Talk:suppressive person

RFD discussion: January–April 2014
Sum of parts? If OK, shouldn't plural be "suppressive people"? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly: "suppressive" + "person" = suppressive of what? Keep, although I would change the definition. Keφr 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not SOP unless there's a Scientology-specific definition of suppressive. As for the plural, "suppressive persons" gets more b.g.c hits in conjunction with "Scientology" than "suppressive people" does. And the definition does need changing because it seems an SP impedes other people's "spiritual progress", not his or her own. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is. One can talk about "suppressive acts" and "suppressive individuals" as well. Still, it's very much a set phrase, often reduced to the abbreviation SP. I'm not quite sure which way to go on this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and add proper definition to suppressive. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and add proper definition to suppressive. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a jargon term. It is used almost exclusively in Scientology and carries a specific meaning. In my understanding, people who criticize Scientology are considered "suppressive persons," to be avoided because exposure to and contact with such people is viewed as harmful to Scientologists. This is not deducible from the component words alone. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like unamerican activities? Can that implication not be adequately covered at suppressive (acts, individuals...) as described by Chuck Entz above? Equinox ◑ 05:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There may very well be cause to add a Scientology-specific sense to suppressive:. However, I still consider suppressive person to be a set phrase, since I think it has additional layers of meaning. I don't think the scope of this meaning could be conveyed in a new sense at suppressive without the definition being unwieldy (and therefore less useful). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What about: Causing severe emotional distress and impeding spiritual progress. --WikiTiki89 06:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you asking if I think that's acceptable as a definition for the proposed new sense of suppressive? I think it would benefit from clarification to put the meaning in perspective. Something like: "causing severe emotional distress to and impeding the spiritual progress of Scientologists." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I would substitute "Scientologists" for "others". With that definition though, what is the extra meaning added when used in the phrase "suppressive person"? --WikiTiki89 06:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a whole Wikipedia article on the subject: . The second paragraph of the introduction is a pretty good distillation of the non-obvious usage/meaning. Actually, our entry should probably be capitalized, since "Suppressive Person" is apparently something people can be formally designated. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that in "suppressive acts", the word suppressive does not have the same connotations that it has in "suppressive person"? --WikiTiki89 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More that "suppressive person"/"Suppressive person" has additional connotations that "suppressive" in conjunction with other words does not. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what my question was, so please answer it directly. Let me rephrase it just in case: Is there a difference in the connotation of the word "suppressive" in the two phrases "suppressive act" and "suppressive person"? --WikiTiki89 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the above-linked Wikipedia article provides greater insight into the term "suppressive person"/"Suppresive Person" than I am capable of offering personally. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Wikipedia article proves anything. Yes it does explain the connotations of "suppressive person", but it does not imply that these connotations do not apply to "suppressive acts" or "suppressive anything elses". --WikiTiki89 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: erring on the side of keeping as a set phrase in Scientology, abbreviated as "SP". This is quite often capitalized, as per . A search related to the plural: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dan and Chuck. In Scientology jargon, a set phrase meaning someone who seeks to impede or damage Scientology, not suppressive toward things in general. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the way I see it is that it is "suppressive" that has this additional bit of meaning in Scientology jargon. Adding the word "person" to it changes nothing. --WikiTiki89 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and add relevant definition to suppressive per Wikitiki.
 * Incidentally, suppressive by itself exists as a noun meaning suppressive person/organisation. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete. bd2412 T 14:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)