Talk:Religious disaffiliation

This stub needs to be merged with Religion, Religious belief or Apostasy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only 14 hits in Google for such term. See WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I still believe that it needs to be merged with religious belief as it has related material in one of the sections. Also, there is a lot of material on the subject already in Apostasy and in religious conversion. Feel free to add more material if you wish, but at this stage the proposal to merge is good. Let's see what other editors think. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am emailing you privately. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Attribution

The material needs to be attributed, otherwise it reads as an assertion of fact. Also, adding Spiritual abuse to see also section connotes that disengagement from religion is somewhat related to abuse, and that is your POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she wrote it down as a fact and it is a fact and should be stated as such. Why do you think that this is just an opinion? I also disagree with your removal of spiritual abuse which is a closely related subject and should hence be here, regardless whether you consider it POV. People may leave because of spiritual abuse. I also disagree with your removal of the citation. It is my experience that in Wikipedia every sentence that is not referenced gets removed or corrupted. Andries 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. As per WP:NPOV, we attribute statements to those that make it, regardless if the person making the statement does it as a fact or as an opinion. I do not understand why do we need to make an exception here;
2. Adding "spiritual abuse" to this article's see also section is in effect stating the POV that disengagement from religion is related to such;
3. I did not remove any cite, just that it was duplicated. Maybe you made a mistake on your edit, as both were to page 91 of McGuire's book.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ad 1 As per WP:NPOV we should state facts as facts "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things." That leaving a religion that forms a huge part of your life can be a wrenching experience is not seriously disputed by anyone in the field that I know. Andries 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ad 2. That is only one of the many possible interpretations. The general and only correct one is that it is relatedAndries 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ad 3. I have bad experience with one cite for a whole paragraph. It is my experience that assertions that are not referenced get removed or distorted. Andries 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... as you probably know there are many people that leave a religion without any of the traits you describe. What is the problem with attributing this opinion? Is there an overwhelming number of reputable sources that describes leaving a religion as a "wrenching experience" as per McGuire? I doubt it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See for example The Varieties of Religious Development in Adulthood: A Longitudinal Investigation of Religion and Rational Choice. No mention of "wrenching experiences" (see page 10). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ]

The participants were not asked how they experienced it and besides I do not think that the intense involvement that McGuire described is treated in that paper. I have not heard any doubts about it and I have read several sources describing it. Andries 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that making such statement as it was a fact comparable to "Plato was a philosopher" is stretching it. Attribution is key to NPOV in these cases. If there is overwhelming support by scholars and authors on the subject that this indeed the case, that would be a differebt story. So far, there is one source cited using that specific wording. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you convinced me in point one (attribution). Sorry for the revert. I still disagree in points two and three. Andries 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now, Andries., with the exception of the boldening of the terms. Is that necessary? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, boldening is necessary, because synonyms/alternative term are prescribed to be boldened by the wikipedia:style guide. Andries 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm... I do not see that in the style guide.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I do see in the style guide an example that shows that alternative titles and terms have to be bolded. Andries 22:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ad 2 regarding the inclusion of spiritual abuse in the see also section. I still think that it belongs here, because the article spiritual abuse mentions prominently the term "Leaving an Abusive Church" (i.e. this article). If you disagee with thge inclusion of spiritual abuse in this article then please do not revert, but follow instead Wikipedia:dispute resolution or give a reasoned response why you disagree. Andries 08:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between groups and beliefs

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)

I understand your concern. Ebaugh wrote that ex-nuns stayed devout catholics. Andries 16:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unreferenced: what is unreferenced, please explain

Jossi, can you please explain what statement is unreferenced. I had already fulfilled your earlier request to give references for alternative terms. Please explain within a week or I will remove the warning. Andries 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references for the terms that are implied to be inter-exchangeable with "Disengagement from religion". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Again, I had already done that, I wrote already. Is there something wrong with your or mine reading ability? Andries 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have attributed the text to Bromley and provided context that was missing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you made the article worse, because you attributed a fact. In addition, Bromley wrote that the debate is about the term conversion which you misinterpreted. Andries 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to corrent any mistakes. As for attribution, I do not understand what you mean. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

It is a fact that different terms are used for disengagement for religion. Attributing a fact is wrong. Andries 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another mistake that you made that contradicts normal practices to was to unbold similar terms and make a separate section for synomyms or near-synonyms. Normally synonyms are kept very closely to the beginning and are bolded. I reverted. Andries 18:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

why the section neutrality warning, please explain

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)

