Talk:Shunning

message: I've archived pre Anacapa content at Talk:Shunning/Archive 1
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: The 8th citation #cite_note-reddit-8 is broken, redirects to a 404.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.149.29 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken cite link

message: I have been a bit brutal to the section on Mormons.  This is not because I'm a bigot, because I'm not, but the section is biased and COMPLETELY unverifiable, in direct violation of the core wikipedia policies.  THIS IS UNNACEPTABLE! While I didn't delete the section because it holds potential for a good NPOV discussion.  Anybody wishing to rewrite it can talk to me; I'll help any way I can.  "I am become death, destroyer of worlds"- Oppenheimer (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That type of tagging is strongly discouraged. A single tag, pick one, is more than adequate to make others aware of your personal opinion. I have put in references, but still nrrds work.  --Storm Rider (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please define what you mean by self-published? None of the sites I used are related to me, but are official statements by the LDS church. You might want to review policies. Do you know another source for stating the doctrines of the LDS church other than the LDS church and its leaders? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's all in the language.  The idea that the church's official doctrine can be accountable at all times for what its clergy "will" always do is subject to interpretation; rather, state that "the LDS church states an official policy of welcome towards..."; otherwise, one would have to go into every single church where an excommunicant is asking for advice and see whether this was, in fact, being enacted by every clergy.  Because this has been altered accordingly, I'll remove the tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepebuslo (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS Section Tagged Heavily

message: "Silent treatment" redirects to here, but wouldn't it be better for it to redirect to Social rejection or some other topic? This article seems to be more related to groups. Kennard2 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Go ahead and do it; if someone disagrees they can revert and discuss. --Masamage 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally disagree.  "Silent treatment" is one essential aspect of relational aggression in shunning situations.  It belongs here.  Why are there so few specifics about the actual conduct of those who shun in this article?  "Silent treatment", false accusations of insanity and many other covert, cunning and ugly tactics are often part of the shunning groups' reportiore.  To conceal the actual tactics used in shunning is similar to concealing what goes on in GITMO today by and for the US government. Just like Uncle Sam these shunning groups hate being held accountable for what they do to people in secret.   12.107.17.150 03:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect question 

message: One or two editors have stated concerns about citation in the new content I added (see preceding discussion sections.) I have offered repeatedly to add the citations as is done in many other articles and I noted that this will take some time.  I ask that all editors allow me a reasonable amount of time 2-3 weeks to finish the citations in what is a complex summary of the shunning process.  To revert the content out of hand by claiming 'consensus' by a few editors who may or may not be shunning apologists is how totalitarian groups (many of who may the subject of this) article operate.  For those editors who are non-totalitarian I ask that you work with me to meet your citation concerns by citation tagging 'problematic' passages and by discussing your needs so I can address them.  Thanks Anacapa 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When many editors have stated concerns, then the Wikipedia policy of verifiability takes absolute precedence.  Work on the content in your own Sandbox, cite the content, and write it in neutral wording, and once that's ready you can place it in the article; the reverse does not work when it's controversial. -- Jeff3000 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The editors have provided examples through italicising, by stating that the text is making value judgements, and most importantly that the content fails two core policies of Wikipedia: verifiability and neutral point of view.  -- Jeff3000 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please assume good faith; it is another core talk page policy of Wikipedia;  I have never shunned or been shunned; but I do try to abide by Wikipedia policies.  -- Jeff3000 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  To add to what Jeff3000 said.  If you need 2 weeks to cite whose steps you are quoting then most likely you are creating your own synthesis of already published material.  That's not allowed WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.  Our job is to report what secondary sources say in their analysis about shunning not to create original analysis.   jbolden1517Talk 04:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing good faith about this.  You both have been running the same kind of game I would expect to find in one of the groups studied on this article.  No specifics, no genuine constructive attempts to find common ground and absurd round round and round generalities.  You are being 'nice', covert, false-consensus bullies because I am bringing in content you find highly disagreeable despite it's obvious nature from reading the references and links.  I have offered you many opportunities to be constructive but all you seem want to do is make sure this uncomfortable content never see the light of day.  I assume good faith until I see CONDUCT that shows bad faith.  You want me to assume good faith then show good faith, state your concerns constructively, clearly and specifically and work with me to resolve them.  If I had bad faith, I would have pulled much of the absurd and uncited shunning apologist content on this article long ago but I didn't because I wanted to show good faith to other editors whose POSITIONS I absolutely loathe but who are entitled to their legitimate opinions as EDITORS anyway.  Do you have it in you to offer me good faith when my position is so far away from yours or are you unable to separate yourself from me and the content I offer.Anacapa 06:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I agree that you're acting in bad faith by continually accusing people of being "shunning apologists".  Your edits are clearly not NPOV.  I tried some basic edits to clear up issues, but it was still not remotely neutral.  It reads like an opinion essay, not an encyclopedia article. Sxeptomaniac 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you can agree all you want but an article packed with religious justifications for shunning with no balancing secular takes on those justifications is 'apologist' by it's very nature.  NO EDITS ON this article are totally NPOV.  The point is to work together to find NPOV edits that reflect all of the subjective POV controversies within the topic as a whole.  I have no problem with being called on tone but please be big enough to work with me to create NPOV content and please be big enough to acknowledge apologist POV in the article as well.  I call upon you and all other editors who are so bothered by POV to state your specific concerns so that I can work with you to address them.  So far all I have seen are general judgements about my POV/bad faith minus any specific suggestions with which to create NPOV consensus.  To accuse me of bad faith when you have offered nothing specific that shows good faith is merely a tactic to censor, silence, and character-assassinate me. Are you acting in good faith here? If so, how will I know you are? Anacapa 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'apparent' consensus used as a totalitarian tactic?

