Talk:Rumor

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old AFD full

This article was nominated for deletion on June 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 08:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vergil

This is the excerpt from Vergil, Book IV of The Aeneid (174-188). In my opinion, it deserves to be added to the article.

Rumor, than whom no evil thing is faster:

Speed is her life; each step augments her strength.

Small, a shiver, at first, she soon rears high.

She walks aground; her head hides in the clouds.

Men say that Earth, in fury at the gods,

Bore this last child, a sister to the Giants.

She is swift of foot and nimble on the wing,

A horror, misshapen, huge. Beneath each feather

There lies a sleepless eye (wonder to tell!),

And a tongue, and speaking lips, and ears erect.

By night she flies far over the shadowed world

Gibbering; sleep never comes to rest her eyes.

By day she sits at the watch high on a roof

Or lofty tower, and terrifies great cities,

As much a vessel of slander as crier of truth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk • contribs)

I must disagree with that, because this article is about verified information of rumors.--Dale S. Satre 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale S. Satre (talk • contribs)

I think it might be okay to add it. It would be consistant with an encyclopedia's educational purpose. BTW more needs to be added saying that rumors are often considered to be bad. Borock (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page deliberately to find this passage as one of the earliest musings on rumor as a concept. I think it's extremely relevant, valid, and should be added immediately. Within the text of Virgil, this is a commentary on how rumor works and the destructive force it can have. It's completely in line with the rest of the page's content. Mccartneyac (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sociological sources

[1] (in Russian) `'Míkka >t 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection templates

Hello. I suggest removing the objections at the top of the page, especially about lack of citations. I have significantly developed them. --Unsigned comment by 83.113.85.204

I removed the "Noreferences tag" since the article clearly has them, but the other tags are outside my expertise. It would not be wrong to remove the tags yourself if you believe you have met the objections. See WP:Be bold. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psycological information only

This article only talks about the psycological science of rumors. Shouldn't it be known more, such as the effects on innocent peole (particularly at school)?--Dale S. Satre 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't just talk about psychological effects. It talks about effects on politics, news, and so forth. But it could certainly be developed with examples of effects on schoolchildren,too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.84.31.9 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't The Psychology of Rumor by Gordon Allport and Leo Postman? (Article currently has Joseph Postman). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamsonSwayne (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too much about politics. Most rumors don't have a political purpose. Borock (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to develop the other aspects (not about political uses of rumors), Borock, then please do. But the new research on and use of rumors in politics is arguably important for the article. July 3, 2009 (GD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debordelique (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to ask that you please do not erase/efface the section on political communication and the rumor bomb. It's an important contribution to rumor study and political discourse, I have usedboth in my own work and in teaching studuents about political communication. Curtismayfield2010 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to take a look at wikipedia's meatpuppet policy Coffeepusher (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unethical editorial behavior by "Coffeepusher"; REversion to July 25 status of article

I am reverting the article to its pre-Aug 11 status. Unfortunately "coffeepusher" has a vendetta, after having responded personally to my criticisms of and suggestions for changing the article he almost entirely wrote on "the public sphere." The discussion section there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_sphere) shows that I launched a discussion of his sources on Aug. 11, which continued through Aug. 14 (so far). He took my criticisms and suggestions extremely personally. I didn't edit or erase what he had done there, though I could've done so. I simply suggested ways the article could be improved. He then appears to have searched for other areas on Wiki where I have contributed with my expertise, currently in rumor. Curiously, he showed up on this page (rumor) in the middle of that exchange, though there is no trace that he had any interest in the topic before. It seems pretty obvious that he came here out of personal reasons, and then erased the section that makes reference to my own scholarly work. First, I added to the article in other ways besides adding a political communication section, demonstrating both my expertise in the subject and my interest to develop the article. I had originally made a Wiki entry for "rumor bomb," and after discussion with an editor, accepted his suggestion to delete the entry and develop the concept in the article on rumor. Now, coffeepusher erased that section, justifying it thus: "(cur | prev) 23:52, 15 August 2010 Coffeepusher (talk | contribs) (7,421 bytes) (→Rumor as Political Communication Strategy (2006): WP:WEIGHT, WP:SPAM, AND WP the "rumor bomb" article has been cited twice in four years and is otherwise only spoken of by Jayson, who wrote this section". I've already demonstrated that he has come to this page not out of care for the article (or interest in the topic or wiki standards), but from resentment. However, if someone thinks that the "rumor bomb" part of the article is "over weight," then I am happy to have that part compressed. But the section in Wiki on source neutrality and weight, speaks of articles where different scholars disagree on some subject or theory (they use the example of "flat earth theory"). That has nothing to do with rumor and rumor bombs. No one has said it is some bogus theory (quite the contrary; see below) The point is that practically no one in contemporary political communication studies is working on rumor besides me/Harsin. If they were, I would be happy to develop the article in that direction. This is the reason why I helped develop the section on social and cognitive psychological approaches to rumor. It's part of my duty as a researcher to learn what else others have had to say about the subject, especially if they have researched its use and impact on politics. As I also said, early research on rumor in mass media studies was linked to war and propaganda. This is why I developed distinctions between misinformation, propaganda, etc. and "rumor bombs." Furthermore, coffeepusher justifies his effacement saying that only four people had cited ONE of the articles I've written on it in the last four years. Even if that were true, only two citations is not grounds for discrediting the development of the section. Lots of specialist-researchers work in an area where only a couple of other people work on the same subject. Second of all, the research that produced that concept has appeared in highly respected, competitive, peer-reviewed professional conference proceedings, such as the International Communications Association (the major international professional association in communication studies), which is included in academic search databases for the field, such as Communications and Mass Media Complete (where one can download articles), such as the following versions of the research:

