Should Bye's question have been closed as a "Truth" question?

Question

Looking at just the title of "Is the Rapture of 1st. Thessalonians and the 1st. ressurection of Revelation the same event?", I'd initially regard it as a Truth question, but if you read it all the way through, the actual question in the body is found in the very last sentence:

Does any Denomination have any elucidation on this?

That's not "asking for the validity of a belief". It does not match the close reason:

Questions asking for the truth or validity of a particular doctrine or belief (aka Truth Questions), and questions asking Is X a Sin? are not a good fit for our site, due to their subjective nature, and the vast number of possible Christian opinions on such topics. See: We can't handle the truth

It's not even closable as "too broad". It's a yes or no question. The answer is "Yes". That "Yes" could optionally be followed up with, "there are several. Here is an overview of some of them:"

As phrased, it is 100% within site guidelines, and it hasn't even been edited to fit guidelines. It was 100% fine originally.

What gives?

Answer 1

1. Is it off-topic?

The question is too broad. "Yes, and here's an SDA answer," "yes, and here's a Catholic answer," "yes, and here's my personal opinion," "yes, and here's an overview" are all equally valid answers to the question, but would be voted on unequally, based on the degree to which readers agree.

2. Is it in any sense a Truth question?

I don't remember what I was thinking when I voted to close the question, and I think "too broad" fits better, but I think a case can be made for "Truth question." The question is a popularity contest, as mentioned above. But the ultimate decider of who has the best answer is the asker. He can choose to accept the answer that agrees most closely with his view. I'm no mind-reader, but I suspect in this case a "yes" answer appended with an opinion that's inconsistent with Southern Baptist and/or dispensationalist thinking would not be marked correct. The asker is likely waiting for someone to answer with the "Truth" -- he won't be satisfied with a simple "yes" or with a "yes" appended with the wrong interpretation of the verses. But if I could do it over again I'd vote "too broad" instead.

3. Could it have been edited to be on-topic?

Sure. It could have been edited to ask for an overview, or to ask for a specific denominational view. I can only speak for myself, and not for anyone else who voted, but I choose whether or not to edit off-topic questions based on 1) how much time I have, 2) how sure I am of the intent behind the question, 3) whether it would be a better learning experience for the asker for him to make the edits himself. In this case, I probably just didn't feel I had time. But either way, I don't know if he wants an overview, a specific denominational view, or a discussion. If it's the third option, then it should remain closed. Otherwise, he himself knows what he wants and can make the edit himself.

4. One more thing...

It's a yes or no question. The answer is "Yes". That "Yes" could optionally be followed up with, "there are several. Here is an overview of some of them:"

Do we really want questions that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no"? How is that useful for the person asking, or for any readers?

Answer 2

As I read the question, it was asking (though not explicitly) for a survey of major views. Not being familiar with major views on the subject (since the Catholic Church doesn't seem to have a particular view about the passage) I can't say whether there are a large number of views on the topic, and thus whether the question would have needed to be closed on that interpretation as too broad. But it appears reasonable to me to believe that what was being asked for was a quick overview of major views, if there were any in particular, or a statement that there were no major specific agreements on interpretation of this passage. I can't support from the phrasing the idea that "Yes, here is X's/Y's/Z's interpretation" would be an appropriate answer. I think that when there is a reasonable doubt, questions ought to be interpreted, and answers given, in a way that allows them to be suited to the site.

Nathaniel has commented that we have previous Meta questions and answers indicating that overview questions should specifically use the word overview (or, presumably, some synonym—survey seems appropriate in my view). Let us specify, then, that overview should have been used in this case. It seems to me that this specific issue should have been brought up in comments on the original post, and an edit made either by the OP or by someone else with a callout to the OP for review. That it wasn't is, I feel, a lack of proper review on our part.

I didn't see any evidence whatsoever that the question was a "Truth question"; I see no reason to believe that the question should have been put on hold on that ground.

Answer 3

Questions of the truth and Opinion category ask for some Personal interpretation. Questions in the overview category do not have Doctrinal implications. The use of the word Elucidation disqualifies any of these type of answers when paired with the word Denomination.

To elicit any personal opinions either of those two words would of necessity have to be omitted.

My question was penned as it was to eliminate just that (personal opinion). We should use commentary to clear up any misunderstandings of the question, and not to dissect the question from our personal standpoint. Careful reading and the use of dictionaries and thesauruses may be of intrinsic value in reading.

Far too often I feel that not only answers but comments are given without proper investigation being used. It is imperative that we completely understand what is being asked before we answer or comment on a question or answer. A lesson I learned the hard way on this site.

It is basic to Christianity that we treat others as we would like them to treat us, and misrepresentations of questions and answers is not the way any of us want to be treated.

This is not submitted as a scolding, but as an observation and is offered as a possible guide to future activity.