The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of fear

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is VERY poorly sourced and contains a lot of WP:OR. most of the article is unsourced, parts which do have sources are generally conclusions editors have drawn from the sources rather than statements directly supported by the refs. this topic, or phrase if you prefer, might make a legitimate article, just not in this current incarnation. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examples of poor sourcing and OR ref by ref:
ref 1 is a conclusion someone has drawn from the michael moore film sicko
ref 2 is a podcast/personal blog
ref 3 is a video
refs 4 and 5 are from an unknown news org, not a WP:RS
ref 6 is an op-ed piece
ref 7 statement is WP:OR used to draw an association between nazi germany and the contemporary use of this phrase
ref 8 george orwell... really? similar to nazi germany ref, drawing association between fictional book and this phrase
refs 9 and 10 have nothing to do with the topic
and finally statements supported by refs 11 and 12 are based on an "unreleased" BBC documentary
WookieInHeat (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is 5 years old. It's current state may need improvement, but that doesn't make it un-notable. It's rated 'mid-importance' in several categories.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment i don't see what relevance the notability, age or "importance" of the article has to the issues raised about WP:OR and WP:RS. i addressed issues with literally every single reference; the article currently doesn't have a single reliable source directly supporting anything in it or otherwise justifying its existence with anything other than original research. any thoughts regarding that? if you remove all the original research and unsourced content you aren't left with anywhere near enough material to justify its own article. maybe the Fear mongering article could use a section on this topic instead? WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fear mongering. I think there is some worthwhile content in the article, despite the need for a cleanup, but I don't see how a "culture of fear" is different from "fear mongering", which seems to be two labels describing essentially the same phenomenon.--res Laozi speak 12:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The notion that fear is used as a political device is very well sourced. This article does seem to have suffered from editor intervention (it is a long time ago since I first came across it and I believe it was better written and referenced than it is now. I for one am willing to go back and review this article and strengthen it. There is a quote somewhere from Tony Benn, a very prominent UK politician who certainly believes in the engendered "culture of fear" thesis in modern society and there are journalists in the U.S. as well as authors and academics who support this idea. It was the main thrust of a three hour documentary which the BBC broadcast some time ago. Claims that the article is not well sourced and that the documentary was not released are, frankly, absurd. The documentary was shown in many countries but the U.S. networks did not take it. It can be seen on the internet and I can assure you that the version posted on youtube and in the internet archive and on Google Video are the version as broadcast. I have both the off-air version and seen the internet versions and they are identical. I would say that the article should definitely NOT be merged with fear-mongering which is a very general concept. The notion that fear is engendered to sway public opinion is very specific and it is what Benn, Moore and Curtis argue as well as other journalists such as Rachael Maddow argue is happening in both the media and the words of certain politicians. Deleting this article would be a travesty.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "fear is engendered to sway public opinion", isn't that what fearmongering is? What's the distinction? Define "general".--res Laozi speak 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fearmongering is neutral and can be done for all manner of reasons including none at all. It looks to me as though someone has deliberately made the fearmongering article on Wikipedia read to be the same as the the Culture of fear article. If you look at a dictionary definition of fearmongering such as that in the Collins or Mirriam-Webseter or the Shorter Oxford English dictionary you find this is so. The Culture of fear is perhaps one result of persistent fear mongering of a certain kind. It does not make them synonymous. An advertiser may try to engender fears about hygiene when selling wet toilet tissue containing an antibacterial, and that may be fear mongering, but it does not create a culture of fear. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a "culture of fear" carries a political connotation? Then both articles need to be rewritten to clearly express that point. And if you're willing to clean them up, go ahead. I'm willing to switch to a keep, provided a cleanup is done.--res Laozi speak 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I will participate in the clean up of both articles. The culture of fear is an end point of deliberate fear mongering for some gain which tends to be political though it can be also for commercial or military gain. Please do switch your recommendation. --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into fear mongering. As I understand it, the argument against merging is that the "culture of fear" is a specific subset of fear mongering. But as the article itself notes, the phrase means different things to different people - to some it's manufactured by the government, to others it's from the media, to others it's naturally-occurring moral panic, etc. At its heart, it seems to me just a three-word phrase that fits into the currently popular "culture of negative-thing-x" phrasing, like "culture of obesity", "culture of greed", "culture of hypocrisy" etc. I should note that culture of poverty does have a Wikipedia article, and I don't question that one because it seems to have a well-defined meaning in sociology. But "culture of fear" doesn't - to the extent that people even use it (as noted by the nominator, many of the people currently quoted in the article don't), it has no clearly-defined meaning, and thus is more like the first three examples I listed than the last one. Korny O'Near (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which parts of the article would people like to see merged into the Fear mongering article? was going to withdraw this AfD and change the tag on the article to a merge suggestion to be discussed on the talk page, but seeing as we are all here figured i'd save the little bit of work. let me know, i'll go work on copying the content over. WookieInHeat (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of it should be copied over. It is not the same as Fearmongering.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think most or all of the article could be copied over, at least to start with - for a general topic like "fear mongering", it seems to me like all of this content fits, at least in theory, as opposed to for an unclearly-defined topic like "culture of fear". Korny O'Near ([[User talk:Korny

