text:
Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen

The Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen (Fürsterzbistum Bremen) — not to be confused with the modern Archdiocese of Hamburg, founded in 1994 — was an ecclesiastical principality (787–1566/1648) of the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church that after its definitive secularization in 1648 became the hereditary Duchy of Bremen (Herzogtum Bremen). The prince-archbishopric, which was under the secular rule of the archbishop, consisted of about a third of the diocesan territory. The city of Bremen was de facto (since 1186) and de jure (since 1646) not part of the prince-archbishopric. Most of the prince-archbishopric lay rather in the area to the north of the city of Bremen, between the Weser and Elbe rivers. Even more confusingly, parts of the prince-archbishopric belonged in religious respect to the neighbouring Diocese of Verden, making up 10% of its diocesan territory.

History
In the different historical struggles for expansion of territory or privileges and the concerned and disfavoured entity's defence against such annexation or usurpation, plenty of documents have been completely forged or counterfeited or backdated, in order to corroborate one's arguments. "These forgeries have drawn a veil before the early history of the [archbishopric of] Hamburg-Bremen."

The archdiocese before the creation of the prince-archbishopric
The foundation of the diocese belongs to the period of the missionary activity of Willehad on the lower Weser. It was erected on 15 July 787 at Worms, on Charlemagne's initiative, his jurisdiction being assigned to cover the Saxon territory on both sides of the Weser from the mouth of the Aller, northwards to the Elbe and westwards to the Hunte, and the Frisian territory for a certain distance from the mouth of the Weser.

Willehad fixed his headquarters at Bremen, though the formal constitution of the diocese took place only after the subjugation of the Saxons in 804 or 805, when Willehad's disciple, Willerich, was consecrated bishop of Bremen, with the same territory. The diocese was conceivably at that time a suffragan of the archbishops of Cologne, this is at least how they later corroborated their claim to supremacy over the Bremian see. When, after the death of Bishop Leuderich (838–45), the see was given to Ansgar, it lost its independence, and from that time on was permanently united with the Archdiocese of Hamburg.

The new combined see was regarded as the headquarters for missionary work in the Nordic countries, and new sees to be erected were to be its suffragans, meaning subject to its jurisdiction. Ansgar's successor, Rimbert, the "second apostle of the north," was troubled by onslaughts first by Normans and then by Wends, and by Cologne's renewed claims to supremacy.

At Archbishop Adalgar's (888–909) instigation Pope Sergius III confirmed the amalgamation of the Diocese of Bremen with the Archdiocese of Hamburg to form the Archdiocese of Hamburg and Bremen, colloquially called Hamburg-Bremen, and by so doing he denied Cologne's claim as metropolia over Bremen. Sergius prohibited the chapter at Hamburg's Concathedral to found suffragan dioceses of its own.

After the Obodrite destruction of Hamburg in 983 the Hamburg chapter was dispersed. So Archbishop Unwan appointed a new chapter with twelve canons, with three each taken from Bremen Cathedral chapter, and the three colleges of Bücken, Harsefeld and Ramelsloh. In 1139 Archbishop Adalbero had fled the invasion of Count Rudolph II of Stade and Count Palatine Frederick II of Saxony, who destroyed Bremen, and established in Hamburg also appointing new capitular canons there by 1140.

Bremen's Diocesan Territory and its Suffragans
Hamburg-Bremen's diocesan territory covered about today's following territories: The Bremian cities of Bremen and Bremerhaven, the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg (north of Elbe), the Lower Saxon counties of Aurich (northerly), Cuxhaven, Diepholz (northerly), Frisia, Nienburg (westerly), Oldenburg in Oldenburg (easterly), Osterholz, Rotenburg upon Wümme (northerly), Stade (except of an eastern tract of land), Wesermarsch, Wittmund, the Lower Saxon urban counties Delmenhorst and Wilhelmshaven, the Schleswig-Holsteinian counties of Ditmarsh, Pinneberg, Rendsburg-Eckernförde (southerly), Segeberg (easterly), Steinburg, Stormarn (easterly) as well as the Schleswig-Holsteinian urban counties of Kiel and Neumünster.

The see of Hamburg-Bremen attained its greatest prosperity and later had its deepest troubles under Archbishop Adalbert of Hamburg (1043–1072). He was after Hamburg-Bremen's upgrade to the rank of a Patriarchate of the North and failed completely. Hamburg stopped being used as part of the diocese's name. The next two archbishops, Liemar and Humbert, were determined opponents of Pope Gregory VII.

Under the latter in 1104 Bremen's suffragan Diocese of Lund (DK) was elevated to an archdiocese supervising all of Bremen's other Nordic former suffragan sees, to wit Århus (DK), Faroe Islands (FO), Gardar (Greenland), Linköping (S), Odense (DK), Orkney (UK), Oslo (N), Ribe (DK), Roskilde (DK), Schleswig (D), Selje (N), Skálholt (IS), Skara (S), Strängnäs (S), Trondheim (N), Uppsala (S), Viborg (DK), Vestervig (DK), Västerås (S) and Växjö (S).

Bremen's remaining suffragan sees at that time were only existing by name, since insurgent Wends had destroyed the so-called Wendish dioceses of Oldenburg-Lübeck, Ratzeburg and Schwerin and they were only to be reestablished later. At the stripping of the Duchy of Saxony (7th century - 1180) in 1180 all of these suffragan bishops achieved for parts of their diocesan territories the status of imperially immediate prince-bishoprics. The Bishopric of Livonia (first at Uexküll then Riga) was a suffragan of Bremen in the years 1186–1255.

Gaining Grounds for a Prince-Archbishopric of Imperial Immediacy
Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa and his allies, many of them vassals and former supporters of his paternal cousin Duke Henry III, the Lion, had defeated the Duke of Saxony and Bavaria. In 1180 Frederick I Barbarossa stripped Henry the Lion of his duchies. In 1182 he and his wife Matilda Plantagenêt, the daughter of Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine and sister of Richard Lionheart left from Stade to go into exile from the Holy Roman Empire in order to stay with Henry II of England.

Frederick I Barbarossa partitioned Saxony in some dozens of territories of Imperial Immediate status allotting each territory to that one of his allies who had conquered them before from Henry the Lion and his remaining supporters. In 1168 the Saxon clan of the Ascanians, allies of Frederick I Barbarossa, had failed to install their family member Count Siegfried of Anhalt, on the see of Bremen.

But in 1180 the Ascanians prevailed twofoldly. The chief of the House of Ascania, Margrave Otto I of Brandenburg, son of Albert the Bear, a maternal cousin of Henry the Lion, provided his sixth brother Bernhard, Count of Anhalt, from then on Bernhard III, Duke of Saxony, with the later on so-called younger Duchy of Saxony (1180 - 1296), a radically belittled territory consisting of three unconnected territories along the river Elbe, from north west to south east, (1) Hadeln around Otterndorf, (2) around Lauenburg upon Elbe and (3) around Wittenberg upon Elbe. Except of the title, Duke of Saxony, Angria and Westphalia, which this younger Duchy of Saxony granted its rulers, even after its dynastic partition in 1296, this territory, consisting only of territorial fringes of the old Duchy of Saxony, had little in common with the latter. In 1260, with effect from 1296 on, its rulers split the younger Duchy into the Duchies of Saxe-Wittenberg (Herzogtum Sachsen-Wittenberg) and Saxe-Lauenburg (Herzogtum Sachsen-Lauenburg), the latter holding the unconnected two northern territories, belonging both to the archdiocese of Bremen.

