Talk:Cessationism versus continuationism/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Page "Cessation-continuation debate" should be deleted

The Page Cessation-continuation debate was illegitimately created because it used the content from my article without my consent. The moved material is distorted because it is was removed from its original context. I have removed the whole content and copied back to the original article Cessationism because the given account of the dispute between Cessationism and Continuationism was written from a Cessationist point of view. If we shall have a new page covering the dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists, we need both Continuationists and Cessationists in the team of contributors. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your page blanking and CSD tag as I think they were not the appropriate response. Please understand that I agree this article may need to be deleted, but GSD-G7 is not the correct reason. Feel free to follow up with me here or on either of our talk pages. Jminthorne (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing Cessationism, I am proposing deletion of this article as a POV-fork. Jminthorne (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not sure which reason to cite, but POV-fork is a very good reason to delete it. Why are there other labels such as "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling," and "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" when these labels do not appear in the original Wiki page Cessationism. I am very uncomfortable that the whole content is distorted because it was removed from the original context. Is not POV-fork a good reason to delete it immediately? I think that it is not legitimate that people create new pages from the parts of original Wiki pages. These new pages can distort the meaning of the content because it is fragmented. If I am the author of the original content, why cannot this be a sufficient reason for the removal of the page where this content appears? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You get credited for the work you do via the page history. However, WP:OWN is to remind us that the encyclopedia pages do not belong to anyone. The other tags were added because this page has other issues besides being a POV fork. Jminthorne (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the neutrality of the article is disputed because the original article was written to convey the Cessationist perspective. The account of the dispute was written from the Cessationist point of view, i.e. Continuationist strong arguments are discussed from the Cessationist framework. The article cannot be improved because it is in a wrong context. Therefore, the whole page should be removed; we have already a page dealing with Cessationism vs. Continuationism, since it is a copy of the second part of Cessationism. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, per WP:BOLD I changed this page to a redirect from the section it was copied from. Any changes since the copy are available in the page history. Jminthorne (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This article is poorly written, but it is not a POV Fork; it's a Content fork. Please read this section to learn the difference. This article should be edited, not deleted. I'm reinstating this page. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it poorly written? Is it because it is too large? What should be the max size of a Wikipedia article? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had read it before thank you for the reminder. I agree that the article needs work, but splitting this section clearly changes the POV of the article. I think the solution is to get other editors involved so they can bring down the word count on the main article without starkly shifting the message. Jminthorne (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How does changing the location of text change its POV? Can you explain a specific instance? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have explained how the article change its POV, see the second point below in my reply to your love of fragmentation of long articles. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I created this page for the same reasons that the Creation_vs._evolution_debate exists Yaki-gaijin (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you love to fragmentize articles? To fragmentize Cessationism page as you have done is quite wrong for the following reasons:

First, I do not think that you are the right person to move content of an article dealing with Cessationism vs. Continuationism dispute because you have not shown that you are familiar with the subject matter. One does not create a page called "Cessation-continuation debate." It shows ignorance. And this would also reflect upon the contributors of the fragmented article, as if they were the ones who named it "Cessation-continuation debate." The dispute is about two views or positions called Cessationism and Continuationism. So, just for this reason, this page with its highly inappropriate title should be deleted. And why use the term 'debate' when 'versus' is more elegant to use? Is it not better to name it as "Cessationism versus Continuationism"?

Second, you do not take into account that the article was written in the context of an exposition of Cessationism. As such, the article gives a presentation of the dispute from the Cessationist framework. Moreover, my account of the main issues in the dispute between Cessationists and Continuationist serve to highlight the Cessationist perspective, to show its rationale motivation and foundation. Although my account uses Cessationist framework, it does not lack a neutral point of view because it discusses strong Continuationist arguments and objections. However, discussion is from a Cessationist framework.

Third, if we should pursue your idea of creating an independent Wikipedia page that would give a balanced and fair presentation of the dispute, you have to expect that the article would be more lengthy than the one we already have. It would require more contributors from both camps in the dispute and who would present the dispute from two frameworks. That's why I consider your idea not so feasible. It is better to have two pages, Cessationism and Continuationism, as we already have, that would convey their respective perspectives about the dispute. People would then become more familar with each perspective, because each perspective would provide its own strongest arguments. That's what I have provided in my contribution for Cessationism page. You may consider philosophical and theological anthologies that present three or more views on some subject matter. Each contributor write from its framework. In so doing, readers can become very familiar with each view because each view was presented from its respective framework.

