Talk:Shunning/Archive 1

March 4, 2007 addition

"Shunningcan be done to a person whos purpose is misunderstood, different, or akin to the practices of another belief, society, or tradition." As a result of the failure to cite sources Wikipedia:Cite_sources, this addition appears to violate the Wikipedia attribution requirement Wikipedia:Attribution and therefore appears to be a candidate for reversion.

New Testament (Bible) Citations

I think the scripture citations should remain in the article, for the following reasons:

(1) An article about shunning should include all available information about the subject, as specifically and precisely as possible. If we want to know whether the early Christians observed the practice, then we have to go to the sources. Although much of the New Testament is not written as history, it is historical source material about the beliefs and practises of the early Christian communities. Indeed, aside from the NT, there is very little other information about the workings of the early Christian Church. This makes the quoted scripture passages highly relevant to the topic under discussion.

I agree that the article should mention passages used by proponents of shunning. However, I think it's important that the article not adopt the proponents' point of view on the interpretation of those passages. The article shouldn't draw conclusions such as "The early Christians unquestionably practiced shunning" on the grounds of Biblical passages which must be interpreted in the light of particular beliefs in order to draw that conclusion. Even if the conclusion is correct, it is still problematic for the article to imply that the current practice is the same as the ancient one -- that is a matter of faith not history.

Matters of religion are difficult to write about neutrally, since many of the terms, interpretations, and mental constructs which need describing have special meaning only to the believer. It's hard for both the believer and the non-believer to adopt a point of view that describes religious faith whilst neither taking it as an assumption nor treating it as an illusion. --FOo

(2) The NT passages quoted give the reader insight into why some of the groups adopt the practice. The Bible has influenced Christian thought for two thousand years now, and therefore, what its writers say about any given topic must have some relevance. And while it is undoubtedly true that different denominations have a variety of interpretations of these passages, surely this is best handled by explaining what the other interpretations are. In that way, the article will be more informative. In other words, add information and contextualize the existing information.

Again, I agree. NPOV is not about removing information that describes people's points of view: it is about assuring that the article does not adopt one of those points of view. Providing lots of interpretations is one of the best ways to do this. Until we have those, however, making sure that we ascribe the described beliefs to someone (and mentioning that others disagree) is better than not doing so. --FOo

By the way, I agree that an encyclopedia article should not look like a religious tract. But a religious tract would surely urge the reader to adopt one viewpoint or another. An encyclopedia article just presents the facts, pure and simple. Perhaps a way can be found to present them more elegantly than just a sparse list.

I don't know why a previous editor removed the highlighting. When the relevant point of a quotation is highlighted, it stands out. The other alternatives are not to highlight anything (nothing stands out) or to present only the highlighted parts (no context). However, it's not all that important.

I removed the highlighting because I felt it implied the article was taking the stance of a proponent. Selective emphasis, like selective quoting, is a way of drawing attention to one particular view or interpretation of a passage -- and in some cases of excluding others.

One reason it might be preferable to cite passages rather than quoting them (and to link to the passages in an online copy of the Bible) is that this would give the reader immediate access to the context of these verses. This way, the article could not be accused of taking them out of context in order to militate for a particular interpretation of them.

I have to admit, though, I'm not familiar with any particular Wikipedia-wide policy on the matter. I'll do some looking and see if there's one relevant. --FOo

anathema

The article on shunning should link to the article on anathema.