Otto and Bernhard helped their second brother Siegfried, who since 1168 had called himself the Bishop Elect of Bremen, to gain the see of Bremen, with part of the diocesan territory being upgraded to form the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen (Erzstift Bremen). Thus the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen became one of the successor states of the old Duchy of Saxony, holding only a small part of its former territory.

In 1186 Frederick I Barbarossa recognised the city of Bremen as a political body by the Gelnhausen Privilege. With the consent of Prince-Archbishop Hartwig II, of Uthlede the emperor declared the city to be governed by its burghers and the emperor, with the Prince-Archbishop waiving his say. The city of Bremen regarded and still regards this privilege to be constitutive for its status as a Free imperial city of imperial immediacy.

Through the history the respective rulers of the Prince-Archbishopric and its successor state Bremen-Verden often denied the city's status. And also the city could and did not always cling to its claim of imperial immediacy, which made the city's status somewhat ambiguous. Through most of the history the city participated in the Prince-Archbishopric's Diets as part of the Estates (see below) and paid its share in the taxes, at least when it had consented to the levying before. Since the city was the major taxpayer, its consent was mostly searched for. Like this the city wielded fiscal and political power within the Prince-Archbishopric, while the city would rather not allow the Prince-Archbishop or his representatives to rule in the city against its consent.

After the Bremen Cathedral chapter, overlooking the three enfranchised Hamburg capitulars, had elected Valdemar of Denmark, the deposed Bishop of Schleswig, archbishop in 1207, Bremen's cathedral dean Burchard of Stumpenhusen, who had opposed this election, fled to Hamburg, then under Danish influence. King Valdemar II of Denmark, in enmity with his father's cousin Archbishop Valdemar, gained the Hamburg chapter to elect Burchard as anti-archbishop in early 1208. Lacking papal support, King Valdemar II himself invested him as Archbishop Burchard I, however, only accepted in North Elbia.

In 1219 the Bremen Chapter again ignored the Hamburg capitulars, fearing their Danish partisanship and elected Gebhard of Lippe archbishop. In 1223 Archbishop Gebhard reconciled the Hamburg chapter and confirmed that three of its capitulars were enfranchised to elect with the Bremen chapter, to wit the provost, presiding the chapter, the dean (Domdechant) and the scholaster, in charge of the education at the cathedral school. Pope Honorius III confirmed this settlement in 1224, also affirming the continued existence of both chapters.

The fortified city of Bremen held its own guards, not allowing prince-archiepiscopal soldiers to enter it. The city reserved an extra very narrow gate, the so-called Bishop's Needle (Latin: Acus episcopi, first mentioned in 1274), for all clergy including the Prince-Archbishop. The narrowness of the gate made it technically impossible to come accompanied by knights. Therefore, the Prince-Archbishops rather preferred to reside outside of the city, first in Bücken and later in the Vörde Castle, which became the principal fortress of Prince-Archbishop Gerhard II, Edelherr zur Lippe in 1219.

The Chapters of Bremen Cathedral (see below) and part of the administration were located within the city boundary in a district of immunity and extraterritorial status (Domfreiheit, literally: Cathedral Liberty) around the Cathedral of St. Peter, where the city council would refrain to interfere. The Hamburg Concathedral with chapterhouse and capitular residential courts formed a Cathedral Immunity District of the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen too.

The key, the epithet symbol of the Saint Simon Petrus, has become the symbol of the city of Bremen (see Coat of arms of Bremen), the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen (two criss-crossed argent (silver) keys on a gules (red) background, see in the left part of the Bremen-Verden's seal) and of the Bremian city of Stade.

The territory of the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen consisted of a number of sub-entities. The only thing they all had in common was, that the prior archbishops or capitulars or the Chapter as a collective obtained some secular power in them by way of purchase, application of force, usurpation, commendation, pledge, donation etc. The prior archiepiscopal authorities didn't have succeeded in almost any of the sub-entities to gain all the power, be it judicial, patrimonial, parochial, fiscal, feudal or else what. Almost everywhere the rule was to be shared with one or more competing bearers of authority, e.g. aristocrats, outside ecclesiastical dignitaries, autonomous corporations of free peasants (Landsgemeinden) or chartered towns and the like. Therefore, the archiepiscopal authority used to refer to each sub-entity by different terms like county, parish, shire, bailiwick or patrimonial district, each according to the particular power, which the archiepiscopal authority had achieved in them.

The Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen's former territory consists about of today's following Lower Saxon counties (Landkreis, or Kreis) of Cuxhaven (southerly), Osterholz, Rotenburg upon Wümme and Stade as well as of the Bremian exclave of the city of Bremerhaven and from 1145 to 1526 today's Schleswig-Holsteinian county of Ditmarsh. The city of Bremen was legally a part of the bishopric until 1646, but de facto ruled by its burghers and didn't tolerate the prince-archbishop's residence within its walls any more since 1313. Therefore, the prince-archbishop moved to Vörde. Verden's former prince-bishopric's territory is represented about by the eastern part of the modern County of Verden and the southern part of today's County of Rotenburg, both in Lower Saxony.

Constitution and Politics within the Prince-Archbishopric
In relation to the interior the archiepiscopal authority, consisting of Prince-Archbishop and cathedral chapter, had to find ways to interact with the other bearers of authority. These were gradually transforming into the Bishopric's Estates (Stiftsstände), a prevailingly advisory body, but decision-taking in fiscal and tax matters. The bishopric's Estates again were by no means homogenous and therefore often quarreled for they consisted of the hereditary aristocracy, the service gentry, non-capitular clergy, free peasants and burghers of chartered towns. The modus vivendi of interplay of the Estates and the archiepiscopal authority, being in itself divided into the Prince-Archbishop and the Chapter, became the quasi constitution of the Prince-Archbishopric. However, the interplay was not determined by fixed standards of behaviour. While the consecutive Archbishops worked on discarding the bishopric's Estates from the political landscape, the latter fought for the enforcement of the modus vivendi to become a real constitution. The Chapter often swung between increasing its influence by fighting the Estates jointly with the Prince-Archbishop and repelling his absolutist intentions by making common cause with the Estates. All parties made use of means like bluffing, threat, obstructionism, corruption, horse-trading and even violence.

In 1542/1547 - 1549 Chapter and Estates managed to dismiss the autocratic and prodigal Prince-Archbishop Christopher the Spendthrift, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg-Wolfenbüttel. Especially the Chapter used its power to elect very old candidates, to minimise the time a ruler can be harmful, or to elect minors, which it hoped to dress and tame in time. Once in a while the Chapter took up time and protracted elections for years, being itself the ruler for the time of sede vacante. During the dismissal of Prince-Archbishop Christopher the Spendthrift the chapter ruled together with the Estates which had gained at that time substantial power.

In relation to the outside the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen had the status of an imperial estate (Reichsstand, plural: Reichsstände) with a vote in the Diet (Reichstag) of the Holy Roman Empire. A prerequisite for being an imperial estate was imperial immediacy (Reichsunmittelbarkeit, or Reichsfreiheit) of the rulers or ruling bodies, meaning that they had no other authority above them except of the Holy Roman Emperor himself. Furthermore, such rulers or ruling bodies (such as Chapters or city councils) possessed several important rights and privileges, including a degree of autonomy in the rule of their territories.

In their pastoral and religious capacity as Roman Catholic cleric the archbishops led their archdiocese as the hierarchical superior of all Roman Catholic clergy, including the suffragan bishops of Oldenburg-Lübeck, Ratzeburg and Schwerin.

