Talk:Name and shame

Shihaam from Hanover park was recently pregnant she was friends with shameemah iscaacs that don't know of paying their dept owes lots of people money do not I repeat do not do business with them or borrow them or even if they come for something chase those two away — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amamoeskie (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As used with NGOs

I am removing this section because it is horribly biased, and, furthermore, doesn't seem relevant to the topic of "name and shame" overall. I'll leave the text here if anyone feels they can re-edit it to make it more relevant, but right now it just seems to be based on an pro-Israel opinion piece.

"Name and Shame" is also used with NGOs who use the façade of morality and humanitarianism to promote racism. One example would be those non-profit organizations which proclaim to support universal human rights but both neglect the human rights of some and are activtely working towards the deligitimization of others.[1]

--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to it information about government (EU) using the name and shame idea as well. will continue to look for more examples. Soosim (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is still biased. It expresses an opinion, not a fact. Just sourcing the opinion without qualifying who's point of view it is is not good encyclopedia writing.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, vlad, i have added in the statements the source of the people ("naming and shaming"???) so it is clear who says what. enjoy! Soosim (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can delete the first sentence, since it isn't specifically about "name and shame," but keep the second, because it is a verifiable use of a name and shame tactic. That132IP (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the section for the same reason. It was full of

original research and POV pushing. Having sources doesn't make something encyclopedic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name and Shame → Name and shame

–

Per

WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles.

Tony (talk)

09:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

support clear case per NOM. --ClubOranje^T 11:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree: this is a generic term. Noetica^Tea? 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, generic terms should be lowercased. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

thank you vegaswikian - a lot of work for such a small, but correct, edit. Soosim (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

I reckon this article is a stub, as it contains only a definition of what 'naming and shaming' means, and offers no possible examples of the term. Bungee Bungalow (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]