Jump to content

Talk:Moral panic/Archive 1

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

Non USA panics

What was the African nation that rioted when they tried to hold the Miss World pageant there? Would that not serve as another example? Wesley

Possibly. The list is at the moment rather US/UK-centric; what do other countries have moral panics about? There are certainly the vanishing penis/witchcraft panics -- are these moral panics? --- The Anome

Sure they are, or at least they are examples of hysteria and should be listed in hysteria or have their own article and have the "category:hysteria" tag. --

One could reasonably (but probably anecdotally) argue that the US and UK have a noticable predeliction towards moral panics compared to other parts of the world, hence the preponderance of references to US/UK panics in this article. It seems that many of these panics start in the US, and it's the UK that really picks them up and runs with them- e.g. Satanic Ritual Abuse or anti-smoking hysteria. The US and UK share a common moral stuffiness that promotes moral panic, it seems to me. Just MHO, of course, but perhaps something worthy of study in its own right. 82.71.30.178 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The post directly above this is absurd and shows anti-Western bias. 'Moral Panic' has surfaced in many non-Industrial cultures. For example, child abuse hysteria in Guatemala where residents of several villages became convinced that tourists were abducting children in order to remove their internal organs; Mesoamerican human sacrifice rituals which may have originated with episodes of moral panic; in the Islamic world you have 'honor killings' of female relatives, often over imagined infidelities; and in Haiti social shunning can follow moral panic over someone believed to have come under a hex. So really this is a phenomenon that crosses many cultures and contexts.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion

The reasons for deletion are very simple. This is the article on "moral panic", where we explain what a moral panic is, and give examples to make that explanation clearer. Even if we included only those examples "about which there is no serious dispute", to use the phrasing of WP:NPOV, a list of thirty-three examples really should be more than enough. To include "examples" over which there is indeed serious dispute does not truly clarify the topic, and in fact it violates the principles of NPOV.

Yes, the Church of Scientology does indeed make the claim that there was a moral panic over Scientology in Germany in the 1990's. This is a claim in serious dispute, however, just as is the Church's claim that the modern German government is persecuting them just as Nazi Germany persecuted the Jews, with such phrases as "[the] bloody crimes of psychiatry didn't end with the decline of the '3rd Reich'" and "In the 1930's, it was the Jews. Today it is the Scientologists.". If anything, it appears that with actions such as their full-page New York Times advertisement headlined "Germany Then And Now" over the eagle-and-swastika insignia, the weight of the evidence would show attempts by Scientology to incite a moral panic against Germany -- not the other way around.

For that reason, it seems clear that the best way to preserve NPOV is to remove this example from the list; to quote WP:NPOV again, "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page." Placing either side of the argument on this page would require, for NPOV, discussion of the highly disputed nature of the charges that does not belong here on this page. I think the only sane solution is to remove that one highly questionable example and hope that the other thirty-three will be enough. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this removal of text was done by a person that had no declared bias against Scientologists, I would have considered it. Coming from a person with a declared unsympathy for Scientology, it is unacceptable. I am puting that text back in the article. This is has NOTHING with perserving NPOV, and everything to do with preserving your POV. Reverted --Zappaz 05:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do you ever reflect on what you are saying? You would have considered it, if he was not an ex-scientologist? So it is your sympathy you are making decisions with, in an encyclopedia? You start to become ridiculous, really. 194.70.3.60
And who the f*** are you to be breathing on my neck, and why? --Zappaz 18:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am probably some kind of influenca you caught. One of the symptoms is, that it substitutes your conscience, which is.... yes, where is it? But don't worry, you'll probably recover. 207.36.86.132
ROFL! You are a sick S.O.B. and your hiding behind the anonimity afforded by the Internet only shows your cowardice and bigotry. --Zappaz 04:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are talking to yourself, Zappaz. And are you either rolling on the floor or complaining, or both? I hope this won't turn out into some manic depression. 207.36.86.132


"start"? I'm actually glad he said this; it will go very nicely together with his arguments on other pages that no one can transcend their POV and therefore he shouldn't be expected to even try. Now he's saying that because I have a POV, that's enough justification for him to revert my changes without consideration. He can't actually refute any of my arguments, it seems, but he can argue the genetic fallacy that it must be a POV-pushing move because it comes from me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is all very nice and theoretical. Just answer this question: Why would you go around articles like this one, picking a specific line that has to do with scientology and deleting it? Why? You just came across by accident, and deciced, omg, this specific line must be removed to maintain the article's NPOV? Do you want any one to believe that this was done in good faith? -- Zappaz 18:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"I'm the one who'll ask the questions here!!!" er, actually, no, you're not. You asked me to explain my reasons for deletion. I did that, and you replied with something that did not address those reasons at all, but shifted to personally attacking me, declaring in essence (and contrary to WP:NPOV) that my changes are "unacceptable" because I have a POV. It isn't your responsibility, nor your right, to go around declaring whose POV leads them to make changes that are unacceptable, especially when you've been unable to actually answer why they are unacceptable without pointing to the editor that made them and shouting "declared bias! declared unsympathy!"
Nor is it your right to point fingers and claim that someone else's reasons for editing the article must be "bad faith" reasons. Or perhaps that should be phrased "insinuate" rather than "claim", since if you came right out and claimed it, you'd have to explain why you are discounting such obvious explanations as 'the article is on his watchlist and it was someone else editing exactly that line which brought it to his attention.' Or are you now saying that for me to even have an article on my watchlist is proof of my malign intentions?
If either of us has to explain their presence and their actions here, Zappaz, it's not me. It's you. You've pointed your finger at me and made accusations that I'm obsessively following your edits around (overlooking again the rather simpler explanation that our interests overlap); does it take much stretch of the imagination to imagine that with this paranoid fantasy a certainty in your mind, you've decided to "turn the tables" and spy on my edits (as you have provably done, going through my user pages and my works in progress)? A look at the history of this article shows that I have shown interest in it before the current contretemps. You never showed interest in it until I removed one example from the list, and then you descended upon the article, reverting that change twice, with your only justification for that reversion being that it must be a bad change because it comes from me. Ahem. Why? You just came across [it] by accident, and deci[d]ed, omg, this specific editor's changes must be reverted to maintain the article's NPOV? Do you want any one to believe that this was done in good faith? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are so verbose, Feldspar.... but that does not help you a bit. Your argument about deleting the Scientology examples, on the basis that a) it is disputed (by whom btw?) and b) that there are too many examples in the article, is ludicrous and not worthy of responding to. Your verbosity does not hide the fact that, yet again you claim to transcend your own POV when actually your blindness to the fact that you are unable to do so makes you a victim of your own righteousness. --Zappaz 04:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, you can say whatever you like, but until you're able to actually back it up it's not worth the electrons it's written on. Claiming "your argument is ludicrous and not worthy of responding to" is about as credible as a child on the playground claiming "I knew that! I was just testing to see whether you knew that!" Likewise, your claims that I am not behaving as well as you could wish of me can have no credibility until you decide what you actually wish of me: first you tell me that I should explain my reasons and then you sneer at me for being verbose; first you cite only the fact that I have a POV as all the justification you need for reverting my edits, then you pretend you'd treat me with the respect and civility you should be giving even editors you disagree with if I -- if I what? It can't be "if I admitted that none of us including myself can ever fully transcend POV", because I've done that, and that sure didn't result in you treating me with civility or respect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Antaeus, we keep finding ourselves at opposite ends of edits and disputes. Reason are clear. Both have our own biases, that are opposite. The difference is that I acknowledge my bias on my edits and you don't. When you do, you will gain my respect. Till then, I will call the BS when I see it. --Zappaz 23:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the difference is that you acknowledge your bias and give in to it; I acknowledge my bias and then do something about it. This edit is a very clear example of that at work: you reverted my edits and demanded my reasons for them, and I explained why my edits were based on the principles laid out in WP:NPOV. You then reverted my edits again, even helpfully spelling out that you were basing your reversion upon the identity of the editor. Frankly, if that's your idea of respectable behavior, then I hope that I avoid earning your respect for the rest of my life. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't be so dramatic, Antaeus. Have you ever considered why it is so hard for you to accept the obvious fact that your edits on this page were driven by your POV and not by your stated intention of protecting NPOV? And your "personal attack" line on the summary is another way in which you hide your own attacks against me. I am done here. Yet again my only recourse is to leave you alone. Do as you wish. --Zappaz 02:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You've announced that my possession of a POV makes my changes so unacceptable that you won't even consider them, as you would for an editor who did not share my POV. You've publically cast scorn on the notion that I am acting in good faith. You've hounded me to explain my reasons for my edits and then mocked my "verbosity" in responding to your demands. You've publicly branded me as a "victim of my own righteousness" for not "acknowledging" my own POV (by which you clearly mean something other than acknowledging that I have a POV, but you can't or won't be clear on what). And you don't think that counts as personal attacks?? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the record: [sic]Yes, the Church of Scientology does indeed make the claim that there was a moral panic over Scientology in Germany in the 1990's.. That is more that enough of a reason to have the text included, according to NPOV. --Zappaz 02:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least you are finally being consistent to some small degree. Shame that you're being consistent with a ridiculous principle. You have advocated before "If A claims B is a C, that belongs in the article on C", and that's simply nonsense. In the article on A? perhaps. In the article on B? perhaps. In the article on C? Ludicrous. Just think of how huge and bloated "Prediction" would become; we'd have to include every half-baked twit's claims that they predicted this and that and the other thing. For the last few centuries at the least. You don't understand WP:NPOV as well as you think you do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


MY GOD PEOPLE!!! can one of you please go and read Cohens book and get a clue as to what a moral panic is!!!! SCIENTOLOGY is by far one of the better examples within all this jibberish! I am currently in the process of rewriting this entire section as I have never seen a point missed quite so badly EVER! I have deleted the section that claims most moral panics are centered around sex, this is absolute rubbish, in cohens ORIGINAL study of moral panics the example of Mods and Rockers was used, there is little or no mention of sexual activity. There is little or no mention of the methology one must use when describing and evaluating a moral panic as CLEARLY laid out by cohen! Can someone please add a link to Grounded Theory, and then re-write that section as well.

