From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

older entries[edit]

Apologies for my edit summary. I put it in there as a pointer but then went back and did it myself after a preview of changes. Otherwise - played with wording to make it read "nicer". Added some flesh to some common alarmism (eg, everything causes cancer! Obama / the democrats / health care will destroy the world! Etc) (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oil crash[edit]

I fail to see how an oil crash in the future is alarmism. It is pretty real.

You'll find people willing to say "It's pretty real" about everything on the list. 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do some research, new finds are still been made and the recovery rate is still improving, here is one recent example for gas

and for oil; Electro Thermal Dynamic Stripping Oil Recovery Could Unlock 400 Billion More Barrels of Oil in Alberta at $26/Barrel

I believe that is a lot of oil, here is the source and —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe "that is a lot of oil". How many barrels does the world use in one day? Now, 'that' is a lot of oil. Plus, if the technology's so great and from 2006, where's the plant? Finally, what's the maximum flow rate of that operation? I doubt it can prop up production rates what often take abrupt declines. Peak oil isn't "pretty real", it's very real. It's not alarmism if it's a real risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sectional sorting[edit]

It would be great to sort the list into categories like "economic," "political," "environmental", etc. The problem is that so many of the items belong in several categories (nuclear war, for example, could be something affecting all three). What, if anything, might be done about this? Perhaps a sot of Venn diagram or the like? --Lenoxus 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand Loremasters edit, which I reverted here [1]. This appears to be alinked to some fight at Transhumanism William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Issuing early warnings on the ideas that will supposedly be the most destructive in the 21st century is the definition of alarmism. Transhumanism is not the only idea that was mentioned in the Foreign Policy special report so I stand by my edits of the Alarmism article.
2. Therefore, there was nothing POV about an internal link to the Alarmism article from the expression "world's most dangerous ideas" in the Transhumanism article. However, to avoid a needless dispute over such a trivial issue, I won't try to put back the internal link.
--Loremaster (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Issuing early warnings on the ideas that will supposedly be the most destructive in the 21st century is the definition of alarmism - no, of course it isn't. Your version of the article simply makes no sense. Just talking about the vague concept of w-m-d-i isn't intelligible. Meanwhile, the hidden link to here was clearly POV. Lastly, apologies for my last edit comment - I didn't realise you'd talked here William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm no longer going to debate the POV issue since I don't think it is essential that there be a internal link from the expression "world's most dangerous ideas" in the Transhumanism article to the Alarmism article. However, issuing early warnings on the ideas that will supposedly be the most destructive in the 21st century is the definition of alarmism in light of all the counter-arguments that they automatically illicited. The whole point of Foreign Policy's special report on the world's dangerous ideas is determining whether or not these warnings are alarmists. That being said, I agree that expression "world's most dangerous ideas" alone may not most intelligible so I've rephrased it. --Loremaster 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, William, if you are going to revert my edits again before this dispute is resolved here on that talk page, it would make more sense to use Bailey's rebuttal of Fukuyama's claim than that the claim itself as a reference:
Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea? Why striving to be more than human is human
--Loremaster 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick summary of Wikipedia's alarmism page[edit]

Alarmism – The production of needless warnings. Use of the word implies that one does not share the concerns of the person giving the warnings, and that the anticipated danger is overstated. Some warnings that have been called alarmist include:

• The threat of terrorism

• The 2002-2003 SARS incident

• The prediction of end times events from the Bible

• Mutually assured nuclear destruction causing mass extinction

• The possibility of a bird flu epidemic killing hundreds of millions

• Population explosion or Malthusian catastrophe, causing mass starvation

• The Y2K bug causing a breakdown of the world's computers and life itself

• Nuclear meltdown scenarios on a larger scale than 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl

• The possibility of an asteroid collision with the Earth, causing mass extinctions —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


The article seemed to be just an uncited laundry list so I have knocked it back to s stub, based upon a journal article which seems to make some attempt to discuss the general nature of the topic. Material of this sort is what we need most, please. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks about right. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Boys what's that[edit]

I just saw that Alarmism links to Club Of Rome. Hey kids, that's not PC, right? Somebody might actually notice that the CoR is all about alarmism. Make it disappear, quick, quick, can't have the counterrevolutionaries take over the NPOV, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, which part of the Club of Rome's ideas are "excessive or exaggerated"? I don't think there's any thing excessive about saying exponential growth with beat finite resources in the long term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree in general. Compared to the other see-also items here, it does seem out of place. There's no mention of alarmism in the linked article, for example. --Nigelj (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Since absolutely none of Club of Rome's alarmist predictions for the next 25-30 came true, it is, by its very definition alarmist. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a very limited understanding of the organisation. Do you have a citation for that summary of them? Is it mentioned in their article? --
Have you read "Limits to Growth", or any of the press releases they authored in the 1970s? I still remember reading them at the time and quaking in my (then somewhat undersized) boots. Quite luckily, they couldn't have been more wrong. If I get a chance, I'll work on the base CoR article as well, as its been edited in a highly tendentious manner. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you need to have a bit more than your memories of the 1970s to go on. Have a look at WP:OR before you start. --Nigelj (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked at the article? A "See Also" list is not a fact which can be verified, because it's not making any claim. As you note, nothing else in the list has an inline citation, because it's merely suggesting that someone interested in Alarmism may also be interested in those other links. Nothing to verify. But point of fact CoR was highly alarmist. Read any of their works and you'll see. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
point of fact CoR was highly alarmist - maybe, but if you think so your start point should be the CoR article, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The start point for claims about CoR, yes. But where here do you see the text that "Club of Rome is Alarmist"? A "see also" list makes no claim. Fell Gleamingtalk 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
So I can go to the page about your favourite scientist and add wingnut, bonkers and nutcase to the see also list? See WP:SEEALSO - its "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense", like most other decisions here. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Funny, but "Limits to Growth" predicted a catastrophic collapse of population, food supplies and industrial capacity within 100 years, with the downward decline starting about 50 years before that. Given its been 40 years since it was published, that means we're about to hit that wall. There were (and still are) countless sources to demonstrate they were making doomsday predictions. See this for one example: "... most environmentalists are familiar with the arguments made in LtG, but unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny." [2]. Fell Gleamingtalk 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Two sentences further on it says, "...the criticisms had little to do with the content of the book." It's necessary properly to represent sources. Anyway, it seems that you wanted to add the book, not the organisation. Either way, there's no good reason to do so, other than a cherry-picked or partial reading, it seems. --Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Come now, you're more logical than this. If an organization or book is repeatedly criticized as doomsday or alarmist, it doesn't matter if (in someone's opinion) that criticism wasn't justified. It's still going to be related to alarmism. CoR is well known for its Doomsday predictions made when first founded. Fell Gleamingtalk 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No dissent on this for a couple of days. I'm thus restoring the CoR reference. If anyone objects, please post here. Fell Gleamingtalk 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Psych 101 edit[edit]

