Talk:Disconnection (Scientology)/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not only Scientologists are disconnected
I think this "disconnection" is a more loose concept than described here in that it applies to other religious cults too. I've come across it in Jehova's Witnesses in particular, but I think one of the features of a cult is members are encourage to cut themselves off from outsiders and outside influence that might set them straight. But this needs to be cited appropriately, etc. — Dunc|☺ 17:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- yes, this article should at the very least be moved Lost Goblin 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- In the meantime, Disconnection (Scientology) probably should be the main page that Disconnection redirects to, not the other way around. wikipediatrix 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Scientology is the only religion that is notable for using the term "disconnection" to refer to its religious shunning practices. Other religions use different terms, and the general term for the practice is called Shunning. Vivaldi (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Uhu? What has this to do with religion? This wikipedia article was the first time in my life that I ever heard the term "disconnection" related to any religion; and I have heard and used it billions of times, if your network connections are never disconnected you must be using some really special protocol! --Lost Goblin 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Its an encyclopedia. If you want to know the definitions of words like "disconnect", you might try Wiktionary at Disconnect].
Useless stub creation
Bantab, what's the point in creating a useless stub that just adds an extra layer on manual indirection to get to the Disconnection (Scientoloy), or what ever it was called, page? Other religions do have policy like Scientology's disconnection, but I don't know of any that call it that. Unless there's actual name confusion, there's no point in moving pages around. There is a reference to the Shunning page. If you'd like it enhanced, that would be a small change. All the Scientology pages are over 100 hundred interlocked pages that would have to be updated to point to the correct page. That would be a large change. In any event, Talk pages exist for a reason. AndroidCat 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disconnection is a systematic process that occurs in many cults, Scientology being the most notable of them. I believe it would be beneficial to have a general explanation of disconnection in addition to the Scientology specific concept. The two are quite interrelated, so I'm not sure quite how this would best work. I am new at this, and messed up with the stub, however, I still think there should be a better discussion of disconnection in general as cult and / or religious practice. Perhaps formatting the topic as a general discuss with the information about scientology as an example? Like I said, I very new at this, so suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Bantab 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- H'okay, new we can fix! :) What you'd like is a general over-arching page that covers disconnection and shunning (and other names) in a variety of groups. Doesn't the Shunning page already do that? AndroidCat 02:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Scientology is the only religion that is notable for using the term "disconnection" to refer to its religious shunning practices. Other religions use different terms, and the general term for the practice is called Shunning. The Shunning article contains the "general explanation" of the shunning process and explains how it is termed or applied by various church and sects. Perhaps we can add a disambiguity message pointing people to Shunning if this is a real problem? We may be creating solutions to problems that don't exist. How many folks looking up the practice of religious shunning would end up here by mistake? Do any other religions use the term "Disconnection" to refer to their shunning rituals? Vivaldi (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think there is a slight problem. Personally, I had never heard of it referred to as shunning, but I was not familiar with Jehovah, Mormon, etc. practices, only Davidian, Heaven's Gate, and other fringe cults. I think the easiest way to solve the problem is to create a link to shunning at the top of the page in additition to the one within the article. For example:
- {{This article is about '''disconnection''' in Scientology. For information about disconnection and shunning in other religions, see [[shunning]].
- --Bantab 16:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think there is a slight problem. Personally, I had never heard of it referred to as shunning, but I was not familiar with Jehovah, Mormon, etc. practices, only Davidian, Heaven's Gate, and other fringe cults. I think the easiest way to solve the problem is to create a link to shunning at the top of the page in additition to the one within the article. For example:
disconnection...
In chemistry the term "Disconnection" is used about different possibilities on how to synthesize some target molecule. See for example Stuart Warren: "Organic Synthesis, The Disconnection Approach".
Disconnection is the process of chopping a complicated molecule into smaller and cheaper components that the complicated molecule can be made from. 130.225.245.182 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, This article should be renamed "Disconnection (Scientology)" and the regular disconnection article should be a disambig. Vpoko 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I would agree.--Fahrenheit451 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, really. For god's sake, people disconnect electrical devices every day, chemists disconnect molecule chains every day, there must be hundreds of instances of disconnection that everyone does. "disconnect the machine", "disconnect the battery", "disconnect the widget", etc. Terryeo
Scientology?
