Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to creationism (soul), as clear consensus reached, including agreement by nominator.
[edit] Creatianism
| Articles for deletion/Creatianism |
Not notable, obsolete, highly obscure misspelling of "creationism". Only 195 hits on Google for "creatianism" [sic], the overwhelming majority of which are typographical errors where someone plainly intended to say "creationism". This is a non-notable term, seemingly based upon an extremely obscure and obsolete usage basically cribbed from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Creatianism [sic] is not an accepted term in contemporary theology or religion, nor has the Encyclopedia Britannica continued to use it since that 1911 entry, because the then-highly-obscure and debatable usage, which failed to gain currency even a century ago, was completely overtaken by increasing usage of the word "creationism" almost a century ago. Kenosis 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Per nomination, especially the fact that it is mostly spelling errors. The small amount of information that may be useful can be used within Creationism. Orangemarlin 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge & Redirect - Into Creationism. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, and redirect pro forma. YechielMan 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Creatianism is a completely different theory from creationism. The idea that the soul is created by God at conception (rather than existing beforehand or being a product of conception itself) is one of the main differences among the various Christian sects. But if this is deleted, do not redirect. This would be confusing to anyone searching for creatianism, since it's perfectly possible to believe in creatianism (which only deals with the soul) while being firmly against creationism (which deals with material matters). This would be like redirecting Norman to Mormon because they sound similar. --Charlene 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Nonetheless, creationism has been the usual term for "the idea that the soul is created by God at conception." (It heads the relevant entry in my, admittedly not entirely up-to-date, copy of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for example.)Perhaps we need to move this article to Creationism (human soul) or similar, with a disambig note at the top of the main Creationism article. Deor 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/ Deor is correct about this. "creatianism" is simply an alternate spelling or misspelling that is obsolete at best, or worse, highly misleading when set in early 20th Century speculative theology contrasted with traducianism as rendered by the 1911 Britannica. The correct term is "creationism", as seen in, for example New Advent, sense #3 of "creationism". And all this belongs, today, in the article on creationism, or in an appropriate topic fork from that article as suggested by Deor. ... Kenosis 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as nominator.Redirect to Creationism (soul), per the research and suggestions provided by Deor and Flex farther below. ... Kenosis 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Strong Keep. Per --Charlene FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)- Redirecting and merging into creationism (soul), would seem to be a reasonable option. Slightly late in changing due to circumstances outside Wikipedia. Sorry.)) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Move as explained by Kenosis and Deor. DGG 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete POV fork and OR. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Creatianism is the proper term for this concept (and contained in various theological handbooks) about the origin of the soul. It is distinct from Creationism and was never covered under the article of that name - hence all shouts about fork is nonsense, just as about OR - this directly taken from an Encycopledia for a start. The article needs a lot of work. Google hits are not a proper criterion as the internet is full of ignoramuses. Redirecting it is also POV pushing, seeking to include everything under the not well respected term creationism. Str1977 (smile back) 08:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Even as it is obscure, it is an existing term in the field of theology. As such it is obviously encyclopedic. If someone wants to learn what Calvin meant when he preferred creatianism over traducianism, why should we refer her/him to an unrelated article only because it has a similar name? On the other hand, if we deleted it, we would commit the encyclopedic analogue to the sin of omission. --Friendly Neighbour 09:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete So obscure as to not be in the OED. •Jim62sch• 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep(See new vote below) - I'm not opposed to Deor'sCreationism (human soul)Creationism (soul) suggestion with a redirect for this alternate spelling, but while it could be mentioned in Creationism a la WP:SUMMARY, it should definitely be a separate article rather than merged totally. The topics share a name but are quite different in their substance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*Merge and Redirect to Traducianism. Should not be redirected to creationism since they are different things, creationism relates to the origins of life while this refers to the origins of the soul or somesuch. Info could easily be included as a minor opposing point in Traducianism. WLU 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: In case of such a merger I would prefer a title a la Catholic Encyclopedia "Creatio/anism and Traducianism, though I prefer a separate article or one comprehensive article on the origin of the sould (comprising all three theories). In case of one article, it needs an appropriate overhaul. Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Creatianism is a stub at best, and if it is a minor theological point, just a rebuttal or alternative to Traducianism, it should not dominate the page by sharing the title. Having a title like 'Creatianism and Traducianism' wouldn't work on wikipedia and would require a different title. As is, the creatianism article is too stubby to be equal with Trad. WLU