Scientology is a perfect example of a moral panic, look at the words "moral" and "panic". now tell me please how this does not fit perfectly around a direct panic percieved every day by the media and members of our society, and also (to justify earlier) please show where the sexual element fits in here. I apologise for any semantical errors in this as i am quite pissed off - kenscanna BSc/MSc/PhD in Criminology and Sociology.

Moving on

Perhaps we could have a Moral Panic category?

Of the top of my head, hair-cutting demons in China are another example- Fortean Times have had quite a few discussed over the years.

I've gone ahead and created Category:Moral panics, and peopled it with a number of articles to start with. Not sure if every single article mentioned on the page actually belongs, though. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it's a category that will bear watching. "Moral panic" is one of those terms -- like "groupthink" -- that tends to get over-applied, because people grasp the general concept a lot better than they do the specific criteria, and they don't have the knowledge to look for aspects of the situation that don't fit the concept. It gets co-opted to serve as an epithet rather than as a sociological term. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For instance, I was initially undecided about 128.252.60.99's removal of War on Terrorism, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized he was right. One can certainly argue that the War on Terrorism as it has been conducted represents an overreaction, but not all overreactions are moral panics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would the various fusses over Section 28 (UK), same-sex marriage and other similar topics qualify as moral panics? Both had extensive media coverage and people predicting the destruction of society as we know it... -- CamTarn

Maybe. The part that would qualify as a moral panic would be those arguments that posit a "destruction of the family unit" and therefore destruction of society, though I'm not so sure that that belief is especially widespread, compared to, say, the Satanic ritual abuse or periodic pedophilia scares. One additional moral panic that might be worth adding, now that I think of it, is the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal. -Seth Mahoney 16:17, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, looking back, I think yes, they do qualify, especially since they are often consistently framed in terms of protecting children (from some threat that can't be specifically named). -Seth Mahoney 03:13, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

question

what is the difference between moral panic and mass hysteria? Kingturtle 02:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A moral panic is specifically framed in terms of morality, and usually expressed as outrage rather than unadulterated fear. Though not always, very often moral panics revolve around issues of sex and sexuality. There also aren't necessarily the typical hysterical responses (though the responses are hysterical in their own right). -Seth Mahoney 03:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I do not see how Poisoned candy scare fits into this definition of moral panic. please explain. Kingturtle 03:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Its a borderline case, IMHO, but I can see it maybe fitting because:
1. Children are involved. Often, in modern Western society at least, moral panics center around some perceived threat to children, usually by depraved adults.
2. This is something someone is intentionally doing, and it is being condemned as wrong (in addition to inciting fear).
-Seth Mahoney 01:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that moral panics are a sub-category of what one may term "social scares"- a general terror that grips a society. It may be "moral" as with a paedophile scare, or not, as with, say "toxicity in food" or "mobile phone radiation".19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How does this work?

The idea seems to be that you have a moral panic when people are concerned about a moral issue, and then the issue gets personalized, dramatized and made concrete by some particular case or group of cases, and (as always when people feel strongly about some issue) there's a lot of misinformation and tendentious media coverage floating around.

Sounds like almost any big social movement that gets some media support, feminism, antiracism, opposition to the Viet Nam war or whatever, would involve a series of moral panics. Is that so? Or is the classification applied only when the classifier doesn't like the general tendency of the outrage and wishes people would just shut up? In that case it would be a rhetorical expression pretending to be scientific.

Like many other terms, "groupthink" for example, it is a sociological term with a defined set of criteria that has spread from the academic world to the journalistic world, and from there to ordinary discourse, steadily losing precision. You are quite correct that it can be (mis-)used as a non-scientific rhetorical expression, but that hardly means that the term itself is only "pretending to be scientific". In any case, I think you are blurring the lines even further than you are suggesting others do or might: even at the height of the demonization of Vietnam war protestors, a demonization that was coming from the White House down, I somehow doubt that tabloid newspapers or news shows ever blared "Could these dangerous war protestors be hiding in your neighborhood??" Whereas after the Columbine massacre, major news organizations were in fact promoting the impression that at schools all across the United States, Doom-playing and trenchcoat-wearing youths might be just a hair's-breadth away from committing the next act of mass bloodshed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I suppose one thing that affected me was the list of examples that seemed quite miscellaneous except that they all seemed to be chosen from a culturally liberal position. Are "homosexuality" or "pornography" or "rap music" or "rock 'n roll" all moral panics? The term seemed to be used interchangeably with "things I think are OK that other people think are really bad." Why not call denunciations of talk radio or worries about fundies or British opposition to blood sports moral panics? A more focused example might be the claimed epidemic of arson involving black churches a few years back that apparently didn't exist. -- Jim Kalb
Moral panics are, by their very nature, culturally conservative; they are always going to be a fear among the members of the dominant culture that some specific subculture or a group identified/influenced by some specific cultural artifact threatens them. People have at times feared that homosexuals were going to molest their children or lure their adolescents to the "gay agenda"; they feared that pornography would turn decent people into depraved sex-crazed beasts; they feared that rap music would create a generation of violence-glorifying gang members; they feared that rock'n'roll would lure their children to Satan. And in fact there are people who still fear all these things today. now, some people will argue vigorously that talk radio or blood sports or fundamentalist interference in politics are Bad Things -- but there is a difference between thinking something is a Bad Thing, and there being a moral panic over it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But "culturally conservative" and "dominant culture" aren't necessarily well-defined and vary among subcultures. The two may be at odds. It seems there would especially be difficulties of definition in times of moral conflict, which apparently are times moral panics are especially likely to arise. For example, there's survey data suggesting that 25% of the population hates and fears fundies as much as the most antisemitic 1% hates and fears Jews. I'd imagine the figure would be even more extreme for the percentage who hate and fear racists or white supremacists. So why couldn't there be a moral panic about fundies or racists? It seems to me the to-do about church burnings was an example of the latter.-- Jim Kalb
Well, it's not impossible that you can find a moral panic of a political persuasion more palatable to you; I hope you'll keep Wikipedia's prohibitions on original research in mind before you start adding example of "moral panics" to the list, especially as a few days ago you were ready to declare that the concept itself was pure rhetoric and had no scientific weight. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can think of a number of true moral panics generated by the political left: the hoo-haw some years ago about "assault weapons", distinguished from other semiautomatic rifles by mere cosmetic issues; this led to various calls for legislation. So called "secondhand smoke", designed to make cigarette smokers untouchables whose very presence is an unclean thing, and the consequential calls for smoking bans, is another classic moral panic that is associated with the political left: this is a less clear case, because there is also a tradition of right-wing religious disapproval of tobacco use as well, that may have some lingering influence. The various "child-saver" panics do not unambiguously belong to the political right, for that matter. Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think moral panics just don't divide cleanly along political lines as Jim would like them to. I mean, snuff films? That's a huge example of a moral panic; huge blaring headlines, media frenzy, people swearing up and down that they had a friend who knew a guy who'd once seen one -- and after about three decades, the FBI has yet to find even one actual snuff film. So how do we divide that one along political lines? There were certainly plenty of left-wing feminists shooting off their mouths about how this was just the natural extension of pornography, so do we conclude that the political right was the side supporting snuff films? Or is it suddenly the political left that includes snuff movies in "things I think are OK that other people think are really bad"? I'd like to see us stop trying to assign a political identity to the moral panic, because it seems to do more to obscure than to illuminate the concept. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you may have a point. When we hear of some social hubbub we disagree with labelled as a form of mass hysteria, we agree and move on. It's only those that address concerns we share that we notice; labelling them a sort of mass hysteria is an attack on our own beliefs. Smerdis of Tlön 04:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OTOH, its gratifying when a large number of people suddenly seem to believe something you've believed for a long time. So gratifying that one might fail to question the origins of this new-found belief. One could describe the massive popular opposition to the Iraq war in the UK as a moral panic, I guess, or the objections to the poll tax.
The difference, I think, is that there was percieved to be some basis to the threat. In contrast, moral panic about ecstacy deaths, the falsity of perceptions that hundreds were dying or that ecstacy was inherently deadly were perceived to have basis in fact. In truth, most pills were contaminated with heroin, ketamine and other nasties, and MDMA damages neurotransmitters ("your brain on ecstacy"); but the latter was not known at the time, and the former criticism was rarely made: ecstacy itself was reported to be deadly.
That the reports were false was widely known; they were (to users and their aquaintances) demonstrably wrong. To others the falacy was not demonstrable. That's the common theme; false accusations about things many people have no experience of, but people "in the know" believe are nonsense. If one considers the UK and US administrations to be in the know (after all, they have unique access to intelligence), the objections to the war are moral panics (this is a matter of blind trust rather than demonstrable falsification, though). Equally, if one considers (and similarly trusts), e.g., reporters of Arab TV stations to be in the know, the drive for war was a moral panic. The poll tax was a bit different, as it was demonstrably unjust, though I suppose one could argue about the significance or extent of those injustices.
Thinking further, the "morality" aspect is crucial. The literal meaning is "mass panic about the morality of some group". Application to young people is an inherrently conservative view. OTOH, application to other groups is probably valid: "the government", "new labour", "Blair and his cronies", "Thatcher", "the neo-conservatives", etc. A moral panic about the neo-cons has not happened in the US, probably because they are not widely recognised as a group, nor the UK, as not enough people are familiar with the term.
Also, the fact that such panics are not based on evidence, but simplistic moralising and prejudice, tends to make them most popular amongst people of lower intelligence and sophistication, and they are thus percieved as associated with the lower-middle and working classes and those that would manipulate them. Mr. Jones 10:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's important to avoid original research on this subject, especially because "moral panic" looks like it's primed to get co-opted and corrupted the way that "groupthink" did, to mean anything which seems to someone to have the same external markings. I don't think that either support for or opposition to the Iraq war qualifies as a moral panic, and I'd want to evaluate the source of any claim that it did. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's another potential moral panic re gun control (credit freakonomics and summary from http://news.ycombinator.net/item?id=5674): Statistically speaking a child is much more likely to drown in a swimming pool than be killed by a gun (of course, corrected for socioeconomic status and all the standard stuff.) Yet we see countless campaigns against gun violence with the argument that x number of kids get killed due to guns, and none for "swimming pool safety" or a host of other things that are far more likely to kill you.

