Talk:ex-Scientologist

I've read a great deal
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)

RFV discussion
"A former Scientologist who acts to expose the inside workings of Scientology." Equinox ◑ 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Analogously, however, see anti-Witness and non-Witness. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't see the analogy. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh TALK 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ex-Scientologist

 * 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. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 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)
 * Delete all. SemperBlotto 07:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, SoP, WT:CFI (that is, my understanding of it) also says delete as the meaning is obvious from the sum of the parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, keep. It's a single word, so I can't see any justification for deleting it. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * When two words are joined by a hyphen, they're a single word. Surely you wouldn't say 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. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  —Ruakh TALK 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Widsith, anything attested hyphenated is inclusible, you say? Look at all the different "words" you'd then include at . &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.) < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 14:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. actually does have sufficiently many hits at bgc, as do  and, doubtless, more. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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-. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we have ex- and Scientologist to cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ruakh and Ƿidsiþ both make good points. I'm on the fence, leaning at deletion. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW yes, these are indeed good points. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * See my comment, above, in this section, same timestamp. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Keep, 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)

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

RFD discussion: January–February 2022

 * See Talk:ex-pilot.

Beer parlour
See. Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)