Talk:Shunning/Archive 1

message: The could be links to
Mennonite
Hutterite
Ultra-orthodox
I added Hutterite to the subtitle.  Can someone who knows Hutterites add a piece that shows how Hutterites shun or (don't shun)? Anacapa 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't know, don't add their name. Stettlerj 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hutterites do indeed shun so those editors who have information about Hutterite shunning need to weigh in here. 12.107.17.150 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shunning Hutterite 

message: The Scientology article links here. There should be a section explaining what "shunning" means in Scientology. -- Quuxplusone 05:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Disconnection, which is mentioned in the introduction. The Scientology practice differs from shunning as described in the remainder of this article. Shunning is applied by the group to a member of the group who has violated group norms. Disconnection is something that the member is required to apply to their non-member friends and family who disapprove of the group. --FOo 06:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: You cannot actually honestly include those isolated passages from the bible which lie under the heading, Shunning in Christian denominations. These, like almost every verse in the bible, have to be viewed in context and the manner in which they were written or spoken to the people of that time. That is like taking the verse from the Book of Revelations of Jesus Christ, "Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel." and then using that to say that 144,000 people are only going to be let into heaven and they are only Israelites. If that is the case then I that would have been filled up a long time ago and even Jesus Christ himself would have missed out on returning to the 'great gig in the sky'.
I do not think such a section should exist in this article and if it is to exist then it need to be revised. Pointing out isolated verses in that manner, without using or even explaining the context or manner in which it was quote or written, is just going to do nothing but encourage problems such as homophobia among Christians who believe that God and Jesus instructs them that it is in fact okay to do such things.
I just think it is wise to rethink that subsection if it is to convey the message intended.
:I agree these passages do not belong here.  The justification for shunning is far from solely biblical anyway.  (See the theologies of groups that shun.)  I notice the Amish note Mathew 18 here which is good enough for anyone who has a bible to source to--- although it is far from the complete justification of Anapbapist/amish shunning (see faith confessions).  These passages seem to be a shotgun biblical justification of shunning for all Christian groups below.  I would rather see each group note the specific biblical passages that apply to them with no direct quotes since anyone can find the passage in a bible.
Anacapa 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shunning in Christian denominations 

message: I added links and a reference describing Amish and Hutterite shunning.  I hope to see distinct and separate studies of shunning in all three groups here so no group is confused with another.  I will wait awhile for comments and suggestions from rbj and/or his 'we' before I begin to add Amish and Hutterite material here to head off edit wars.  Please comment/suggest how to write this up with NPOV balance.  Do you want to begin or do you want me to?  Clearly there is much material here to write about so I could use some suggestions.
Anacapa 05:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite

message: Since the first paragraph of this section specifically says that shunning is not a church doctrine, it seems odd that the section exists at all. All that exists within the church are possible "social ramifications," but that's the case with any religion.
Excommunication does exist, but has a slightly deceptive name in that excommunicated members are (ideally) still welcome among members. So there is certainly an argument for leaving the section in place; however, all information in the second paragraph is covered in the article on excommunication.
In the end, I recommend that the first paragraph stay and the second be removed. --Masamage 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has protested, I'm going to go ahead and do this. --Masamage 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I protest.  We need to state these "social ramifications".  As you well know (IDEALY) is far from reality. 12.107.17.150 04:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shunning in the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints 

message: It seems to me the section on shunning as a religious practice should be its own article, as it is biased and somewhat intolerant to necessarily include a religious practice of another faith in any article in the "ABUSE" series. XINOPH | TALK  17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, and ideally that would be the case, but most of the article is on religious shunning, and I don't know if a seperate article is necessary at this point.  If the non-religious shunning was expanded, maybe then. -- Jeff3000 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your point too.  However, when a religious group uses mild or extreme forms of relational aggression to show IT'S intolerance of a shunned former member why should that group be given some form of 'special' religious tolerance here?  These shunning religious groups deserve no more tolerance than they show their victims.  To do otherwise, is to tolerate those who use relational aggression(as a cunning, covert, and ugly art form) to perpetuate (RELIGIOUS!) intolerance.  I ask that we focus on the conduct used by ALL groups who shun and let the chips fall where they may.  I rarely hear us offering tolerance to those who commit murder for a religion so why would we tolerate soul-murder by and for a religion here? 12.107.17.150 03:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Shunning should be separate article 

message: Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, 
:"one should avoid links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."
regards, -- Jeff3000 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a guideline.  Moreover the blog isn't being sighted by as a source of information, but rather as a source  of links and articles related to the topic.  And why are we doing this on talk pages and not the article's talk page?   jbolden1517Talk 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it's not a source, it's a personal website, and has no place on Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:EL.  External links are supposed to be links to information that "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)."  Your page is a personal website that is self-published, and has no editorial checking.  Also from WP:EL, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified."  I have a large watchlist, and remove linkspam from a whole bunch of them, and that I don't usually edit Excommunication does not mean that I have to stop abiding by Wikipedia guidelines and leave blogspam in place.  I have asked an admin who is involved in External links to comment.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First off its not my page.  Second it's been involved with Marc Lauterbach who is an acknowledged source (author of one of the major church discipline handbooks) who provides editorial checking.  Maybe it might help if you actually knew something about articles you were engaged in WP:OWN on.  jbolden1517Talk 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marc Lauderbach's name does not appear on the site at all, see the google search.  There is no proof that this his blog.   Regardless, I couldn't find anything about this Marc Lauderbach either on books.google.com or amazon, or a general google search to show his notability in this field. -- Jeff3000 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ISBN 185792875X I didn't say it was his blog.  I said he provided editorial oversight (i.e. he reads and comments).  Before you were asking about editorial oversight.  Seriously what is that you actually no about discipline conversations.  Are you involved in shepherding, are you a JW what is your connection here?  So far you've been blasting away with all sorts of speculation.   jbolden1517Talk 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: AGF!! Wow.  This coming from a guy who started this whole thing by calling me a spammer.  wikistalking.  And then rather than admit he doesn't know one of the major people in the field changing the subject, really profound dishonest.  How about you assume some good faith?  jbolden1517Talk 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are by the guideline not to be used as external links, and are therefore SPAM.  There is still no proof that this person has any editorial power over the blog.  Once again, use the reliable sources and add content to the page, rather than adding external links to the page that don't abide by the Wikipedia guidelines.  -- Jeff3000 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Cite those reliable sources, not the blogs, which are unreliable; that is how Wikipedia  works.  -- Jeff3000 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These blog links look like their purpose is to advocate rather than inform; nothing wrong with that, for a blog, but it doesn't make for the best wikipedia source. At least half the links on the 'walk through list' seem to be to other blogs or essays for instance, based on the several that I glanced at. Some of the links to official church documents might be appropriate to link directly though. In any case, the dispute should be resolved here without further back-and-forth reverts and edit warring.  Wesley 16:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links