71.74.162.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Jack71.74.162.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

paragraph removed from examples

* Aftermaths of mass-shootings are also an example of moral panic with the media, the politicians, and the anti-gun movement capitalising and exploiting the emotions and prejudices of a shocked and mourning community to ban certain firearms from legal ownership and to single out and vilify law-abiding firearm owners and people who oppose the new bans and restrictions. Good examples of moral panics after mass-shootings are the aftermaths of the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings in Great Britain and the aftermaths of the Port Arthur massacre and the Monash University shootings in Australia.

I removed this paragraph from the list of examples for several reasons, not least of which is that no other example in the list gets a whole paragraph; at most it gets a sentence or two. That's even for the unambiguous examples where there's consensus that it is a moral panic and no one is seriously arguing that it is a real danger to which the reaction is justified. This paragraph has serious POV problems, since it presumes that only a moral panic could cause people to think that maybe there's "certain firearms" that there really isn't a justification for allowing into civilian hands.

I personally do not think we need to include such an ambiguous example, not when the list already has thirty-odd items, but if it is to be included at all, it should be as the others are, as a link to an article which explains the POV that it is a moral panic, as well as the POV that it is not. The listing here should also include the detail that the characterization of it as a moral panic is strongly disputed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, can you please explain why you deleted my addition because it was an "unsourced alterations to definition". What would you like me to do, to make the change acceptable? unsigned comment by 212.25.75.66 (talk · contribs)

Well, I'd like you to justify your changes, of course. I'd like you to find sources for your changed definition of moral panic, so that next time someone asks "if the members of the subculture are not ostracized, victimized, and punished, does it count as a moral panic?" we'll have an answer, rather than just saying "Oh, yes, someone anonymous person came along and claimed that that was part of the definition, but we have no idea who made that part of the criteria." -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the media's reporting on the victims of Hurricane Katrina counts. The outrageous rumors of child-raping and baby-throat slitting passed on by the media, have the most in common with this list. Here's a very non-NPOV, I welcome you to NPOV it and post it on wikipedia. http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Position:Katrina_media_coverage_was_racist_class_warfare (It even links here)

Cleanup option

Okay, some of the examples here have no reason next to them, so maybe we should get rid of the ones without reasons or find a reason.--WitchesBrew82 22:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that any "reason" would suffice. I would suggest listing "examples which a group or researcher claims is moral panic" along with the person making the claim. If you try to determine which claims are panic, and which are real, you're going to get into some serious cat-fights.
And in case anyone asks - when I wrote that the "chronology" of the Middletown and Putnam studies raises questions, I am simply pointing out the mathematical fact that 1950 comes after 1925. Something about stating that outright seems unreasonably nasty, although if someone wants to spell it out, go ahead. --L. 23:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish propaganda?

Can somebody tell me why there are four links that lead to the same anti-Jewish propaganda article? It seems like all the other links were real moral panics, but who in their right mind belives this stuff? And why is the same thing repeated four times?

  • Animal-shaped chewing gum which causes sterility, given to Egyptian children by "Zionists".
  • Chewing gum which causes lust, given to Egyptian university students by "Zionists".
  • HIV-infected "pretty Jewish girls" who "sell themselves to Egyptian youngsters seeking pleasure" to infect them with AIDS.
  • Seeds sent to Egypt by "the Zionist Entity" which "destroyed the Egyptian soil, rendering part of it infertile."
It seems to have been an attempt to show that moral panics exist outside the Western world, attempting to counter a tendency of Wikipedia (a "systematic bias") to cover the Western world exclusively because that is what most contributors have the most ease collecting data about. I don't know why these particular four were chosen, or whether they actually were believed enough by their intended audience to qualify as moral panics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Might try reading the second line on this page,
Possibly. The list is at the moment rather US/UK-centric; what do other countries have moral panics about? There are certainly the vanishing penis/witchcraft panics -- are these moral panics? --- The Anome
Gzuckier 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Other kinds of examples - not necessarily from a left-wing perspective

I don't have enough detail about them to be able to edit the main article but here are some examples of moral panic in Australia that might inspire others to think outside the box:

  • panic about ice cream flavours that are based on the flavours of alcoholic drinks - as if this was leading large numbers of kids into alcoholism
  • panic about the packaging of low-alcohol cooler drinks - similar issue
  • panic about swimming pool drownings of young children - every time one of these rare events happens there is a journalistic response that suggests a kind of mass extermination of young children by swimming pool owners.

I dare say that examples like this (which do not require one to be especially left-wing to see moral panic going on) happen in other countries. Metamagician3000 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, since 1997 (the announcement of the cloning of Dolly the sheep in the previous year) there has been an extraordinary moral panic about the prospect of human cloning, based on the statements of the Raelians, etc., as if we are going to have mad scientists creating armies of mindless clones at any moment. This strikes me as a quintessential and topical example of the moral panic phenomenon. Metamagician3000 09:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blame Canada FICTIONAL not real.

I removed Canada from the moral Panic article because blame canada is fictional. This article covers REAL moral panics. Whoever added it is a South Park fanatic.Sargent Teff 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Examples

Given the definition as involving "cultural behavior or group of people", does anyone think that some of the examples are misplaced? HTTP cookies aren't a behavior or group of people, unless there is a perceived group out there placing cookies to watch us. But even then, HTTP cookies would fall under another subcategory. What about DDT and Violence in video games? Perhaps we might clarify the opening definition?

