3

I understand how this question could fit in the topic of Sports.SE (obviously):

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/11434/any-historical-sports-with-instant-win-moves

What I don't understand is why it had to be migrated to sports? Is there a particular reason why it wasn't wanted here?

Admittedly, I'm a little disappointed that my rep from my last couple of answers here got migrated away, but I know those are just the facts of life sometimes. I do understand the rationale for migrating the question on accents to some degree (though my answer still ended up remaining the accepted and most upvoted one on English.SE), but I don't exactly understand why this one needed to be migrated.

I'm content with just an explanation; I just want to understand the reasoning a little better.


Also, another thing that probably makes me slightly personally biased on this:

The question on accents got migrated to English.SE, which I also happen to participate in; so it helped me. Sports.SE, on the other hand, I really have no interest in, and before today I hadn't created an account there. So personally it feels a bit like wasted rep.

3

If we consider (2014-01-20) the Abstracts of forthcoming articles in Journal of Sport History we can appreciate the nature of Sports History as a sub-discipline. For example, from 40(3) 2013:

Parting Ways, Testing Waters: Norway’s Early Olympic Ventures By John F. L. Ross

Fidelity to fair play informs a Norwegian national passion for OL, the Olympic Games, that embraces popular engagement, organizational skill and athletic prowess. Yet dominance in ice-and-snow sport has siphoned attention from Norway’s initial Olympic engagements that, up to 1924, were summer-only. These reflected an uneasy push-pull dynamic shaped by internal politics, socio-cultural traditions and regional tensions. The nascent Olympic stage gave Norway, which split acrimoniously from Sweden in 1905, needed visibility in an age of ascendant nationalism. However, the elitist early-modern Olympic world also clashed with egalitarian impulses and indigenous traditions that revered idræt, the vigorous but non-competitive pursuit of athletic endeavor. A wider values conflict was telescoped into the Norwegian debate during formative decades, while tensions with Sweden formed a little-known political backdrop to the 1912 Stockholm games. Only from the 1930s could Norway make peace with the Olympic project and forge its Hegelian-like postwar synthesis in which sporting professionalism has eclipsed yet not eradicated traditional idræt elements.

This indicates that sports history is like any topically focused area of historiography. We are unlikely to be able to answer details of historical trivia regarding sport. We are highly likely to be able to answer contextualised issues around sports, gender, society, politics, nation, class, emotionality, "the person," the history of ideas.

The question ported to the sports site seemed to be a matter of trivia, and close to a list request, rather than a historically contextualised question.

  • This is a good explanation, thanks! – called2voyage Jan 20 '14 at 14:42
4

My thinking is that while a few History enthusiasts will also be knowledgeable enough to tackle a History of Sports question, many Sports enthusiasts will be knowledgeable enough to tackle a History of Sports question. The rationale for migrating the question is then to locate it on the site where the most knowledgeable answers are likely to be available, and where the most knowledgeable voters will be available to assess those answers submitted.

Update:
Additionally, when a Moderator Flag is raised to migrate a question without voting to close, that is simply a suggestion for the moderators of the two sites to decide where they believe a question can be addressed by the most knowledgeable audience.

You must log in to answer this question.

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