Decline of the Prince-Archbishopric's Independence
The Prince-Archbishopric often suffered from military supremacy of neighbouring powers. Having no dynasty, but prince-archbishops of different descent, the Prince-Archbishopric became a pawn in the hands of the powerful. The establishment of a constitution, which would bind the conflicting Estates, failed.

Schisms in Church and State marked the next two centuries, and in spite of the labours of the Windesheim and Bursfelde congregations, the way was prepared for the Reformation, which made rapid headway, partly because the last Roman Catholic prince-archbishop, Christopher the Spendthrift, was in permanent conflict with the Chapter and the Estates. Being simultaneously the Prince-Bishop of Verden, he preferred to reside in the city of Verden.

By the time he died (1558), in the Prince-Archbishopric nothing was left of the old denomination apart from a few monasteries – such as Harsefeld, Himmelpforten, Lilienthal, Neuenwalde, Osterholz as well as Zeven under the jurisdiction of the Bremian archdiocese and as well as Neukloster under the jurisdiction of Verden's See – and the districts served by them. While between 1523 and 1551 the cities of Bremen and Stade had dissolved all the urban monasteries, except of St Mary's in Stade, which transformed until 1568 into a Lutheran convent, and conveyed their buildings to uses by schools, hospitals, alms houses and senior homes.

The Era of the Lutheran Administrators of the Prince-Archbishopric
The constitution of the Holy Roman Empire provided, that the Emperor may only enfeoff a prince-bishop elect with the regalia, if the Pope would have confirmed his election to the respective See. In default thereof the Emperor could grant a liege indult (Lehnsindult), often restricted to some years only, and then notwithstanding enfeoff the prince-bishop elect with the regalia of restricted legitimacy to the effect that the elect could rule with princely power within the prince-bishopric, bearing only title of Administrator, but would be banned from participating in the Diets. Lacking papal confirmation and imperial liege indult could bring a prince-bishop elect into the precarious situation to be dismissed by the Emperor or by any of his vassals powerful enough and keen to do so.

Once the inhabitants of the Prince-Archbishopric had adopted Lutheranism and partially Calvinism, as did the city of Bremen and the territories under its influence downstream the Weser and in the district of Bederkesa, also most capitulars, recruited from burghers of the city of Bremen and rural noble families, turned out to be Calvinists and Lutherans. Thus the capitulars preferred to elect Protestant candidates. The Bremian prince-archbishop elects could only occasionally gain the imperial liege indult. Many princely houses, such as the House of Guelf (Brunswick and Lunenburg-Wolfenbüttel), the House of Nikloting (Mecklenburg-Schwerin), the House of Wettin (Electorate of Saxony), and the House of Ascania (Saxe-Lauenburg) applied for the See. Before electing a new prince-archbishop the Chapter took its time, ruling the Prince-Archbishopric in accordance with the Estates (1566–1568), and considered the opportunities.

In 1524 the Prince-Archbishopric had subjected the autonomous farmers' republic of the Land of Wursten, but the Wursteners still hoped for a liberation and support from the neighbouring Saxe-Lauenburgian exclave of the Land of Hadeln. Thus on 17 February 1567 the Chapter elected Duke Henry III of Saxe-Lauenburg (*1550-1585*, ruled from 1568 on) prince-archbishop. In return his father Francis I waived any Saxe-Lauenburgian claim to the Land of Wursten as well as to the district of Bederkesa and abandoned the lawsuit, which he had brought to the Imperial Chamber Court to this end.

In his election capitulations Henry III covenanted to accept the privileges of the Estates and the existing laws. Due to his minority he agreed, that Chapter and Estates would rule the Prince-Archbishopric. In this time he should work towards a papal confirmation. De facto he ascended the See in 1568, gained an imperial liege indult in 1570, while de jure still represented by the Chapter until 1580, in order not to complicate a papal confirmation, which never materialised.

While Maximilian II regarded Henry III a true Catholic, Pope Sixtus V remained a skeptic. Henry III was raised Lutheran, but educated Catholic and served before his election as Catholic canon of the cathedral in Cologne. The schism wasn't so definite, as it looks in retrospect. The Holy See still hoped the Reformation would be a merely temporary phenomenon, while its protagonists still expected all the Roman church to reform, so that there would be no schism.

So Sixtus V tested Henry III once in a while, demanding the succession of Catholic candidates for vacancies in the Bremian Chapter - which it sometimes accepted, sometimes denied -, while Henry succeeded to be also elected by the Chapters of the prince-bishoprics of Osnabrück (1574–1585) and Paderborn (1577–1585), without ever gaining papal confirmation. In 1575 Henry III and Anna von Broich (Borch) married in Hagen im Bremischen.

As to the interior Henry III still had to repay debts from his pre-predecessor Christopher the Spendthrift. In 1580 Henry introduced a Lutheran church constitution for the Prince-Archbishopric. Thus Henry III would not exercise the pastoral functions of a Roman Catholic bishop any more. In 1584 the Holy See founded the Roman Catholic Nordic Missions, an endeavour for pastoral care and mission in the area of the de facto ceased archdioceses of Bremen and of Lund. In 1622 the Nordic Missions were subordinated to the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in Rome. The Holy See conveyed to the Nuncio to Cologne, Pietro Francesco Montoro, the task to look after the Nordic Missions in - among others - the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen and the Prince-Bishopric of Verden. In 1667 the Holy See further institutionalised the Nordic Missions by establishing the Vicariate Apostolic of the Nordic Missions.

On 22 April 1585 Henry III died in his residence in Beverstedtermühlen after a riding accident. After Henry's early death, Duke Adolf of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp wielded influence at the Bremian Chapter to elect his son John Adolphus of Schleswig-Holstein at Gottorp (*1575-1616*) to the See. To this end, Adolf paid 20,000 rixdollars and promised to work towards the restitution of Ditmarsh to the Prince-Archbishopric.

In 1585 John Adolf covenanted at his election in the obligatory election capitulations, that he would accept the privileges of the Chapter as well as the existing laws and that he would work - at his own expense - towards gaining either papal confirmation or - in default thereof - an imperial liege indult. From 1585 to 1589 Chapter and Estates ruled the Prince-Archbishopsric in custodianship for the minor John Adolf.

The Prince-Archbishopric during the Thirty-Years War (1618-1648)
At the beginning of the Thirty Years' War the Prince-Archbishopric maintained neutrality, as did most of the territories in the Lower Saxon Circle. After 1613 King Christian IV of Denmark and Norway, being in personal union Duke of Holstein within the Holy Roman Empire, turned his attention to gain grounds by acquiring the prince-bishoprics of Bremen, Verden, Minden and Halberstadt.

He skillfully took advantage of the alarm of the German Protestants after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, to stipulate with Bremen's Chapter and Administrator John Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, his cousin of second degree, to grant coadjutorship of the See of Bremen for his son Frederick, later crown prince of Denmark (September 1621). Coadjutorship usually included the succession of a See. A similar arrangement was reached in November for the Prince-Bishopric of Verden with its Chapter and Administrator Philip Sigismund. In 1623 Christian's son succeeded the late Philip Sigismund as Frederick II, Administrator of the Prince-Bishopric of Verden, only to flee the troops of the Catholic League under Count Johan 't Serclaes of Tilly in 1626.

In November 1619 Christian IV of Denmark, Duke of Holstein stationed Danish troops in the Bremian city of Stade, officially on behalf of his son the provided to be Administrator successor, suppressing an unrest of its burghers.

In 1620 Christian, the Younger, titular duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg-Wolfenbüttel, the Lutheran Administrator of the Prince-Bishopric Halberstadt requested that the Lutheran Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen would join the war coalition of the Protestant Union. The Administrator and the Estates of the Prince-Archbishopric met in a Diet and declared for their territory their loyalty to Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, and their neutrality in the conflict.