The addition of "spiritual abuse". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 [1] as we are discussing the subject ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have added a request for sources. You can go and fix that if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Summaries please, not highly selective excerpts

You could summarize some article, like apostasy, and post cult trauma here, but do not selectively copy POV statements here. This will yield NPOV problems here. Personally, I would rather wait with summarizing other article, becfause I stilll have a lot of material that can be used for this article.[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider these to be POV statements? These are comments from scholars, supported by reliable sources that are pertinent to the subject of the article. The fact that these citations are also included in apostasy and post-cult trauma, is of no conquence. The question is: are these relevant, or not? If they are not, please bring your arguments for their removal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. There are many statements in the articles post cult trauma and apostasy that oppose the POV of Wilson and Galanter and that are relevant for this article, but copying them all here has no added value for Wikipedia as whole. In contrast, making summaries and referring to these article does have added value for Wikipedia. Andries 16:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that someone interested in the subject of "disengagement of religion" would not be interested in the points of view of scholars that have studied the subject, conducted surveys and published their results? We should be welcoming any addition to this article that makes the article more comprehensive. Should we not? Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] t • @ 20:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We should not selectively copy statements from other articles that support a certain POV. It is far better to give summaries. Andries 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your edit. This is not an article on the reliability of apostate's testimony. This is an article on "disengagement from religion" their causes, etc. My edit:

[Bryan R. Wilson]], who was a professor of Sociology at Oxford University, in a collection of essays he edited in 1981 writes that apostates of new religious movements, are generally in need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates. Wilson coins the term of atrocity story that is in his view rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns.

... is relevant to this article

Your edit:

The reliability and validity of and the motivations for the testimonies of critical former members of cults and new religious movement is a subject of hot debate among scholars, sociologists, and critical former members themselves with highly divergent opinions. This debate is treated in the article apostasy.

... does not. We should keep the "apostate testimony" controvery out of this article. It does not belong here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The summary that I gave encompasses the statement by Wilson. Wilson basically addresses the same subject as can be derived from the location of his comments in the article apostasy. The problem that I have with your edit is that if we add Wilson then the comments by Duhaime should be here too to maintain NPOV and then the comments by Zablocki etc, etc. In other words this will only lead to this article containing more or less a contents as apostasy and this will have no added for Wikipedia as a whole. Andries 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement by Wilson refers to what he asserts to be a condition of people that abandon a religion. If there are elements in Apostasy that will enhance this article, we should include these. Shouldn't we? If Zablocki or Duhaime, or any other scholar refers to this, these should be included as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest that I copy 75% of the article apostasy and a lot of post cult trauma to this article? I feel forced to do so to maintain NPOV if you copy Wilson and selectively copy other opinions to this article, instead of giving a fair summary. I do think that copying is a good idea, among other because of maintainability. I do NOT think that copying is a good idea, among other because of maintainability. Andries 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you copy any material that is pertinent to the article. If most of the material comes from one article, it would be better then to merge with that article. But we cannot just not add pertinent material, because it is already included in other articles, don't you think? (I would appreciate than you drop this "selective" copying accusations. Thank you.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that removing material from article which is supported by reliable sources is not acceptable as per guidelines. I would kindly request that you restore the deleted material. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One possibility would be to merge all material from post cult trauma into this article, leaving the other sections to grow as new material is found. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this is an issue of NPOV. How could it be? Properly sourced and attributed material, if pertinent to the article's subject, we should include. Let's either add what is pertinent from othr articles, or merge some of these articles into one as per above proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of NPOV if you copy one quote that is pertinent, but omit to copy the other quotes with an opposing POV. Andries 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I admit that there is a problem with the set of articles apostasy, disengagement from religion, and post cult trauma, because they are closely related and I do not know what belongs in which article. I think we should think about that first before copying material from one article to another article. Andries 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)#

Personally, I think that it would be a terrible waste of time if we have the same type of (or exactly the same) NPOV disputes that we have seen at apostasy and post cult trauma. I have still two books about the subject of which the content is not yet included in Wikipedia. I would rather spend my time on writing new information in Wikipedia than arguing about content already in available in other Wikipedia articles that should or should not be duplicated here. If people are really interested in the subject then they will also read the other article, so copying contents here and arguing about that should not be a priority. Andries 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So go ahead and add new material, that would be great, but please do not delete material that is pertinent even if it exists on other articles. Later on, after you have added new material we can evaluate any possible mergers, splits, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I believe in willingness to follow NPOV if you copy Wilson but omit the opposing POV of e.g. Duhaime. ?