An interestig case was Spinoza

Jehovah's Witnesses

Where is there data about the top TWO reasons for 'disfellowshipping"? I know that sexual immorality is the highest. How do we know what the 2nd highest is?

shunning Hutterite

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)[reply]

If you don't know, don't add their name. Stettlerj 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stettler, I do know now. Donald Kraybill, a shameless Anabaptist apologist, press PR panderer, and 'objective' political protector from an ANABAPTIST-associated college in Elizabethtown PA says so in his absurdly biased 'sociological' tome [http://www.amazon.com/Backroad-Heaven-Hutterites-Mennonites-Anabaptist/dp/0801865654 On the Backroad to Heaven] which for those shunned by these vicious 'nice-vice' sects, is also the 'backroad to hell'. I've got to wonder a little about your intentions here. Are you trying to show the whole story about shunning ('good' and 'bad') here or do you prefer (like some shunning apologists) to silence me rather than the assist me to include relevant content? Anacapa 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

The Scientology article links here. There should be a section explaining what "shunning" means in Scientology. -- Quuxplusone 05:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changes starting 15 Dec 2005

A long sequence of edits has been made by anon IP's starting on Dec 15 2005. These seem to include quite a bit of POV-pushing, questionale throwing around of psychological terms, and some just plain mangling. I'm going to try to sort some of this out if I can. As a last resort, the last edit "02:06, 15 December 2005 Eliezer m (Reverted edits by 66.15.140.3 to last version by 162.111.235.34)" is a potential reversion target. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am that anon IP here. There IS quite a bit of pov here in both my statements and in the articles I edited. (When I see churches fill entries with (all positive) church POV (some of which is outright falsehood or cunning deceit by ommission) and then fill external links with church sources too, I become outraged and (I imagine as intended) overwhelmed with disgust because I know that there few of people who are organized and able to check/counter it ALL.) I am also learning to use Wikipedia so there will be a little mangling until I correct my mistakes. Please suggest specific areas I can sort out here.

I know how shunning groups control pov from the inside (Mennonite). To watch shunning groups pack these articles with positive pov propaganda that makes them appear always good and always nice bores, disgusts and infuriates me. I know the other side of such 'niceness' much much much too well. To me what is happening here is similar to recent news articles on how the Chinese government squelched the relatives of villagers shot by the Chinese Army. The Chinese were probably successful at lieing about those deaths inside China but were unsuccessful in the worldwide press because a few furious relatives decided to defy threats, lies, and bribes to speak up. That is exactly what happens in shunning cases too...(just google a few) so I do insist on a balanced pov here...that is the shunned and shunners statements minus all that bury-us-in-bull bible babble. Religion has no special right to special treatment here. I insist on respect for the applicable facts (be they offensive or inoffensive.) in this encyclopedia. In a world of suicide bombers it is time to take religious faith on as we do all other ideas here. I do hate shunning with sound cause. I hope possible shunnees use Wipipedia to escape those churches that shun BEFORE they become members. When it is all-against-one or all-against-a-few it is impossible to use wiki 'consensus' to generate credible articles. These religious groups know totalitarian tactics quite well and use them here ad nauseum. NO ONE group including the Chinese govt has a special claim on the facts or a right to squelch 'offensive' points of view just because they are offensive to some.

I use psychological terms in these religious articles because shunning is a psycho-social and sometimes sexual sanction. It is a civil offense in mainstream courts to commit Parental Alienation and a workplace offense in Britian to commit relational aggression (eg 'female'/ group bullying). These shunning groups commit terrible (covert) offenses against people in the name of God which would be confronted in secular situations. -- Anonymous

I take a slight offense to comparing the active killing of individuals by the Chinese Communist Party to any organization that chooses to expel a member. The expulsion and disassociation is totally passive. If churches actively sought out to destroy some shunned person, that's another thing. Cuñado

- Talk 07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no offense is meant here. the degree of sanction in shunning is obviously not the same as these Chineses threats/bribes but the methods used are indeed quite similar. There is nothing passive about shunning although it might seem that way to an outsider. It is a form of active social and emotional aggression by all members of a group against one or a few former members. Many churches consider the shunnees abhorable or 'abominable' sinners and their abhorence is expressed covertly and usually ever so 'nicely' to the shunee. The effect (and in a few cases where the shunnee fails to 'submit' and fight back, the INTENT) is to damage or destroy all the shunnees closest relationships. no email 20 jan 06.

