Talk:Shooting the messenger

message: An easily-provoked combatant receiving such an overture could more easily vent anger (or otherwise retaliate) on the deliverer of the unpopular message than on its author, thus literally killing the messenger. 
We don't know if this ever happened, for the most part its a hypothetical situation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.93.38 (talk) 14:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
It seems to happen all the time in the chinese classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Although it's historical fiction, it seems to occur very frequently and without any hint of irony... though I suppose it could be seen as a way to show the quick to anger nature of the person receiving the news, I can't imagine it being completely baseless there. In the novels, envoys are either showered with gifts/etc or beheaded, depending on whether the news is favorable. 216.125.251.254 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: My understanding of this phrase is that it was attributed to one of the Persian kings, i.e. Xerxes, Darius, etc.  I was told this in school many (sadly), many years ago.  Perhaps I am wrong in this (or the teacher was wrong), but that was my understanding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.61.80 (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill the messenger 

message: What does the painting of Moses and the spies have to do with the topic? KingKane (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC+1)
: You may have a point. It does seem out of place somewhat.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 21:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Messengers" from Canaan

message: Added multiple issues template. 'Freud and defence' and 'Current application' sections in particular need attention. I can sort the grammar, punctuation and spelling, but someone else with knowledge of the subject (or willing to research) needs to sort out the POV and tone first. HNY 2015! Centrepull (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues

message: The article confuses two distinct issues:
# lashing out at an enemy emissary: I have an enemy at my hands, but I refrain from doing what I'd like otherwise to do with my enemy (capturing, killing)... essentially because my enemy and I have an understanding that we don't harm each other's emissaries (rules of war)
# getting upset at bad news and venting my anger on the bearer of the bad news (who may be my enemy or not)
While the two cases may co-occur (an enemy emissary bears bad news), they often occur separately. From my understanding, the phrase "(Don't) shoot/kill the messenger" refers to the second scenario, but I'm happy to stand corrected. Just let's not have an article muddying up the topic by presenting the two distinct issues as one... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article confuses two issues 

message: Carl Jung's concept of the "Shadow" does not seem pertinent to "Shooting the Messenger". Can someone justify or clarify how the concept relates to the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanito (talk • contribs) 01:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freud and Defense - Jung and the Shadow 

message: In the last part of the "Current Application" section the article briefly mentions the WikiLeaks, I feel like this could be expanded further because it seems pertinent to the "current application" to the article. If anyone could give more insight on it that would be helpful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanito (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Application