Scientology isn't usually what I think of when I think of someone being "disconnected" .... Oddity- (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Expand fm source
Jacobsen, Jonny (2008-01-28). "Niece of Scientology's leader backs Cruise biography". AFP. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2008-01-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
- This article should be expanded more using this source which AndroidCat (talk · contribs) added as a cite. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Quotefarm tag
I don't necessarily think that there are too many quotes, just that they are formatted oddly and could perhaps be better incorporated in prose in some kind of paragraph format. The article as a whole needs cleanup. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Still too much emphasis on the quotes. For example, the blockquoted portions, which could perhaps have the quotes shortened, and then merged into a paragraph or two instead. Emphasizing one of the "disconnection letters" in blockquote format seems okay though, just not multiple times. Cirt (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for feedback. I've gone on the attack against quotes, including rewriting the section about religious scholars MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cirt (hope you're watching this page), I've done a load more work on the article. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look and say if those tags are still necessary. BTW, the more I look around Scientology and cult-related articles, the more I see you acting as a voice of reason, so thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for feedback. I've gone on the attack against quotes, including rewriting the section about religious scholars MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
Would someone with an account please rename this to Disconnection (Scientology). The term "disconnection" is way too common in other usages for that distinction to not be made - see the earlier thread here. --65.87.105.7 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves : this needs to be done by an admin because of the existing redirect MartinPoulter (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strictly going by the rules, there's no ambiguity here. None of the other entries at Disconnection (disambiguation) is actually titled "Disconnection" and that page should probably be moved to Disconnect (disambiguation) or Disconnected (disambiguation). Wikipedia is not a dictionary so the usual definition really isn't relevant. Would a {{Wiktionary}} tag at the top of this article do the trick? — AjaxSmack 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes to opening paragraph
Two good-faith edits have been made by anonymous users. I think what they add is dubious.
"Though the term is relatively new, it is not a new concept." - not clear what this adds. It could be said about just about anything.
"The practice of disconnection is a form of religious shunning, and the most well known form is excommunication, by the Roman Catholic Church. It is unknown whether this is what inspired the practice." - material after "shunning" was added. Disconnection in Scientology is fundamentally different from excommunication: the latter involves separation from the Church and from some religious practices, but Disconnection is severance of communication with believers, not just with the organisation itself. to have this parallel drawn in the first paragraph is not going to help, or at worst will mislead, someone trying to understand what the Disconnection policy is. If the link to shunning is left in, then it will lead readers to information about excommunication anyway. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits by me.
I have made a couple of additions to the article, which can be sourced to Introduction to Scientology Ethics. I have other Scientology books which I may use as sources, but sadly I only have the Latin American Spanish editions (I live in Mexico). While content is translated verbatim, but page numbers may differ. Is it OK to continue adding this material? > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pleased with your additions- thanks. However, I disagree with the removal of the Agence France-Presse article. Articles from news sources move or disappear all the time, but it doesn't mean that they cease to be references for an article. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Examples of applications
Is there really a need for such a large amount of examples? I would have thought that two or three would have sufficed. The division between 60's & 80's onwards seems arbitrary. 93.107.142.64 (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is a good idea, particularly as the organization denies this occurs. -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Two or three well referenced examples demonstrates just as well that this occurs as 10 - 15. A lot of the examples mentioned amount to hearsay, and these detract from the overall message. 109.77.22.14 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Particularly as the organization has quite vociferously attempted to deny this happens at all. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP editors, but not on grounds of having too much examples, but on grounds of WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not have to prove a point (like the application of Disconnection), and many Scientology-related articles bordeline on WP:SOAP, so, having 20-30 examples is a bit much (and I think saying otherwise also borderlines WP:LAWYER). I concede with Cirt that it is not necessary to remove so many examples. But some, I believe, can be removed without violating the integrity of the article. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 01:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I accept that the article is becoming too much like a list and welcome suggestions for improving it. However, I don't think deleting lots of content is the way. The two sections for 60s and 80s onwards are not arbitrary: the policy section explains that there have been two phases when the policy has been operating, so naturally the examples section should address that. The examples that are included are there because they are notable, having been mentioned in mainstream news sources. If there were only one or two, that would convey quite a different message from there being 20-30. This article aims to be a summary of all the notable published sources on the topic, with appropriate weight. Anyone who thinks it's slanted is welcome to provide additional reliable sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Putting the same point another way, it seems the way to avoid WP:SOAP is to get as diverse a set of reliable sources as possible, and summarise them in the article. This is what the article seeks to do, but of course it would be great to have more sources. It would smell of SOAP to exclude sourced material because we don't like the conclusions some readers will draw from it. If we want to overrule the secondary sources on what's notable, we need a strong justification. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Taking that to its logical conclusion, articles of this type could have hundreds,perhaps thousands of examples, the line must be drawn somewhere. An accumulation of 20 -30 examples in a situation where someone denies something exists will always lead to a bias towards the view that it does exist. I am not a Scientologist, nor to I doubt that disconnection exists, I just think that a shorter list would make for a better article Quasihuman (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, I support this. Probably npt reducing to 2-3 examples, but I think 10 selected are enough...I am a Scientologist and I have read about Disconnection on Scientology materials (I referenced the quoted paragraph to the book it comes from). But it is not official policy, or at least I don't find it to be. It is just a practice, exaggeratedly common given the statistics the Church uses on claims of the % of SPs in the general population. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the article could be shorter and more readable. I'd like a non-arbitrary way to do this that isn't an excuse for someone to come along later and remove content they don't like. Would it be acceptable to write the content in a more condensed way? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, I support this. Probably npt reducing to 2-3 examples, but I think 10 selected are enough...I am a Scientologist and I have read about Disconnection on Scientology materials (I referenced the quoted paragraph to the book it comes from). But it is not official policy, or at least I don't find it to be. It is just a practice, exaggeratedly common given the statistics the Church uses on claims of the % of SPs in the general population. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Taking that to its logical conclusion, articles of this type could have hundreds,perhaps thousands of examples, the line must be drawn somewhere. An accumulation of 20 -30 examples in a situation where someone denies something exists will always lead to a bias towards the view that it does exist. I am not a Scientologist, nor to I doubt that disconnection exists, I just think that a shorter list would make for a better article Quasihuman (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the IP editors, but not on grounds of having too much examples, but on grounds of WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not have to prove a point (like the application of Disconnection), and many Scientology-related articles bordeline on WP:SOAP, so, having 20-30 examples is a bit much (and I think saying otherwise also borderlines WP:LAWYER). I concede with Cirt that it is not necessary to remove so many examples. But some, I believe, can be removed without violating the integrity of the article. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 01:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Particularly as the organization has quite vociferously attempted to deny this happens at all. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Two or three well referenced examples demonstrates just as well that this occurs as 10 - 15. A lot of the examples mentioned amount to hearsay, and these detract from the overall message. 109.77.22.14 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Disconnection citation not legitimate
The citation for the Scientology enterprise's "disconnection" practices is not suitable, it links to the Scientology organization and does not cover Scientology's actual disconnection policies. If nobody objects, I would like to revert that edit and locate a suitable reference. Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted the citation to the Scientology web site which restores the "citation needed." What is needed is a solid reference which meets Wikipedia guidelines which actually covers the corporation's policy of "Disconnection," and does so accurately. I doubt that many editors believe that the Scientology corporation's web site accurately reflects reality. I also mean no offense by reverting that edit. Damotclese (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Disconnection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://faq.scientology.org/discon.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://scientologytoday.org/Common/question/pg78.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212141613/http://www.scientologydisconnection.com:80/ to http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disconnection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130717161227/http://www.mytalk1071.com/gossip/?var=EXCLUSIVE071713 to http://www.mytalk1071.com/gossip/?var=EXCLUSIVE071713
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disconnection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130707012356/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/tommy_davis_sci.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/tommy_davis_sci.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 29 February 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed per consensus. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
– Really not seeing how this is the primary topic. Google doesn't have any Scientology-related results on the first few pages, instead bringing up results about electronic devices and emotional detachment, and this word seems more commonly used in those contexts. Case in point:searching for the word on Wikipedia ("disconnection"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search="disconnection"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1) also brings up barely any results related to religion or Scientology. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 12:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. There is a general meaning that's currently rather hijacked by Scientology. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. No clear primary topic (and if there was it wouldn't be this one), so move disambiguation page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.