With Danish troops within his territory and Christian the Younger's request Administrator John Frederick tried desperately to keep his Prince-Archbishopric out of the war, being in complete agreement with the Estates and the city of Bremen. When in 1623 the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, fighting in the Eighty Years' War for its independence against Habsburg's Spanish and imperial forces, requested its Calvinist co-religionist of the city of Bremen to join, the city refused, but started to enforce its fortifications.

In 1623 the territories comprising the Lower Saxon Circle decided to recruit an army in order to maintain an armed neutrality, with troops of the Catholic League already operating in the neighboured Lower Rhenish-Westphalian Circle and dangerously approaching their region. The concomitant effects of the war, debasements and dearness, had already caused an inflation also in the region. The population suffered from billeting and alimenting Baden-Durlachian, Danish, Halberstadtian, Leaguist, and Palatine troops, whose marching through the Prince-Archbishopric had to tolerate in order to prevent entering into armed conflict.

In 1623 the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, diplomatically supported by James I, King of England and of Ireland and as James IV King of Scotland, the brother-in-law of Christian IV of Denmark, started a new anti-Habsburg campaign. Thus the troops of the Catholic League were bound and the Prince-Archbishopric seemed relieved. But soon after the imperial troops under Albrecht von Wallenstein headed for the North in an attempt to destroy the fading Hanseatic League, in order to subject the Hanseatic cities of Bremen, Hamburg and Lübeck and to establish a Baltic trade monopoly, to be run by some imperial favourites including Spaniards and Poles. The idea was to win Sweden's and Denmark's support, both of which since long were after the destruction of the Hanseatic League.

In May 1625 Christian IV of Denmark, Duke of Holstein was elected – in the latter of his functions – by the Lower Saxon Circle's member territories commander-in-chief of the Lower Saxon troops. More troops were recruited and to be billeted and alimented in the Lower Saxon territories, including the Prince-Archbishopric. In the same year Christian IV joined the Anglo-Dutch war coalition. In 1625 Tilly warned the Prince-Archbishop John Frederick to further accept the stationing of Danish troops and Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, demanded the immediate end of his and Verden's alliance with Denmark, with Verden being already ruled by Christian's son Frederick, being as well the provided successor of John Frederick. He declared again his loyalty to the Emperor and neutrality in the conflict. But all in vain.

Now Christian IV ordered his troops to capture all the important traffic hubs in the Prince-Archbishopric and entered into the Battle of Lutter am Barenberge, on 27 August 1626, where he was defeated by the Leaguist troops under Tilly. Christian IV and his surviving troops fled to the Prince-Archbishopric and took their headquarters in Stade. Administrator John Frederick, in personal union also Administrator of the Prince-Bishopric of Lübeck, fled to the latter and left the rule in the Prince-Archbishopric to the Chapter and the Estates.

In 1626 Tilly and his troops occupied the Prince-Bishopric of Verden, which caused a flight of Lutheran clergy from that territory. He demanded the Bremian Chapter to allow him to enter the Prince-Archbishopric. The Chapter, now holding the baby, declared again its loyalty to the Emperor and delayed an answer to the request, arguing that it had to consult with the Estates in a Diet first, which would be a lengthy procedure.

Meanwhile, Christian IV ordered Dutch, English and French troops for his support to land in the Prince-Archbishopric, while extorting from the latter high war contributions to finance his war. The Chapter's pleas for a reduction of the contributions Christian IV commented by arguing once the Leaguists would take over, his extortions will seem little.

By 1627 Christian IV had de facto dismissed his cousin John Frederick from the Bremian See. In the same year Christian IV withdrew from the Prince-Archbishopric, in order to fight Wallenstein's invasion of his Duchy of Holstein. Tilly then invaded the Prince-Archbishopric and captured its southern parts. The city of Bremen shut its city gates and entrenched behind its improved fortifications. In 1628 Tilly beleaguered Stade with its remaining garrison of 3,500 Danish and English soldiers. On 5 May 1628 Tilly granted them safe-conduct to England and Denmark and the whole Prince-Archbishopric was in his hands. Now Tilly turned to the city of Bremen, which paid him a ransom of 10,000 rixdollars in order to spare its siege. The city remained unoccupied.

Wallenstein had meanwhile conquered all the Jutish Peninsula, which made Christian IV to sign the Treaty of Lübeck, on 22 May 1629, in order to regain possession of all his feoffs on the peninsula, he in return agreed to formally end Denmark's participation in the Thirty Years' War and waived for his son Frederick II, Administrator of the Prince-Bishopric of Verden, the administration of that prince-bishopric as well as the provided succession as Administrator of the Prince-Bishopric of Halberstadt.

Administrator John Frederick, exiled in the Imperial Free City of Lübeck, was in a markedly weak position. So in 1628 he consented that the Lutheran convent in the former Roman Catholic St. Mary's monastery in Stade – under Leaguist occupation – was restituted to Catholic rite and manned with foreign monks, if the Chapter would also agree. Again passing the buck on to the Chapter.

The Leaguist takeover enabled Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, to implement the Edict of Restitution, decreed on 6 March 1629 within the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen and the Prince-Bishopric of Verden. The Bremian monasteries still maintaining Roman Catholic rite – Altkloster Convent,, Neukloster, and Zeven – became the local strongholds for a reCatholicisation within the scope of Counter-Reformation.

Under the threat of the Edict of Restitution John Frederick consented to Canonical Visitations of the remaining monasteries, those clinging to Roman Catholic rite and those converted to voluntary Lutheran convents alike. Nunneries had traditionally been institutions to provide unmarried daughters of the better off, who couldn't be provided a husband befitting their social status or who didn't want to marry, with a decent livelihood. So when an unmarried woman of that status joined a nunnery she would bestow earning assets (real estate) or – restricted to her lifetime – regular revenues paid by her male relatives, on the monastery, making up in the former case part of the nunnery's estates (not to be confused with the political body of the Estates).

In many territories, where the majority of the population adopted Lutheranism, the nunneries' function to provide sustenance for unmarried women wasn't to be given up. So it happened that the Prince-Archbishopric's former Roman Catholic nunneries of Himmelpforten, Lilienthal, Neuenwalde, and Osterholz with all their estates had turned into such Lutheran women's convents (German: das Stift, more particular: Damenstift, literally ladies' foundation), while the nunnery of Zeven was in the process of becoming one, with – among a majority of Catholic nuns – a number of nuns of Lutheran denomination, usually called conventuals. Other expressions like abbess, for the chairwoman, and prioress for conventuals of certain hierarchic function, were – and are partly – continued to be used in such Lutheran Stifte.

Within the scope of the visitations by the end of the year 1629 the Roman Catholic visitators issued an ultimatum to the Lutheran conventuals had been thrown out from the monasteries, with the estates of Himmelpforten and Neuenwalde then being bestowed to the Jesuites, in order to finance them and their missioning in the course of the Counter-Reformation in the Prince-Archbishopric. The expelled conventuals were denied to get the real estate restituted, which they bestowed on the monastery, when they entered it.

Ferdinand II suspended the capitulars from penalty, if they would dismiss the Lutheran coadjutor Frederick, later Crown Prince of Denmark from office. The Chapter refused, still backing Frederick, whom it had elected with full legal validity in 1621. So Ferdinand II himself dismissed him by way of using the Edict of Restitution, in favour of his youngest son, the Roman Catholic Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria, already administrator of the prince-bishoprics of Halberstadt (1628–1648), Passau (1625–1662) and Strasbourg (1626–1662).

Ferdinand II left John Frederick in office, against Leaguist resistance, for he had always kept loyalty to him. The Catholic League wished the Roman Catholic Count Francis William of Wartenberg, Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück (1625–1634 and again 1648–1661), onto the See. After all, the See included at those years an annual revenue of 60,000 rixdollars at the free disposal of its holder, making up half the Prince-Archbishopric's budget.

Francis of Wartenberg, appointed by Ferdinand II as chairman of the imperial restitution commission, carrying out the provisions of the Edict of Restitution in the Lower Saxon Circle, dismissed John Frederick in 1629, who acquiesced.

In September 1629 the Chapter was ordered to render an account of all the capitular and prince-archiepiscopal estates (not to be confused with the Estates), which it refused, arguing first that the order was not authenticated and later that due to disputes with the city council of Bremen, they couldn't freely travel to render an account let alone do the necessary research on the estates. The anti-Catholic attitudes of the burghers and the council of Bremen would make it completely impossible to prepare the restitution of estates from the Lutheran Chapter to the Roman Catholic Church. Even Lutheran capitulars were uneasy in Calvinistic Bremen. In October 1629 the capitular secretary finally rendered the ordered account in Verden and was informed that by the Edict of Restitution the Chapter is regarded to be illegitimate. Lutheran capitulars were interrogated, but the Chapter was left in office, with its decisions subjected to the consent of the restitution commission. Pope Urban VIII appointed additional Roman Catholic capitulars in 1630, including a new provost.

The estates within the boundaries of the unoccupied city of Bremen weren't restituted by order of the city council. The council argued, that the city had long been Protestant, but the restitution commission argued that the city was de jure a part of the Prince-Archbishopric, so Protestantism had illegitimately alienated estates from the Roman Catholic Church. The city council answered under these circumstances it would rather separate from the Holy Roman Empire and join the quasi-independent Republic of the Seven Netherlands (Its independence was finally confirmed by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648). The city was neither to be conquered nor to be successfully beleaguered due to its new fortifications and its access to the North Sea via the Weser river.

Within the occupied Prince-Archbishopric the Leaguist occupants carried out the restitution. In Stade, Tilly's headquarters, all churches, except of St. Nicholas, were handed over to foreign Catholic clerics. But the burghers didn't attend Catholic services. So in March 1630 Tilly expelled all Lutheran clergy, except the one of St. Nicholas. Tilly levied high war contributions from Stade's burghers (e.g. 22,533 rixdollars in 1628 alone) and offered in 1630 to relieve every burgher, who would attend Catholic services, without success. In July 1630 Tilly left to head for the Duchy of Pomerania, where King Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden had landed with his troops, opening a new front in the Thirty Years' War. He had been won by French diplomacy to join a new anti-imperial coalition, soon joined by the Netherlands.

In February 1631 John Frederick conferred with Gustavus II Adolphus and a number of Lower Saxon princes in Leipzig, all of them troubled by Habsburg's growing influence wielded by virtue of the Edict of Restitution in a number of Northern German Lutheran prince-bishoprics. John Frederick speculated to regain the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen and therefore in June/July 1631 officially allied himself with Sweden. For the war being John Frederick accepted the supreme command of Gustavus II Adolphus, who promised to restitute the Prince-Archbishopric to its former Administrator. In October an Army, newly recruited by John Frederick, started to reconquer the Prince-Archbishopric and – supported by Swedish troops – to capture the neighboured Prince-Bishopric of Verden, de facto dismissing Verden's Catholic Prince-Bishop Count Francis of Wartenberg (ruled 1630-1631), and causing the flight of the Catholic clergy wherever they arrived. The Prince-Bishopric of Verden became subject of a Swedish military administration, while John Frederick ascended its See in 1631.

The reconquest of the Prince-Archbishopric – helped by forces from Sweden and from the city of Bremen – was interrupted by Leaguist forces under Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim, coming as a relief to Stade, where they joined the Catholic imperial and Leaguist forces still holding out. On 10 May 1632 they were granted safe-conduct and left a desperately impoverished city of Stade after its siege by John Frederick's forces. John Frederick was back in his office, only to realise the supremacy of Sweden, insisting on its supreme command until the war's end. The Prince-Archbishopric continuously suffered from billeting and alimenting soldiers. The relation between the Estates, who had to maintain administration under Catholic occupation, and the returned Administrator were difficult. The Estates preferred to directly negotiate with the occupants, this time the Swedes. John Frederick wanted to secularise the monasteries in favour of his budget, but the opposing Estates prevented that.

After John Frederick's death in 1634 Chapter and Estates regarded Frederick's (later Danish Crown Prince) dismissal as coadjutor by Ferdinand II by virtue of the Edict of Restitution illegitimate. But the Swedish occupants had to be persuaded first, to accept Frederick's succession. So Chapter and Estates ruled the Prince-Archbishopric until the conclusion of the negotiations with Sweden. In 1635 he succeeded as Lutheran Administrator Frederick II in the Sees of Bremen and of Verden. But he had to render homage to the minor Queen Christina of Sweden.

In the same year Pope Urban VIII provided the Catholic coadjutor Leopold Wilhelm, Archduke of Austria, imposed in 1629 by his father Ferdinand II, with the Archdiocese of Bremen, but due to its persisting occupation by the Swedes he never gained de facto pastoral influence let alone the power as administrator of the prince-archbishopric.

In 1635/1636 the Estates and Frederick II agreed with Sweden upon the prince-archbishopric's neutrality. But this didn't last long, because in the Danish-Swedish Torstenson War (1643–45) the Swedes seized de facto rule in both prince-bishoprics. Christian IV of Denmark had to sign the Second Peace of Brömsebro on 13 August 1645, a number of Danish territories, including the two prince-bishoprics, being ceded into Swedish hands. So Frederick II had to resign as Administrator in both prince-bishoprics. He succeeded his late father on the Danish throne as Frederick III of Denmark in 1648.

With Bremen sede vacante again, the new Pope Innocent X appointed Count Francis of Wartenberg, the expelled short-period Prince-Bishop of Verden (1630–1631) and officiating Prince-Bishop of Osnabrück (1625–1661), as Vicar Apostolic in 1645, i.e. provisional head of the See. Wartenberg never gained pastoral influence, let alone power as prince-bishop due to the persisting Swedish occupation of the Prince-Archbishopric until the end of the Thirty Years' War.

With the impending enfeoffment of the Prince-Archbisporic of Bremen to the political Great Power of Sweden, as under negotiation for the Treaty of Westphalia, the city of Bremen searched for an imperial confirmation of its status of imperial immediacy from 1186 (Gelnhausen Privilege), which Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor, granted to the city in 1646 (Diploma of Linz).

The further History of the Prince-Archbishopric after 1648
For the further history see the article about the collectively ruled Duchy of Bremen and Principality of Verden (1648–1823). Then see Stade Region (1823–1978), which emerged by the establishment of the High-Bailiwick of Stade in 1823, comprising the territories of the former Duchies of Bremen and Verden and the Land Hadeln.

Reorganisation of Roman Catholic Church in the former Territory of the Archdiocese and Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen
In 1824 Bremen's former diocesan territory was distributed among the still-existing neighbouring dioceses of Osnabrück, Münster and Hildesheim, the latter of which covers today the former territory of the Prince-Archbishopric proper. Except for the prevailingly Calvinist Free Hanseatic City of Bremen and its territory, which continued to be supervised by the Roman Catholic Vicariate Apostolic of the Nordic Missions. The Free Hanseatic City of Bremen became part of the Diocese of Osnabrück only in 1929, with the Vicariate Apostolic being dismantled in the same year.