abhor

The definition of shun is: To avoid deliberately; keep away from. It doesn't imply hatred, which is what the opening line indicates right now. Cuñado - Talk 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, shunning does not imply hatred in general. It might for certain denominations, but definitely not all, and thus I'm going to edit the intro which should be general. -- Jeff3000 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added abhorence because it is the root word for 'shun' and because it is an essential element of all shunning accounts I have seen on online and those that I know of personally. Abhorence is not hate. It is a form of 'righteous' disgust. The shunners will always say they don't hate the 'poor' fallen, lost sinner but they do show their abhorence with far more than just avoidance. The original Anabaptist Confession (see Mennonite /Theology) calls such ones "abominable' and says 'nothing but 'abominable things can come from them'. This is abhorence and is has severe effects when done to the shunnee. Please show me one group that shuns with no, I repeat, no such shaming or abhorence so that I too can concur with the statement above about the 'general intro.' I suggest a glance at External link #3 on this article to see what i mean. -unsigned by 128.111.95.138 20 jan 06.

I agree that many groups use excommunication/shunning as a tool to punish people and cause damage. I have seen it happen in many Jehovah's Witness families. But on a simple basis, and especially for the definition of shunning, it is simply avoiding people, and nothing more. Can you name one large scale functional group/religion/business that does not reserve the right to refuse service/attendance? Heck, I'm sure the Boy Scouts kick people out of their group. And if an individual is seen as harmful to the group, every religious text addresses the right to expel and avoid the person. The issues you're bringing up are abuses of that right. Cuñado

- Talk 23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Cunado19 above. Did you look up the root word for shunning which is 'to abhor'? I know from much personal experience (I know at least five relatives being shunned now for no 'sinful' causes) that shunning includes both avoidance and expression of disgust or abhorence (at minimum a deliberate and inhumane snub). I ask you to carefully read the various groups' theologies and ideas about people so shunned. I know that in most such theologies there is abhorence ('fallen' sinner, abominable, 'impure', 'unholy') sentiment stated against the shunned. This to me is all-against-one abuse and is religious abuse of one's rights by the many who themselves are no perfect angels. Of course all groups can kick people out and that is no particular cause for alarm but shunning is ongoing social aggression and a good indication about how totalitarian a group is. (Cultish big business corporations often practice mild forms of shunning too.) People often confuse shunning with mere excommunication or dismembership with no distinctions. I am simply trying to find a way to support Jeff3000's idea that the general intro here should represent all groups that shun here. If one group shuns with no disgust, abhorence, abomination etc Jeff3000's case is made to me. On the other hand if all known groups do abhor shunnees I would like to see abhorence in the general intro above. Is that too much to ask? -- unsigned by 128.111.95.240

Yes one group shuns with no abhorence, and that is the Baha'i Faith. Of the 6 million or so Baha'is, there are in the range of thousands that are declared Covenent-Breakers, and are shunned. There is no hatred or abhorence to these Covenent-breakers, but are only shunned because Baha'is as an analogy goes, they are spiritually diseased, and to limit the disease, you have to limit contact with the diseased. Baha'is are thought to love all humankind, regardless of their belief, but to shun, or at least limit contact with Covenent-Breakers. Please read the section on the Baha'i Faith on the page. -- Jeff3000 06:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, is that regardless of the origin of the word, the current definition has to be used. Merriam-Webster states to avoid deliberately and especially habitually. Dictionary.com states To avoid deliberately; keep away from. and avoid and stay away from deliberately; stay clear of -- Jeff3000 06:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff thanks for this clarification. Again I make a distinction between hatred and abhorence/disgust. One need not hate one who one is disgusted by. Calling people 'diseased' is exactly what I mean here and seems quite similar to how other groups abhor shunnees. I suggest a glance at Understanding Shame and Humiliation in Torture article (external links) to see the effects of being so shamed on the shunnees. This is why I added abhorence because this is no neutral 'avoidance', it is an avoidance with much judgement. Anacapa 07:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, disgust is not the same as diseased. When your friends are sick, are you disgusted with them, no. You just stay away from them. -- Jeff3000 13:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff let me try again. Do you agree that hate and abhorence/disgust are separate and different emotions? I see no sign in the Baha'i Faith shunning piece that Baha'i people hate shunnees. Instead I see words like 'spiritual sickness', 'negation' of the Baha'i religion and 'offender'. Do Baha'i's hate or abhore (or both or neither) these shunnees?

To me, the shunnees' points of view must be included in this article too. To a shunnee the shunners' judgements can be a big deal. I just want to see accurate and balanced statements here that reflect all sides' actual conduct. Is that possible here?

Anacapa 00:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anacapa, yes hate and disgust are different emotions. Baha'is don't hate or abhore shunnees, and Baha'is also are not disgusted with them. The reason why Baha'is shun is because of Baha'is own spiritual progress, and not to lower the shunnee in any way. Unfortunately the actions of Baha'i shunning may affect the shunnee if they have family or friends that are Baha'i, but that is a side-effect, and not the primary purpose. Note that Baha'is shunning covenent-breakers has practical limits, as noted in the article. For example, in Wikipedia, I sometimes have discussions with convenent-breakers. I try to limit it, but I don't hate or abhore him. I also am not in disgust.

So what's clear to me is that shunning has two reasons. One to lower the other person, and another to not allow yourself to be lowered through the actions of other people. Baha'is follow the latter, which has some effects that look like the former. Other religions might be different, and aim for the former (lowering the other person), but again, the intro must be as general as possible. -- Jeff3000 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff thanks again for the distinctions and clarifications. This is quite helpful to me. I agree with you that the intro must be as general as possible so that NO group is unfairly broadbrushed with innaccurate information. I appreciate your work to separate intention from consequences here and (I assume) in the article too so I can see all POVs. However, to me a label of 'disease', spiritual sickness, and 'offense' implies judgement by the group and at least some associated shame emotions in the group. To me such judgements can be quite shaming (and quite onesided) to the shunnee. Maybe the link 'anathema' suggested by someone else above could show this in the general intro. I will add a general link to anathema with no absolute statements. Would you take a look see and suggest other possibilities?

Anacapa 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it implies judgement; that one is wrong, and one is right, but it doesn't involve shame. I'll state it one final time, the Baha'is do not shun to lower the other person, but believe that the shunnees are wrong, and can hurt other Baha'is due to interaction. I'll take a look at Anathema sometime tomorrow. -- Jeff3000 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at Anathema, and I don't think it applied to Baha'i shunning. My understanding of Anathema is that it currently has connotations of accursed and had originally to do with giving something to the Gods or with something off-limits. None of these have to do with the Baha'i Form of shunning which is used to protect oneself, rather that to harm the other individual.

Note that I'm not saying that other religions do not perform shunning to harm the shunnee, but just stating that the Baha'i Faith does not. If you want to put that stuff in the intro, it should be a clear seperation between all forms of shunning, and a particular form of shunning. -- Jeff3000 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this engagement. Is the change acceptable now? I am not saying ANY group here intentionally intends to harm anyone. However simple logic shows that someone who is so judged 'wrong' will be lower than the so-called 'right' ones. I simply insist that people be responsible for such judgements and be willing to see the effects such judgements have on others. To claim there is no shaming going on here does not square with me. I can agree that intent to shame might not be there but the shaming is indeed going on because it occurs in the very language used here (see shaming article for more). Again no personal offense intended. I judge ideas but I try not to judge people and I know this is difficult stuff to dialogue about.

Anacapa 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge

See Talk:Excommunication#merge

Shunning in Christian denominations

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)[reply]

Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite

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)[reply]

Article still implicitly POV. Shunning can be a healthy behaviour

I have an issue with this article. Not with most of the content, because it is true that shunning, like any behaviour, when used to coerce or attack, can cause grave psychological problems. However, the act of removing oneself from interaction with another is, in many cases, not only not abusive, it can be a substantial defense against abuse. An example might be an alcoholic who is attempting to recover, who initiates a personal policy of shunning those of his friends who are still engaged in an alcoholic life, who would, by virtue of simple association, give this hypothetical fellow a stimulus to revert.

Yes indeed. However, this is analogy is far too simple. As Menno Simons explicitly states in The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (in his case) shunning is a knowingly harsh form of punishment to coerce conduct from the shunnee that is seen as (POV!) desireable to the church. Religious righteousness is in the eye of the beholder...eg there is no 'breath test' for religious righteousness. In the long and fractious history of Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite and other shunning organizations people who have spoken out against very clear abuses such as child rape or incest etc INSIDE the church have been shunned by the church for insubordination. It is often far from clear who is "on the bottle" in these cases the entire church or the shunnees. I suggest we focus on simply showing the conduct we define as shunning and spare our readers POV about the righteousness or wrongedness of it's (covert) justifications.

Similarly, one can view the whole notion of a restraining order or peace bond as being a firmly state-supported and state-enforced shunning. One wishes to shun the other, who will not leave him/her alone. That person gets a restraining order to compel the other to not interact with the former.

In my experience of shunning, the group uses existing SOCIAL relationships to punish the shunnee. To cast this as SIMPLY a way a group protects itself from so-called 'criminal' elements is quite disengengenous and POV. There is covert, cunning and cold relational agression from and by the group against the shunnees too in most cases I see chronicled online. I suggest you google "shunning" and read the stories. The Red Revolution in China had many extreme cases that mimic somewhat I see in shunning from some religious groups here. Shunning is a form of social agression that uses shame to punish whatever its justification. Please spare us the 'good' group versus the 'bad' shunnee POV here and simply spell out the facts so we can make our own judgements.

Certainly, unhealthy relationships, as any competant phychologist will tell you, when they cannot be healed, need to be removed from one's life. I know of someone personally who stopped dating someone, and stopped seeing that person and two of their friends socially, because of the unhealthiness of the relationships involved. This friend of mine was specifically accused of "shunning" and accused so as to imply that some sort of abusive behaviour was occuring. In fact, it was entirely this person's right to cease association, and such an epithet was inappropriate and manipulative in this case.

The point I'm making here is that the act of shunning, per-se, cannot be reasonably said to be abusive or manipulative. One can wield this behaviour like a weapon, and therefore one can be abusive and manipulative through shunning. There's a difference. There are also a matter of extent. Shunning that does not cross the bounds of basic human rights, or seek to undermine one's civil rights, or seek to cause damage to the other party - it's just not so easy to say "bad". Sometimes it's just a simple matter of protection or prudence. There are reasonable psychological and social circumstances wherein it is entirely understandable that people would remove themselves from certain others' company. It may be that in many or most contexts, it is used in an abusive manner. However, that is POV, and it needs better bounds put on it than are expressed in this article, at least TMPOV (to my point of view).

I suggest you do indeed focus on the ACTS themselves as well as the relevant doctrines that are the foundations for those acts. You will find that RELIGIOUS shunning is almost NEVER MERELY about "removing themselves" alone. There is almost always a coercive intent to force 'repentance' on the shunned person to make them conform to and rejoin the shunning group. To try to whitewash the 'negative' aspects of shunning is what religious groups that shun have been doing for centuries. This is supposed to be NPOV article so please state the actual ACTS you talk so much about. 12.107.17.150 04:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome recommendations on how to maintain the essential information here, but frame it in a way that does not purjor the act of shunning outright, but puts usage context and better NPOV framing around such judgements. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue I have considered myself, and I've seen the same thing on Excommunication. Judging by past conflicts on this, the hard part is keeping the article NPOV enough that when someone drifts in who has a purely negative view of shunning they hopefully won't feel the need to completely rewrite the article to reflect that. Issues like this one, where another editor might have been on the receiving end of what they felt was an unjust shunning, are really tough.

The other problem I've seen is that there are some independent Mennonite churches (say <1000 members) that have made a really bad name for themselves with shunning practices that leave the shunned feeling particularly bitter. Sometimes information on the practices of these fringe groups finds its way into the article as if it were describing common practice, or someone starts listing off ridiculously detailed information on them in order to appease those with axes to grind.

I'll see if I can find some ways to help with NPOV rewriting. Sxeptomaniac 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making a few edits to the intro section (focusing mostly on replacing words that are prejudicial in nature), so we'll see if those will stand or not. I've noticed Anacapa is personally in the anti-shunning camp (and a source of a lot of information), so maybe he will be able to take a look and see if it seems fair (I haven't seen him edit this lately, though). Sxeptomaniac 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sxeptomaniac for your edits. I do think, however, that those edits are not far enough. The lead section needs to be shortened considerably to be more neutral, and much of the current material has to be put into subsections that can seperate out the negative and positive aspects of shunning, and not make them sweeping statements for all shunning. -- Jeff3000 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC

I find this article ridiculously POV. I came here expecting a basically neutral article (as WP is supposed to have) with details of ways particular forms of shunning might be considered good or bad by particular people. Instead the whole tenor of the article treats shunning as an essentially bad thing, with maybe one or two comments describing ways in which it might be considered good, and it's apparently part of a list of activities considered "Abuse". Also it is dominated by specific religious examples, whereas I would have thought that was just one context for the concept, which is essentially a more general thing. How come this is? I have a positive sense of shunning (not absolutely but I basically see it as something that can be used very positively, from both pagan and anarchist POVs), granted that's my POV and the article shouldn't follow that but surely it should not be biased the other way either. Should it? How has this happened? --80.6.118.162 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, I ask you and all the others to note that there are almost no specifics on what shunning CONDUCT actually is in the article. To imply, as some have above, that shunning is mere disconnection and dissasociation is an absurd distortion of the full definition of the term and the genuine realities of shunning too. Religious shunning is far more OFFENSIVE (read the doctrines) than DEFENSIVE and therefore is systematic abuse of the 'bad' persons rights by the 'good' group in the name of the so-called 'goods' of the 'good' group. No one is talking here about the GENUINE specifics of shunning TACTICS. Instead, we are discussing healthy or unhealthy effects with no facts to base such judgements upon. For those who see shunning as such a healthy thing would you mind being specific about what is done to those shunned by the groups who shun. That way we can all make up our own minds about abuse versus whatever so-called healthy aspects are involved in shunning. 12.107.17.150 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shunning in the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints

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)[reply]

Since no one has protested, I'm going to go ahead and do this. --Masamage 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Religious Shunning should be separate article

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) 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links

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)[reply]

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? jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No Jeff the external links section is specifically designed to handle websites of interest. People interested in shunning or excommunication are interested in church discipline. Guidelines are meant to be guides about links to be normally avoided not policy to be robotically followed while harming the article. As for excommunication I would seriously stop. You had no history of involvement there.jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. jbolden1517 ^Talk 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, (and even if I were it would make no difference) but I strive to work with Wikipedia policies. There is no proof that that blog has any editorial oversight by Marc Lauterbach. See Jossi's comments below, linking to blogs are not a good idea, and do not have to be linked. Instead use Marc Lauterbach's book as a source and add content to the page. That's the best way to proceed. -- Jeff3000 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Third opinion

External links should be used to enhance the article with material that could not make it to the the main body of text due to length, copyright issues, and other similar situations. Linking to personal websites or blogs is not a good idea: the EL section is not the dumping ground for whatever we could not add to the article's body because of lack of compliance with our content policies:

Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could 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).

Note that the guideline says "can" and not "should".

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The official documents list what's personal there? The procedural walk through list has little more in terms of personal stuff than a wikipedia page. The news-stories on shunning like [1] seem like valid links. I don't see how that is even relevant. jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Second what Jossi said, and Jeff3000. This is not an appropriate link. Please note that you do not have consensus and you have received the opinions of several experienced editors that this site does not meet WP:EL. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]