Talk:Religious disaffiliation

message: This stub needs to be merged with Religion, Religious belief or Apostasy. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only 14 hits in Google for such term. See WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the term from McGuire's book which is a reputable source, so it is not original research. Andries 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One use of this term in one book, does not warrant a full article. Ths subject will be better off in Religious belief in the section about rejecting religion. Also note that the OR is related to your description of the different terms you have equated for "disengagement form religion", to which you have not provided sources. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two terms in two books. Of course I could have chosen defection instead of disengagement which is also a frequent term. Or I could have chosen one of the other terms mentioned here. Andries 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree because 1. apostasy and disengagement are different concepts as you yourself have argued so often. 2. this article should not be merged into religion for the same reason that religious conversion should not be merged into it. It is only a stub now, but I have enought sources to expand it.  Andries 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the the google hits: I have a complete book about it and a chapter from a textbook of religions. You should also make the google search on the other terms and e.g. on "leaving church".  Andries 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I can understand your will to merge it in religious belief, because it is now a somewhat "isolated" article and it has certainly advantages. However leaving a group (disaffiliation) is not necessarily the same as disavowing a religious belief. It should not be merged in apostasy for stated reasons and there it is not true that there is "a lot of material already" in religious conversion. Andries 16:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am emailing you privately. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I received your e-mail. Please note that this a large subject and I have many sources for it, so eventually this article should not be merged with religious belief, though I agree that it has some advantages now. And also because as I already stated, disillusionment, disaffection, or disenchantment in religious belief is only a part of this what this article treats or should treat: this article should also treat disaffiliation with a religious group, church, or religious community. Andries 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: I think in the article should be clear the distinction between cases of Disengagement from a religion and Disengagement from a religious group. The wiki articles in the other languages seem to focus on the second one.--BMF81 09:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern. Ebaugh wrote that ex-nuns stayed devout catholics. Andries 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I inserted the distinction by Ebaugh, but the distinction that you think should be made more clearly (disaffection from faith versus disaffiliation from group) is not always so clearly made by reputable sources, so this article may slightly break NPOV if it emphasizes this important distinction. Andries 08:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinction between groups and beliefs

message: Jossi, can you please explain why you give the see also section a neutrality warning? Please explain within a week or I will remove the warning. Andries 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of "spiritual abuse". ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? The term leaving religions is mentioned in the article. It is clearly closely related. I will remove the neutrality warning unless you give a new reasoned reply. Andries 18:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The resoned reply is that by adding Spiritual abuse to this list, you are, in fact asserting that leaving a religion has something to do with "spiritual abuse". I do not see any reference to "disengagement from religion" in that article, besides your adding of such link  as we are discussing the subject ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article spiritual abuse article stated that leaving a religion is caused by spiritual abuse. The statement was already there. I only made it into a wikilink. Andries 04:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see that assertion in the article. That article refers to "Leaving an Abusive Church" not leaving a religion. In addition that statement is not supported by sources. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article disengagement from religion treats amomg others leaving a religious group (which thus includes leaving an abusive church). Go improve that article there if you think that the statement there is unsourced. Andries 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a request for sources. You can go and fix that if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why the section neutrality warning, please explain

message: I really do not see the point on collaborating in  this article, if you keep deleting what I am adding and reverting my edits. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do view most of your edits on this article as misguided and unhelpful. Andries 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is not a nice thing to say, and I regret you feel that way because that is not my intention. Nevertheless, whatever your assessment of my intentions is, you should not delete material that is properly sourced and that is pertinent to the article. I could place an RfC, if you wish, but I refuse to edit war. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also removed material that I inserted that was properly sourced and relevant for the article. You cannot selectively copy opinions with a certain POV from one article and think that you follow NPOV. Andries 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you added was about the apostate testimony controversy, that is not relevant to this article. I will place an RfC, to seek help from other editors. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement by Wilson was also about this issue. Andries 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You did not add any content to this article that was not available elsewhere in closely related articles that the interested reader would most probably read anyway. Andries 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you missed the cite from Peter Berger I added a few minutes ago? See Diff ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I missed that. Thanks for adding that. Andries 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pause 

message: I think that alternative names and terms for the subject should be bolded as per the Wikipedia:style guide, not just names and places. See e.g. shark, human, and ape where alternative terms are bolded too. Andries 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles are about biological entities and in these it is customary to bolden the species Family, Superorder, or Subclass. These are not similar terms. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article war makes similar terms bold such as hostilities. Andries 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article petrol bolds the alternative term gasoline. Andries 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument was based on citing Wikipedia:style guide, which was incorrect. You can find thousand articles that do not bolden similar terms. In any case, I just simply think that it is ugly as is, but will not make ma big deal of it. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see for example the term religious disaffiliation as an alternative title that should be bolded according to the style guide. Religious disaffiliation redirects here. 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding alternative names and terms

message: As far as I know, these two terms are pretty much the same thing. Both involve a person leaving and renouncing his religion, and no longer considers himself an adherent of religion. I suggest and propose we move this article to Apostasy and include the material shared here. 128.187.97.26 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Apostasy