The Rumor Bomb, Convergence Culture and American Post-politics. By: Harsin, Jayson. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2008 Annual Meeting, p1, 0p; (AN 36957460

The Rumor That "John Kerry is French," i.e. Haughty, Foppish, Elitist, Socialist, Cowardly, and Gay.Full Text Available By: Harsin, Jayson. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2007 Annual Meeting, p1-1, 1p; (AN 26951142)

The first version of the article in Southern Review: Communication, Politics & Culture was deemed important enough to appear a year later in a cultural studies collection (CULTURAL STUDIES) edited by a veteran scholar, Michael Ryan (a Dean now at Temple University) on a major press (Blackwell), in the section on "Discourse." The wide-ranging collection contains giant intellects impacting this interdisciplinary field such as KARL MARX and JUDITH BUTLER.

More recently, I have published on the Rumor Bomb "JOhn Kerry is French" in a cutting edge collection on POlitics and Diffusion, with top scholars in the fields of sociology and political science, "The Diffusion of Social Movements" (July 2010) on one of the most respected academic presses in the world: Cambridge University Press. As with everything that appears on that prestigious press, this collection was carefully peer-reviewed.

That is not all. While the larger topic of rumor in non-wartime politics is almost completely ignored in interdisciplinary scholarship (practically nothing in anglophone communication studies), my work is indeed starting to get attention in interdisciplinary circles and in popular media. Here are some samples, mostly from 2010, again suggesting the growing importance of a very new contribution (even if the first article on it appeared four years ago). MOst of these are available online, and everyone knows it takes longer for books and articles to get into print.

Hutter, Bridget (2010) Anticipating Risks and Organising Risk Regulation, p. 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Renard, J. (2010) "La construction de l’image des hommes politiques par le folklore narratif. Anecdotes, rumeurs, légendes, histoires drôles." Mots Les langages du politique 92: n° 92, 2010/1

Musangi, J. ‘Only a few cases of skirmishes here and there’: Interrogating the ‘truth’ of an election in the Kenyan blogosphere [Part of a special issue on the 2007 elections in Kenya]. Africa Insight v. 39 no. 1 (June 2009) p. 86-9

Kleinberg, John (2010) "The flow of on-line information in global networks," Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Management of data table of contents (KEYNOTE SPEAKERS SESSION) available at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1807167.1807169

(2009)Leskovec, J., L. Backstrom, and J. Kleinberg (2009) "Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle." International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining archive. Available at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1557077

Tarrow, Sidney [eminent Cornell sociologist] (2010) "War, Territorial States and Contention:Lasswell v Tilly," Presentation to the University of Pennsylvania Program on Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism series on “Sovereignty, Territoriality and Plural Citizenships”, Available at http://www.sas.upenn.edu/dcc/documents/WarTerritorialStatesandContentionLaswellv.Tilly.doc

Newspapers around the world have been citing Harsin and Rumor Bomb, too. Some examples. South Africa: http://www.rapport.co.za/Weekliks/Nuus/As-die-gerugte-begin-vlieg-het-jy-n-goeie-bomskuiling-nodig-20100327 Sri Lanka: http://www.island.lk/2010/02/10/midweek5.html Thailand: http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/home/detail/politics/opinion/pijitra/20100518/116177/วิกฤติการเมือง...วิกฤติข่าวลือ.html El Salvador: http://www.laprensagrafica.com/revistas/septimo-sentido/68352-son-rumores.html France: http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2359407&rubId=5547 And large Alt.news sites such as Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/bratich06222009.html