Now, it is still unclear for me why is the article "unreadable." Do you not exaggerate your point? Why exactly is it so problematic to have a lengthy article in Wikipedia if the article has a quality and conveys necessary information about the subject matter in an academic kind of style? Britannica Encyclopedia have more lengthy articles on various subjects than I have provided, such as the subject of Solar System. I was not aware that Wikipedia has some policy on the length of articles. Has it? I would take your objections seriously if they voiced some concern about quality, but so far you have not provided good clarifications, except for pointing out that I need more variety in my references and not only quote my article. Your point was valid and, therefore, I have cleaned up my references. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreadable article, cleanup, copy editing issues

It is not helpful to say that the article is unreadable without giving any further explanation. But it seems that the main objection to the article is that it is too long. Is it, therefore, unreadable? Was that the reason that it got "cleanup" and "copy editing" tags? I find such objection very odd especially because I was careful in dividing the article in various sections and the structure of the article can be read by its Index (Content). Such tags are misleading if they were put just because the article is too long. A cleanup tag is appropriate if the article were poorly written, with no logical structure, no good references, bad language, grammar, agressive style, etc. Therefore, I ask those who put these tags to explain why these tags were put. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Size of the article

I am now working with the new changes to the article since I have realized that Yaki-gaijin has made his point valid with regard to the length of the article. I would rather shorten the article and not split it. If you have some suggestion which parts are not necessary, I would welcome your comments. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New updated structure of the article

I have made a major change in the structure of the article, prompted by Yaki-gaijin's complain that the article was poorly written and unread. I am taking Yaki-gaijin's complain seriously, and therefore, analyzed the structure (disposition) of the previous article. I realized that Yaki-gaijin's complain has certain validity. Previous section headings had the form "The (first, second, third, ...) Cessationist question: (...)." Such style of titles can give impression that each section was independent. Also, one could ask why was exactly these questions considered. However, with the new disposition of the article, every section is self-explanatory. The first part is unchanged. It is the second part that was changed. The second part starts with an introduction of the main issues of the dispute, then follows a brief account for each perspective, and at the end the discussion over various disagreements.

I hope that the article is clear and systematic. However, I could not avoid to write a long article. I could not remove certain sections; otherwise it would have lost a balanced and neutral account of the dispute. I had to quote both Continuationist and Cessationist various arguments, and give comments on these. Thus, the article is still a long one.

If you agree that the article is now clearer in its structure, is it necessary to split it just because it is too long? If we must split it, do you think that the splitted article would lose its neutrality? I wrote from a Cessationist theoretic framework, not from a Continuationist one. I think that the second part is, in overall, neutral, but the section "The question of the non-revelatory gifts" is focused upon the Cessationist perspective, and thus, was not quite neutral. Its main objective was to explain how would the operation of these gifts violate the principle of Sola Scriptura from the Cessationist theoretic framework. I concede that it has to be improved and make quite clear that the account is meant only to provide a Cessationist explanation, which is certainly question-begging for the Continuationists. However, if it is seen only in the context of giving an account of Cessationism, such concern about neutrality would not be so acute. A reader would understand that the focus is to provide a Cessationist understanding of non-revelatory gifts. For this reason, I am worried that the second part, if it is removed from its original page, and put in an isolated place, would lose its neutrality.

Are there no other qualified experts on charismata who could provide help here if we shall split the article? If we shall have a new wiki page dealing with the dispute Cessationism versus Continuationism, we need more contributors. The page should have the title "Cessationism versus Continuationism." We cannot simply remove the second part and move it to a new page without a discussion. We have to discuss first what should be changed and moved. We should also consider that the original page "Cessationism" will appear fragmented after the removal of the second part. We would only have a brief definition of Cessationism, types of Cessationism and brief historical testimony of Cessationism. The article would lack some words about the main rationale of Cessationism, since the whole rationale of Cessationism is explained in the second part. I fear that wiki page "Cessationism" would, thus, be a very poor presentation of Cessationism if the second part is removed from it without a serious discussion about the problems such change would cause. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1