Talk:Shunning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I've archived pre Anacapa content at Talk:Shunning/Archive1

Broken cite link[edit]

The 8th citation #cite_note-reddit-8 is broken, redirects to a 404.

Whole Article needs more citations![edit]

God, I just now saw the rest of the article! This is wikipedia, not a blog. This needs heavy citations. 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I feel like I should at least direct you guys somewhat so you see what I mean: the social/psychological aspects of shunning could easily be cited in any old book on sociology; I also don't see anything about Catholics or Bahai in the bibliography, so this needs to be supplemented.

I say "this is wikipedia, not a blog"; that sounds a lot harsher than i meant it. Most blogs aren't total b.s., though many are opinion columns; I was merely stating that this cites its sources as a well-written blog, providing links and things but not carefully making sure that everything is exact and often going on common knowledge. I simply don't feel in the mood to insult wikipedians, because they work hard for no compensation and so their writing can get hacked and torn to shreds; sorry:(.


OH, HELP! Still lots of citation problems here! A few questions right off the bat:

1. Under the Anabaptist section: "As described in the article on the Amish," appears in the article, but I don't see what "article" is being referenced here. Anyone?

2. In comments, same section:

"I would like to know where this quote comes from. If it has a source, it should be referenced. Lots of people say lots of things, but just because someone says something doesn't mean the statement or the person making it is noteworthy or quote-worthy sufficiently to be including it in an encyclopedia."
"There is the source with correct attribution. ..."

Where? Did it get deleted? There is no source there now.

3. Missing inline citations. See the last three listings under References, the ones that are inserted as bullet points. I'd like to fix them, but I even if I had these books in front of me, it would be tricky to figure out, specifically, what part of the article they're being referenced for. Does anyone know what sentences those references are related to? Grease Bandit (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

LDS Section Tagged Heavily[edit]

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)

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)

Um...one problem. You used self-published websites as references. Still no good; I'm adding refimprove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepebuslo (talkcontribs) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
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 (talkcontribs) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

redirect question[edit]

"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)

Totally agree. Go ahead and do it; if someone disagrees they can revert and discuss. --Masamage 00:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

NPOV tag[edit]

I will be adding the NPOV tag because the newly added content makes value judgements on shunning to one extreme. That in conjunction with no references whatsoever is problematic. -- Jeff3000 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I expected that because some editors seem to be apologists for shunning. (I refer apologists for shunning to God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, C. Hitchens, (2007) for Spinoza's sad story) I ask that you spell out your issues about 'value judgements' so I can try to clean them up where your 'value judgements' on the other extreme clash with mine. I also ask that you explain where you need citations and that you stick to one standard with respect to references on a topic that is so taboo to discuss outside the shunning groups.
I insist that we spell out what shunning actually IS in this article somehow so that our readers can make their own value judgements. I also insist that we use the full NPOV definition/characterization [1] of shunning here so that this article can reasonably include common conduct in shunning that falls outside the narrow (and ever so 'nice') scope of the definition we are using now. Finally, I have no problem with you calling me on tone or whatever but I insist that the basic tactics of shunning be shown in all their glory here so that our readers can make informed decisions about how THEY choose to see shunning. Anacapa 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I have no problem with a citation tab because much of the content in this whole article in unsourced (medical conditions as shunning indeed!?) but please refrain from reverts and simply source tag what you need to see sourced. Expect no less from me on the apologist type content. The content I added is as reasonable as any of the other unsourced content in this article so please prevent needless edit wars by refraining from wholesale reverts without discussion. Thanks Anacapa 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that the newly added content is in my mind POV and is completely unsourced, which doesn't pass by Wikipedia's verifiability policy which is unnegotiable, you should cite your sources from neutral reliable sources before adding the material. -- Jeff3000
Jeff, I have edited many articles. You are right to call all unsourced content. However you have no right to delete it out of hand. Please add citation templates where you need sources and I will bring them in. There is a lot of unsourced opinion in this article overall that could benefit from your concerns but please work with me to cite what you want to cite rather than doing wholesale deletions. I am need no edit wars here. Anacapa 03:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
From the WP:V page "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." Cite your work or it can be challenged and removed by any editor. Core Wikipedia policy. -- Jeff3000 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, challenge away (and please be respectful enough to state your specific issues so I have some basis for understanding your concerns), demand sources, and source tag sentences where you like then but please refrain from needless reverts to keep the peace. There is content on this article that I have huge problems with such as that blatant and absurd attempt to make shunning respectable by trying to compare it with completely unrelated legal practices. However, before I go about making a big war about that, I will discuss that with you and and other editors here. Please be decent back. Anacapa 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Remove any content that you believe is not true; as this page is not referenced you are free to do so, but don't make the page more unreferenced by adding any additional unreferenced material. I'm just asking you to source your content from a neutral reliable source, two core wikipedia policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You are also free to add a NPOV tag on the current incarnation of the page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you a couple days to find sources for your statements, otherwise I will be removing them. -- Jeff3000 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Jeff, I ask that you respect me as a fellow editor here so that we can prevent needless edit wars. I have no problem with your POV tag on the article or the Citation tag on the article. What I do have a problem with is you threatening to remove content I worked hard on before you work with me to meet your source concerns. This is complicated content that comes from many sources. I call your attention to the references/links on this page which already contain the basis for much of this content so you know I am a serious editor. I need specific areas you need me to address, I need reasonable discussion and I need time (2-3 weeks) to do the sourcing so again please respect me as a fellow editor even though you might have a strong reaction to the content I added. Thanks Anacapa 03:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For all those editors who are apologists for shunning I suggest a glance at the new links I added with news stories about my favorite ex-amish woman Ruth Garret who broke the terrible taboo on talking about her shunning. As those stories should make abundantly clear this article on shunning is far from complete. Somehow we need to face the covert, cunning and ugly truths about shunning in this article because the ends never justify such means. Anacapa 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised by the fact that you cited Christopher Hitchens in your very first response about "apologists for shunning"? Awayforawhile (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What shunning is!?[edit]

I added the following content to illustrate what shunning actually is so that people can make up their own minds about 'value judgements' using some sort of factual basis rather than merely uninformed opinions about some unknown idea. I did this fairly quickly from a wide variety of sources so I have been unable to cite everything yet. Please review this for POV and please discuss problems you have with it before you begin wholesale reverts. Thanks Anacapa

Content in question:

Shunning as a process

Shunning refers to the deeds of those people in a group who do the shunning rather to than the conduct of those being shunned. In most cases, shunning occurs in stages which depend at least in part on the reaction or responses of the shunned targets. Specific shunning tactics vary from group to group, from mild to extreme forms of shunning, and from (apparently) compliant targets to obviously defiant targets. However, enough similarities occur even in widely disparate shunning situations to show the basic stages that occur in most forms of shunning.

Separation is the first stage in shunning. This usually involves some sort of formal or informal excommunication, dissasociation, or disconnection which is usually, but not always, imposed on the target by his or her former group. The justifications for such separations are usually decided by the group's authorities without formal fact-finding and usually without what is known in law as a fair trial{citation}. Sometimes separation is imposed for blatant violations of the group's code of conduct but often separation is merely imposed because the target upsets the group's status quo in some way, justified or not. Occasionally, the future targets of shunning separate from the group on their own accord to go their own way or to form another independent group.

Condemnation forms the second, the most meaningful, and the most enduring stage of shunning. In this stage, the target is labeled as an anathema, as 'heretical', as 'abominable', as a 'fallen sinner', as 'diseased', as traitorous, and/or whatever other contemptible classifications the group prefers. Although religious condemnation is usually carefully codified in most theological doctrines, informal or formal condemnation also occurs in secular groups with totalitarian tendencies. For example, establishment feminists in the United States have labeled credible feminist whistleblowers (who have spoken out about what they see as the totalitarian nature of post-modern feminism) "anti-feminist" as the basis for calling on all (other) feminists to shun them. By establishing the 'truth' that the group is good and that the shunning target is evil, the stage is set for the third stage of shunning; subjugation.

Once the target has been demeaned as "less than" by the 'holier than thou' group, the stage is set for the ongoing aspects of shunning which are intended to subjugate the target so that he or she will submit to the group's will, repent his or her 'sins', and restore him or herself to submissive membership once more. In this stage, shunning can take the form of ongoing social avoidance, polite but patronizing social snubs, and damage to or destruction of spousal, familial, social relationships because the group members refuse to respect normal social standards. In extreme cases, the group requires a shunning spouse to shun a target spouse by withdrawing sexual intercourse, by dining at a separate table, and by snubbing the spouse in all but essential family functions. The group usually sees itself as admininistering 'God's love' or whatever other 'wisdom' for the benefit of the 'poor' problematic target to educate the target about his/her transgressions. In this stage, shunning is relatively free of overt malice if the target submits (or appears to submit) to the group's will. Some targets of shunning live and ultimately die in quiet resignation or commit suicide (as shown in The Shunning a fictional account of Mennonite shunning) in apparent submission while others repent and return to the group.

However, some targets of shunning decide to fight back, in which case shunning groups often use the ultimate weapon of shunning: alienation. For most groups that shun, the ultimate crime is disobedience so they reserve their most potent and pejorative forms of shunning for those courageous targets who refuse to submit to their shunning. In this stage, overt shaming becomes intense, more overtly malicious and often absurdly unreasonable as the group, tries silence and destroy the target as a credible critic. The social snubs, silent treatment, and ostracizations become more pointed and (covertly) ugly. Double-bind blame is often used to blame the victim for the group's shunning as in 'he/she' brought it (our) shunning upon himself or herself". Character assassination, false labels of insanity, and other ugly totalitarian tactics are used against the target with (covert) vengeance to alienate and isolate the target from all other appeals (including those in the broader society) to common decency. This often leaves the target isolated and alienated from all those who could assist him or her to fight for his/her human rights. (content added by Anacapa 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

First off all the language is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia has no position on whether shunning is a good or a bad thing. On whether maintaining group dynamics does or does not warrant cruelty towards individuals. Wikipedia itself, doesn't have a position on whether people who resist religious authority are courageous or merely deranged heretics. The article cannot take your editorial stance that shunning is wrong. The process information is valuable but the entire tone needs to change. I've put in italics the worst offenders.
Second you need to provide citations for almost all of this. Just about every sentence is going to need a cite. jbolden1517Talk 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'apparent' consensus used as a totalitarian tactic?[edit]

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)

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)

One or two editors who appear to be shunning apologists are far from many. I ask again that you state your specific concerns so that I can correct the content. Language I can change right away. What exactly is so non-neutral to you? Anacapa 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One or two editors above have concerns about the content I added being encyclopedic but they have refused to provide me examples of what they take issue with or try to assist me to 'correct' the content to their liking. I am willing to listen to all reasonable comments about tone or language and to take suggestions on how to rewrite passages in what THEY see as more encyclopedic terms. I am aware that shunning is a complicated topic which involves many POV's...those of the shunners, those of the shunnees, and those of others who know little about what shunning really is. I welcome ALL CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions or assistance to include and balance these often contradicting POV's but I refuse to be bullied by shunning apologists (no personal offense unless you see yourself as one) who offer no constructive assistance here. Please be specific about your concerns (as I will be about mine) so we can find some sort of middle ground. Please refrain from claiming false consensus and engaging in reactive reverts merely to silence and censor what we all know is a taboo topic to talk about outside those groups that shun. I am willing to work with all constructive editors so please be nice and please be patient.Anacapa 03:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Additional points[edit]

Shunning has a long history as a means of organisational (influence/coercion) and control I'm hard pressed to see how shunning is coercive. You might be able to make a case for duress under US law. Since coercion is crime has there been a single successful prosecution?

'coercion' is a WORD that describes a type of conduct which MIGHT also be a crime in some cases although I know little about coercion as a crime. However, as a editor who knows shunning first hand, I can easily show you how shunning is coercive even using sources who are shunning apologists. Do you care to understand this or are you trying to make sure shunning is seen as a good thing despite the facts? Anacapa 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have been shunned and are still upset about it then most likely you are too close to the subject matter to write objectively. I don't think wikipedia should present shunning as a good or a bad thing. Wikipedia should not make moral judgments. There shouldn't be any "good" or "bad" things in wikipedia at all. jbolden1517Talk 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Completely agree with Jbolden; Present the facts in a neutral manner, and don't make conclusions; the reader will make that themselves based on the neutral definition. -- Jeff3000 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The link [2] and [3]. I don't see how this is newsworthy, much less encyclopedic. AFAIKT all that has happened so far is that an anti Amish activist has filled a complaint and against an individual and there has been no official response from the state. jbolden1517Talk 02:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When NEWSpapers decide this issue is newsworthy all over the US, who are you to judge otherwise? As for being encyclopedic, these news stories speak directly to the civil rights issues already in the article. I insist that you respect NPOV sources that are directly relevant to this article and before you revert or delete these links. Thanks Anacapa 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of activists often is to create this sort of smoke. Getting an article into newspapers means she was doing her shtick. I've got no problem making a judgement that a private dispute between two individuals at least one of which is not at all a public figure and the other one is barely a public figure does not constitute information worthy of being mentioned in a broad topic article. I'm willing to hear a counter argument, but yes you are going to have to make one. jbolden1517Talk 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes Ruth amuses me because she is creating smoke where there is a very covert fire (partly to showboat I suspect), but I will remind you that shunning groups have been systematically suppressing (and lieing about) shunnees who speak out about church shunning for centuries so please balance the Amish church's ugly silencing 'game' here as well. Ruth Irene Garret is one against hundreds or thousands of Amish shunners who pretend to be ever so nice but who commit ongoing outrages in the name of God against one woman. I always tend to root for the underdog when so many meanspirited bullies gang up one person...and I include her father, her mother and her other Amish relations.
There are at least three arguments. One is that NEWSpapers nationwide find this newsworthy because it is the first time a civil rights case seems to have involved shunning. Second, this article is far more directly relevant to the article (civil rights, what shunning actually consists of, shame, humiliation, the Amish woman threatened with being banned and shunned for not shunning etc) than much of the content in the article. Three shunning is a taboo topic due to SHUNNING. That is to talk openly about shunning like Ruth is doing is to invite even more severe shunning...therefore news stories like this may be some of are ONLY reliable NPOV sources for this article...especially since so many of the official references to shunning groups are written by apologists for those groups. I shouldn't HAVE to argue about a news story being newsworthy but since you insisted on ignoring the obvious here are the arguments Anacapa 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it became a civil rights case then I'd agree its noteworthy. The State of Kentucky however hasn't made it into a case yet, at least according to the articles. And given that its been over a year I'd say the more likely conclusion is that the State of Kentucky decided this was not a case. Second, groups that shun are quite open that failure to upholding shuns is grounds for discipline. The JWs being a very clear example of this. Those aren't disputed facts. We don't need to find news articles and draw conclusions. Also another name for punishment is "shaming" so again I don't think the shame aspect or humiliation are disputed facts. As for Ruth, yeah her story is probably rather unpleasant. She writes books about how the Amish suck, and in turn they don't like her much and treat her bad. I'm not sure what there is to balance. jbolden1517Talk 04:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One tactic that most totalitarian groups (many of which are the shunning groups studied in our article) use is to argue things into absurdity. I am tired of this round and round go-nowhere argument. The NEWS professionals NATIONWIDE DID DECIDE this IS INDEED newsworthy and reported is as a state level Civil Rights investigation which I imagine will be reported on again as things progress. We editors are not the ones who decide what is or isn't newsworthy...instead for good or ill the news 'pros' decide, so I am done listening to what you decide is or isn't PERSONALLY newsworthy to you. If you want to call in an admin to take a look at this article go ahead but please refrain from deleting this link on your own PERSONAL opinions. Anacapa 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As for disputes I have no disputes with you about any specific content so far because you have shared no concrete concerns. All I noted is that the Amish Run Afoul of the Law news story is a far more complete take on shunning than what I see so far in OUR article on shunning. As for Ruth Irene Garret, I see things quite differently, they shunned her (her own parents treated her as a subhuman) and THEN she wrote books about them which 'treat' shunning badly (as is reason-able!) but offer many positive things about the Amish too. To call her story 'probably rather unpleasant' shows me that you have almost NO IDEA of shunning from the POV of the shunned. I suspect that is the root of many controversies on this discussion page. You might read Freisens The Shunning for a better understanding of how shunnees see shunning in a human to human context. I will be glad to try to see your POV too but I refuse to allow you or other editors to silence or censor the voices or stories of those few brave souls who choose to fight back against shunning. As for what is good and bad that is not for you and I to decide but I am confident that any reasonable person will see shunning as ugly relational aggression as soon at the facts are out...just as we all apparently see that murder is a bad thing...I say 'apparently' because many religious people still commit righteous murders in a god's name. Anacapa 04:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a discussion of shunning among the Plymouth Brethren Cognoscente18 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How to handle disputed content?[edit]

Some editors take issue with what they see as controversial content I added above. They refuse to work with me constructively to meet their concerns. They have reactively reverted the content and claiming unstated 'controversies' they have with the content as well as NPOV and reasonable citation issues. As per their suggestions, I am going to pull the 'Shunning as a process content' into my sandbox until I have cited it.

However, there is much other POV and unsourced content in this article that takes a shunning apologist, shunning group, or religious POV with little NPOV balance. Therefore, I am going to pull that content to this discussion page too for further work because I take issue with all attempts to ignore the covert, cunning, and ugly relational aggression inherent in shunning, to claim false respectability for shunning and to include religious justifications for shunning (ad nauseam) without including countervailing secular criticisms of those same justifications.

To those editors who refuse to work with me to 'correct' content I added I insist that you follow the same standards for yourselves that you are imposing on me. Please take whatever uncited POV content that is yours to your sandbox too cite it, make it NPOV and bring it back.

I will wait a several days to see if any of the editors who have 'controversies' with my content have better ideas on how to handle disputed content before I pull other uncited POV content I have issues with to this page for further work. I consider this (sandbox edit war) method pathetic and would rather work with my fellow editors in ways that are commonly used in many other controversial articles I have worked on. Is anyone able to clearly state and work through THEIR disputed issues with concrete specifics so we don't have to waste time on this idiotic rigamorole I am proposing here? Anacapa 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you already don't have consensus. What you are going to need to do is:
  1. cite material you consider biased (that is that it violates WP:POV
  2. indicate why you consider the material biased
  3. propose alternate language
  4. and then be prepared to engage in lengthly, complex discussions with a variety of editors who may very well disagree with 1-3.
Just pull, and it will be reverted. Keep pulling the same stuff and its tendentious editing. While you have been screaming that you want people to work with you, so far you've refused to consider any of the content objections that others have had. jbolden1517Talk 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


OH NO, you cannot have your cake and eat it too here! If you insist, that I follow your standards then you ALL need to follow YOUR OWN standards too. Other editors have put much content in this article that is no less POV and uncited than my content is. I insist you develop GENUINE consensus standards that we all follow so that fair is fair here. I will not be singled out for gang-bangs by other shunning apologists who use false claims of consensus sans specific discussions to censor me while they feel free to tolerate POV and uncited shunning apologist content in the article. If you want me to assume good faith then please

come from good faith.

You all refused repeated requests from me to "cite material you considered biased", to "indicate why you consider the material biased", to "propose alternate language" and "to "engage in (ANY) genuine discussions" about what you all disagree with. There have been no real "content objections" except from you and those were round and round absurdities...a common totalitarian tactic to tire other editors out, to distract people from the real issues and to stonewall. I insist that you respect YOUR OWN standards and that you hold other editors to those same standards with no less care than you do me.
Also please spare me the 'screaming' character assassination innuendos and stick to the what I did indeed do here. I did ask you all to cite tag specifics, to discuss specific issues and to allow me a reasonable amount of time to address your concerns. However, you refused all such attempts at working with you despite what is common practice in many other articles and pulled my content with no genuine objections (other than general POV and citation concerns) to it. Before I ever pull any of the absurd shunning apologist content in this article, I will at least offer the common courtesy of stating my specific concerns. I insist that you offer me common courtesy on the content you pulled so I can address REAL issues you have. To make me 'read your minds' and to shoot for your UNSTATED targets is inane and allows you to shoot down whatever you like without EVER offering anything constructive in it's place. I insist that you state what your SPECIFIC concerns are and use reasonable discussions to create GENUINE and constructive consenses.
I hope to find a way to work with you all. Pulling content like you did mine (minus any real objections) is insane because it merely ignites edit wars that no one benefits from. If you are unable or unwilling to find a way to work together then I ask that we call in other editors who have no PERSONAL stake in shunning to help us develop some genuine consenses here. If you are willing to work with me then cite tag the 'controversial' areas in the content above and spell out your specific concerns so that I can address them. I will wait a week or two before I pull shunning apologist content on this article in the hope that we can find some kind of common ground for creating consensus on disputed topics. Thanks, Anacapa 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Title piece[edit]

I edited the title piece to include the full scope of shunning in the definition (using NPOV dictionary sources) and clarified a number of statements to make the intro more clear and complete. To all those editors who might decide to take issue with this, I will note that this entire intro was totally uncited and reflected a little shunning apologist POV when I began to edit it so please spare me reactive reverts and state your concerns specifically and clearly so we can work through them. I added the POV and Citation tag to whole article so that everyone knows that this is a very POV and uncited article overall. I am willing to work with you to find some sort of consensus but please spare me the usual gang bang of editors with strong pro-shunning slant. I have a strong no-shunning position but I am able to see the other side too...can you? If you are too upset with what I wrote here to discuss and resolve your specific issues with me then let's bring in some other editors who have no stake in shunning to assist us to come to a genuine consensus. Anacapa 05:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Content in question:

Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from an individual or group.

Already in article. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, shunning often, but not always, includes spurning, partial ostracization, ignoring, neglecting, and/or alienating.

Don't have a problem jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


In that case. I am going insert this sentence back in with one small change to 'social' ostracization for clarity. Thanks for considering the full scope of shunning as relevant here. Anacapa 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(refactored and moved here) How does the following sentence really help us define shunning?

"In addition, shunning often, but not always, includes spurning, social ostracization, ignoring, neglecting, and/or alienating."

Despite some minor differences in meaning, they are all essentially synonyms. They don't clarify anything to the average reader, but start the article off by sounding redundant. Sxeptomaniac 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


The opposite of shunning is to embrace or to accept.

Sounds like a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Further I have some question whether this is true in a person to person context. I don't see what it adds. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Many other articles that deal with complex abstract topics like shunning use the definition's antonyms to make clear distinctions between the topic and it's opposites. (This is more like a thesaurus than a dictionary). Such a simple short sentence in the intro assists our readers to be able to better understand what shunning is from knowing it's opposite(s). I need to see some sort of opposing distinctions here for clarity but I will wait (to reinsert this sentence) until I better understand what you mean by the "person to person" context. Can you explain what specifically you mean by "person to person" here? Thanks Anacapa 01:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I can not shun someone whom I don't embrace or accept (say someone I interact with frequently on unfriendly terms). In other words for me the opposite of shun is to interact freely not to interact in a warm and friendly way. As far as the rest I think could be handled by rewording the first clause to something like "A person can only be shunned by someone they would otherwise be interacting freely with". jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shunning is a tradition associated with religious groups, other tightly-knit interest groups, and totalitarian institutions that use the practice as a form of group discipline.

I would disagree that shunning is used by totalitarian institutions as a primary or even usual means of control. Shunning is used when violence is not available not when it is. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep talking about this. Please review the new sources, I added below for other peoples takes on this.
I will. I'll comment on what they establish. IMHO they are asserting less than you are attributing to them. jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that shunning is OFTEN but not always (China and Syria and other totalitarian states use shunning AND violence too)
I'd disagree that Syria is totalitarian. But China is a valid example. If you want to start a section on Chinese use of shunning that seems reasonable. jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
used where PHYSICAL violence is forbidden such as in the SO-CALLED 'Peace' sects. However, I see from the sources below that shunning is a terrible form of PSYCHOLOGICAL violence so I ask that we tell the truth about it's use a tactic for control, coercion and often punishment just like overt physical violence is used for the same reasons.
The article already pretty clearly states that shunning is used for control, punishment and behavioral modification (again I won't agree to coercion). "Psychological violence" doesn't have a well understood meaning. Moreover we are losing the main point. Non violent means are used when violent means are not available or not desirable. Shunning is traditionally associated with groups that use non violent means to resolve disputes. jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assist me to come to some sort of NPOV statement on this that reflects reality. Thanks Anacapa 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Targets of shunning can include, but are not limited to apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, so-called 'sinners', 'traitors to the cause' and other people who defy or who fail to comply with the standards established by the shunning group(s).

I put this sentence back in the article myself. However two editors have had language problems with "so-called". The usage here is POV jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am pleased with the language I see in the article now. However, we state the subjective opinions of those who shun is fine with me as long as we show that the are indeed subjective.

Could you refer me to the other editor's objections so I know what I am facing here. Thanks Anacapa 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sxeptomaniac changed "so-called" to "those considered to be" and I'd suspect Jeff3000 had similar issues. jbolden1517Talk 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Often all members of the group, including close relations of the target, are required to shun the target, or to face shunning themselves for failing to abide by the group's moral code.

I have a problem with "Often". Moreover that seems like detail I'm not sure I want it in the intro. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok on "often". I will delete it altogether because it is probably unneeded to make the sentence logical. However, I need to show who shuns who in the introduction so that there is no confusion further down in the article. To me, this is no detail but a quite general statement that specifies the practice for clarity. I would like to reinsert this back in subject to suggestions you might have. Anacapa 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"Many groups listed below consider shunning the excommunicated to be a positive obligation." jbolden1517Talk 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shunning has a long history as a means of organisational control and coercion.

Again problem with "control and coercion". Coercion at least in the US is a legal term and I think shunning falls far short. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
From even a cursory glance at the sources, it is clear that shunning is used for 'discipline' by the groups that shun. I see control, coercion (to 'repent' and come back or whatever) and sometimes severe punishment of those who fight shunning as the key issues here. I suggest you review the Jewish Law and other links below for more on this. I see 'coercion' as merely as commonly used word that most people don't associate with the law. However, if you prefer 'intimidation' or some other synonyms, I am willing to consider them.
Intimidation is better. But why is it needed, "Shunning has a long history as a core means of organizational control" seems to capture what you aiming for. jbolden1517Talk 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is clear from the various doctrines and faith confessions that shunning is intended to force a change in attitude or behavior which, to most people I know, is garden variety coercion despite the loathsome 'nice'-vice 'love'-lies often used to conceal such threats. I am not hung up on this term but I do ask that we find some way to make the legitimate points here. Will you weigh in again here so we can come to consensus?

Anacapa 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to be careful with arguing the intent is "force a change in attitude" since many groups subscribe to some notion of election and thus would clearly argue that this is not their intent. Further there is problems with "force" or "coerce" vs. strongly encourage, reward.... All I'm asking for is a weakened phrasing jbolden1517Talk 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


It has often been a taboo topic concealed within the relatively insular groups that practice shunning.

I see no evidence those groups consider it taboo. They seem to write on it quite openly. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope to discuss this until we have some sort of consensus from the sources rather than merely using our own personal opinions. I understand that from where you sit the groups appear to write about the topic quite openly and they indeed do so in faith confessions etc so I see your point. However, I know from reading news articles, fiction, and personal stories of shunnees that these groups almost never tell the whole truth about HOW they shun and why.
And there I would disagree, at least for the groups listed.
  • Jehovah's Witnesses shun people disfellowshipped or disassociate. I know of no cases where someone isn't shunned who doesn't fall under that criteria.
  • Amish require excommunication or erasure again I know of no cases where this isn't true
  • Jews require a declaration of Cherim.
I don't see any evidence even from the links that these groups aren't following their publicly declared "why they shun". Now in terms of "how they shun" your material isn't really adding much on mechanisms either. jbolden1517Talk 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
They also to go out of their way to silence those who do talk about shunning as is shown in their particular venom for shunnees (like Ruth Irene Garrett) who go to the press to talk being shunned.
I don't see any particular venom. Ruth is being shunned openly by the group. Your own sources have them freely talking about that. You need a source that addresses secrecy what exactly they are being secret about. jbolden1517Talk 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To disclose the genuine forms of relational aggression these groups use inside their insular world's to outsiders is the taboo. Shoot, just look at the heavy-handed reaction I faced here when I tried to show exactly WHAT shunning IN-DEED IS to our readers. That reaction would have been far worse were I INSIDE one of these groups. These groups hate to be seen for what they are when they shun. They use whatever methods (and psuedo-scientists like Donald Kraybill) to present a positive picture of shunning that NEVER really includes the cunning, covert and ugly realities of shunning. The press finds shunning stories titillating and newsworthy in large part because there is so much secrecy surrounding the topic. Somehow this secrecy needs to be shown here because it is an essential part of the context surrounding this well-concealed practice, is part of the phenomenom itself, and is also a common aspect of all totalitarian regimes. Please offer suggestions on how to do this well since you don't like the term 'taboo'. Thanks Anacapa 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

However, mass media coverage of shunning and related practices has begun to expose the general public to the topic and and has rendered the general practice controversial.

Again I see no evidence of any changes related to media coverage or media hostility to the practice. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
May I ask that you review the various sources below for the evidence that I see from the mass media. It seems clear to me that when the news media reports on shunning, it becomes more controversial because rather than being a well concealed civil rights crime (as in Ruth Irene Garrett's rather trivial case) it becomes well-known for what it is and therefore more controversial. The heated debates on these pages about 'newsworthiness' or 'relevance' reflect those realities as well. Media hostility is not the issue to me...the media seems to report both sides pretty well. What is the issue here is that on all kinds of issues (rape, incest, domestic abuse, shunning) more and more news, books and TV shows are coming out about these insular groups which shatter the false myths that heretofore the groups were able to spread by censorship and maintain by shunning. Shunning is one such issue that is making the news more and more in it's own right. Naturally given the wide differences in POV that prevail about shunning, mass media exposure will induce controversy as it does everywhere else (like say when it covers military whistleblowers like the Abu Grad torture whistleblower). I ask that you suggest better ways to handle this after glancing at the links I offered below. Thanks Anacapa 02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is everything I edited/added. Please do me the courtesy of being big and stating your issues clearly so they can be discussed and resolved. The nature of an intro is to contexturaulize what is in this case a complex, controversial and barely known topic. You had your take so please offer me a chance to include mine as well. I have been considerate of the content that was already there. I expect no less consideration back from those of you who take issue with me here.Anacapa 06:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Keep up the discussion. jbolden1517Talk 10:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for being specific and discussing your concerns here. However, please spare me the patronizing or matronizing 'well dones' and 'keep up the discussions'. I know fairly well what is 'well done' myself and I HAVE been discussing my issues routinely. I try to respect you as an independent editor so please show me the same respect back.
Looks like we are going to have to hash out a number of compromises on the title content but I thank you for stating your positions clearly so they CAN be discussed. To me, this is essential to any form of genuine consensus. I hope other editors who indulge cheap shots/false consensus claims with no specifics decide to follow your example so we can surface the real issues here and come to genuine consenses. I also ask that you make request to me about how I edit HERE rather than using the article's edit history to make such requests as per wiki policies. I am fully within my rights as an editor to make bold changes to the content in this article and I insist that you respect those rights.
Actually you aren't anymore. Once they've been reverted several times by different people, with no one else reinserting them reinserting them constitutes tenditious editing not being bold. You are free to be bold on new topics or in other articles but no with those changes you aren't free and aren't within your rights. You are within your rights to require discussion in good faith here however. jbolden1517Talk 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
However, should you work with me and with other editors to establish genuine consensus I will be glad to discuss controversial content before I add it to the article. However, please do me the courtesy of gaining full consensus from all other editors on the SAME editing standards before you unilaterally ask me to follow them. What is fair for one editor is fair for all editors. Since this is your editing standard, I ask that you engage in the required discussions to come to full consensus about it here.
I am going to go above and address each of your issues in kind of a backward way for clarity. May I ask that you respond below my comments to prevent confusion. Also, please take no personal offense to anything I wrote below (which is aimed at editors to use knee-jerk totalitarian tactics to censor controversial content.) Thanks Anacapa 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maoist mob rule or rule by respect and reason here?[edit]

I surfed the web for about 2-3 hours to pull the following references which show the controversial, highly loaded and taboo nature of shunning better than I ever could. They show shunning and shunning-associated conduct in a wide range of religious, academic, political and medical situations...content that is unbalanced, missing, or incomplete in this article. Our article needs to include the full scope and all aspects shunning to be complete and credible. This includes showing the secular justifications against shunning as a form of relational aggression as well as the religious (and other) justifications for shunning as a form of 'discipline'. However, so far there have been many attempts to ensure that the more controversial content about shunning is silenced, censored or ignored in these discussion pages and on the article itself.

To those shunning apologists here who are trying to whitewash the practice to make it appear more respectable, to censor sources they disagree with or to ignore the the full scope of shunning, I ask "are we following false-consensus mob rule or are we following some sort of NPOV reason-based rules on this article?" As an editor who knows people who shun AND who knows people being shunned, I am aware that there are many complex and subjective POV's from all sides to reflect here. Those good (I separate all people from the inane ideas they USE to be bad so spare me all accusations of PERSONAL bad faith here.) people who shun often (but not always) choose to shun based upon perverted, repressive, and absurdly un-reason-able ideas. (Please see the associated doctrines of shunning religious groups, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisions Everything by Hitchens, Professing Feminism (below), and all genuine studies of totalitarianism on the foundations for shunning). I am also aware that the groups that shun have an abiding interest in concealing this cunning, covert, and ugly form of social ostracism/psychological torture from being seen for what it is...a mean-spirited form of soul-murder. I welcome all those editors who have genuine interest in showing all sides of shunning to demand that we balance the 'other sides' POV's. However, I ask those editors who are apologists for groups that shun to spare me the very same totalitarian tactics so well described in most of the links below.

When I see some other editors try to engage me in absurd round and round debates about say the 'newsworthiness' of NEWS articles, with other subtle forms of false discussion, and with knee-jerk attempts to censor 'controversial' content with false consensus, I have every reason to suspect bad faith on the part of shunning apologists. However, since Jimbo Wales appears to a bit proud of what his critics call his Maoist mobs on Wikipedia (see Why is this man smiling? below), I imagine I will have to wait for better days to confront totalitarian tactics on totalitarian related Wikipedia topics. Whatever happened to those good ol American values of a free press and freedom of speech here on Wikipedia? Are we ALL idiots as shown in Greetings from Idiot America or do we still care about that little thing called 'truth'. (Please see On Truth for what truth means to any society.) I need assistance from all editors who ARE able and willing to use their heads in the search for some sort of genuine, complete and balanced truth here. To those editors who might be tempted to take these concerns personally, I ask you to understand that I make distinctions between people and their conduct. To me, there are no bad people so please let's use good conduct and let's show inane ideas and bad conduct for what they are. Anacapa 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how these references prove what you want. Here is what I see them as providing. jbolden1517Talk 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am making no attempt to 'prove' anything with these shoot-from-the-hip survey links. What I am asking is that you take a fairminded look at the POV's shown here up against the apologist POV in the article. Somewhere in the middle of our POV's is NPOV. I am sure that any fairminded person who glances at the links I pulled in can come to a reasonable conclusion that we are not showing the whole story about shunning in our article. THAT is what I am trying to show here. Since you appear to be unable to see what I am seeing here, I will try to point you to what I pulled these links in for below your comments on them. I ask you to consider the whole context of shunning and especially the pov of those silenced people who groups on this article shun. Anacapa 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Article establishing that the shunning practices within Scientology are disagreed with by some Scientologists jbolden1517Talk 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you choose to see here? ("Active shunning, on the other hand, may include actively going out of ones way to punish the person. This is extra and over and above the act of excommunication.") Clearly offensive punitive shunning needs to be included within the scope of our shunning definition yet when I try to add this definition from NPOV dictionaries it is constantly reverted.Anacapa 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no shunning in this case. [4] jbolden1517Talk 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No shunning is not stated explicitly here but the article is full of what is shunning associated content...thus my inclusion as background info. It clearly shows the 'love' discipline psychology , invasion of privacy and other aspects common to shunning situations.Anacapa 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what this article is supposed to be proving. jbolden1517Talk 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The mass murder of close family members that is associated to shunning seems notable to me!
Doesn't mention shunning jbolden1517Talk 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Shows the ideology/psychology of a psuedo-religious group that shuns academic apostates and whistleblowers somewhat like churches do.Anacapa 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Shows the falsehood, fraud, and misrepresentation of a psuedo-religious group that shuns academic apostates and whistleblowers somewhat similar to features found in churches that shun.Anacapa 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Specific quote or specific point... jbolden1517Talk 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. The Yoder case is one of the rare cites where you can find a judge requiring a religious act. OK what do you want this example to prove? jbolden1517Talk 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a clear and unambigous case where a judge "issued an injunction ordering the shunning to stop". Legal rulings against (or should you find them for) shunning are an important part of a hard to study topic. This needs to be included here to balance all the apologist pov the article contains.Anacapa 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
We've talked about this case. The headline is stronger than the content and there is no ruling at all. So far this proves nothing. jbolden1517Talk 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
We haven't 'talked' about this case in ANY REASONABLE WAY. What has happened is the usual ring-around-the-rosy distraction common to totalitarian 'discussions'. This article shows many interesting aspects of shunning not included in the article that deserve mention. One interesting but overlooked issue, for instance, is the shun-or-be-shunned phenomenom mentioned herein. Another is the use of business shunning as violation of civil rights. A third is the characteristic ugliness of the shunning against a shunee willing to go public and confront her shunning. These issues need to be included to show our reader what shunning is in reality rather than as an apologist abstraction.Anacapa 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that link has something. It actually has a ruling. Find the ruling and see what it gives as a why. The article doesn't indicate a why. jbolden1517Talk 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to find the ruling unless you are having trouble understanding the point. I found the official govt report of the ruling which clearly explains it's justification. Please spare me requirements that you don't expect from any other editors here. Anacapa 17:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Again this link proves ____? jbolden1517Talk 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I brought this in to show how another extreme group disciplines with genuine otracization in this case as shown in "(8)As ex-members have characterized the situation, they were "judged `unworthy' and ejected from the communities. They only were allowed to take with them a few suitcases of clothing and were warned not to contact other ex- members. The Bruderhof's `golden handshake' probably averaged $25 per person."). This pscychology is common to groups that use social otracization (shunning) too. Again, I am trying contextualize shunning for fairminded people rather than 'proving' anything.Anacapa 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This link is useful for proving the word "shunning" has a colloquial meaning. Other than the title it has nothing to do with shunning. 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you telling me that shunning out of racism or for a fatal medical condition is NOT shunning or is less serious than 'our' kind of shunning? In Africa many AIDS patients are indeed shunned by other members of the community because AIDS is seen as an 'anathema' just like religous people see 'diseased' former members. Seems to me that this is serious form of shunning that belongs here too. Anacapa 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Liberal couple don't like shunning. What other content is here? I'm going to stop. I need you to tie an article to a point not just list out articles. jbolden1517Talk 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There is content here about the effects of shunning and of course POV about shunning from other than an apologist pov. "Marriages end, parents disown children, and the most sacred bonds of love are replaced with distrust or even hatred". Nowhere in our article do we see straight talk about shunning's effects or about the pov of those shunned, those who see others being shunned or even those inside churches who are forced against their consciences to shun others. To censor, ignore or whitewash such content is what I take issue with here.Anacapa 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


For the purposes of Wikipedia, I care about verifiable facts, not the 'truth'. As far as this article is concerned, shunning is neither a good nor a bad practice. It simply is. Sxeptomaniac 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought these quick references in to help to contextualize a well-concealed phenomenom not to use them as sources or to 'prove' anything. I had hoped that fairminded editors would work with me to create some sort of NPOV content form the POV of the shunnees. My issue with the apologist POV on this article is that there is a determined effort here to conceal and whitewash what shunning is. Our readers can indeed decide for themselves what is good or bad but they cannot see what we censor or whitewash here. In Mennonite fiction (The Shunning) shunning is associated with suicide, in news reports Jehovah Witness shunning is associated with murder and in an Amish case with civil rights offenses. Hopefully we can all show these things as 'bad' things when we report on them without being accused of POV. 128.111.95.171 04:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we can not show anything 'bad' without violating WP:NPOV. We should only show what is, while avoiding giving undue weight to any side.
I would also highly recommend you stop dividing everyone into "apologists" and "fairminded editors". Every time you do so you further represent yourself as a tendentious and disruptive editor. Frankly, it just annoys the hell out of me. We are all editors here, and the goal is to work together, not divide into camps and wage war, so knock it off. Sxeptomaniac 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Violent Effects of Shunning and Why We Should Expect Increased Violence at Universities[edit]

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)
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)

pov tag issues[edit]

Back in the Dark Ages, churches used murder, torture, and actual ostracization to punish 'difficult' people in what were then socially and legally sanctioned forms of 'discipline. Today, in our so called 'Enlightened Age', churches, totalitarian gangs, and totalitarian nations use soul murder, psychological torture and social/sexual/commercial ostracization to punish 'problematic' people. Those groups/nations that shun depend on our ignorance and our tolerance of their intolerance to get away with these cunning, covert, and ugly outrages against human rights.

I have a number of concerns that this article is slanted toward the shunning groups' pov about shunning. My specific concerns are as follows. I ask that other interested and openminded editors work with me to resolve these concerns so I can pull the tag.

  • the definition fails to show the full scope of shunning noted in NPOV dictionaries. This allows the more severe forms of shunning to fall through the cracks. It also creates the false impression that shunning is always defensive rather than offensive in nature. Offensive shunning conduct includes snubbing, slandering, and alienating etc etc.
  • There are no sections here which specify how shunning is commonly done. This prevents our readers from understanding and assessing shunning for themselves as practice. The conduct by shunning groups needs to be shown in some detail so that the uninformed can truly understand what shunning is in-DEED.
  • Religious passages are shown that implicity legitimize shunning minus any balancing quotes from secular sources critical of such religious rhetoric such as shown in God is Not Great: How Religion Poisions Everything. In the West, we no longer allow religion to be used to justify murder, torture and other similar outrages against our common humanity. Why are we showing religious justifications for psychological torture, relational aggression and parental alienation here as if religion somehow makes such terrible traditions justifiable?
  • original research content like the following which has nothing directly to do with shunning but falsely and misleadingly compares it favorably to other forms of socially sanctioned discipline. "asthmatics in smoke free environments" indeed!? Clearly this section is intended to compare shunning favorably with issues totally unrelated to shunning.
In many civil societies, variants of shunning are practiced either de-facto or de-jure, to coerce or avert behaviours or associations deemed unhealthy. This can include:
restraining orders or peace bonds (to avoid abusive relationships)
court injunctions to sever associations (to avoid criminal association or temptation)
medical or psychological instruction to avoid association (to avoid hazardous relations, i.e. :alcoholics being instructed to avoid friendship with non-recovering alcoholics, or :asthmatics being medically instructed to keep to smoke-free environs)
These effects are seen as positive by society, though often not by the affected parties.
  • no reference to religious leaders who explicity state the harsh, punitive and merciless aspects of shunning in their own words. For instance, Menno Simons the great Mennonite leader who all Mennonites are named for, spells out his intentions vis a vis marital shunning in some detail in his writings. The doctrine encoded in many Anabaptist and Mennonite Confessions of Faith also shows what shunning is intended to accomplish but we see no studies of the totalitarian nature of these statements here.
  • no NPOV statements about known effects associated with shunning such as murder, suicide, 'spiritual death', wrecked homes, broken families, ruined relationships, ruined reputations, severe child abuse and neglect, or as the person above notes: destroyed careers.
  • no references to known legal sanctions against (or for) shunning.Anacapa 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Shunning groups depend on secular religious freedoms to deny religious freedoms to those they shun. However, in at least two cases judges ordered a shunning group to stop shunning. But, as anyone can imagine forcing a shunning group to be nice to a former member is next to impossible even for a judge. As speculation, to further surface point of view issues here, I can imagine what would happen were a judge to order all non-member outsiders (from all faiths) to shun the members of the shunning group in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THEY ARE SHUNNING THEIR FORMER MEMBER(S). Because all shunning groups depend on ongoing social, legal, and commercial intercourse with the outside world to survive, I suspect the church's shunning would stop right away...religious rhetoric notwithstanding. As it is, shunning groups almost always get away with imposing the most extreme forms of religious intolerance on others while they bask in the religious tolerance offered by outside world. They have an obvious interest in keeping the outside world as ignorant about shunning as possible...thus my apologist pov concerns here. Anacapa 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost: Knock off the preaching and get to the point. The first and last paragraphs have little to do with the actual article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a thesaurus for that matter. We don't need to cover every possible synonym of "Shunning" in order to explain what it is.
  • We have a large section on specific practices. We can see about going into more detail, but we need to avoid giving undue weight. I had to delete some sections a while back for violating that, as they went into excessive detail about the shunning practices of some very small Mennonite/Amish factions (some with only a few hundred members worldwide).
  • We are not supposed to "balance" articles. We are to avoid giving undue weight to any one side. A criticism section is the most common way to deal with a minority critical of a certain practice of the majority.
  • Original research is a problem. Use the {{fact}} tag to mark sections that need referencing.
  • As far as the statements by leaders, let's take a look at where they might belong in the article. You seem to have them available, so let's take a look. However, we should again make sure to avoid undue weight.
  • I believe you tried to bring up an attempted legal case already, but it wasn't appropriate to the article at this point. We can look at that, but I don't see how a lack of court cases either way violates NPOV. That's just a lack of information.
I think you are attempting to push one side of the issue too far. The criticisms of shunning should be included, but they are still a minority view as far as I have seen. You discount Kraybill, for example, but he is considered one of the foremost experts on the Amish, so his viewpoint does carry more weight, whether you like it or not. We do not have to balance the article, only give a fair accounting of significant viewpoints. Sxeptomaniac 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issues?[edit]

Since it appears User:Anacapa is now blocked, most likely permanently, I wanted to take the opportunity to examine the article as it stands. Is it currently a balanced article, in the sense of not giving undue weight to any one side? I was thinking we might want to create a criticism section and move much of the material there. The Abuse template might belong down there, as well, if putting it at the top gives too much weight to the opinion that it is abuse. I hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, so I wanted to see what other thoughts on the article are, now that we can have a discussion without long diatribes against "apologists" (hopefully). Sxeptomaniac 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the banned user has appeared to have had an impact on the article, namely that it appears to be focussed on the issues surrounding what I imagine was their own shunning (maybe a religious/cultural shunning related to Amish/other related community).
IMO shunning is much broader than the article suggests - shunning a leper for example (or anyone who is physically diseased). Also, the spectrum of shunning is IMO not explored sufficiently, namely that (e.g) our parents may have instructed us to avoid association with certain people because they are a "bad influence", and that this is a "mild and currently socially acceptable form of shunning", for example.
The examples of shunning from the different religions would, IMO, benefit from a more explicit structure which includes "degree of shunning" which indicates how completely the religion or organisation expects followers to sever links with others. It seems a little incoherent at present. Any opinions? k1-UK-Global 14:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and tagged the neutrality of the article -- because it appears clear to me the article focuses almost entirely on "religious" aspects of shunning and ignores many other types of shunning, such as social (which ought to be the primary focus), academic, political, scientific, and others. Shunning occurs in all communities, when a person does not conform to accepted ways of thinking/acting/speaking. It seems clear that this article, particularly the intro, was mostly edited by someone who had an axe to grind -- someone who also appears to be banned from Wikipedia at this point. Awayforawhile (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LDS church[edit]

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.[5]

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)

Remove Pagan and Neo-Pagan Groups section?[edit]

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)

Baha'i[edit]

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)