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but from my observations universities use to have the practice that when group work was done the professor usually chose the members of each group, but now it seems universities allow the students to choose among themselfs to form groups. This practice allows the extension of shunning into academic life at the university level.
This point is important, since group projects are much more prominent than in the past, the universities explaining the change as that the corporate market expects graduates with experience working on group projects. Shunning effectively destroys the academic career of the individual shunned from group project membership. 
It is interesting that Cho chose most of his victims from foreign language classes, since those classes always require students to partner to practice the language. It should be researched if Cho was ever enrolled at foreign language at Virginia Tech, if was he ever partnered with another student, or did the professor let the students choose their own partners.
71.127.24.125
: That is a very interesting point.  However without a cite that sounds a great idea like original research.  Wikipedia is not in the business of hunting down "the real story" once someone else has hunted down the real story and its been published in hopefully multiple peer reviewed sources we summarize it.     jbolden1517Talk 09:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to note that "shunning effectively destroys the career of the individual shunned by the group".  You seem to understand the dynamics of this phenomenom. I would love to see some articles on academic shunning.  'Peer reviewed' is a bit of an oxymoron in a field where most of the researchers are associated to shunning groups so whatever you have is a good beginning.  128.111.95.171 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violent Effects of Shunning and Why We Should Expect Increased Violence at Universities

message: I deleted the following section from the article:
:There is no formal process of shunning in the LDS church. For those who have committed serious sin, disfellowshipment or excommunication are the most serious actions taken by the church. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 258-259, McConkie, Bruce R.) These are meant to encourage repentance; it is church policy that such individuals should continue to attend church meetings and associate with members.
Given that there is no shunning, nor has there ever been a process of shunning, its presence in the article seems senseless. The topic is about those groups that formerly shun people or have a history of doing so. If I have erred, please let me know. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS church

message: I'm not sure that anything in the Pagan/Neo-Pagan section describes avoiding association with people. From some really quick research on nithing, a nithing-post appears to be more related to cursing than ostracizing. Reculement also looks like a punitive measure separate from shunning. I'd like to just delete this section. Any reason why not? 
On another note: this section mentions the use of nithing-posts mentioned as an ancient practice (and I found some references to the same effect). But this section also mentions them only as a practice of the Asatru, and the Asatru article defines the faith as strictly neo-Pagan. It looks like either the shunning article or the Asatru article is mistaken. Does anyone know which?
Grease Bandit (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Pagan and Neo-Pagan Groups section? 

message: Please clarify 'head of their faith'. Who is it that orders the declaration and expulsion? The Universal House of Justice? A particular individual leader? Or some other thing??--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Baha'i

message: I'm surprised that the major religions like Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are mentioned with regards to shunning, however Islam is not mentioned. Could anyone fill in on how Muslims and Islam practice shunning, if they do at all? --ADTC (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shunning in Islam 

message: Context is extremely important in interpreting these passages.  I tried to correct this, but my information was simply removed, allowing the lifted verses to "stand on their own".  They are not easily interpreted as individual verses and are not meant to be done so, and only add fuel to the fire of this topic.
Matthew
Christians are not instructed to mistreat others, not even tax collectors or pagans.
Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Letters from Paul
Paul uses the word "brother" to identify other Christians.
Galatians 6:1-2: Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Continuation of thought from Romans 16:17:
Romans 16:18: For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
2 Thessalonians
This letter is directed to the church directly, not the world outside the church.
2Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, Silas[a] and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 John
This passage is about false prophets.
2John 7–9: Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Something should be done about the original page to warn others that these practices are not to be used against people outside the Christian church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.127.187 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:RS and WP:OR before editing articles. This is not the place for you to write your own essays on biblical interpretation. If you can find reliable published sources for the claims, you can add them then with appropriate citations. LTSally (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the anon was making the valid observation that the article is violating WP:SYNTH. It is disingenious to say somebody who points to such a glaring flaw in the article is "writing essays". --dab (𒁳) 21:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous editor was complaining that scriptures used by some religions to support shunning should not be used in the manner they use them. That is an opinion. Whether religions are correct in their interpretations is debatable, but WP:SYNTH does not apply to any religion interpreting a scripture a certain way. If there is a specific instance of a violation of WP:SYNTH in the article, please clarify.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not WP:SYNTH as much as completely unsourced original research.  I'm not really seeing what quoting bible verses really adds to the article anyway, so I'm inclined to say they should all just be removed. If you can find a source for what groups use what verses to justify shunning, then they can stay or be put back in.  I'll leave one or two, but the rest are unnecessary at this time. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there should certainly be a reliable source indicating which specific scriptures are used to 'justify' shunning. I have no problem if you just delete the unsourced information. The burden of providing sources then lays on those who want to re-add the material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bible verses are completely taken out of context! 