Just putting it on the table for comment. --DanielCD 20:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

HTTP Cookies - an an example of Moral Panic around privacy, internet safety, identity theft etc. See my comments below. Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW there are a lot of ppl out there trying to start a "moral panic" over Wikipedia. --DanielCD 22:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think cutting down the list and converting it into a few paragraphs with explanations how each has been described (with references!) as a moral panic would be more useful than clarifying the definition. What's this about a wikipedia moral panic? -Seth Mahoney 23:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a jab. I was just reading some "Wikiphilia" material and they think Wikipeida is going to "zombi-ize" the world, that Wikis are "taking over". I didn't really mean it to be all that serious, but thought I'd fish for some comments. "Controlling An Outbreak Of Wikiphilia" sounds kind of alarmist to me. Also the Wikipedophilia site, saying Wikipedia is a den of Pedophiles.
BTW, I agree with your comment about the examples. I think the list is too long, and they need more explaination. A few good and explained examples would be more informative than a long list like this (IMHO). --DanielCD 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only is it more informative, it is better stylistically to have paragraphs rather than lists. Maybe we should vote on a few good examples and cobble together a few paragraphs explaining them. And now that you've mentioned it, I've read the "wikipedia is a den of pedophiles" nonsense. If it were a widespread enough belief, it would make for a good example of a moral panic! -Seth Mahoney 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, it seems as if people are trying to create a kind of panic with that. I actually think the anti-Wiki people "recruited" the "ped. issue" to their side, and that it's not primarily about pedophilia, which really hurts both issues. Not even so toxic a topic as that has hurt Wikipedia though, as it shows no sign of losing steam.
I'm for the voting on the examples. I'll try to look at it tonight. --DanielCD 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say definite options for keepers are Satanic ritual abuse, pedophilia, communism, child pornography (though maybe ditch pornography), and some form of rock 'n' Roll music (there has to be a more specific article, something like satanic messages in rock 'n' roll music when played backwards or Elvis' gyrating hips will transform our kids into insane sex maniacs), homosexuality, white slavery (its historical, but it is a really good example), Dungeons & Dragons, and Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. I completely agree with your discards list. -Seth Mahoney 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Open for debate:
Keep:
See below
Discard (some might be examples, but poorly illustrate the issue):
I'm an internet software engineer (amongst other things) and contend that concerns around HTTP cookies are definitely a good example of a moral panic broadly focussed on privacy, identify theft, security, stranger danger, child internet safety. In the context of this section on moral panics, this example demonstrates an overstated fear out of proportion to the real, demonstrable risk, a tendency to over-sensitivity to suggestion of risk and personal danger, typically inversely proportional to one's actual risk, a diminution of the individual's ability to judge risk, a tendency to overreact, self-isolate. Thx.BadCop666 (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Too general?:
Hmmm:
Note: I may have an American bias, so if there's something I've overlooked, hope someone could correct for that... --DanielCD 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of anything to add at the moment. One thing to keep in mind if the final list starts to look a little long is that we can group items topically: Pedophilia, the poisoned candy scare (if its the one I remember), the roman catholic dealey, and child pornography can be globbed together; satanic messages in rock lyrics, witchcraft (both historical and contemporary), and satanic ritual abuse can be in the same part, etc. -Seth Mahoney 03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Open: I have not forgotten this; just a little sidetracked.
The Keeps:
Here is the list (I moved it down from above). Should we go ahead and remove the discards? Or make a vote? I say, leave it here for comment for 24 hrs, then delete them if no one has an issue. Or if there are other ideas...? --DanielCD 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we'll also consider keeping "Mods and Rockers", since our only major reference (Cohen 1972) seems to deal with that. Im going to prune the following:

Hope I got them all. Is this new? I'll look.

--DanielCD 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would Prohibition be the result of a successful moral panic? --86.148.73.32 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed that no-one has suggested Islamic Fundamentalism, The War on Terror, Terrorism - wow! these are biggies! oversensitivity to suggestion of risk out of proportion to real risk, tendency to adopt generalisations, tendency to accept increased government powers intruding into personal freedom (ie, sacrifice of freedoms for - promised - increases in security ) etc etc


and what about Global Warming? (I'm not soapboxing!) A strong component of public acceptance of media portrayals of the 'science' of Anthropogenic Global Warming theories (yes you can take this as a criticism of the media's role) and predicted environmental cataclysm, are the foundational notions of human hubris, the age of risk, the personification of 'mother earth' as a reactive, almost sentient, systemic organism (Gaia theories), a mythical elevation of projected environmental cataclysm above existing (long term) and more immediate and real phenomena eg., malaria, tuberculosis, starvation etc - in other words a short, sensitive memory, and short term focus on whatever is a fresh issue in mainstream media.
  • Global pandemic and epidemic? Ebola, Avian Flu ( other examples ) - Avian flu climaxed with multi-million dollar sales of (reportedly worthless) Tamiflu medication (lining Donald Rumsfeld's pocket) and survivalism equipment. Farmers fitted explosives to bridges leading onto their land - perhaps having watched 'Dawn of the Dead'? Nonetheless, examples of an incredible level of panic around these issues are almost limitless


Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article?

This is related to what's being talked about above but I thought it deserved a seperation for clarity's sake. The article defines Moral Panic using the words "false or exaggerated", which gives me the impression that the cause must be unjustified to be considered Moral Panic, but then it goes on in the "examples" section to list "real or imagined phenomena" including things that most objective people would agree are perfectly justified. Clearly a contradiction unless I'm totally confused about something.--24.190.122.122 04:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no actual contradiction but it's understandable how it might appear to be one. The moral panic may be based on a real phenomenon, but one that has been blown completely out of proportion. An example would be the Columbine shootings. Did those school shootings actually happen; were they real? Yes. Was the reaction to them exaggerated? I think it's quite demonstrable that the reaction was exaggerated; many major social and political figures talked in news shows about what drastic measures might be necessary in order to stem 'the rising level of school violence' -- even though the data showed the actual level of school violence was moving downwards and had been for some time. The phenomenon (school shootings) was real, but the assumption (the problem is widespread, and it's growing) was false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I made a note above about amending the definition (as many given examples did not seem to fit), and it could likely use some more strategic wording. --DanielCD 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I see your point. I was misunderstanding something. I agree that the definition needs some clarification, though.--24.190.122.122 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is in process as we speak. We certainly invite you to contribute any knowledge of this you may have. Even pointing out/correcting any errors you see improves the quality of Wikipedia and would be appreciated. Feel as if you are among friends here and join in the discussion at any time. --DanielCD 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Comic books, Movies, and Rock and Roll: What more could you need?

I inserted the comic book reference and the article is at Comic book code of 1954. Take a peek. Ok, now I switched to a fuller reference.

Re: Movies
I added reference to the Hays code, is that ok? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) .
Certainly. We might ask some questions later if we want to know more. --DanielCD 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How about linking to Parents Music Resource Center instead of Rock and Roll since it sums up the moral panic part, as opposed to an article on the entire history of R&R? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) .

We'll look at it. I'll stick it back in the list. Perhaps these two can be mentioned together. You've got a keen eye; thanks for pointing that out. --DanielCD 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

unverified passage

Whoa I have some serious problems with this passage: 

In the Middletown studies, the moral indignation held by community 
leaders in 1925 appears absurd to modern readers, and leads to the 
implication that every generation falls prey to unfounded (and 
nneeded) bouts of moral panic. For example, sociologist Robert Putnam, 
in his book Bowling Alone, argued that the 1950s was the pinnacle of 
social capital and community in American life, and that since that 
era, society has been going bad. However, the chronology of the two 
studies does not support that conclusion.

The moral indignation doesn't seem absurd to me. The pastor's comment that the automobile will lead to 1) looser sexual mores and 2) declined church attendance seem not only surd but practically incontrivertable. Have you never heard of "parking"? Which replaced courting on the front porch in oversight of the old folks, I guess. And church attendance DID decline throughout the 20th Century, and auto-mobility may very well have played a part in that.

I'm not saying that the automobile doesn't have great benefits, or even that looser sexual mores and lower church attendance are bad, but I wouldn't say that saying that the automobile would cause such-and-such is absurd, especially when it did (partially) cause such-and-such.

As to the Putnam book, besides the overly-informal phrase "going bad"... the article strongly implies that Putnam has been flat-out disproved. I know the book was/is controversial, but I don't know that Putnam has been proved wrong.

This passage rates an unverified or POV tag. I'm not gonna place it right now but something's gotta be done about that passage. Herostratus 07:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that criticism. We'll leave it here and I'll look at it when I can grab a minute. --DanielCD 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worded bad. It's saying that, despide the validity of the outrage, it looks odd to us considering our historical hindsight. I may be wrong. Also, Putnam is referring to "social capital" so pay attention to how he and others are defining this. He means a decline in social capital, and "going bad" is definitely poor wording and needs fixing. As for the disproving, I made a mental note a while back that that needed to be checked, but never got onto it. Perhaps now would be a good time to review it.
Overall, there is some bad wording here and some fact checking that needs to be done. With those corrections, I think this passage will strengthen the article. --DanielCD 16:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, it is my understanding that church membership attendance in the USA peaked in the 1950s. The Religion in the United States article suggests that it rose during the twentieth century. The superiour religious piety (or sexual morality) of our ancestors is a sort of false nostalgia, a product of the selective preservation of memories, one of those things that "everybody just knows" that isn't true. Smerdis of Tlön 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see what you are saying, and this is definitely an elephant in the living room. But what are the operational definitions Putnam uses? I can't help out a lot as I haven't read the book. --DanielCD 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh Hi DanielCd, I keep bumping into you. Of course rather than bitching I should look it up and help out myself... but this one's not on my list. Right, the church thing should should be easy to verify... hmmm few minutes search tells me not so easy, but this: new site might show promise, at least in future.Herostratus 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh right, Putnam is mentioned in the Middletown studies article... hmm the key is the passage "social scientists point to the Middletown studies...first...study of this phenomenon". That may well be true (that social scientists do that) but it doesn't really come across why they do. Herostratus 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, just what does the "chronology of these two studies" mean here? I'm not seeing how they are immediately related. Putnam has to have an operational definition of "Social capital", and the only way this comparison has any validity is if his O. definition is roughly equivalent to some variable in the Middletown studies. Re-reading this paragraph, it really doesn't make any sense.
You were right to catch this and bring it here. I've been working on the examples here so much that I've neglected the rest of the article. --DanielCD 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

More added in

Practically no one is heeding my request not to add new examples, but to list them here. --DanielCD 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP ADDING NON-MORAL PANICS!!! READ THE TEXT AND GROUNDED THEORY, YOU CANNOT JUST LABEL INCIDENTS AS MORAL PANICS WITHOUT THE SEVEN STEP APPROACH! kenscanna


"Seven Step Approach"?? What are you talking about? The definition I see in the article is: an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests." (Cohen 1972: 9)... is it unreasonable to try and expand the list where appropriate? Reefer Madness (or rather recreational drug use) certainly falls under this category I would think... What is this "Seven Step Approach"? Why don't you add the process to the article? PaulC/T+ 17:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I support addition of Blood libel and the War on Christmas. I was considering to add Blood libel just last night. I am going to add them. Also, this list is getting pretty big. Maybe we should create a list of moral panics and make it a seperate article? We can keep a few modern panics as examples. Onsmelly 20:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Many examples may be good ones, but let's choose a few of the best. We can't list everything here because it gets confusing and some examples are more illustrative than others. I keep pruining it, but ask people to use their judgement before adding them. Please. --DanielCD 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Social mania

Very similar material at Social mania. --SpencerTC 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Research?

The list of examples of moral panics is on shaky ground in terms of WP's no original research policy, I think. If you were to cite a published source saying that at least some people considered the public reaction to, say, the Church abuse scandal to be a moral panic, that would be one thing. In fact it seems the only support for the claim that any of these things are moral panics is the fact that certain Wikipedia editors consider them to be so. You may think that the war on drugs is a moral panic (and in fact so do I), but so long as there are a lot of people out there who do not hold that opinion, some sort of reference is needed to prove that some people (scholars, maybe journalists) besides ourselves would classify it as such. --Zeligf 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Why don't we leave the list more or less intact for a while and dig up some sources. -Smahoney 00:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the standards should be tighter. People are constantly sticking in new ones though. Hard to keep up with it. --DanielCD 00:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cohen" referenced in intro then defined later.

Like the subject says; what's the best way to handle this? Irrevenant 02:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Transphobia

There really isn't much of a transphobia moral panic that I've observed. So I removed it. I added pandemics because Bird Flu was in the links and then I realized that Bird Flu isn't a moral panic, it's just hysteria. Onsmelly 07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Listify?

It was suggested elsewhere, and I thought I'd bring it up here again with a twist: The list is getting pretty long. Maybe we should choose 4 or 5 really good examples, write a (sourced) paragraph on each, and move everything else to List of moral panics. -Smahoney 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this sentiment. I expressed the same desire above. Onsmelly 03:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the list so far (I grouped them by related topics, figuring if we do that we are more likely to be able to get a paragraph out of them). Let's vote on which ones we can write a paragraph about and keep in the article (with the idea of sparking some interest, not committing a group of editors to doing something necessarily):

Witchcraft and Satanism (or, alternately, fundamentalist Christian religious panics):

Sexuality:

Violence and children:

Deviant influences:

Voting:

  • I'll put my vote down for "Violence and children" and "Sexuality", since I think both represent fears that are spread across social strata, rather than limited to particular social groups. -Smahoney 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

-Smahoney 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "Violence and Children" is better suited to be simply "Violence". Fears about video game violence is not limited to children and Columbine fears is really more about teenagers. Blood libel is not always related to children. My vote would be for "Deviant influences" and "Sexuality" as those are good examples that are easy to write about. The Communism moral panic is extremely well documented and the "War on Christmas" is still fresh in our memories. Onsmelly 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would take one example from each category, to represent the full spectrum and avoid giving the impression that moral panics are limited to one section of society. I'd go for Satanic ritual abuse from the witchcraft category as one of the most classic examples, Day care sex abuse from the sex category, Comic books for deviant influences, and Blood libel for a historical one. The advantages to these is that they all have specific articles on the panic that we can link to; they're all almost universally agreed to be panics today; they're relatively well known; and they are, in general, good examples of the form and lifecycle of a moral panic. --Aquillion 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow, I was trying to keep the examples trimmed but wasn't able to keep up with it. I think you guys are doing a great job. I like the general categories as given. I think we can lose the obscure Gel bracelet. I've never even heard of that, but that's just my opinion. I think we should continue to trim out things people throw in and stay with some strong basic categories where we can highlight a few strong examples. --DanielCD 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of the gel bracelet thing, but its never struck me as a moral panic, or even something that's on people's radar. But yeah, anyway, I agree with Aquillion's earlier suggestion. -Smahoney 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Illegal Immigration is clearly an example of moral panic. I've seen it used, in recent memory, as the reason for everything from increased disease1 [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275 2] to the recent failure of the Big Dig. At the very least, immigrants in general are, and have always been, a source of moral panic, and I'm very surprised they're not listed here already.--Albatross83 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Piracy

Just a quick point. The Piracy link leads to sea piracy not software piracy. I dont know how to change it or Id do it myself. The previous unsigned comment was added by 212.56.97.238 (contribs/talk), at 13:24 UTC on 26 July 2006.

MySpace

In the frame of our definition MySpace is definitely a moral panic. "myspace teen danger" returned 558,000 results on Google. People are really freaking out about it, so I think its definitely a candidate.

crack babies

Would crack babies count as a moral panic? During the crack baby scare, people were saying that every crack baby was going to have enormous medical expenses, and that our school systems and medical systems were going to collapse under the weight of these hordes of hopeless kids. A lot of the attitude, at least in the Mid-West, was "These drug-using, immoral, black women are destroying our prosperity." That sounds like a moral panic to me.Jonathan Tweet 01:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For sure. Sunray 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you could use the book Freakonomics as a source for that, as well. If I remember, the author goes into some detail about how that scare was unfounded. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about crack babies, but crack cocaine in general is a good candidate considering the overbearing legislation passed as a result of the moral panic. The following source compares the prior moral panic over crack cocaine to the current moral panic over sex offenders. (MICHAEL M. O'HEAR, Perpetual Panic, 21 Federal Sentencing Reporter 69, 69-77 (2009)). 71.74.162.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Jack71.74.162.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

children?

It seems that many of the examples in the article deal with the actions of young people or the corruption or abuse of children. Maybe the common theme of young people should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article? Gary 21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it? Socrates was put to death for 'corrupting the minds of the young' and atheism. How very little has changed over the millenia. A man can lead a country into war and slaughter thousands of innocents, only to be declared a hero of the state. But let him do anything that could potentially 'corrupt the mind of a child', say, by writing a controversial book or recording a bawdy song, or suggesting that god(s) are a sham, and they will nail him to the wall for it. Nothing ever really changes, does it? Wandering Star 00:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge with social mania

I oppose the suggestion to merge Moral Panic with Social Mania. The Social Manias listed are far more sweeping than moral panics. Perhaps moral panics qualifiy as instances of social manias, but social manias are much broader. What I'd like to see instead is some sort of hierarchy with increasing degrees of specificity, such as "social mania -> moral panic -> child abuse conspiracy -> day care child abuse hysteria." And the same list ending with "satanic ritual abuse." And "social mania -> moral panic -> drug panic -> reefer madness/crack baby/etc." I'd like to see someone looking up the Wenatchee Sex Ring to see a connection "upline" to "child abuse consipracy" and laterally to "satanic ritual abuse." From "child abuse conspiracy," one could go up a level to moral panic or laterally to drug panic. Jonathan Tweet 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad suggestion. But we need to have general, more categorical terms to use for each of those stages. Something that would apply for all circumstances, not just the two you specifically mention. We could still talk about those, but as specific examples of the 'meta-pattern' which could apply to other panics/manias/hysterias/whatever-we-want-to-call-them. So, what do you suggest we use for the names of each stage? Also, can you come up with a workable theory connecting these progressions/graduations? Lastly, we need sources to cite to back it all up with. Something air-tight, too, something people will look at and lend some credence to. Do you know of any social scientists that have done research on this phenomenon? Wandering Star 03:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What about other moral panic socio-political issues that strike a nerve in some people or even a majority of a certain society?: Feminism, Immigration, Political correctness, Environmental destruction, Illegal drugs and Sexual harassment? They should be included in the article's list, plus terrorism after the 9/11 terror attacks in the United States. The things our nightmares are made of and what the media is fixated on, in order to generate a moral panic, one after another. +Mike D 26 12:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. As Johnathan Tweet has said, the term "moral panic" is more specific than "social mania." There are many books and articles written about the phenomenon of moral panic, and, IMO, it behoves an encyclopedia to have an article on the subject. The reader can then compare with social mania, witchhunt, crowd psychology, scapegoat, satanic ritual abuse and so on. In the process, we enable learning. If I want to know what a moral panic is, I don't want to have to scroll through a more general article to find out about it. Sunray 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I also Oppose the merge. While it is hard to find a definition of social mania which does not include moral panics, and vice versa, the two articles seem to indicate that a social mania is larger and more far-reaching than a moral panic. The distinction may be blurry, but a social mania does not necessarily have to include a moral panic, and a moral panic may not affect very many people, something I would expect to see in a social mania. I doubt many people got up in arms about gel bracelets, for example. For these reasons I think that the articles should remain distinct, at least for now. Gary 03:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Moral panic is an important sociological term that deserves its own article. --Jajasoon 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Moral panic is a specific, well-defined, well-known concept. "Social mania" isn't an insufficiently differentiated term; it's just an underdeveloped entry.

