3

There's a recent meta thread in politics that discussed new close reason for their SE, and both seem apt for the History SE. Quoting them verbatim:

Speculative

Questions asking for the internal motivations of people, how specific individuals would behave in hypothetical situations or predictions for future events are off-topic, because answers would be based on speculation and their correctness could not be verified with sources available to the public.

Too opinionated

a.k.a. "rant in disguise"

The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center.

Might there be merit in adding some variation of one of both of them here?

| |
  • 3
    It probably is about time we took a good hard look at the wording of our close reasons. I'd suggest rephrasing the custom one we do have while we're at it, but perhaps that's another meta question. – T.E.D.♦ Jul 21 '17 at 22:06
  • 2
    Might I humbly suggest answers to this question look over the meta thread history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/618/…. I've been linking newbies to it for a couple of years. It might be nice to make some attempt to reconcile what's in there with our close reasons. – T.E.D.♦ Jul 21 '17 at 22:10
  • @T.E.D.- That list you gave looks like a lot of work. – J Asia Jul 21 '17 at 22:14
  • @JAsia Yes, Mark Wallace is awesome. A force for improving quality around here. – axsvl77 Jul 24 '17 at 14:09
  • @axsvl77 - It seems this self-policing is burdensome. Is there no comprehensive guide - such as Wikibooks guidelines - that we can simply adopt and stick with? Too much work on admins otherwise. – J Asia Jul 24 '17 at 15:36
  • @JAsia It is more of a community; it is what we make it. A set of rules without enforcement probably won't work on the internet today. – axsvl77 Jul 24 '17 at 21:51
1

Yes, there could be some overlap. Politics is all about leadership -- that's almost always about character and motivation. But, on the whole, I think History is different because it is more big picture. History covers more than just personalities, it is - at heart - factual. And it's about events, occurrences, geographical, ecological, etc ... the lot.

So, it depends on the question really, is it really asking about the motivation of a historic character. In fact, in well-documented events, the motivation of lead character, i.e. Hannibal, Henry IV, Hideyoshi, etc. -- their motivations were usually documented.

In short, I wouldn't put a blanket NO.

| |
  • 1
    From what little I've participated in over there, that stack actually tolerates a lot of slop in questions and answers that we don't. – T.E.D.♦ Jul 21 '17 at 22:03
  • So, you're sating it is more 'strict' in HISTORY? – J Asia Jul 21 '17 at 22:11
  • 2
    We tend to be a very strict stack. I think last I checked your odds of keeping a new question open were about 2 in 3. I once talked to a mod in some other obscure beta that actually has a higher closure rate than us, but there aren't a lot of them. – T.E.D.♦ Jul 21 '17 at 22:26
  • Ah, ok. Didn't realise. – J Asia Jul 21 '17 at 23:56
1

"Too opinionated" is a "common" problem on the site. The usual context is "holocaust revision" but there are others. We have in the past wondered what to do about such questions. It seems like Politics SE has given us a good answer.

As for speculative questions, there is "good speculative," and "bad speculative. A "speculative" question is one like this one. Even though it was poorly worded, I answered it by citing a passage from "Mein Kampf," and a "good speculative" question should ask for such a reference, IMHO. A "bad speculative question (that doesn't ask for references like this one) should be closed. I would not answer it today, but doing this exercise helped me clarify my thinking.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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