message: Considering that this article has been tagged for 3 years, how little has been done during those years to source it, and how much it duplicates another article, I suggest this article be merged into Excommunication.  However, I'm not aware of the process for doing this, so help would be appreciated. Downstrike (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Shunning is often associated with religious groups, but not uniquely so. Additionally, excommunication in some religions (including the Catcholic Church) does not involve shunning. I would therefore be reluctant to remove this article altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  Unfortunately, that leaves the issues this article suffers unsolved. Downstrike (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So discuss the issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to Merge with Excommunication 

message: The concepts of shunning are pretty wide, much wider than this article addresses. It looks like the article originally intended to only address the concept of shunning of a person or group of persons, by a larger group. It needs to address the wider scope. 
I think the concept needs to be broken into a more hierarchical organization.
Re excommunication:  "excommunication" refers to the name of a formal process or action taken by a group, (usually religious).  I agree that ex communication is a subset of "shunning" so if the articles are merged, excommunication should be a sub-heading under shunning. Jjk (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page still needs lots of work

message: I've tagged a couple sections with weasel words and the need for sources.  Particularly, I see a lot of statements such as "this group calls shunning other-term or other-term" that have no sources, which seems like original research.  A cursory google search did not immediately come up with any sources, and the paltry sources already included do not have the terms listed.  There's also a lot of "some churches/some chapters/some whatevers" without specifying who, which I've tagged.  But most of all, I agree with those above who suggest that what this article REALLY needs is a good expansion on shunning in the NON-religious sense.  Racial shunning, in particular, seems strangely missing in the article.  Shunning miscenegation is a historical topic that could use some discussion here.  Schoolyard Bullying and shunning amongst children social groups also seems appropriate, yet missing. Fieari (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging the article 

message: In the Section Other Protestant Groups, last sentence with cite [20]: It is estimated that 10% to 15% of Protestant evangelical churches practice shunning. 
Article in WSJ retrieved 19 June 2012 states "Scholars estimate that 10% to 15% of Protestant evangelical churches practice church discipline -- about 14,000 to 21,000 U.S. congregations in total."  
I found *no* verification for any of the other statements either and disfellowshipping is covered under Jehovah's Witnesses, and is not another term for shunning, it is in fact excommunication.   I deleted the section.  Jenlee639 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The WSJ article is obviously from a reliable source, though it isn't clear whether the extent of "discipline" it says is exercised by churches is actually shunning. The paragraph you deleted had been tagged since February for sources and was therefore fair game for deletion. However please note that the deletion of an entire section in an article should not be marked as a minor edit. BlackCab (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact Checking:  cited and new sources

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunning&oldid=663964422
Unsure if this belongs here, at least as it is written. Seems to me to be far to apologetic and NPOV'y. Vyselink (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This addition 

message: This article states: "Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas." This remark seems to state implicitly that society in general is not guilty of such. I reject that narrow point of view. I believe that society in general behaves according to politically correct lines, largely influenced by powerfull groups like the media and universities, who in turn are highly influenced (and financed) by rich companies and institutes with an agenda of their own. Just as an example I would like to refer to a good book on this subject: "The Weimar Century" by Udi Greenberg (ISBN-13: 978-0691159331)163.158.50.4 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas. 

message: Someone will likely come up with an earlier example than Yoko Ono’s efforts to deny John Lennon’s assassin the fame he sought (“He who’s name we do not say,” was her phrase, if I remember correctly). Today, some public figures (news comedians) are refusing to use the name of the 45th POTUS. This strikes me as a form of shunning not covered in this article, and an excellent reason to keep this article separate from ex-communication.
For your consideration. 
DOR (HK) (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  He who should not be named 

message: Regarding your reversion here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunning&diff=1110869647&oldid=1110866737 I think it's helpful for readers if a comprehensive list of related articles is included in the See Also section, instead of having to skim through the article to find the one they are looking for, especially since there is generally only one link hidden somewhere in the article. But I've learned not to care how Wikipedia is run anymore, so whatever. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the link you added to the section is already in the lead of the article, so it's not as though it's particularly hard to find. More generally, if someone is already looking for something in particular, they'll probably just search for that article. I'll stick with what the guidelines for the See Also section say, but other editors are welcome to discuss further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion