Talk:So You've Been Publicly Shamed

Sources too closely identified with the subject
Sources of plot can and should come from authorial, publisher sources, no? Also, incorporating heavily reviews from other websites. Is this not how it's usually done?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Declining popularity of public shaming
Here's the quote from the source linked: "In an essay that appeared in the Spring 1996 issue of the University of Chicago Law Review, the legal scholar Dan Kahan explained how public shaming in early America began to fall out of favor in part because America was becoming more populous and impersonal. “In a society of strangers,” Kahan wrote, “the bare deprivation of status no longer resonated as a symbol of the community’s moral disapproval.”"-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that contradicts the article, which says that belief is false. You cannot cite a source that says a claim is true to support a statement that said claim is false!--greenrd (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the relevant part of the wiki article again. I'm not claiming that the belief is true, just that it exists. The reason.com article affirms that this belief exists throughout much of american scholarship. It then goes on to disprove this belief. But it isn't disproving that a bunch of people think it, it's disproving the claim itself. It's a very fine epistemological distinction. Does that make sense? I'm not providing a reference that says "PUBLIC SHAMING PUNISHMENTS WENT AWAY BECAUSE OF X" I'm providing a reference that says, "IT WAS AND STILL IS A POPULAR BELIEF THAT PUBLIC SHAMING PUNISHMENTS WENT AWAY BECAUSE OF X. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I even put in the wiki article WHY that belief is false! But in order for a belief to be false, the belief itself must certainly EXIST! It's like refuting a claim. You need to acknowledge the claim exists in order to refute it.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The reason.com article affirms that this belief exists throughout much of american scholarship." It does not! "It then goes on to disprove this belief." It does not! You need to re-read the reason.com article. "You need to acknowledge the claim exists in order to refute it." The question I would ask is why are we in effect attempting to "refute" this claim in this particular wiki article? Does the book say that it was in fact due to increasing cruelty and rising calls for compassion? If so, we should say so. If not, and it is just some bankground context, firstly I would question why it belongs in this article at all. Either way, it is certainly not NPOV. We should represent both scholarly views fairly if we are going to cover this dispute.--greenrd (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The book does say this, and cites a variety of sources in the process. Perhaps you should read it if you'd like to bring these few sentences to NPOV.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 07:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph
What is meant by the phrase "Between 1837 in the UK and 1839 in the US"?

Does this mean "Between 1837 and 1839, in the UK and US"? Or does it mean "Starting in 1837 in the UK and 1839 in the US"?

It's a very unclear phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.168.56 (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Partially dead link
This article contains a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Adria_Richards_incident, which links to a non-existent section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.181.17 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)