- Comment - Fair enough (though it's not a minor theological point). Then we should retain separate articles for the three distinct theories. However, it is no proper way to include one theory in the article on another and mention only one in the title. Str1977 (smile back) 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and cover briefly in Creationism as one of the alternative meanings of that term, if a main article is justified it could go under Creationism (human soul) or similar, perhaps Creationism (soul) which at present redirects to Traducianism, breaching naming policy by pointing to its opposite. .. dave souza, talk 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of fixing Creationism (soul). I wouldn't object to that becoming the main article and Creatianism becoming the redirect. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I wouldn't object either. As long as it is clear that Creationism and [[Creationism (soul) are two different concepts. I don't know why it is difficult to understand that two different concepts have two distinct articles. Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of fixing Creationism (soul). I wouldn't object to that becoming the main article and Creatianism becoming the redirect. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Creationism and creatianism do seem to be alternate spellings for the same thing in this context, whereas creatianism is never used of anything but the soul AFAICT. The former is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia[1], the Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia[2], Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology[3], etc., while the latter is found in Adolf von Harnack's History of Dogma[4], Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology[5], August Neander's General History of the Christian Religion and Church[6], a 2005 article on theological differences between two notable Dutch theologians[7], Britannica (as cited above), etc. In light of these published alternate spellings of the same term, I'd suggest, as above, that a redirect is the most appropriate solution. If a merge with traducianism is preferable, then a new page should be created Origin of the soul (or similar) to discuss the different theories without adopting a position implicitly. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Good point, Flex. If anything, the redirect should be in the opposite direction to properly reflect the creationism vs. traducianism debate, which is a very old one. Note New Advent, sense #3 of "creationism", which is identical to the usage purportedly applied to the misspelled "creatianism", and that most of the more in-depth dictionaries include this same sense of the word under their definition of "creationism". AFAIK, none of the dictionaries, none, even include the word "creatianism", and if any do at all, it would be a simple redirect to "creationism". This attempt at defining the premise as "creatianism" is, unfortunately, a non-sequitur bordering on or constituting WP:OR. We can't legitimately use a century-old aberration of spelling to redefine this sense of "creationism" in WP; it's simply not a credible presentation of the topic because the concept (creationism as against traductionism) is already a very standard use of the normal spelling of "creationism". ... Kenosis 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Flex, alternate spellings for the same thing only in the sense that creationism might be used for the soul thing while creatianism can only refer to the sould thing. Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Right, but it does seem that creationism is the more common (and in terms of contemporary usage, almost exclusive) spelling and should be given priority (cf. WP:NCON). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: All right. As long at the distinction between the material orginin and soul origin concepts are clear - which was my overall aim in starting this - and as long as Creatianism is mentioned in the new article as a variant, I am okay. Str1977 (smile back) 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Right, but it does seem that creationism is the more common (and in terms of contemporary usage, almost exclusive) spelling and should be given priority (cf. WP:NCON). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Kenosis, Reversing the article-redirect relationship is fine by me (I didn't reverse it already only because doing so would have confused this AfD). Anyway, one of my points was that "creatianism" is not a misspelling. Rather, it is an alternate spelling for a technical term that appears not infrequently in published, reliable sources (though not in any of the standard dictionaries we have consulted thus far), and therefore, it is not original research. Hence, Creationism (soul) should start out something like "Creationism (sometimes creatianism) is a doctrine in Christian theology concerning the origin of the soul." --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:. Flex, excellent background research IMO. Very impressive that you found those 19th century uses of "creatian" and "creatianism". I notice that "creatian" is used in Strong's Systematic Theology to describe inter alia, the position of the Roman Catholic Church, which in the 20th and 21st century has spelled it "creationism". I don't believe it's our function in WP to be resurrecting archaic usages in such a way that the reader unfamiliar with speculative theology would be freshly inclined to use the spellings interchangeably with respect to this sense of "creationism". I fully support the approach you just proposed-- perhaps an additional brief note to the reader of Creationism (soul), to the effect that "creatianism" is an archaic spelling, might be helpful in keeping it in perspective. Incidentally, it would be interesting to find out whether "creatian-" was ever used in any publications that dealt with the creation-evolution debate. Along this line, I do notice the following: a 1921 usage in the context of discussing soul, a very interesting discussion by Aubrey Lackington Moore dated 1890, and also a 1983 usage of "creatianism" in Is God a Creationist?: the religious case against creation-science by Roland Mushat Frye. ... Kenosis 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The Moore passage does still seem to be using "Creatianism" with respect to the creation of the soul only AFAICT, even as he talks about evolution and creation (he was writing before the creationism controversy got into full swing). Is the Frye reference (do you have a link?) a misspelling, a reference to soul origins, or an alternate spelling for the creationism regarding the material world? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: What was most interesting to me was Moore's statement "if we can explain creation in terms of evolution, I cannot see why we cannot so explain the Incarnation." If one reads into the following page from the link, he's asserting a gradual or continual unfolding of consciousness, manifesting in layers in an evolving world, rather than the more typical view of broad swipes of a divine sword, so to speak. But this is off topic of the status of this article on creatianism. I agree he was writing before the creation-evolution controversy got into "full swing". As to Frye, I don't know, it came up in a Google-book search but the text isn't displayed. ... Kenosis 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It is a bit off topic. I was just wondering if we could rightly say that "creatianism" only referred to the origin of the soul, or if it was an alternate spelling for creationism in general. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is what I was attempting to get a handle on. Absent clear evidence that "creatianism" extended into the creation-evolution debate or into the "theism-deism" debate, I support a redirect to creationism (soul) as you and Deor have proposed. ... Kenosis 17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Off-topic) I was trying to find some source on the etymology of the word last night (until I realized it was rather late), but I would hazard a guess that it was derived from the Latin creare and animus, "to create" and "soul". FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I respectfully disagree that the etymology is necessarily off-topic. Both creatian/creatianism and creation/creationism are derived from the Latin c.1386, from creatus, pp. of creare "to make, produce," The choice of "-ian" or "-ion" is also of Latin origin, as both are descended from accepted suffixes in the Latin (though "-an" and "-ian" also comes separately through the Old French). In general, "-ion" (or "-tion" for words that don't already have a "t") is applied when turning an action or condition into a noun; while in general "-an" or "-ian" is applied when describing a membership in a class, provenance, etc. So the original choice would appear to be, very roughly speaking, between using "-ian" to denote membership in the class of the created, or using "-ion" to denote the consequence of an act of creating. Either way, "creatian" and "creatianism" gave way to "creation" and "creationism", and the latter has evidently been the dominant usage for the past century or so. ... Kenosis 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It is a bit off topic. I was just wondering if we could rightly say that "creatianism" only referred to the origin of the soul, or if it was an alternate spelling for creationism in general. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: What was most interesting to me was Moore's statement "if we can explain creation in terms of evolution, I cannot see why we cannot so explain the Incarnation." If one reads into the following page from the link, he's asserting a gradual or continual unfolding of consciousness, manifesting in layers in an evolving world, rather than the more typical view of broad swipes of a divine sword, so to speak. But this is off topic of the status of this article on creatianism. I agree he was writing before the creation-evolution controversy got into "full swing". As to Frye, I don't know, it came up in a Google-book search but the text isn't displayed. ... Kenosis 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The Moore passage does still seem to be using "Creatianism" with respect to the creation of the soul only AFAICT, even as he talks about evolution and creation (he was writing before the creationism controversy got into full swing). Is the Frye reference (do you have a link?) a misspelling, a reference to soul origins, or an alternate spelling for the creationism regarding the material world? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment:. Flex, excellent background research IMO. Very impressive that you found those 19th century uses of "creatian" and "creatianism". I notice that "creatian" is used in Strong's Systematic Theology to describe inter alia, the position of the Roman Catholic Church, which in the 20th and 21st century has spelled it "creationism". I don't believe it's our function in WP to be resurrecting archaic usages in such a way that the reader unfamiliar with speculative theology would be freshly inclined to use the spellings interchangeably with respect to this sense of "creationism". I fully support the approach you just proposed-- perhaps an additional brief note to the reader of Creationism (soul), to the effect that "creatianism" is an archaic spelling, might be helpful in keeping it in perspective. Incidentally, it would be interesting to find out whether "creatian-" was ever used in any publications that dealt with the creation-evolution debate. Along this line, I do notice the following: a 1921 usage in the context of discussing soul, a very interesting discussion by Aubrey Lackington Moore dated 1890, and also a 1983 usage of "creatianism" in Is God a Creationist?: the religious case against creation-science by Roland Mushat Frye. ... Kenosis 15:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Flex, alternate spellings for the same thing only in the sense that creationism might be used for the soul thing while creatianism can only refer to the sould thing. Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Good point, Flex. If anything, the redirect should be in the opposite direction to properly reflect the creationism vs. traducianism debate, which is a very old one. Note New Advent, sense #3 of "creationism", which is identical to the usage purportedly applied to the misspelled "creatianism", and that most of the more in-depth dictionaries include this same sense of the word under their definition of "creationism". AFAIK, none of the dictionaries, none, even include the word "creatianism", and if any do at all, it would be a simple redirect to "creationism". This attempt at defining the premise as "creatianism" is, unfortunately, a non-sequitur bordering on or constituting WP:OR. We can't legitimately use a century-old aberration of spelling to redefine this sense of "creationism" in WP; it's simply not a credible presentation of the topic because the concept (creationism as against traductionism) is already a very standard use of the normal spelling of "creationism". ... Kenosis 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per Flex...it's a minor, archaic spelling variant that didn't even make it into the OED. Guettarda 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have struck this vote for now as it is self-contradictory. Flex didn't vote for Delete or Merge but for Keep. I will notify the voter of this, so that he can voice his actual view. Str1977 (smile back) 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to that becoming the main article and Creatianism becoming the redirect. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) That's a merge. Guettarda 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's a lot of ifs and thens - state your vote clearly. Do you want a merge? a delete? a keep? Str1977 (smile back) 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I take it that Guettarda wants to delete or merge (which one? merge into what?) so I strike his faulty reference to Flex. Str1977 (smile back) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do not edit other people's comments. Editing other people's signed comments is borderline vandalism. Editing people's comments in an AFD against an article you started is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- So is using foul language when someone points you add your contradictory vote. I didn't mean no harm but you start yelling at me. Thank you very much. You are basically misusing Flex's good name - I take it that you prefer to have this article merged with traducianism as Flex pointed out in his last post (not in his vote) Is that correct? Str1977 (smile back) 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I think that a minor archiac spelling variant should be deleted, but failing that it should be merged per the comment by Flex. Which is what I said in the comment that you chose to strike. It is unacceptable behaviour for your to delete opinions which differ with yours. Guettarda 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I take it now as clarified that you prefer to have it deleted but if nbot it should be merged according to the proposal of Flex. Stop shouting at the messenger - it was your ambiguity, not mine. Str1977 (smile back) 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I think that a minor archiac spelling variant should be deleted, but failing that it should be merged per the comment by Flex. Which is what I said in the comment that you chose to strike. It is unacceptable behaviour for your to delete opinions which differ with yours. Guettarda 13:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- So is using foul language when someone points you add your contradictory vote. I didn't mean no harm but you start yelling at me. Thank you very much. You are basically misusing Flex's good name - I take it that you prefer to have this article merged with traducianism as Flex pointed out in his last post (not in his vote) Is that correct? Str1977 (smile back) 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do not edit other people's comments. Editing other people's signed comments is borderline vandalism. Editing people's comments in an AFD against an article you started is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I take it that Guettarda wants to delete or merge (which one? merge into what?) so I strike his faulty reference to Flex. Str1977 (smile back) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's a lot of ifs and thens - state your vote clearly. Do you want a merge? a delete? a keep? Str1977 (smile back) 13:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to that becoming the main article and Creatianism becoming the redirect. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC) That's a merge. Guettarda 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have struck this vote for now as it is self-contradictory. Flex didn't vote for Delete or Merge but for Keep. I will notify the voter of this, so that he can voice his actual view. Str1977 (smile back) 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reverse the redirect from Creationism (soul) and list as an alternate spelling, or merge to Origin of the soul, which would cover creationism, traducianism, pre-existence, and reincarnation. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks for making clear that you changed your vote somewhat. Str1977 (smile back) 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Traducianism and move the whole lot to Origin of the soul, putting in various redirect and other uses templates at the top. We should really take this over to one of the Theology wikiprojects for their comment, I for one am uncomfortable with someone of my low level of knowledge on the subject making or advocating for changes when I'm not sure how important or obscure it is. I'll drop them a line. WLU 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would then suggest merging Creatianism (whatever the name), Traducianism, Pre-existence (and subsequently Accounts of pre-mortal existence) into Origins of the soul, and to make the first (disambig) line on Creationism link to "Origins"? Str1977 (smile back) 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reverse the redirect from Creationism (soul). I don't see any problem with having separate articles for the various theories--most religious encyclopedias do, don't they? Perhaps "Origin of the soul" could be created as a list page linking to the various articles, but smooshing them together into a single article of that title seems unnecessary. Deor 14:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, some do and some don't. The Catholic Encyclopedia[8][9] and the Christian Cyclopedia[10][11] give separate entries, while The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes the theories under "Psychology" and Schaff-Herzog under "Biblical Conceptions of Soul and Spirit". So I think either approach would be fine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Creationism (soul) as per above. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Creationism (soul), with "Creatianism" given as an alternate spelling in the lead sentence per Flex.Proabivouac 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Should be kept, but not with that title, which is archaic, not well known, and as Jim62sch points out, not in the OED. Either move to Creationism (soul) or to Origin of the soul, perhaps after merging with Traducianism. It should be clearly distinguished from Creationism. ElinorD (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Unless I'm counting wrong here, there appear to be:
- 6 requests to delete ((including one to "delete or merge")
- 10 requests to redirect/merge into another article (six appear to be requests to redirect; four to "merge", including a couple "delete or...")
- 3 requests to keep the existing article.
-
After reading comments and research by Flex and Deor and others, I too am inclined, even as the original nominator, to redirect. There appears to be a developing consensus that creationism (soul) is an appropriate title for for the counterpoint position to traducianism. Is it too early in the process to move this article to creationism (soul) and begin a parallel article until after this AfD is closed? ... Kenosis 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agree - quite the AFD page; Kenosis' suggestion makes sense to me. WLU
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
