpret that as "leftist". Globalist meanwhile comes with the inherent dog whistle that is Globalism, but again this is refuted by Lind himself who argues "We’re all arguing about globalization, when it never really happened"[6] and goes on to present the different aspects of globalisation - to quote If your diagnosis is wrong, your prescription is likely to be ineffectual or worse. By exaggerating the extent of globalization, free-market neoliberals and skeptical populists of both left and right tend to prescribe the wrong medicine for an imaginary condition.
As for the Proud Boys - Canada is Canada. If there is a moral panic in Canada about American Proud Boys then we need a source for that - but after attacking the Capitol on January 6th you're going to struggle to find any weight to the idea that the panic is somehow "moral".
To that point, moral panics are traditionally conservative and regressive but there is a growing new moral panic structure being discussed regarding race and exploitation of racial animus and so on.[7][dead link‍][8][9][10] However we also need to be cognizant that the "Real World Examples" conforms to the following tag for that section.This section is only for "moral panics" that have been found by researchers to meet the criteria set out by Stanley Cohen, as noted above Something that has not been identified as a moral panic in a reliable source to meet Cohens criteria shouldn't be included without consensus. Koncorde (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a distinction between economic globalization (free trade, outsourcing, international currency reserves, etc) vs the political shift towards international institutions, corporations, technocracy, etc. thanks for the links, I'll take a look at those. overall, better sources are needed for this, even though it seems apparent to me that when racism/white supremacy is declared a public health crisis, that is definitely in the territory of a moral panic. there's also the concern that for highly controversial topics, the sources can be a bit muddled, but I'll see what comes up. Xcalibur (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The standard for adding something to the page has generally been academic - not opinion - coverage using the term "moral panic" in reference to Cohen's theories specifically, since the theories are academic and highly specific in nature. (ie. sourcing should directly mention Cohen or one of the other major figures in the theory, not just use the word in passing.) If we cited every time any opinion piece or columnist used the term "moral panic", the page would be massively sized and inevitably arbitrary, since covering every single use of the term by anyone isn't reasonably possible. As the size of the section already shows, finding academic sourcing that references core scholarship on the topic is actually not that difficult, which further increases the WP:DUE burden on rando thinkpieces using the term (since adding them would be weighing some random thinkpieces by columnists equal to the high-quality scholarship cited in the rest of the section.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Aquillion says it perfectly. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Merging topic clusters and real-world examples sections

It seems unhelpful to have a section that describes the different types of moral panics and then to have another section that's just a list of examples. I think this article could greatly benefit from a condensing of these sections into a single section that goes over the types of moral panics. Incorporating the examples into the article is preferable to having a list tacked on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Condensing examples is WP:SYNTH if not done properly. I would, though, be very much in favour of cutting out many of the examples entirely, since they are simple reporting of "moral panics" and don't actually contribute to a reader's understanding of what a moral panic is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed some sections that had little contribution to the article. The terrorism and Q-anon sections need to be expanded to actually include the theoretical analysis of these movements as moral panics, similar to the Human Trafficking summary of Nick Davies' commentary on the topic. But I'll leave those 2 sections for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Porn?

I think a "contemporary" or "ongoing historical" example of a moral panic would probably be the concern about pornography and the alleged effects it has. 2600:1700:8720:1050:B0AA:50FF:104F:FB7F (talk) 22:39, 20 June 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 <ref>https://journals.openedition.org/vibrant/1528</ref> 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 <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Recidivism</ref>. 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 WP:BIAS 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 WP:UNDUE 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. — LlywelynII 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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hazel42121 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Spicymama01, Ladymobamba.

— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic/Archive_3&oldid=1254103416"