Incumbents of the see
See: List of administrators, archbishops, bishops, and prince-archbishops of Bremen

Monasteries in the territory of the prince-archbishopric

 * : Benedictine Old Nunnery of Ss. Mary's and Lawrence, existed from 1197 to 1648, subject to the Diocese of Verden
 * 1) Bremen: Dominican St. Catherine's Friary, Bremen, existed from 1225 to 1528, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 2) Bremen: Franciscan, existed from 1225 to 1528, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 3) Bremen: Benedictine, existed from 1050 to 1523, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 4) Harsefeld: Benedictine  of monks, existed from 1104 to 1648, exempt
 * 5) Hemmingstedt: Benedictine St. Mary's Nunnery, existed from 1502 to 1537, subject to Bremen Archdiocese, Hamburg subchapter; after 1526 not part of the secular prince-archiepiscopal rule any more
 * 6) Himmelpforten: Cistercian Porta Coeli Nunnery, existed from before 1255 to 1647, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 7) Lilienthal: Cistercian, existed from 1232 to 1646, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 8) Lunden: Franciscan Friary, existed from 1517 to 1536, subject to Bremen Archdiocese, Hamburg subchapter; after 1526 not part of the secular prince-archiepiscopal rule any more
 * 9) Meldorf: Dominican Marienau Friary, existed from 1380 to 1540, subject to Bremen Archdiocese, Hamburg subchapter; after 1526 not part of the secular prince-archiepiscopal rule any more
 * 10) Neuenwalde: Benedictine Convent of the Holy Cross, exists since 1219, till 1648 subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * : Benedictine New Nunnery, existed from the 1270s to 1647, subject to Verden Diocese
 * 1) Osterholz: Benedictine Nunnery in the Osterholz, existed from 1182 to 1650, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 2) Stade: Benedictine, existed from 1141 to 1648, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 3) Stade: Franciscan St. John's Friary, existed from the 13th to the 16th century, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 4) Stade: Premonstratensian St. George's Friary, existed from 1132 to about 1527, subject to Bremen Archdiocese
 * 5) Zeven: Benedictine, existed from before 986 to 1650, subject to Bremen Archdiocese

Notable people from the Archdiocese and Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen
A list of interesting people whose birth, death, residence or activity took place in the Archdiocese or Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen. Not included are persons mentioned above in the list of incumbents of the see.

 * Adam of Bremen (before 1050 - c. 1081), Roman Catholic canon and historiographer
 * Albert of Bexhövede (c. 1165–1229), Roman Catholic Bishop of Riga and Terra Mariana, seated in Riga, which he founded in 1201
 * Albert of Stade (c. 1187 - after 1265), abbot of Stade's monastery of St. Mary and chronicler
 * Bonaventura Borchgreving (died latest 1596), upper Kapellmeister at the court in Copenhagen
 * (died 1526), Roman Catholic, then Lutheran theologist, martyr
 * Gertrud von dem Brake (died second half of 15th century), Roman Catholic Prioress of Neukloster
 * Emma of Lesum (also Imma von Stiepel; c. 975-980 – 1038), benefactor of the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic saint
 * Augustin van Getelen (end of 15th century – 1556), Roman Catholic Dominican, controversial theologist in København
 * (c. 1430–1485), Roman Catholic priest, church and monastic reformer
 * Christoph von Issendorff (1529–1586), Lutheran heritable Cup-bearer of the Prince-Archbishopric, Burgmann of Vörde
 * , (1488–1524), Roman Catholic Augustine monk, later Protestant Reformator in the city of Bremen

Source

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen


text:
Talk:Shunning/Archive 1

March 4, 2007 addition
"Shunningcan be done to a person whos purpose is misunderstood, different, or akin to the practices of another belief, society, or tradition." As a result of the failure to cite sources Cite_sources, this addition appears to violate the Wikipedia attribution requirement Attribution and therefore appears to be a candidate for reversion.

New Testament (Bible) Citations
I think the scripture citations should remain in the article, for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interestig case was Spinoza

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

shunning Hutterite
The could be links to Mennonite Hutterite Ultra-orthodox

I added Hutterite to the subtitle. Can someone who knows Hutterites add a piece that shows how Hutterites shun or (don't shun)? Anacapa 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

 * Hutterites do indeed shun so those editors who have information about Hutterite shunning need to weigh in here. 12.107.17.150 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

 * See Disconnection, which is mentioned in the introduction. The Scientology practice differs from shunning as described in the remainder of this article. Shunning is applied by the group to a member of the group who has violated group norms. Disconnection is something that the member is required to apply to their non-member friends and family who disapprove of the group. --FOo 06:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

See Also link to totalitarian religious groups
I'm not sure about the "see also" link to Totalitarian religious group at the end. It originally appeared, by its positioning to be in the "Bahá'í Faith]] section only. This is co-incidence, as it pre-dated that addition, but is implicitly extremely POV, especially since they are not mentioned at all in the linked-to article.  I moved it into it's own See-also section, since that's less POV.  However, it does seem still POV, by implying that all the groups listed here are necessarily totalitarian in nature.  I'm not sure that's substantiatable.  If there's some way to re-work it into a paragraph about how religions that practice shunning are accused of being totalitarian, that would be fine, but as it is, it's somewhat purjorative in implication -- Christian Edward Gruber 11:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I would agree that the link to "totalitarian religious groups" i.e. "cults" has a pejorative connotation, and really doesn't belong here. Groups considered cults are usually new religious movements, and older groups like the Amish aren't generally considered cults, in spite of the practice of shunning disobedient members. One could argue that shunning is an indicator of a *sectarian* viewpoint i.e. rigid demarcation between adherents that are acceptable and those that are not, but a group can have this sort of rigidity without necessarily being a "cult" -- a term that has a rather elastic definition anyway. Certainly, the term does not fairly apply to most of the religions described here.

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

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

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

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

 * I take a slight offense to comparing the active killing of individuals by the Chinese Communist Party to any organization that chooses to expel a member. The expulsion and disassociation is totally passive. If churches actively sought out to destroy some shunned person, that's another thing. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  07:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

abhor
The definition of shun is: To avoid deliberately; keep away from. It doesn't imply hatred, which is what the opening line indicates right now. Cuñado  -  Talk  17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, shunning does not imply hatred in general. It might for certain denominations, but definitely not all, and thus I'm going to edit the intro which should be general. -- Jeff3000 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

 * I agree that many groups use excommunication/shunning as a tool to punish people and cause damage. I have seen it happen in many Jehovah's Witness families. But on a simple basis, and especially for the definition of shunning, it is simply avoiding people, and nothing more. Can you name one large scale functional group/religion/business that does not reserve the right to refuse service/attendance? Heck, I'm sure the Boy Scouts kick people out of their group. And if an individual is seen as harmful to the group, every religious text addresses the right to expel and avoid the person. The issues you're bringing up are abuses of that right. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anacapa 00:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anacapa 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Anacapa 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

merge
See Talk:Excommunication

Shunning in Christian denominations
You cannot actually honestly include those isolated passages from the bible which lie under the heading, Shunning in Christian denominations. These, like almost every verse in the bible, have to be viewed in context and the manner in which they were written or spoken to the people of that time. That is like taking the verse from the Book of Revelations of Jesus Christ, "Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel." and then using that to say that 144,000 people are only going to be let into heaven and they are only Israelites. If that is the case then I that would have been filled up a long time ago and even Jesus Christ himself would have missed out on returning to the 'great gig in the sky'.

