10

About four and a half months ago, Flimzy proposed a new off-topic close reason for questions: Truth questions. Here is the relevant Meta post.

In wax eagle's answer, he listed three main things that needed to be done first.

1) The first is that we need to decide whether or not the on topic page of the help center needs to be changed.

That subject was covered in this Meta post. Currently, the top answer suggests rewriting the whole on-topic section, suggests what to put there, and is decently upvoted.

2) The second thing we need to do is establish the verbiage for our new close reason.

That subject was covered in this Meta post. There is currently one very well-upvoted answer with the suggested verbiage.

3) We need a comprehensive meta Q&A that goes into detail (but is easy to understand), detailing both why these questions are off topic...and how to introduce these requirements into the truth questions we are closing.

That subject was covered in this Meta post. The relevant information and explanation is all contained within the question.

So, the question is: have we done enough that we should go ahead and implement the proposed changes?

If any of you think differently from the current answer(s), I encourage you to post your opinion so that we can work towards a clear(er) consensus.

5
  • Will you update the off-topic list at the same time as the on-topic list?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 4:41
  • @curiousdannii: Yes, that should be done too.
    – El'endia Starman Mod
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 12:32
  • I added another verbiage option. Please take a look and vote if you like it!
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Jul 26, 2014 at 3:18
  • So the on topic list seems to be a mix of the old and new. What was the reason to include two history parts? (I think history of Christianity is really a bit vague.)
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2014 at 12:47
  • 1
    @curiousdannii: You're right that it's a mix. I felt like some of the old points were still valid. You are right though that having "history of Christianity" was vague, and furthermore, it was broad and redundant, so I've edited it out.
    – El'endia Starman Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2014 at 15:08

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8

Personally, I think that we have definitely satisfied #2 and #3. #1 might need a little more consensus, but what is currently suggested there now is certainly better than what we currently have in the help files. So my answer would be YES, we are ready enough to go ahead and add a new off-topic close reason.

(Again, anyone with dissenting opinions are encouraged to post their opinion.)

2
  • 1
    Huh, I just posted a meta post that is the start of getting more ideas for a comprehensive Q and A. I vote YES! YES! A thousand times, YES! (Provided we do a good job explaining it in a comprehensive META post or edit one of the existing ones to cover it sufficiently.)
    – David Stratton Mod
    Commented Jul 16, 2014 at 23:36
  • 1
    I think the "We can't handle the truth" meta could be improved (though I'm not sure how... I just feel the tone is slightly off) but that can always be improved later. We're ready!
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 4:38
3

I think a mix of the three proposed close reasons might be better. I particularly like these sentences from David's answer:

We focus on what various groups teach, not whether what they teach is right.

Questions are expected to focus on what Christians teach, not whether they are true.

I don't want to unilaterally edit Flimzy's answer, so perhaps we can discuss here whether it would be good to incorporate one of those sentences into his.

I have now written my own close reason!

1
  • Please feel free to add your suggestion as your own answer to the appropriate question.
    – Flimzy
    Commented Jul 19, 2014 at 0:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .