Talk:Scapegoating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Scapegoat[edit]

This is a good article. There could also be one on the biblical scapegoat. It is certainly notable enough.Borock (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some info on biblical scapegoat is included here:
Scapegoating#The_Bible --Penbat (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. This article, which is very good, does give the information well. A separate article is not really needed. I just was saying there could be one by WP policy. Borock (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is good. I tried to make a connection between Herem--i.e., the biblical command to destroy the Canaanite tribes and this web-site, as well as to the Scapegoat web-site, but got my fingers royally slapped by the editor for making an original contribution. To my mind anyone who was familiar with scapegoat theory would easily recognize Herem as a particularly eggregious form of scapegoat, i.e., not that original a thought, especially in regards to the present situation of the Palestinians. I have met Rene Girard twice and I am familiar with his writings, but I don't recall him actually addressing the biblical ritual itself. My MA thesis in theology addressed the issue, but it is not published, so I cannot cite it.
I also find it strange that this web-site has no section on gay-bashing, a very obvious example of scapegoating.67.52.199.50 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Position of image[edit]

If you dont mind, I prefer it where it was. Just looking at other articles it is far from universal to have the image right at the top, see for example seduction and aggression. The scapegoat image was intentionally positioned alongside the etymology text which specifically relates the origins of the word to a goat and therefore ties in with the image. The history text that follows also relates to the image.--Penbat (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understood that before I moved it. I also think it illustrates the entire concept of the article very well. The poor goat does look like a scapegoat, in all senses of the word. Borock (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere mentioned Literary Technique[edit]

In literature - this of which I am a student of - a Scapegoat is a difficult "literary technique" (or sometimes called "persuasive technique") in which only extremely biased information is used, in addition to using other persuasive techniques, remaining totally accurate and convincing others to subconsciously infer information which is NOT said.

For example (I am trying to use a very controversial subject on purpose to prove my point) "Time, one nirvana, now near suicidal. The twisted hands of fate, slipping through the cracks of morality, a horrorsome event we refer each day. Christianity was born within this deathly questionare, something forever laid in hatred." I have said nothing more than: long ago (childhood) aging was good, but now it is bad nowadays; when Christianity was created, it aged (or changed); and people don't like to age. Yet you REFER that I mean "Jesus brings evil to this time, he and Christianity are the only things wrong with life, ect..." without me saying so. A reader at this point would have SUBCONSCIOUSLY believed only my biased argument exists, and that these "inferences" are correct. Therefore the reader will believe Jesus "ruined the world" without the writer directly stating so.

Your current page is referring to nothing more than the secondary meaning of bullying, witch-hunts, biblical stories, which are entirely different subjects. I'm not much of a wikipedian, so could I please request something like this be created?

Michael Ipfreely555 Suman, (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

-

P.S. Sorry for the multiple edits. This subject takes years to fully understand, let alone a few minutes on Wikipedia

Literary Examples[edit]

What about literary examples such as Shirley Jackson's, The Lottery? There are probably others, I just can't think of them right now. Ileanadu (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Translation of Azazil?[edit]

The article makes it out that scapegoat, goat that gets sent out, is a based translation of azazil. Actually reading the article on Azazil does not imply this, and the source quoted is a print etymology book. Is there any justification for saying the translation of azazil as scape is actually *wrong*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.136 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The "correct" translation is not written. How is it then? -- Yormomo (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

elaboration needed[edit]

The sentence "A concept superficially similar to the biblical scapegoat is attested in two ritual texts in archives at Ebla of the 24th century BC" appears before the article discusses details around the biblical scapegoat. This needs to be fixed. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Old page history[edit]

I have moved some old page history that used to be at the title "Scapegoating" to Talk:Scapegoating/Old history. The only talk page section related to these edits can be found at Talk:Scapegoating/Archive 1#Atheists. Graham87 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

9 Feb 2010 RM result - Scapegoat -> Scapegoating, hasty?[edit]

Looking at Archive 1, with only one Support and 1 changed Oppose I wonder if the RM should not have been relisted rather than moved with so little discussion. It seems that the sociological term "scapegoating" is derivative and secondary to "scapegoat" which should be the main title. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

further checks on the usage "scapegoat" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scapegoat#Verb indicate this, while not a neologism is a fairly recent coinage which had a vogue in sociological texts, but "scapegoat" is far more common. The tails on these Google Book searches aren't totally reliable but even so:
Looks like a strong case for an RM with more participation back to the original title. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was some consensus "one vs one" and victory was declared. There is probably a Putin election joke therein... Jokes aside, there was no basis for consensus at all. That aside, from an overall perspective, the term itself (with its biblical connotations) deserves a page. Whether the psychological theories should go to a separate page is another story. But given that the psychology was developed somewhat after the Bible was written, it can not wag the goat. History2007 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think a better solution would be to move the biblical material to Scapegoat (biblical term) and leave this as is. The tags project psychology and Bible do not apply to the same concept. This should mention the origin as that, but they should be separate pages and scapegoat should become a dab given that it also refers to The Scapegoat (novel). This is a clear case where a dab is needed, given that the du Maurier book already has a page. There is also this one which may deserve a page, or not. History2007 (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I would support undoing the move, and I have to say that the current state of the lead paragraph is extremely weak, due to the awkward -ing name. Elizium23 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - "Scapegoating" is more in keeping with Wikipedia policy regarding article names. The scope of "scapegoating" is broader than "scapegoat" which it incorporates. The concept of scapegoating necessarily covers the scapegoatER as well as the scapegoatEE. Why just single out one side of the equation ? It is rather like changing the name of the bullying article to "bully victim". Scapegoating is an important social psychological concept. "Scapegoat" redirects here anyway. I wouldnt object to having a separate Scapegoat (biblical term) though if u really want to but not sure if it is worth it.--Penbat (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support spliting into two article. The original biblical concept of scapegoat is completely different from the common modern use of scapegoat and scapegoating. Johnjonesjr (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Support splitting into two articles: Scapegoat and Scapegoating. Of course, the best way would be to find a Scapegoat to take the blame for all this..... But after some more thinking, I think the term "Scapegoat" itself is notable enough to be used, with a section on the biblical issues. The psychological theories etc. do deserve a page, but the term itself trumps them. And I think the dab page is still needed for the novel, etc. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Would support as above split Scapegoat and Scapegoating, neat titles without the need for brackets. Not sure whether a split would require proposing on RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you can just wait a few days and if there is no major opposition, then just do it. The original rename was not done right, so one can not expect it to hold in view of the original uncertainty there. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I just realized that Scapegoat (disambiguation) exists. That makes it even easier, for it already gives Scapegoat" itself a definition and justifies its existence by itself. History2007 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday, during the blackout, as a joke, I was going to split it to two articles (yes, all one needed to do was disable Javascript in the browser and could access it) and then blame it on the blackout (the Scapegoat)... but then "lead us not to temptation", so did not. But I think you can separate them out, or I will if you like and still blame it on the blackout.... Standard practice in software projects anyway... History2007 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, 7 days and no action, means there was no opposition. So "Just do it". It is done. But probably probably both pages need some touch up. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice clean split. Well called. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so I am not going watch this page further and will move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)