Andries 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You should have checked before adding all that material that is not pertinent. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really think the reliablility and validity of the testimonies of ex-members are not relevant then please also remove the opinions by Wilson and Duhaime that also deal with this issue. Andries 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wilson describes a pshycological/sociological issue related to disengagement of religion, not about "testimonies of ex-members". As far as I can read he does not mention any of these terms. As for the boldening of similar terms, I could not find that in the style guide. The boldening applies to names of places, names of people, etc., but not to similar terms. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wilson flawed description of the motivations are directly related to the question of apostate tesimony reliability e.g. when he writes "Wilson coins the term of atrocity story that is in his view rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns." This is by the way untrue. The term atrocity story was coined by Bromely and Ventimiglia (spelling?). Andries 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Pause

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)

I do view most of your edits on this article as misguided and unhelpful. Andries 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The statement by Wilson was also about this issue. Andries 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Have you missed the cite from Peter Berger I added a few minutes ago? See Diff ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that. Thanks for adding that. Andries 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have a pause in copying contents from other articles here, because this will lead to endless disputes about NPOV as I predicted. Again, I have a lot of new material that I could insert if I did not have to deal with NPOV issues. Andries 22:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bolding alternative names and terms

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)

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)

The article war makes similar terms bold such as hostilities. Andries 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article petrol bolds the alternative term gasoline. Andries 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

RfC Summary

Dispute about adding pertinent material to this article that is already present on other articles.

Involved editors' comments

• I argue for the addition of these cites (from Post cult trauma), as I consider it to be pertinent to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bryan R. Wilson, who was a professor of Sociology at Oxford University, in a collection of essays he edited in 1981 writes that apostates of new religious movements, are generally in need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates. Wilson coins the term of atrocity story that is in his view rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns. . Jean Duhaime, a professor of religious studies and science of religion at the Université de Montréal writes, based upon his analysis of three memoirs by apostates of NRMs (by Dubreuil, Huguenin, Lavallée), that he is more balanced than some researchers, referring to Wilson, and that apostate testimonies can not be dismissed, only because they are not objective, though he admits that they write atrocity stories in the definition by Bromley and Shupe. He asserts that the reasons why they tell their stories are, among others, to warn others to be careful in religious matters and to put order in their own lives. (Duhaime 2003)

• I prefer either a fair summary of the controversy described about the motivations and testimonies of former members or a copy of all the opinions about this issue, not just the opinion of Wilson. For example if we include Wilson why not include the following too Dr. Phillip Charles Lucas[10] interviewed ex-members of the Holy order of MANS/Christ the Savior Brotherhood and compared them with stayers, and outside observers and came to the conclusion that their testimonies are as (un-)reliable as those of stayers. (Lucas 1995) For example the opinion of Wilson is opposed by Duhaime in the article apostasy and other write differently too. These opinions could for example be summarized as follows

"The reliability and validity of and the motivations for the testimonies of critical former members of cults and new religious movement is a subject of debate scholars and scientist with highly divergent opinions. This is treated in the article apostasy." Andries 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Additional data on dispute. The quotes are not currently (01:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)) present in Post cult trauma, they are currently in Apostasy. And to help the other commentators that I hope will be coming, the place that they are most recently proposed to be added is at the end of the "Factors affecting psychological and social problems" section. (But this was a helpful synopsis to come to - better than wading through multiple screens of discussion.) GRBerry
• Initial Response What is this article going to be? An article about Disengagement from religion as a sociological phenomenon? Right now it seems to lack a clear focus. My sense is that to balance the article it needs more content on the less disputational versions of disengagement. To my eyes, this means for now that you should look for a short summary and a reference elswehre while you work on adding more material about the other types of disengagement. To add a lot of material would leave this article unbalanced. Of the summaries above, that offered by Andries fits this description better. If you were to take one quote from that section of Apostasy, I'd take the Massimo Introvigne quote. GRBerry 01:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. Yes, my understanding is that disengagement from from a sociological /psychological perspective is the article's focus. Let me understand your proposal: (1) summarize the more disputational aspects; (2) add new material on the less disputational versions of such disengagement; (3) expand the disputational versions in a manner that it is balanced with the other views. Is that a fair interpretation of your proposed approach? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a fair interpretation of my suggestion. I tend to watch anything I respond to an RFC on for a little while, reserving the right to respond to comments by others or to just plain change my own opinion. To clarify disputational - I meant disputational disengagements, not items dispputed among the editors. GRBerry 03:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• My thoughts are similar to GRBerry's. I'm curious where this article is going, or what exactly it's about. I will just in general urge that you not re-hash a debate that's already been had on a seperate article (i.e. Apostasy) or quote only one side of a debate that's been had there. I'm not saying you're trying to do that, just, if there's some big debate that's being discussed on page X, refer readers to that debate, don't have it over. --Alecmconroy 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