All that's here is a definition. Try expanding more on the subject. Look a more references/sources. Melaniebruns (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Melaniebruns

Psych 101 Edit[edit]

The article only provides the definition of Alarmism. This article should provide more sources and should include what symptoms Alarmism does to a person. The article needs to give a better description and explanation of what Alarmism does to a person. Kristino11 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


I've removed this content because it is ungrammatical and adds nothing to the article. A dictionary definition is not needed or helpful when a definition is already given (which this largely repeated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Alarmism" can also be defined as the unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger. The first known use of alarmism was discovered in 1842. [1]


  1. ^ "Alarmism". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2-12-15.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Proposed sources[edit]

Bibliography of possible sources:

What I would like to add to this article is a little bit more in-depth knowledge about Alarmism. I have been researching a few academic sources and would like to add more to the list soon. This are academic journals and are reliable sources. Some of the things I would like to add to this article are: -Different types of Alarmism -History of Alarmism -Effects of alarmism on the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amccleaf17 (talkcontribs) 18:22, February 19, 2015‎

Hi, Amccleaf17. Could you please read the general information I have posted to your classmate here on another article talk page, and confirm to me with a post here on this page that you have seen it? I will add a separate post discussing your proposed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed sources, they would be more correctly cited as:

  1. Beccaria F, Prina F (April 2010). "Young people and alcohol in Italy: An evolving relationship". Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy. 17 (2): 99–122. doi:10.3109/09687630802291703. 
  2. Kravchenko II (2014). "Alarmism". Value Inquiry Book Series. 276: 14–15. 

You may be accessing those articles through EbscoHost, but not all readers will have access to that database, so you should provide complete citation information as I've shown above.

Depending on what type of content you will be sourcing, it is not clear that your first source (alcohol in Italy) complies with Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines, nor is it clear what relationship that source has to the topic of Alarmism. The second source looks, on the surface, to be a good one. If you could post here more ideas of what kind of information you want to extract from the first source, more feedback can be given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about the sources. The one about Italy mentions the possibility of alarmism but it's part of a larger discussion about alcohol policy in Italy, so it's not really appropriate here. The second one looks like a good secondary source, although let's make sure that the "Value Inquiry Book Series" is reliable. ScottPKingPhD (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Alarmism Alarmism is the feeling of danger or threat. Alarmism was introduced into science and philosophy in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This was as a response to the social development theory. Alarmism was very common in the western countries. Some catastrophes that helped to pave the way for alarmism are, the two world wars, genocide, the disintegration of empires and social revolution. These times alternated between periods of alarm and calmness. Alarmism draws attention to the negative effects of human activity. They did not look at the positive affects and progress that was going on only the negative. A lot of the cases of alarmism during this time focused on technology and the developing of the human race at the expense of the environment. The negative effects on the environment triggered alarmism in the scientific community. Some negative effects that are concerns of the people is the depletion of resources and irreversible chemical and physical changes in the land, water, and atmosphere. This alarm was because it could cause planetary climate changes. Alarmism is triggered by catastrophes around the world or in specific countries. Alarmism was made worse by the general systematic crisis that included: population growth in third world countries, pandemic hunger and infectious diseases. Alarmism can be focused on not only environment alarmism, but it can also be seen with the increase in diseases. A case studied within the Clinton administration era showed the rise in the rate of alarmism caused by infectious diseases. The death rate had increased at a faster rate and this had caused alarm for the safety of health. Amccleaf17 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC) {{[1]}} {{[2]}}


  1. ^ Murray, David (May/June 1997). "Alarmism is an infectious disease". Academic Search Complete. 34 (4): 35-40. doi:0147-2011 Check |doi= value (help).  Check date values in: |date= (help);
  2. ^ Kravchenko, I. (2014). "Alarmism". Academic Search Complete. 276: 14-15. doi:0929-8436 Check |doi= value (help). Retrieved 3 March 2015. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amccleaf17 (talkcontribs) 5:35, March 3, 2015‎

Amccleaf17, you posted content here on talk, and in the article, neither of which is in encyclopedic usable form. Some notes:
  • New posts go at the bottom, not top, of talk pages-- I have moved your post down.
  • Please sign your talk page posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.
  • "Hi" is not a helpful section heading; please remember that years from now, other editors will be reading this talk page to try to improve content. A more helpful section heading would be something like "Proposed edit" or "Proposed content addition".
  • "Academic search complete" is not a publisher. None of your citations are complete (I showed you in the section above, for example, how to cite your sources).
  • If you can clean up the sources, it might be easier next to try to decipher what the text is trying to say, and figure out if something can be added to the article.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)