Finally the concept and one of the articles has been used in courses on political discourse. For example, www.willamette.edu/~ncordova/RHET232Syll06.doc,

and http://www.cse.unr.edu/~mgunes/cs790g/ in this lecture: http://www.cse.unr.edu/~mgunes/cs790g/Karaoglu_HoaxOrTruth

IN sum, I've shown that coffeepusher came here out of resentment (not to improve the article); and also that his claim suggesting scholars don't take the term seriously is false. If I were just out for self-promotion, I hardly would've helped develop the rest of the article. But since I spend time researching it anyway, I thought I would develop it as fully as I could at the time. As I said, I don't mind if other sections are expanded and if the section dealing with rumor bombs is compressed. But I don't see reason to eliminate it, especially in a climate where the rumor Obama is a Muslim now is reported to be at 24% and the Shirley Sherrod is Racist rumor resulted in a media firestorm and her resignation. Debordelique (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)debordelique, JH[reply]

no I found out who you were and noticed that the ONLY edits you made to the mainspace (with one exception two years ago)were to promote your own article. Your article is only cited by two different scholarly sources (in one a footnote, and the other a paragraph) and doesn't even show up on a google scholar search of rumor or rumour. I even checked the prior conversation two years ago when you added it as Beardedpig where you argued that it was a new concept and would catch on soon with the scholarly community... but here two years later there has been little or no impact whatsoever. This information completely rebukes your claims that you didn't come here for self promotion, or that your article merits inclusion on a wikipedia article on Rumor (seriously, what secondary source shows your article has a significant impact on the concept of rumor that merits inclusion on an encyclopedia) it is hardly notable enough to be included on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, something you accused me of doing on the public sphere page, but here we find out you are the one who is out ethics (as the scientologists say).Coffeepusher (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps, re read WP:WEIGHT and you will find that it says concepts should be included in terms of content and length proportionally BASED ON THEIR IMPACT WITH THE IDEA AS A WHOLE.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so let me summarize really quick, in two years you have made ONE EDIT to the mainspace which wasn't about your article, and you argue that the one edit demonstrates a significant magnanimous effort on your part to prove your purpose here was to improve this page through your scholarly knowledge of the concept rather than pure self promotion.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the evidence above. I don't know where you do your research. You make false claims, either out of ignorance or spite. I also notice on your page that there have been threats to remove your editing capabilities, accusations of "disingenuous" behavior, and participating in editing wars. (UTC)debordelique, JH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.202.170.56 (talk)

...and Mr. Ad hominem strikes again :) I hope your position of chair doesn't includes teaching students about the flaws of fallacies. But my talk page is irrelevant in a conversation regarding a scholar using wikipedia to promote his pet article. I did look at the evidence above, and a few non-peer reviewed articles written by your colleagues, and mention in conference notes (hell I had two full conference publications as an undergrad, not just a mention...and I am not mentioned on wikipedia...at least I didn't write it :)) does not establish notability for Wikipedia. look at my post again, those blue highlighted words show my research and evidance.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but on the subject of my talk page, I assume "threats to remove your editing capabilities" was that one editior who copy and pasted that warning template as a retaliation for me posting the same thing on his page after he reverted the AA page two times against community consensus...which as far as I can see is the only time there has been "threats to remove your editing capabilities" as well as "engaging in edit wars" a concept that has some specific meaning here which I don't think you really understand...(that person was banned and the community stated I didn't do anything wrong), Accusations of disingenuous behavior...you really should read more than just the headlines before you post you know, read that section.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't forever cry "ad hominem," which anyone who has studied fallacies knows can be a kind of fallacy itself! REspond to the arguments. What do you know about rumor research? YOu hardly looked at the evidence, since you're clearly misrepresenting them again. They come from books most recently on Cambridge University Press (and I'm not speaking of my own contribution to one there), peer-reviewed conference papers, which have been published online, and peer-reviewed journal articles in French, too. If anyone is listening, you simply can't fool them by continually misreprsenting factual claims, which readers may look up themselves. These are hardly citations from amateurs, but from professors and Stanford, Cornell, and other fine universities, to say nothing of one of citations by newspapers, and use in courses (by people I don't know). In addition, if you had done your homework on this page, instead of clearly dropping by to be spiteful (is that the way you deal with legitimate criticisms of your contributions on other pages? Do you think that's really in the interest of collaborative knowledge sharing?), you'd notice that in fact I wrote significant parts of every section (though one was strangely deleted (the section on Knapp's influential work) without justification. I simply didn't login to write those passages, by the IP Address will clearly show they're from France. So, once again, you simply misrepresent, and for what? Because you have hurt feelings that I tried to help improve the article on the public sphere, which you wrote almost entirely on your own? (UTC)debordelique, JH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debordelique (talk • contribs)

first off, I hope you don't mind, I fixed your formating so that your citations didn't look like one giant block quote.

