Talk:ex-Scientologist

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've read a great deal[edit]

I’ve read a great deal about Scientology and I’ve personally never encountered the term ex-Scientologist except referring to those who actively work against Scientology. Probably those who do not work against Scientology are embarrassed about their former links with an organisation considered a cult and keep quiet about their former involvement. Proxima Centauri 12:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV discussion[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

"A former Scientologist who acts to expose the inside workings of Scientology." Equinox ◑ 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analogously, however, see anti-Witness and non-Witness. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't see the analogy. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term might have meaning, even a "POV" meaning, within the context of Scientology that it does not for others. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

ex-Scientologist[edit]

Also: ex-boyfriend, ex-stepdad, ex-stepmom, ex-stepfather, ex-stepmother, ex-stepparent, ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, ex-husband, and plurals.

SOP. (See ex-.) Delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. SemperBlotto 07:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the face of it, keep. It's a single word, so I can't see any justification for deleting it. Ƿidsiþ 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We never considered words joined by a hyphen "single words", to my knowledge. This is different from compounds which are just written together. -- Prince Kassad 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • When two words are joined by a hyphen, they're a single word. Surely you wouldn't say (deprecated template usage) ex-Scientologist is two words? "Ex-" is hardly even a word at all, on its own. The problem is you think the meaning is obvious (you're right). But that's not grounds for excluding a valid word. Looking at the list above, there are anyway good reasons for including many of these terms. ex-wife for one has a lot of cultural connotations which may show up in citations; and ex-stepparent looks weird enough to me that I would like to see citation evidence for it. Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want the CFI take on the matter (which to be honest, we usually don't) CFI doesn't mention the issue of word/not a word, it just says "attested and idiomatic". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a good point. Something like "cat" is obviously not SOP (what are the Ps?), but the CFI specifically give the example of "megastar" as an expression whose non-SOP-ness must be justified. One more nail in the "all words in all languages" coffin. :-P   —RuakhTALK 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Widsith, anything attested hyphenated is inclusible, you say? Look at all the different "words" you'd then include at google books:friendcum.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? I don't see anything there that meets CFI. Apart from the obvious nonsense on the first page, I see "friend-cum-translator", which has no other b.google hits, "friend-cum-grand-nephew", which has no other b.google hits, and "friend-cum-nurse", likewise. (Besides, "I" wouldn't be including any of them myself -- I have no interest in words like this -- I am just arguing that someone else has apparently found it worth entering and we have no grounds to delete it.) Ƿidsiþ 14:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was unclear; sorry. I didn't mean that all those words have sufficiently many cites. I meant only that if they would have, then you'd say they should be kept; they're idiomatic (as idiomatic is used in the CFI). Really? Note that these terms are, inter alia, friend-cum-housekeeper, friend-cum-translator, friend-cum-nemesis, friend-cum-landlord, friend-cum-murderer, friend-cum-grand-nephew, friend-cum-stalker, and friend-cum-fashion-consultant. Friend-cum-enemy actually does have sufficiently many hits at bgc, as do journalist-cum-novelist and, doubtless, more.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, if they can be cited (as I said below) then I see no reason or need to delete them. Though god knows who would add those in the first place. I'll admit I do see cum as a more marginal case than ex-. Ƿidsiþ 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to write delete, but then I checked that a simple Google search gets more than 300,000 hits for ex-Scientologist, albeit with all possible spellings (ex-scientologist, ex Scientologist, ex scientologist etc.). Ex-scientologists even have their own therapy groups, websites etc. --Hekaheka 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we have ex- and Scientologist to cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We also have -s but we don't exclude perfectly transparent plurals. I think if you allow a word X then you have to allow the various permutations – WHERE CITED – of Xs, preX, Xful, and indeed ex-X. Not all of them will be valid, though – ex-Scientologist is clearly a real thing which is talked about a lot, whereas ex-elbow doesn't appear to exist. As you'd expect. Ƿidsiþ 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruakh and Ƿidsiþ both make good points. I'm on the fence, leaning at deletion. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW yes, these are indeed good points. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Widsith. I would like to see hyphenation as word-forming, so attestable strings of words that are joined only by hyphens and not by a space should be included regardless of how sum-of-partish they are with respect to their component words. Another thing is, "ex" is only a stand-alone English word by means of derivation from "ex-*" words, which makes the case stronger. The definition of "ex-" as a prefix is suspect: it lists "ex-husband" as an example derivation, but that would imply "ex-" (prefix) + "husband" rather than "ex" (first component of a hyphenated compound) + "-" + "husband". The megastar-thing above is just a jocular reference to a broken paragraph of CFI, right ;)? For previous discussion on the subject, see also Talk:ex-stepfather, December 2009. --Dan Polansky 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment, above, in this section, same timestamp.​—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am okay with including "friend-cum-enemy" and "journalist-cum-novelist", as they are attestable even if rare. But again, the case of "ex" is even more special per its unclear role: when combined into "ex-wife", is "ex" a word or a prefix to be joined to words using a hyphen? Is "ex-wife" a word formed by prefixing or is it a hyphenated compound? I don't know answers to these questions. --Dan Polansky 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WT:COALMINE applies to at least ex-wife since exwife and possibly others can be attested. I'm not sure about Scientologists though. DAVilla 06:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, {{prefix}} case, no SOP. I'm not sure if words like "ex-stepparent" are actually used, but the deletion rationale doesn't apply. SOP should only apply for words, not prefixes. --The Evil IP address 18:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very, very sadly kept. -- Liliana • 01:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFD discussion: January–February 2022[edit]

See Talk:ex-pilot#RFD discussion: January–February 2022.

Beer parlour[edit]

See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Including hyphenated prefixed words as single words. Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ex-Scientologist&oldid=69372908"