O'Near|talk]]) 21:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

i was looking more for specific parts that editors thought would be worthy of being kept. i've detailed many sections which are WP:OR or sourced by non-WP:RS, which specific parts of the article do you believe do not fall into this category? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of it should be copied over. It is not the same as Fearmongering. This is a very important topic not to be confused with the situation of someone shouting "fire" in a movie theater. The culture of fear is very precise phenomenon worthy of its own article. It is the subject of several books and articles and a very substantial documentary series. How can a "culture" be an "act"? The merger proposal is preposterous in my opinion.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Though poorly sourced, the solution is WP:SOFIXIT not deltion. The topic is itself the subject of a number of books:

Evidently, it seems the topic should be notable enough to warrant an article.Smallman12q (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i realize there appear to be a number of books on the subject, yet i am confused as to why every source that actually discusses the topic is at the bottom of the article in the "books", "documentaries" or "external links" sections. meanwhile the whole article is WP:OR and sourced largely by refs that have nothing to do with the specific subject. if you would like to see the article not be merged, may i suggest you follow your own advice and WP:BEBOLD instead of instructing others to do so? WookieInHeat (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Question Are all the sources that use the phrase "culture of fear" really about the same topic, the topic that some editors here have proposed to distinguish this article from Fearmongering? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the two do go hand in hand. It is unlikely that a culture of fear would develop were it not for the concerted efforts of fear mongers. Fearing mongering is a form of psychological manipulation (usually propaganda). A culture of fear is a way of life.The catholic church engaged in fear mongering during the Protestant Reformation to prevent moral panic. This however did not necessarily create a culture of fear, but rather led to the Renaissance.Smallman12q (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is on an important topic, and I see no reason for deletion. It is genuine, noncommercial, interesting, etc. I would not merge it to another page; Fear mongering is related but not the same. The original complaint is that it is not well written. While of course that is a bad reason for deletion, I also think that it has been damaged by people who want to suppress this discussion. So it is all the more important. I think my views reflect those of several other editors above. -- Rixs (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me this is an article about an important topic. I fear non NPOV (political) reasons exist to want to delete (censor) it, that should not be allowed to happen. Mahjongg (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the 'keep' comments posted on the 23rd were the result of WP:CANVASing by Hauskalainen (talk · contribs), none have addressed the issue of WP:OR or WP:RS. in addition, more content and refs were added to the article by the same user, all of it OR. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here because of WP:CANVASing. . Please refrain from making such broad accusations.Smallman12q (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry smallman, thought i had seen your name in his contrib list. anyway, you were the only person who raised a point i thought was actually worthy of a response; leaving it above. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn seeing as the general consensus seems to either be to keep the article or merge it to Fear mongering, i've gone ahead and removed the deletion template and changed it to a merge template to be discussed on the article's talk page. i'm also in the process of removing WP:OR and non-WP:RS. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.