I am not forever crying ad hoinem, you keep dishing them out. you keep jumping and rabbiting, I'm going to keep calling you a frog...unless you have a better definition for your former statement about my talk page, its kinda a textbook ad hominem argument.

now you claim I am misrepresenting the argument, but I claimed it was only published in two peer reviewed journals, and you raised me by...4 of your own works...2 more peer reviewed...and 2 conference proceedings (I seem to remember you arguing that an article with over 150 citations was not nearly notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia). So besides your own work with your own work, a total of 4 scholarly publications have cited the Rumour Bomb in 4 years (and the newspaper trends don't look much better)this isn't a misrepresentation, so far there has been little impact...unless you are making the argument that 4 scholarly contributions are significant for your field, which would mean that your field isn't notable enough to merit inclusion on wikipedia.

so no this isn't based on resentment, it is based on the fact that you are self promoting a concept which does not merit inclusion on wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should be responsible for fixing all the formatting damages from your sabatoge. That's great irony. I don't have time to mend them all at once. I'm sure that will be a collective project for people in the future (or do you plan to continue your shenanigans indefinitely?) It's nice that you received an introduction to fallacies, but you might want to read some more advanced work on them. There is a difference between telling someone he or she is incompetent, ignorant, and an idiot, and reasoning from evidence to that conclusion. Your behavior on Wiki, including traces on your page, reveal that you have had problems with others, "edit wars" and other questions of your ethical motives. If you have a history, it's not hard to follow the evidence to your coinincidental appearance here and your efforts to sabotage an informed article on a topic you've demonstrated you know nothing about. That's not an ad hominem; all one has to do is measure your reasons with your constant whining that you're being "ad hominemed." I support my claims with evidence, as a researcher on a topic that is practically un-researched (Politics and rumor usage from a communication studies standpoint; there are treatments by legal scholars such as Sunstein, journalists galore, and psychologists who don't have much to say about politics, which I've mentioned in the article). You make claims with very little support and with links that suggest they are supportive of your claims, but when one follows them, one finds they have nothing to do with this issue. For example, weight. AS I said, if you follow the link for wiki's policy, it speaks of giving equal weight to different positions. The rumor bomb concept is not one that is opposed to some other theory of rumor. That is a different concept of weight than the one you're citing here. That's called the fallacy of equivocation. You also cited "notability," and that also is a red herring, for it refers to topics that are worthy of their own article, not subtopics that broaden an article on a topic. As I mentioned, when I first came to wiki I did indeed author an article on the rumor bomb concept, which as a newcomer I learned was inappropriate because of the notability policy which also raised issues of self-promotion. I've read the policy on self-promotion. YOu might want to also read it more closely. I don't think my contributions to the overall subject can be classified as self-promotion, though an article alone on wikipedia by me would be. Here's what it says about self-promotion and writing about yourself (a problem wiki constantly has with people creating biographies about themselves, their bands, etc.): "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable." Do I violate a "neutral point of view" policy on my work? I don't say it's the most important contribution ever made to rumor research. I simply state what is fact: that no one else has contributed to it as a professional political communication strategy, and including it adds to our understanding of rumor. Do I create "overly abundant links and references"? If you think so, please point to a universal definition of "abundant links and references." Wiki has obviously worded this section understandably as a precaution against those self-promoters who are not in fact interested in developing and deepening a topic but in simply getting attention. As I mentioned, IP traces suggest that I have contributed quite a bit to this article through it's development, prior to your sabotage. Further yet, Wiki on notability: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." YOu also compare yourself to a PHd who has given plenty of peer-reviewed conference presentations, and published through peer-review. YOu? YOu can't even get a literature review of the public sphere right (not to mention your delusional misunderstandings of fallacies). Thus, it's a hilarious false analogy mixed with ad hominem when you write: "I did look at the evidence above, and a few non-peer reviewed articles written by your colleagues, and mention in conference notes (hell I had two full conference publications as an undergrad, not just a mention." REally? You're a peer-reviewed published scholar? Interesting? Where? What is your evidence? Or is this simply another fallacy designed to create a credibility that is obviously quite lacking (no matter how many articles you meddle with and sabatoge). Despite all your fallacies buried within fallacies and moral posturing, you have the trace of an == Unethical editorial behavior by "Coffeepusher"; REversion to July 25 status of article ==