References

My plans for this article

I read several questions and assertions about the object and direction of this article i.e.

by user GRBerry "What is this article going to be? An article about Disengagement from religion as a sociological phenomenon? "

by user:Jossi, "Yes, my understanding is that disengagement from from a sociological /psychological perspective is the article's focus."

by user Alecmconroy "I'm curious where this article is going, or what exactly it's about."

I created this article and my plan for this article is to make it a main article for leaving a religion or religious group treating or summarizing all important aspects both legal, psychological, demographic, sociological, and also legal aspects for example in the case leaving a Church in German regarding church tax. The article should also summarize or treat leaving Islam, leaving Christianity, leaving Mormonism etc. Andries 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, the broader the scope, the less depth each sub-topic can go into. With that broad a scope, plan on eventually having a lot of sub-articles. It might be wise to fouc on building up one aspect at a time so that that aspect is well-covered, then adding the next aspect. GRBerry 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Andries,in WP an article takes shape as material is added by editors. I would argue than making a pre-emptive decision on what the article would be, based on the plan of one editor, may preclude collaboration. I would go along the proposal made by Mr. Berry, as a staring point to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I only answered questions, but I do believe that we should carefully think, preferrably in advance, where we want to write what to ensure maintainability, NPOV, and accessibility for the readers. Andries 23:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maintanability is a given, after all this is a wiki. As for NPOV and accessibility, the proof will be in the pudding. Let's work on the article as per Mr. Berry's proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this wiki has more than a million articles. Maintaining more or less the same content in several articles takes more time and effort than when the same content is placed in one article. This is one of the reasons why I would be vary careful with copying contents from one article to the other. For example the statement by Wilson that you copied is erroneous, I believe, and if this has to be corrected in two articles then this is easily forgotten. Andries 23:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just happenned onto this article after noticing that the author took the liberty of making a silent Rfd since it conflicted with this 'article I also wrote' described boastfully. While I agree that Wikipedia:Recentism is valid, the proper WP ettiquette would have been to make a disambig page for both rather than deleting it entirely and leaving numeraous redlinks, (AND especially without correcting the subsequent bad redirects this editor left).

With regard to this article, it pains me to see someone take 'possesion' over an article and use the excuse that there are over a million others, leave me alone with this one. The title of the article should be a more meaningful "religious disaffiliation" and not have that redirect to this one. Given that. if the title stays, then there should also be a specifc reference to this expression Disengagement from religion in the first immediate sentence, otherwise it seems very WP:OR since the author himself first provides a reference to disaffiliation. --Shuki 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shuki about naming this article Religious disaffiliation. Unless there are any objections I will procees with the renaming in a few days. Can you specify wich article was "silently RfD'ed"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem moving this article to religious disaffiliation if the history is maintained. The redirect disengagement was deleted upon my request after voting here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/May_2006#disengagement_.E2.86.92_Israel.27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan Andries 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now that that is out of the way, I wanted to say that I hope you can broaden the subject to the other religions as well. I'm not sure if the article should be merged with religious belief since this goes further. --Shuki 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It will be good to broaden it. I have removed the merge notice. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Deconversion

This page should have a section with reasons why people would turn secular. To start the ball rolling, my personal reasons for abandoning judaism are (1) inconsistency (How could an "omnibenevolent" god send ANYONE to hell and suppoosedly kill over two million people?) and (2) 9/11 (How can I follow religion -- any religion -- when they directly causes such a disaster <20 miles from my home?). --DragonAtma

To give charges is to have a gross misunderstanding of religion and God. You should let go of your bias and try to understand what really happened. Have you read the Bible?

Merge with Apostasy

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)