I have a question about my History Stack Exchange post: What notable examples in recent history where citizens burning things down during protest likely was the cause of achieving the goals of the protest?
Why is this post being downvoted? I understand that it may imply a "list" type answer which may be difficult to determine an authoritative "best" answer.
However I feel that authoritative answers are possible: for example maybe someone or some group has put together an authoritative textbook on the topic or a widely recognised review article. Should I rephrase the question to ask "what are authoritative sources on this topic?" But then will someone argue that this simply leads to listing as well?
Further, posts such as
All give rise to possible "list" answers, but are upvoted extensively and I think we all agree add important content to the site, while not deviating too far from what's expected.
There is also precedent on other sites for questions that don't necessarily have authoritative answers upon asking, but are extremely valuable and still result in answers that are clearly "the best". See for example on physics stackexchange:
My feeling is that it's important to exclude "trivial" list answers to avoid cluttering up the site. However, I do think some list answers can be extremely valuable and add a lot of content to what this site aims to do (which I do understand opens up ambiguity on who decides what is and isn't trivial - but usually it's pretty clear).
But most importantly, I think there is a lot of grey area on what questions can or can't facilitate authoritative responses, especially when real understanding of history is best communicated through debate and many (at times contradictory) sources.
Edit The question has now been put on hold as " off-topic." Welcoming some comment on that, because I also don't understand this stance.