I had never heard of social mania and wouldn't have known where to go if there hadn't been an entry for "moral panic". I think I agree with the comment that moral panic, even if it is a form of social mania, desreves its own entry.

Incidentally, does anyone else agree that the current scare about plagiarism in academic life - which would bar a person from summarising something she / he had previously written unless quotation marks and full citation is given - is something of a moral panic?

I've never heard of it Bisected8 12:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Result = No merge Sunray 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Immigration

Shouldn't immigration be included as a moral panic especially as its a consistant moral panic theme by the right wing and in the right wing press of the UK eg: Daily Mail / Daily Express? --Wrh1973 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The UK's obsession with immigration is risible ... completely ridiculous. Never mind the breakdown of the family unit, abortion rates at over 193,000 per year (500 to 600 abortions per day), shameful drinking culture, the disappearance of God from UK society etc! The immigrants are FAR more significant (sarcasm intended!). The UK media has a lot to answer for. They perpetuate fear, prejudice, and hatred.

Just the other day I walked past some newspaper adverts - ALL of them had immigration as their TOP story, and they associated immigration with terrorism. If that isn't fear-mongering, I don't know what is! A few weeks ago my relative was racially assaulted, both physically and verbally. The "attacker" said, "f#cking immigrants". My relative did NOTHING to that person. You can be pretty sure that the attacker is obsessed with immigration issues in the media. Lots of people grumble about immigrants, whilst ignoring their own faults. They have been 'spoon-fed' by the UK media, and have foolishly swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. 88.108.117.105 13:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[TheAwfulTruth]

Agreed, immigration is a frequent source of moral panic. It is touched on in the "Examples" section which discusses persecution of ethnic groups. Certainly this could be expanded. We need a good source though — that is, an article or book that discusses this subject. Sunray 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rave / Dance Music Culture in the UK late 1980s early 1990s

This should be included as an example as wasn't this highly prevalent a moral panic in the UK in this period due to stories of the use of Ecstasy, trespassing and even riots as a result of such raves. --Wrh1973 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional portrayls of moral panics

Should a section or separate article be added for examples in fiction? Bisected8 12:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

unsourced POV list of examples

It's OR and POV for Wikipedia editors to judge a particular event as a "moral panic" or not. The list of examples needs to be sourced not just to stories about the events, but to judgments by notable third-party sources that these events were moral panics.

The tag asking for references has been there since June. I'm cutting it. Please don't revert until notable sources are found.

69.3.237.80 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to do the cutting? I'll do it. Calbaer 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The list has had a "clean-up" tag on it for months. People kept adding to the list despite the note asking them to discuss additions on the talk page first. "Examples" listed included a couple of ethnic groups and various aspects of popular culture such as heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, hoodies, etc. While all of these might be the subject of moral panics, there was no explanation of how this might occur. I have therefore removed all entries that were not adequately linked to the a documented moral panic.

To prevent this from recurring, perhaps the section should be re-written in prose, with appropriate sources to published works on moral panic. Sunray 03:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sunray 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge with mania?

I think not. Mania and panic are entirely different, vis-a-vis meglomaniacal, versus moral. Theavatar3 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Herostratus 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. --DanielCD 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[PDF] YORK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARTS DIVISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AS/SOSC ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The Devine Regime in Saskatchewan, 1982-1991: The Tory ... Opression by Creating Moral Panics". discussion: gender hegemony. Karlene Faith and Yasmin Jiwani ... www.arts.yorku.ca/sosc/lands/Course_Outlines/documents/4350F.pdf - Similar pagesTrynot2think 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Trynot2think 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up of "Examples" section

As described above, the unsourced, POV, list of examples was getting out of hand. I've now converted it to narrative form, rather than a list. I've also added a commented out note at the top of the section asking folks to please add citations that link the example directly to a moral panic. Hopefully this will be a better approach. Sunray 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "Examples" section.

I removed the following statement from the end of the "Examples" section:

A common cry during such panics is: "Won't somebody think of the children?"

This is unreferenced and probably not even entirely accurate. Its true that during many moral panics, especially those of a sexual nature, appeals to "thinking of the children" or similar language are voiced. On the other hand, the statement "Won't somebody think of the children?" is usually used rhetorically by people on the other side, parodying the language of moral panic. (In fact, I think the exact source of this statement can be traced back to The Simpsons.)

If there's going to be a discussion in this article about appeals to "thinking of the children" language being used during moral panics, it needs to be properly referenced and given a context.

I'll add an internal link to Think of the children under "See also" in the meantime. Iamcuriousblue 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

2005 death - pedophile accusation

I've decided to bring this to the talk page to stop a potential revert war.

The BBC article is titled "Gang 'killed falsely-accused man'", and the article also states that:

Mr Kitching was not known to the group and there was no evidence at all he was a paedophile.

Mr Donne said he just had the "misfortune" of running into the gang.

Some of the group, who had been drinking heavily, had attacked two other people during the day and, straight after beating Mr Kitching, the two men punched and kicked another man in another unprovoked attack, the court was told.

The fact that the gang had attacked two other people during the day indicates that they were unprovoked and had probably never met their victims before, so the accusations would just be an 'excuse' for them to attack someone. Though you could argue that I'm breaking the WP:NOR, the BBC is not original research...

If anybody is going to remove the 'falsely' part of the article, then please discuss it in here first. TIA --Mark PEA 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. It is good to provide diffs [2] [3] to show what you're talking about and to add a link to the BBC story that you refer to.
2. A pedophile (see pedophilia) is someone sexually attracted by children. I doubt someone had performed psychological tests on Brian Kitching to see whether he felt sexually attracted by children. BBC's story certainly doesn't say anything about it.
3. The current version of this article states: "Also in 2005, a 68 year-old man from Portsmouth, England died in hospital after being attacked by a group who falsely accused him of being a pedophile." This makes it sound like he has been attacked because there was a rumour that he was a pedophile, which is misleading. In fact, it is not clear why he has been attacked. Those were drunk and violent people that attacked him that had never met him before. The case only has something to do with moral panic in that the drunk girl, when choosing which term to use to indicate to other members of the gang that Brian Kitching would be their next victim, chose to say that he was a pedophile, probably because there was moral panic in her society inspired by pedophilia. A.Z. 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about the girl using the term because there is a moral panic surrounding pedophilia in Britain. As for the "is he or isn't he", we could change the part that says "attacked by a group who falsely accused him of being a pedophile" to something like "attacked by a group who accused him of being a pedophile, despite there being no evidence of this", although this might imply that he was earlier accused of being a pedophile by somebody else, and then was attacked because of this (which would suit the Moral panic article better), however this wasn't the case. --Mark PEA 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming and Environmental Catastrophe and Cataclysm as Public Moral Panic

Please see Talk: Global Warming Controversy. My suggestion is a brief section on this linking with Global Warming Controversy. Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

'Social Hysteria' Might Be a Better Term

'Social Hysteria' might be a better term. It just seems more directly descriptive than 'Moral Panic' which seems more abstract. Sean7phil (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment. While it is true that they are related terms, if you check the references you will note that "moral panic" has been the subject of a fair amount of research. It has a more specific definition than "social hysteria," or the related term: mass hysteria. Sunray (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removals in "Examples"

_ _ I'm not sure that renaming secn "Examples" as "Examples of using the term" would be necessary, if the section were getting the editorial attention it deserves, but i doubt it will be harmful.
_ _ I deleted "A wide variety of phenomena have inspired moral panics." as PoV and OR. Such statements assume that the term is more than a term of abuse for suppression of behaviors, whose suppression the speaker disapproves of, and we must forgo statements about what is m.p. in favor of treating what is said to be m.p.
_ _ I expect the non-contemporary examples are obvious enough examples to the scholars who use the term that the {{fact}} tags i added to them are likely to be quickly replaceable by refs. On the other hand, i removed all the examples that appear, by citing news reports on the events, to be OR. (In the unlikely event that mainstream journalists really are using this post-modernism-tinged term in their reporting, and i have thus over-deleted, please save your colleagues the trouble of repeating your work of finding the surprising use "moral panic" in the ref, by quoting it in either a comment within the markup, or in a new section on this talk page dedicated to such pieces of evidence. The epidemic of quoting examples of what sounds to the editor like m.p. is unusual, and justifies this unusual measure as an labor-saving mechanism.) The diffs for my edit should aid those who go further.
_ _ Having been gracious enuf to plunge into the the damn (hidden) PDF cited re the Royal Society of Arts report, and to provide the correct lk (instead of deleting the sentence and its ref), i'm permitting myself a petulant lecture on the difference between the usage in the original,

'moral panic'

and the rendering in the accompanying article,

moral panic

The original is essentially use of scare quotes, saying something like

We don't expect you to understand the meaning of this phrase by looking up 'moral' and 'panic' in you dictionary, but on the other hand, we didn't make it up ourselves; if you take a guess at what we're getting at, in light of ruling out those other two possibilities, you probably won't go too far wrong.

The editor in question erred (or offended) by instead giving the impression in the article that the commission thought the term deserved more attention than the reader is likely to give it. This is an instance of misquoting a reference.
_ _ My bet is that none of my deletions will turn out to have the words "moral panic" in their corresponding refs. Those betting on the other side will be better disposed than i to check them (and hopefully append the results of that investigation to this talk section).
_ _ I deleted two refs and the text they supported bcz the refs are not in academic or mainstream media, but in blog-like sources, specifically those of Janis Dirveiks (an architect and thus presumably an amateur in sociology) and Rahma Bavelaar (whose presented credentials are limited to the job title granted her by that Web site). Their uses of the term are verifiable, but not encyclopedically notable.
--Jerzy•t 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples

We need better examples. Maikel (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"External links"

The following were taken from the external links section, removed per WP:ELNO #1 - these should be embedded as inline citations, not thrown into the EL section. They are somewhat valid sources (scholarly would be better - as a sociological concept with lots of attention, journal articles would be best) but are not good external links. Too short, too focussed and too general. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The article seemed a bit biased to me and seemed also to quote the same book too much as well (which could very well explain the bias). 129.107.81.12 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


Moral Panic over Sex Offenders

I have yet to edit a wikipedia article, but I read through the replies here and thought it would worthwhile to contribute another moral panic as well as my understanding of what the meaning of moral panic is. I wrote this summary of the concept according to a fairly recent book by historian Phillip Jenkins and several journal articles (cited below):

Historian Phillip Jenkins authored a study of three distinct twentieth-century panics over child sexual abuse.(1) He describes the moral panic over sexual abuse as widespread public fear “that is widely exaggerated and wrongly directed “ that allows an environment where “concerns over sexual abuse provides a basis for extravagant claims making by professionals, the media, and assorted interest groups, who argue that the problem is quantitatively and qualitatively far more severe than anyone could reasonably suppose.”(1) These claims and continued fearmongering often results in excessive and ill-considered legislative responses, with eager lawmakers adopting new policies that are not well thought out and create a false sense of security among the general public while diverting important resources to ineffective programs. (2)(4)

Spectacular media coverage of sexual offenses and child abductions over the past two decades led to a nationwide moral panic over concerns for the safety of children.(2) Misleading statistics such as sex offenders are four times more likely to re-offend than non-sex offenders (a less sensational way of saying this would be to use the actual statistics that there is a 1.3% chance a non-sex offender will commit a sex offense after release from prison and roughly a 5.3% chance a previously convicted sex offender will commit one). (5) As a result, demands to the legislature were made to enact measures to protect children and communities. (3) For sex offenders, these demands were met in the form of a steady stream of Federal, State and Municipal acts and laws starting in the mid-1980s and continuing through the present that restrict sex offenders after their release from prison. (3) Examples of these acts include those mandating sexual offender registration, community notification, residence restrictions, civil commitment and Global Position System monitoring. (3) Many of these social policies, designed to prevent recidivism in sex offenders, were enacted without evidence of their effectiveness and some, including registration, community notification and residence restrictions, have not been shown to reduce the risk of recidivism.(3)

Here are the cites: (1) PHILIP JENKINS, Moral panic : Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America (Yale University Press. 1998).

(2) KRISTEN ZGOBA, Spin doctors and moral crusaders: the moral panic behind child safety legislation 17 Criminal Justice Studies 383, 383-404 (2007); MICHAEL M. O'HEAR, Perpetual Panic, 21 Federal Sentencing Reporter 69, 69-77 (2009), available on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/paper=1357484;

(3) JILL S. & AMORA LEVENSON, DAVID A., Social Policies Designed to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Emperor's New Clothes?, 18 Criminal Justice Policy Review 168, 168-199 (2007).

(4) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDC1E39F93AA15756C0A9639C8B63

(5)MARCUS & JUNG NIETO, DAVID, The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review (California Research Bureau 2006), available online at http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/06/08/06-008.pdf


After reading through it again, i realize it may be NPOV. I think all three of the articles are available for free online (you'll have to visit the library for the book) if you feel like checking them out. If you want to play with it to fix it and post it, that's great and if not, no worries. I'll leave it up to you regular wikipedians to decide whether to include it. 71.74.162.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Jack71.74.162.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that qualifies as a moral panic, and I think this would be a good section to add... at least partially because it brings the idea into the discussion that in a number of different moral panics, children are the supposed target of protection. I'm sad that I hadn't come across Jenkins' book earlier when I was doing an essay on SRA - though I suspect I found at least one of his journal articles.
At the same time, we could add a hundred sections to this article, all saying "here's another example of a moral panic". I guess it's okay to add the first few, as long as we remember that at some point in the future when there gets to be too many, we'll have to break them out into their individual sub-articles.
I'd also like to see more primary sources asserting that Jenkins' "sex offender moral panic" really is a moral panic. I know it is, you know it is; but I worry that he may be the first (and last) person to call it one. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Op here, I should really just start an account. Perhaps later tonight. Anyways, I agree and I think the fact that sex offender moral panic combines kids and sex may account for why the sex offender moral panic has lasted so long. As far as positive cites for Jenkins, I know both of the two articles cited at (1) above discuss Jenkins.
Anyways, I'll wait a week or so and if no one objects I'll go ahead and add it to the main article. If I forget, anyone is welcome to do it for me (or not!). Thanks for the feedback! 71.74.162.226 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Jack71.74.162.226 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I've read Jenkins, it's a excellent book. Reading through the article above, it seems a bit SYNTHy, and I wouldn't mind some counter-points included if possible. User:Jack-A-Roe might be a good resource. AGTTH's suggestion of corroborating sources agreeing with Jenkins is a good idea, it'll take it away from being just his idea into a scholarly debate. There must be a counter-point out there somewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Counterpoints? You're going to make things hard on me, huh? Just kidding. I'll look into it and see what I can come up with before posting anything. Without doing any real research into it, there is at least one study I can think of that examined newspaper coverage of accused child moestors and argues media coverage is less extensive than is often claimed and is skewed in ways typical of mass media. My first thought is that I would guess this is more likely to apply for child molestors considering the high percentage of such cases where the perpetrator is a family member or acquaintance (something like 93%) whereas, for rape there are much more (a little under 30% according to DOJ stats) cases where the perpetrator is a stranger (the type of cases I typically see the most in the media). However, it does weigh against Jenkins points regarding media sensationalism. I'll see what else I can come across or perhaps I will just edit the section accordingly. cite: ROSS E. CHEIT, What hysteria? A systematic study of newspaper coverage of accused child molesters, 27 Child Abuse & Neglect, 607-623 (2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.167.100 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, should Child Abuse & Neglect count as a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, especially on this topic? I know a point in its favour is that it's (supposedly) peer-reviewed. But a strong point against CA&N was that they helped perpetrate the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" panic back in the 80's; seriously, go read through their archive, you'll see that they published all sorts of completely credulous bullshit that helped legitimate the myth among the child-abuse community. I'd suggest that they're slanted against honest discussion of any topic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Satanic Panic

Pedophilia is not the same as Satanic Ritual Abuse, as evidenced by the latter page.

I separated the two sections, but the solution is problematic because most of the references for Satanic Ritual Abuse refer to the widespread panic about child abuse at day care centers.

Therefore, the section on Satanic should be modified by inserting non-pedophilia examples. Also useful would be a sentence or two about Repressed memory (Recovered Memory), which was a cornerstone of the "testimony" in the day care cases.

Another relevant bit of info is that international NGOs are trying to raise the Age of consent in various nations to a "global standard" of 18, despite long-standing cultural mores that favor 15-17 (see map on the WP page). This example of moral entrepreneur might be included in the article somewhere under a new section about the mainstreaming of panic.

