Talk:Suppressive person

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Suppressive Person, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Suppressive Person, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suppressive person article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Scientology High‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 16 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Suppressive Person to Suppressive person. The result of the discussion was moved.

Over-capitalization

See Talk:Suppressive_Person/Archive_2#Capitalization. We should fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Perhaps, but I've been checking the changes you made in the last hour and you've changed all the Suppressive Person occurrences to suppressive person and that's a redirect, not the actual article title. I wish you hadn't done that, unless you're also planning on changing the article title... in which case you should have changed the article title first and then changed the wikilinks. I'm about to go back and fix your [what looks like] bad edits. Grorp (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems uncontroversial, so I filed a technical move request at WP:RMTR. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Ok. No problem then. That will solve my concern. Grorp (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But they said discuss, so see below. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2023

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. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressive Person → Suppressive person – Just because scientology caps this doesn't make it a proper name. Book usage patterns clearly show it's not consistently capped in sources, which would be especially true in "independent" sources as MOS:CAPS says to look to. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's not a proper noun so it should not be capitalized according to our Manual of Style. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I checked the Church of Scientology publications for usage. The 1991 Organization Executive Course volume 1, which is over 1000 pages and includes all the Hubbard policy letters on the subject of ethics, uses lower case exclusively (over 100 instances). The book Introduction to Scientology Ethics versions 1989 & 1998 use lower case exclusively; the 2007 version uses title case exclusively, and the 1979 version uses both styles (mixed usage). I also checked Modern Management Technology Defined (Scientology's dictionary of administration and management) and found exclusively lower case usage except for two quotations. I conclude that the term "suppressive person" was intended as a general term and not a proper noun (despite David Miscavige's ethics book revision in 2007). Grorp (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Regardless of Scientology's usage, it is not a proper noun and should be lower case. Thanks to @Grorp, I see that they are not consistent either. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the close of this requested move, phrases like "Potential Trouble Sources" should be changed to lower case too. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing those already. Seems clearly uncontroversial. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: FYI, I changed back the PTS Type ___ occurrences (diff). Though "potential trouble source" and "suppressive person" are almost always lower case, the "PTS Type ____" are always title case throughout all the Scientology-published literature, new or old, including in book indexes. (Though it's unlikely they are mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia than in the one article Scientology ethics and justice#PTS.) 06:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grorp (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia writes in Wikipedia's style based on our manual of style. We do not follow the styles of other organizations; that helps keep the encyclopedia coherent. Positions and labels in one religion are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized. Grorp (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) (Edited to move the period. Grorp (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

It's not the easiest thing to find in sources, and especially sources independent of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Here's one book by a Scientology guy (or ex?) who uses lowercase type one, etc. Are there other "independent" sources? Anyway, WP style is to avoid unnecessary capitalization, as determined by looking at sources ("only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"), and here there's not much reason to see capitalization as necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I'm only referring to the exact phrases such as "PTS Type Three", "PTS Type III", "PTS Type One", "PTS Type I", and not any other type of phrasing or a different order of words such has your example which used "That's why LRH gave also gradients of PTSness. Type one, type two, type three." That is not the same. Feel free to use lower case (except for "PTS") if you use any other order of words. In addition to poking around MOS:CAPS and Proper noun before replying, I also did multiple google searches on all four of those specific phrases I put in quotes (using the quotes in the search string). Almost every result was capitalized exactly as I've shown you; I'd say roughly 95%. ("PTS Type I" gave some odd results unrelated to Scientology which you have to weed out.) I'm not talking about other wording such as "type II PTS", but only the specific naming convention "PTS Type ___". Grorp (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp: Quoting half a sentence and putting a period at the end, when there is a semicolon and further clarification following is deceptive. I'm done here. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(swoons theatrically) Oh no, I put the period in the wrong spot. Thank god you're not color blind and were able to notice that the tiny period was green and not black and tell everyone about it so I could fix it. My hero! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
/s

Grorp (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MOS:DOCTCAPS. WP doesn't capitalize everything that some religion habitually capitalizes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.