I do not think such a section should exist in this article and if it is to exist then it need to be revised. Pointing out isolated verses in that manner, without using or even explaining the context or manner in which it was quote or written, is just going to do nothing but encourage problems such as homophobia among Christians who believe that God and Jesus instructs them that it is in fact okay to do such things.

I just think it is wise to rethink that subsection if it is to convey the message intended.

 * I agree these passages do not belong here. The justification for shunning is far from solely biblical anyway.  (See the theologies of groups that shun.)  I notice the Amish note Mathew 18 here which is good enough for anyone who has a bible to source to--- although it is far from the complete justification of Anapbapist/amish shunning (see faith confessions).  These passages seem to be a shotgun biblical justification of shunning for all Christian groups below.  I would rather see each group note the specific biblical passages that apply to them with no direct quotes since anyone can find the passage in a bible.

Anacapa 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite
I added links and a reference describing Amish and Hutterite shunning. I hope to see distinct and separate studies of shunning in all three groups here so no group is confused with another. I will wait awhile for comments and suggestions from rbj and/or his 'we' before I begin to add Amish and Hutterite material here to head off edit wars. Please comment/suggest how to write this up with NPOV balance. Do you want to begin or do you want me to? Clearly there is much material here to write about so I could use some suggestions. Anacapa 05:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd welcome recommendations on how to maintain the essential information here, but frame it in a way that does not purjor the act of shunning outright, but puts usage context and better NPOV framing around such judgements. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an issue I have considered myself, and I've seen the same thing on Excommunication. Judging by past conflicts on this, the hard part is keeping the article NPOV enough that when someone drifts in who has a purely negative view of shunning they hopefully won't feel the need to completely rewrite the article to reflect that.  Issues like this one, where another editor might have been on the receiving end of what they felt was an unjust shunning, are really tough.
 * The other problem I've seen is that there are some independent Mennonite churches (say <1000 members) that have made a really bad name for themselves with shunning practices that leave the shunned feeling particularly bitter. Sometimes information on the practices of these fringe groups finds its way into the article as if it were describing common practice, or someone starts listing off ridiculously detailed information on them in order to appease those with axes to grind.
 * I'll see if I can find some ways to help with NPOV rewriting. Sxeptomaniac 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried making a few edits to the intro section (focusing mostly on replacing words that are prejudicial in nature), so we'll see if those will stand or not. I've noticed Anacapa is personally in the anti-shunning camp (and a source of a lot of information), so maybe he will be able to take a look and see if it seems fair (I haven't seen him edit this lately, though). Sxeptomaniac 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Shunning in the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints
Since the first paragraph of this section specifically says that shunning is not a church doctrine, it seems odd that the section exists at all. All that exists within the church are possible "social ramifications," but that's the case with any religion.

Excommunication does exist, but has a slightly deceptive name in that excommunicated members are (ideally) still welcome among members. So there is certainly an argument for leaving the section in place; however, all information in the second paragraph is covered in the article on excommunication.

In the end, I recommend that the first paragraph stay and the second be removed. --Masamage 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

 * I protest. We need to state these "social ramifications".  As you well know (IDEALY) is far from reality. 12.107.17.150 04:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Religious Shunning should be separate article
It seems to me the section on shunning as a religious practice should be its own article, as it is biased and somewhat intolerant to necessarily include a religious practice of another faith in any article in the "ABUSE" series. XINOPH | TALK 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and ideally that would be the case, but most of the article is on religious shunning, and I don't know if a seperate article is necessary at this point. If the non-religious shunning was expanded, maybe then. -- Jeff3000 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand your point too. However, when a religious group uses mild or extreme forms of relational aggression to show IT'S intolerance of a shunned former member why should that group be given some form of 'special' religious tolerance here?  These shunning religious groups deserve no more tolerance than they show their victims.  To do otherwise, is to tolerate those who use relational aggression(as a cunning, covert, and ugly art form) to perpetuate (RELIGIOUS!) intolerance.  I ask that we focus on the conduct used by ALL groups who shun and let the chips fall where they may.  I rarely hear us offering tolerance to those who commit murder for a religion so why would we tolerate soul-murder by and for a religion here? 12.107.17.150 03:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shunning/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Jaggies

This article had some material that was completely wrong, equating JPEG compression artifacts with jaggies.

I have trimmed out two wrong paragraphs, corrected them, and put them at the end of JPEG, then added a line here to note that jaggies are not compression artifacts. This article could do with a couple of images to show
 * an image
 * the same image sub-sampled with a good a/a filter
 * the image sub-sampled again, this time with no a/a filter, and therefore jaggies

-- The Anome 08:33 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it needs expansion, it's about the right length and contains all it needs apart from the suggested pictures. The Real Walrus 07:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You know the Windows XP interface has NO anti-aliasing. Look at the "rounded" edges of your windows, or WMP, or any of the WMP skins. There's a reason why your My Computer icon has jaggies, especially the monitor part of the icon. --24.87.126.13 17:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some wrong information regarding the PlayStation2. The PS2's video chip does support a form of anti-aliasing, it's just not too practical, and thus not used. It requires geometry to be rendered from back to front. One of the problems is the vector unit's limited memory, so sorting would have to be performed on the cpu. Another problem is that this hardware is just far more efficient rendering triangle strips, which rules out sorting. I also don't understand why vertex shaders need to be mentioned in the article. Btw. Vector unit does not equal vertex shader (although it can be programmed to do the same thing). The article also makes it sound like the Emotion Engine is the video chip of the PS2, but it's not, it is the cpu. Then the article goes on to say that current consoles "can render high quality graphics using separately custom graphics processing units (GPU]])." The PS2 also has a custom video chip. GPU is just the new name being used for video chips. Also Gamecube and Dreamcast are not current consoles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klehocz (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 * If you were referring to my edits, I didn't write that statement, I just tidied it up for quality. Rilak (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent
"GPU manufactures of consoles such as ATI and Nvidia do not have jaggies, indicating the slow conformity in the market to PCs in general. In the future software problems are most likely going to be eliminated for the needs of the consumer."

Why is this article so obscurely written and worded when it's covering basically the same material as the articles on antialiasing / aliasing? Is there a need for a seperate article on the subject? Shouldn't "jaggies" just redirect? 152.91.9.219 (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Current?
I don't think the xbox, gamecube, and dreamcast are current. I mean really, the dream cast? C'mon guys. It should just be the wii, xbox 360, and ps3. No sixth generation consoles. Only seventh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.117.12 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Attack Site
According to Firefox, the first reference is a known attack site. Is this still a reliable source? --Blacklemon67 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 * McAfee SiteAdvisor says the site is OK. But it's possible that the site has been recently compromised, and that Firefox/Google has more up-to-date information than SiteAdvisor. In any case, the reference itself is fine, since it's to a SIGGRAPH paper - the links are just for the reader's convenience and we could remove them without removing the reference. In fact, I've just done this. --Zundark (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Sigh...yes sorry, my website was attacked by Chinese hackers (using various .cn sites). I hope to have that resolved today.  DonPMitchell (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the links now that Google is no longer blacklisting the site. (Firefox may continue to warn about the site for a while, until it gets the updated blacklist.) --Zundark (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaggies As PDA Screen Recognition Error
"Jaggies" is also a known term for a screen recognition error on PDAs and Smartphones, originating (AFAIK) in the Apple Newton community. I added a one-sentence addition for the use of the term and added a blogref. It could certainly use a better reference than a blog, and possibly expansion. But as I originally came here to look up the term under this entry to link to it, and it was absent, there you go! (User LaughingVulcan operating in anon mode.) 98.228.92.5 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Causes section is mostly wrong.
The first sentence talks about the "staircase effect", which is on the right track, but doesn't really get into the technical aspects. The problem is naive (and therefore computationally cheap) methods where a pixel is assigned to a single line, polygon, etc., even if that pixel actually covers multiple objects (including the background).