The theme of sexuality runs through several sections: white slavery, satanic ritual abuse, pedophilia, and rainbow parties. I have therefore changed the location of War on Drugs. I recommend a partial rewrite or expansion to present a smoother transition across the sexuality topics. Martindo (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the List of Examples

The above discussion under LISTIFY explains the risk that adding more and more examples can erode overall consensus about the term, because more examples generally will mean more WP users challenge at least one of them. The cumulative effect can damage the credibility of this page. Therefore, I suggest that we discuss new examples for a day or two before adding them. In this light, I deleted "obesity" which cited an article that explicitly referred to a skeptic as a "lone researcher". Martindo (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the rest of these new additions as well. We need prominent examples from scholarly studies, not less notable recent examples that some journalist has decided to call a moral panic.PelleSmith (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I added Drug Abuse in Sports and I agree with the addition of Social Networking. Would you care to voice your opinion about which of the items you deleted is *most* worthy of digging up references? It appears that there's not a lot of research going into this page, mostly just new items and then vague calls for someone else to do research. But some research has been done, and then the item rejected. So, it might be useful to thrash out "nominees" for addition, as done under LISTIFY.
AFAIK, an edit war is a straight reversion back-and-forth, but the recent changes are more like a triangle with multiple versions cycling. Martindo (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, as king as anxiety over something or someone has been considered a "moral panic" by a reputable scholar, journalist or commentator, we should add it on the list. Anxiety over obesity has been considered a moral panic not just by Samantha Kwan, but also by Eric Oliver (a political scientist) and Paul Campos as well, and they're all reported by reliable news media, thus "obesity" should be added as a moral panic example (but we'd better inform users that though there are plenty of alleged moral panics throughout history, there are still some persons claim that some examples of moral panic are not moral panics and are legitimate concern, as Japanese edition states by placing a few sentences on the beginning of the section "examples"). --RekishiEJ (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, we should add Prohibition movement to the example section, since a famous moral panic book has regarded it as a prominent example of moral panic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rekishi, I appreciate your effort to coordinate English and Japanese versions of WP, but there are probably very few of us fellow editors who can confirm or assist such work. Recall that the title of this page is MORAL panic, not just "health panic". If we are talking about "health panic", we could mention osteoporosis, which may also rely on certain old assumptions about the human body, especially the assumption that "normal" bone density is the same in Asia as in regions where milk has been part of the diet for centuries. Prohibition is a good example, and should be placed adjacent to War on Drugs. But let's get some consensus about putting it in.Martindo (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to turn this entry into a list. We should stick with the examples written about extensively by scholars. If you feel the need to write List of notable moral panics then go ahead and create it.PelleSmith (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Obesity is in fact considered by some scholars as a moral panic, thus should be included on the list (but less priority than prohibition). By the way, it seems to me that English Wikipedia highly discourage embedded lists, but Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia do not discourage them......Maybe because Wikipedia communities of different language editions have different attitude toward various things, such as whether investigative reporting on news media can generally be used as reputable sources (most langs are O.K., but not German Wikipedia) and notability (German Wikipedia by far has the most strict article inclusion criterion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RekishiEJ (talk • contribs) 22:26, November 4, 2009
A List of Notable Moral Panics is a good idea as a new article, in order to channel interest in this topic and hopefully prompt people to dig up serious research about one or more of the examples. Martindo (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Undent - we should use scholarly sources rather than news sources, where there is wide consensus that the issue is a moral panic. News sources sensationalize, they love reporting splashy headlines, bold statements that from single individuals and nothing makes them happier than a lone wolf (or perhaps Maverick?) willing to make a dramatic claim (irrespective of the research behind it). News stories don't represent mainstream scholars in sociology and psychology, very very far from it.

Since there are few moral panics that are verifiably discussed by mainstream scholars, a list page seems unnecessary for the present. Also, lists like on this page and a potential list of... page invite, and tend to create, long and speculative lists that don't represent the mainstream. Note that if there are foreign language (scholarly) sources, they can be used on english wikipedia. Care should be used in integrating them, whether the moral panic is considered world-wide or isolated to the country/culture where the language is used. Moral panics are inherently culture-bound.

Please note MOS:CAPS if a list page is created - it's list of notable moral panics, not List of Notable Moral Panics. And even for this list, it should be made up of scholarly sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But the some examples mentioned on the moral panic page, such as War on Drugs, is not considered a moral panic by many notable figures. Then you think it should be deleted? Absolutely not. In my opinion, as long as reputable news sources call anxiety over something a moral panic, and they don't just retell a study or exaggerate a scholar's claim, it can be used as an example of moral panic. However, we should mention the fact that some "moral panics" are considered legitimate concerns over certain things by some people (such as the example I mentioned above).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Note:the argument that concern or panic over obesity is a moral panic can be seen on an academic paper: Campos, Paul, Abigail Saguy, Paul Ernsberger, Eric Oliver, and Glen Gaesser. 2006. “The Epidemiology of Overweight and Obesity: Public Health Crisis or Moral Panic?” International Journal of Epidemiology--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone used "Similarly" to transition from a sentence about War on Drugs to commentary about regulating video games. These are two separate issues, so I split the section.
It appears that the pendulum is swinging back and we now see sparse examples. At least, they are referenced, but the Examples section is starting to look like a WP Stub. Martindo (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's add back more examples: in fact, if a reputable news medium or noted commentator has called anxiety over something or some group a moral panic, even if it can not be verified through academic sources, it still should be mentioned. Some Wikipedians might think that the more examples the article mentions, the less Wikipedians will agree with its content, but in fact, some examples (like paedophilia and War on Drugs) are already in great dispute: many laypersons and experts do not regard them moral panics, but some commentators and scholars do regard them moral panics). We should follow the way Japanese Wikipedia does: Mention all notable (able to be verified by sound scholarly or journalistic sources) examples in the article, but put a statement like this: "Some people consider some examples to be moral panic, but others consider them legitimate concerns" so that readers who do not regard some examples moral panics will understand the intent editors have and not question the content. Another article video game controversies in fact can be written completely without using any non-academic sources, but in fact the article uses them a lot, and some sound scholarly sources unused.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If no other Wikipedians oppose in 7 days, I will add back some notable examples in the article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's expand the youth culture moral panic by using this source: Springhall J: Youth, Popular Culture and Moral Panics: Penny Gaffs to Gangsta Rap, 1830–1996. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1999.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that is a generous waiting period. I'm tempted to urge caution -- add 1 or 2 at a time -- but maybe it would be better to add a small group, each item referenced at least once. To support your view (shared by others) that most moral panics are disputed, we should have a mini-lead paragraph below the main EXAMPLES heading. If you're willing to draft it, I will polish it and hopefully others will help refine it, too.
The White Slavery section is already pushing the WP:Undue_Weight warning. So, if there are only a few other examples, the Undue Weight of that topic becomes more extreme. Martindo (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Also the witch-hunt example should be expanded, as this moral panic is heavily discussed by a scholarly book. The pogrom example should be expanded as well to include more historic pogroms.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: moral panic over obesity: it would help if you read a book on "moral panic", especially Cohen's; or even any post-1980 book on Deviance. Obesity is indeed a health panic and not even remotely a moral panic. It doesn't matter what the civilians call it, as it's a sociological term with a very specific meaning. E.g., the obese aren't being demonized in order to reinforce societal norms. Read Cohen's book, it's good, and also probably necessary in order to contribute examples to this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So you think that those so-called experts' concern over worldwide obesity is a panic, since the common definition of obesity used by many experts and news media is not accurate, as some medical experts admit, right? However, some scholars (for instance, Paul Campos) who study this panic consider it a moral panic, see the source I gave above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Campos is a scholar of law, and in this case I've got to suggest that he's opining outside of his field of specialty. A moral panic occurs when a "group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests". Who are the moral entrepreneurs? Who are the folk devils? Is there concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, and volatility, according to the article? I'd say that while there may at times be an obesity hype, it's not a moral panic. It's definitely not even in the same ballpark as the Satanic ritual abuse panic or witch hunts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that focus is important. Look at the home page for Campos at University of Colorado. Or the title of his book. His critique is against obsession, but that sociological situation is very different from the moral panic examples. Martindo (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've found Kwan's article, and used it to track down the Int. J. of Epid. article that suggests obesity is a moral panic. I have already clarified the section on obesity. I'm a lazy person, but sometime soon I'll try to read through the Campos article and check through it. On a very quick skim, it doesn't seem to meet Cohen's or Goode & Ben-Yehuda's formulation of "moral panic" - rather, it's essentially saying the concern over "the obesity epidemic" is unfounded. It also is in an epidemiology journal, so I'd say they are only using the term "moral panic" colloquially, and not in its proper technical sense. However, it looks like a fun read anyway, so I'll go through it soon. I may be wrong - if fat people are being demonized, then yes, we're one step closer to a moral panic. But I suspect their slant may be more along the lines of the medicalization of body shape (certainly Kwan's seems to be) and (probably) the profit motive associated with that. Still, probably a good read. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

About Gauntlett's theories

Gauntlett's theories about the origins of moral panic should be mentioned on the article to broaden its coverage.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus Sikes, P. (2008). At the eye of the storm: An academic’s experience of moral panic. QualitativeInquiry, 14, 235–253.
And Jenkins, Philip (1992). Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Great Britain. Aldine Transaction. pp. 75. ISBN 0202304361.

Flying saucers

Would the flying saucer sightings be a good exampple of a moral panic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.48.34 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
  1. ^ Pinyan was the passive partner in an act of sexual penetration by a stallion videotaped by a friend. This was the only incident of its kind in the state's history, and it could be said the human, who died from internal injuries, was the victim of his own act. Police concluded there was no evidence of animal abuse and that the only crime was the relatively minor one of trespass. None the less, almost instantly, legislation was proposed in a form of moral panic, covering every aspect conceivable: the act, the videotaping of the act, the knowing granting of permission for the act, the observing of the act. SB-6417 2006.
  2. ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182960
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic/Archive_1&oldid=1137020305"