Shunning in Islam[edit]

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)

I added links to Al Wala' Wal Bara' and Apostasy in Islam in the 'see also' section, which describe some Islamic practices. 91.23.17.86 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The bible verses are completely taken out of context![edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Suggestion to Merge with Excommunication[edit]

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)

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)
I see your point. Unfortunately, that leaves the issues this article suffers unsolved. Downstrike (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
So discuss the issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Page still needs lots of work[edit]

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)

Tagging the article[edit]

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)

Fact Checking: cited and new sources[edit]

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)

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)

This addition[edit]

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)

why removed[edit]

BlackCab Please explain why you would remove a brief simple statement regarding Jehovah's Witnesses belief regarding disfellowshipping. Other parts of this same article begin with "The Watchtower society believes" STravelli ps please forgive me if im in the wrong place to receive this explanation from you. I'm still learning

Here is what I posted: Though some disfellowshipped individuals do not return to the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses, The Watchtower Society, according to their records, note some positive results from disfellowshipping. [1]

Why would this be removed? STravelli (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Apart from being badly written and of questionable logic (there are probably some people it expels and just doesn't want back), the statement is redundant. The section clearly explains the intended purpose of expelling and shunning members. It is safe to assume that whatever "positive results" ensue would be the achievement of those very aims. If it had no "positive results", I guess they would stop doing it. And asking the question here, at the talk page, is sufficient. There is no reason to duplicate it on my talk page. BlackCab (TALK) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Watchtower, June 15, 2013 pages 24-28

I see how that works now. The discussion being here. thank you BlackCab. I also see that if there is a true statement made with qualifying source and that statement has any positive reflection on Jehovahs's witnesses, the response is name-calling, badly written, and it "goes without saying". It also goes without saying that anyone who has previously been one of Jehovah's witnesses but is no longer a member, will go to excruciating lengths to prevent any accurate positive reflection on the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have found dozens of inaccurate statements on several topics dealing with Jehovah's witnesses. I've also found it's futile to try to correct them. You're going to say "of course you have 'found' such because you're biased. Maybe in some cases, but not when it is a clearly false statement. I regularly encounter people in the ministry who say "you Jehovah's Witnesses cook and eat your children"; my response is of course we don't, the householder responds, "yes you do, I read it in this or that book". Of course I'm engaging in hyperbole, but I can give hundreds of examples to fill in the exaggerated spot. This would not convince you of anything, especially anything dealing with false statements regarding Jehovah's Witnesses.STravelli (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A) If you have an issue with a statement about JW's, by all means bring it up, giving RS's to back up your reasoning as to why it is false/misleading/whatever, and allow for discussion. If your issue is a valid one the editors here will support it and try to get it fixed.
B) Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember anybody calling you any names. If they did, they shouldn't have.
C) The "badly-written" part of BlackCab's statement is accurate. Your additions (at least the ones that I have seen) are typically sub-standard or far to POV'y. For example: "Jehovah's Witnesses consider there are positive reasons for disfellowshipping, for example, Robert (name changed) was disfellowshipped for nearly 16 years, during which time his parents and siblings firmly and loyally applied the direction in God’s Word to quit mixing in company with wrongdoers, not even greeting such ones." Besides being quite literally copied and pasted from the original (see here), which is plagiarism as you did not indicate with " " that the entire thing was copied not merely the actual quote from "Robert", the italicized part is clear POV. You (well, actually The Watchower) are stating an opinion held by the JW's on what they believe the proper Biblical way to treat disfellowshipped members is as if it is a fact of life. It's not. It is opinion held by the JW's. They are allowed to publish such an opinion in their own magazine any way that they see fit. Here we must be as neutral as possible, so while we can report their belief, it must not be stated as fact.
D) If you are unsure how to word something, please ask for help. I just did so today from Jeffro77 about edits I made on the Hayden C. Covington page, and he is gracious enough to help me when he gets a chance. If you ask me, I will help you as well. We are not here to "prevent any accurate positive reflection" of JW's. Indeed, if you look at several of the sections on the main Jehovah's Witness talk page (here for a recent example) editors commonly have to deflect the attempted installation of overtly negative edits (such as attempting to add "cult" to the page). What we are here to do is give neutral as possible, reliably sourced, academic/encyclopedic information on JW's. I believe you could be a good editor for WP, but you must remember to try to maintain an NPOV using RS's. Vyselink (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good I truly appreciate your help. My futility stems from other efforts. For example there is a completely false statement by Holden & 2002 Portrait. p. 67, reference. "Materials such as The Watchtower are almost as significant to the Witnesses as the Bible, since the information is presented as the inspired work of theologians, and they are, therefore, believed to contain as much truth as biblical texts." This is just not true. Grrahnbahr (see talk section of Jehovah's Witnesses) doesn't agree with me and that's fine. But facts are facts but not always accepted as facts if a publisher is considered to be more of a scholar than someone else or some other organization. The definition of inspired does not come close to what Mr. Holden says. If the Jehovah's Witnesses believed the Watchtower of other publications to be inspired they would include such material in their own Bible Translation. That is the definition of inspired. To say the witnesses claim to be directed by God would be accurate. There is a clear difference. STravelli (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually just responded to essentially the same point on the main JW page, but to summarize here, you are correct that there is a clear difference between "inspire" and "direct", but the mistake is on your end. Direct is to "Control the operations of; manage or govern:" (Oxford Dictionary). Inspire is "Fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something" (again Oxford). JW's do not claim the former in the meaning of being infallible (i.e. God DIRECTLY controls what they write), they do claim the latter (i.e. God inspires the "new light" of their teachings), therefore Holden's statement is true. Vyselink (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note and research for yourself if you wish...2012 Watchtower Sept 15 issue, page 25 par. 13. I would think this would carry some weight but probably not.

After 1914, The Watchtower made this significant statement: "Brethren, those of us who are in the right attitude towards God are not disappointed at any of His arrangements. We did not wish our own will to be done; so when we found out that we were expecting the wrong thing in October, 1914, then we were glad that the Lord did not change His Plan to suit us. We did not wish Him to do so. We merely wish to be able to apprehend His plans and purposes." This attitude of humility and devotion STILL characterizes the Lord"s anointed. They DO NOT claim to be INSPIRED, but they are determined to conduct the Lord"s "business" on earth. And now "a great crowd" of "other sheep," Christians with an earthly hope, are imitating their watchfulness and zeal. - Rev. 7:9; John 10:16. Capital letters added by me for direction to my point. STravelli (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I frequently am told what I believe. But I DO NOT believe the governing body of Jehovah's witnesses are inspired. I DO NOT believe the Watchtower magazine is inspired. I have made this comment in the congregation of Jehovah's witnesses with full agreement of everyone attending and I can assure you that the 8 million some Jehovah's witnesses believe this same way. STravelli (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop duplicating discussions at other talk pages. Your latest comments are not relevant to this article. BlackCab (TALK) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. You're correct the information I posted belongs under the Jehovah's Witnesses article. STravelli (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)