Some topics are known to cause flamewars on the Internet.
A history site needs to handle a number of classes of question with care:
- Politics (in the sense of answers having implications in current political struggles)
- Conspiracy theories
- Perceptions of minorities
- Religion (especially when touching on the existence of God and miracles)
- Popular philosophy
The extremely polarizing topics have a strong tendency to attract the wrong sort of audience: people who care more about the subject than they do about the study of history.
In the view of many participants on this site all questions about Jesus are, by definition, opinion-based. The top-voted answer to Can the new testament be a valid historical record on the real life of Jesus? boils down to: scholars are divided. There are enough questions about the validity of religious texts that many people dismiss them as historical sources. Therefore if you ask about events in the New Testament that are not found in other sources, the only possible answers are opinion-based.
Now, I happen to disagree with that approach. For one thing, I find strong evidence that the early Christian writings were based on eyewitness accounts. For another, it's a double standard. (We accept all sorts of self-serving and politically-motivated documents as having historical value, so why not religiously-biased texts?) Every bit of historical evidence should have it's day in court and be judged on it's own merits. Lumping all religious sources into a single blob is, in my opinion, poor (and perhaps, lazy) history.
But my opinion is less important than our opinion. As a group, the consensus is that asking about Jesus is more trouble than it's worth. However, the rephrased question about the economic status of a generic Galilean carpenter, er builder, under Roman rule can be answered (in theory) without reliance on religious sources. It's not the choice I would have made, but it seems to be where this site has landed.
Different sites have different rules.
I can imagine variations on this question being asked on at least four sites:
- Biblical Hermeneutics, and
But each site has its own cultural standards, so the question would need to be asked differently on different sites. For instance, I asked a regular on Biblical Hermeneutics who told me that the original version would fit there if it included the relevant New Testament references (Matthew 13:55 & Mark 6:3). It would be harder (but possible, I suspect) to ask on Skeptics and, perhaps, easier to ask on Christianity. The key is to know your audience.
Also, it would help if you'd been more careful with terminology, as Mark C. Wallace mentioned.