Here's an image I made to graphically illustrate what's going on. The naive approximation just finds the object at the center of the pixel and renders the entire pixel with that value, while the blended method properly averages the different colors according to how much of the pixel they cover. In practice, most anti-aliasing methods only approximate proper blending, with various degrees of success, but that's the idea. And it's what happens automagically in a digital camera, since each pixel receives light from everything in the pixel's field of view proportionally to the solid angle each object takes up.

From there, nothing is really correct. While it's true a very high resolution monitor (or a standard monitor viewed from far away) could render the jaggies at a small enough angular size that a human viewing it wouldn't notice the jaggies, it doesn't actually remove the jaggies. I.e., the jaggies aren't caused by a low-resolution output device; they are merely more noticeable as resolution decreases.

Next up, jaggies don't occur because of resolution conversions. That's called Pixelation. Jaggies are the stairstepped lines caused by a lack of proper blending, which is what this page is about. Pixelation is caused by zooming in on an image until each pixel is noticeably distinct from its neighbors, and is often seen when stretching low-resolution images across large monitors or printing them on large posters. Pixelation can make jaggies more noticeable (especially if you don't use some kind of filtering to smooth out the edges), but they aren't the same thing.

Finally, vector graphics most certainly don't look the same regardless of resolution. A low resolution device will look bad whether you're viewing bitmaps or vector graphics, and a high resolution device will look good as long as the source is good. The advantage to vector graphics is just that simple shapes can easily be re-rendered to the resolution of a given target device to minimize both jaggies (on edges) and pixelation (both on anti-aliased edges, and on gradients and such). Once you get to complex shapes, like photographs, the quality of the image will only substantially increase if you add more data, whether that's more pixels or more vector elements. It's like rendering a ten-triangle 3D model of a banana in 4k. Sure, the edges look a little better, but it still looks like garbage.

Of note, the lines about low-resolution output devices and bitmap conversions are duplicated in the Solutions section (and are still wrong there) without any kind of solutions attached to them.

It's probably worth noting that jaggies are primarily seen on monitors (or TVs) with square pixel elements. On a halftoned newspaper or similar, there are still jaggies if not properly anti-aliased, but they are less jarring because of the randomized, curvy edges of the dithering process. Old CRT monitors tend to blur the edges of pixels into each other, causing a slight anti-aliasing effect that helps diminish the jaggies. Any monitor using non-square elements (I don't actually know of any) would cause different shapes to be jagged. For example, a hex-grid would render lines at 60° from horizontal just fine, but would have jaggies on vertical lines (or be fine at 60° from vertical and have jaggies on horizontal, depending on the grid's orientation). A screen with randomized pixel elements (like the human retina, but for displaying images rather than capturing them), would have less noticeable jaggies, but everything would tend to be jagged regardless of orientation. Etc. 199.127.114.114 (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of Pixelation
It looks like this article should be merged in Pixelation

Kmkaplan (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jaggies


text:
User:David Thrale

I am David Thrale. Read about me. Please click here to leave a message for me.

 * My website
 * My sandbox

Contributions
Some of my contributions include:

Initiated / original

 * Thrale family history : Henry Thrale - Hester Thrale - Arthur Murphy

Significant edits

 * North West London : London Borough of Brent - Wembley Stadium - Kingsbury - Neasden Temple - Hertfordshire - Watford

 * Others : British House of Commons - 1966 World Cup Final - Food - Geneva Conference (1954) - United Kingdom - SL-1200 - Environmental Health - Edwin Chadwick

Minor

 * Thrale family history : Samuel Johnson - Charles Burney - Fanny Burney - Giuseppe Marc'Antonio Baretti - Samuel Whitbread (brewer) - Samuel Whitbread - Southwark - Mount Vesuvius -  Thomas Percy (bishop) - John Opie

 * Other : Convolvulaceae - Child murder - Nick Hornby - Serf - Health claims on food labels - Food storage - Flavoring - University College, Oxford - List of people by name: T - Alley

Images
Charles Burney by Sir Joshua Reynolds - *Samuel Whitbread II by John Opie - Samuel Whitbread 1720-1796 by Sir Joshua Reynolds - Henry Thrale by Sir Joshua Reynolds - Bobby Moore - Brent - Hester Thrale by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Wiki FAQs
Overview FAQ -- Readers' FAQ -- Contributing FAQ -- Editing FAQ -- Administration FAQ -- Technical FAQ -- Problems FAQ -- Schools FAQ -- Miscellaneous FAQ -- Help page - MediaWiki_custom_messages

title: User:David Thrale


text:
Old World babbler

The Old World babblers or Timaliidae, are a family of mostly Old World passerine birds. They are rather diverse in size and coloration, but are characterised by soft, fluffy plumage. These are birds of tropical areas, with the greatest variety in Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. The timaliids are one of two unrelated groups of birds known as babblers, the other being the Australasian babblers of the family Pomatostomidae (also known as pseudo-babblers).

Morphological diversity is rather high; most species resemble "warblers", jays or thrushes. This group is among those Old World bird families with the highest number of species still being discovered.

Characteristics
Timaliids are small to medium birds. They have strong legs, and many are quite terrestrial. They typically have generalised bills, similar to those of a thrush or warbler, except for the scimitar babblers which, as their name implies, have strongly decurved bills. Most have predominantly brown plumage, with minimal difference between the sexes, but many more brightly coloured species also exist.

This group is not strongly migratory, and most species have short rounded wings, and a weak flight. They live in lightly wooded or scrubland environments, ranging from swamp to near-desert. They are primarily insectivorous, although many will also take berries, and the larger species will even eat small lizards and other vertebrates.

Typical babblers live in communities of around a dozen birds, jointly defending a territory. Many even breed communally, with a dominant pair building a nest, and the remainder helping to defend and rear their young. Young males remain with the group, while females move away to find a new group, and thus avoid inbreeding. They make nests from twigs, and hide them in dense vegetation.

Taxonomy and systematics
The systematics of Old World babblers have long been contested. During much of the 20th century, the family was used as a "wastebin taxon" for numerous hard-to-place Old World songbirds (such as Picathartidae and Pnoepygidae, as well as the New World species the wrentit). The German ornithologist Ernst Hartert summarized this attitude with the statement that, in the passerines: "Was man nicht unterbringen kann, sieht man als Timalien an." (What one can't place systematically is considered an Old World babbler).

The most obviously misplaced taxa were removed piecemeal towards the end of the last century. Since then, with the aid of DNA sequence data, it has been confirmed that even the remaining group is not monophyletic. Analysis of mtDNA cytochrome b and 12S/16S rRNA data (Cibois 2003a) spread the Timaliidae that were studied across what essentially was a badly resolved polytomy with Old World warblers and white-eyes. As the typical warblers (genus Sylvia) grouped with some presumed timaliids (such as the fulvettas), it was suggested that some Sylviidae should be moved to the Timaliidae.

The phylogenetic relationships between Timaliidae and other families was determined in a molecular phylogenetic study by Tianlong Cai and collaborators that was published in 2019. It is shown in the cladogram below:

The cladogram below shows the relationships between the genera. These were determined in the same study by Cai and collaborators.

List of genera
The family as currently constituted includes 58 species divided into the following ten genera:

title: Old World babbler