Stack Exchange
log in

MCW

 Discussion on question by Country Gar…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Jun 27 22:16
Probability of re-open is significantly diminished by discussion in comments. I cannot remember the last time I saw a question with > 5 comments re-opened.
MCW
Jun 27 22:16
Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s),
 

 Discussion on question by Anixx: Is t…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Apr 22 18:20
Is this a question or an argument? You assert that "Hitler was appointed to Kanzler office by the president" (and I don't question that assertion). So why ask the question?
 

 Discussion on question by summerrain:…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Mar 27 16:13
No, I'm happy to be called out if I'm wrong and if the resulting correction leads to a better site.
MCW
Mar 27 16:13
@summerrain Mea culpa Mea maxima culpa. You had answered my question and I failed to read it/understand it. Thank you for the correction
 

 Discussion on answer by Borealis: Wer…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Feb 19 12:25
Discussions of war crimes always involves a certain danger of losing perspective. I moved this discussion to chat in response to a flag. Please ensure that further discussion remains within the bounds of scholarship.
 

 Discussion on question by Haridasa: H…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Nov 15, 2024 00:09
There are no books that are unbiased. Every source has bias.
 

 Discussion on question by Dong Li: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Jul 24, 2024 15:53
Title asserts "Most Americans", body of question asserts "Most conspiracy theorists". Unless you have evidence that most Americans are conspiracy theorists, please revise.
MCW
Jul 24, 2024 15:53
I suspect that once the assertions are supported with evidence, that a book length answer will be required to unify historical and psychological methodology to investigate the hypothesis. I am skeptical that an Authoritative answer is possible, particularly from the science of history.
MCW
Jul 24, 2024 15:53
Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s) This question is about conspiracy theories, which are out of scope for H:SE. In general psychology is a better tool than history to analyze conspiracy theories. In order to revise this question to be suited for historical sources and methods, many of the unsupported assertions will need to be bolstered with evidence.
 

 Discussion on question by Evan Carrol…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Apr 15, 2024 13:46
@EvanCarroll, responding in comments decreases the probability that you'll get an answer. Please edit the question to address the comments and then flag the comments for deletion.
MCW
Apr 15, 2024 13:46
Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s). Bounding the question to the first ever consular mission would help.
 

 Discussion on question by Zebrafish: …

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Nov 3, 2023 12:28
Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s)
 

 Discussion on question by Starckman: …

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 14:08
The question can be re-opened, if the issues are resolved. You've already addressed the issue of preliminary research. The issue of authoritative answer is more difficult for this question; But SE based on science need authoritative answers.
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 14:07
Oh trust me - you have been courteous and respectful; if moderation were all about users like you, we'd have more moderators.
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 14:06
Sorry = I was only using the term "noise" because you said " it is as if I made noise in order to get "what I want"" (although it is also shorter and easier to type than "tempered reaction to repeated mistreatment"). No disparagement intended
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 14:05
History is a science; Japanese/Chinese and philosophy are less informed by the scientific method, (collection of evidence, requirement for objective/authoritiative answers, etc.). That doesn't make them better/worse, just different. I wouldn't ask questions about computer languages in the human language forums. Every stack has a peculiar culture.
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 14:03
Partly in response to the issues (noise) you've raised, we've been trying to devote more effort to re-opening questions, to make the close/re-open cycle meaningful again. I don't have statistics on closure/re-open (and I'm reluctant to pursue that line of discussion without evidence).
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 14:01
"noise" is the way we get what we want. Your noise was expressed without abuse or rancor; I wish we had more noise like that. (there is a meta irony here as we use a question about the legitimacy of governance as a lens to examine the legitimacy of governance of H.SE)
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 13:59
These are all fundamental problems of governance - intrigues are merely factions vying for legitimacy; the entire purpose of government is to establish a monopoly on violence, and both of those combine to determine legitimacy/anarchy of the organization ("state" is probably inappropriate here - it restricts the discussion to the modern period).
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 13:57
@Starckman, please edit this into the question. H:S requires evidence of preliminary research (just as I'm told other stacks require evidence of prior code).
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 13:00
Let us return to your question, and how to get you an answer. The answer to the question you asked is clearly "yes"; how can we revise the question to get you a better answer? Given that all governance shares these attributes, (and that "feudalism" is now rarely used in historical research), are you interested in the specific factors which are distinctive to these two systems? Or the role of a "code of honor" in regulating governance? or the role of the economic underpinnings? Let's revise the question to get you an answer you want.
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 13:00
That's fair. I've been thinking about that question since you posted it, and I don't have a good answer. I don't have enough visibility into other stacks; I participate on a few, but what authority I have is limited to this stack. Each stack has to be judged by their own rules/culture, which includes "owning" if our culture discourages. There is an important issue here, but I don't know how to address it. (and if it is to be addressed, it would be on meta, not in comments.)
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 13:00
@Starckman, I think it is important to distinguish between good questions and in scope questions. This question is good and worthwhile; it hits at the nature of governance, and I've enjoyed thinking about it this morning. But it is not in scope for this forum. It is too basic, it is opinion-related, and there is insufficient preliminary research. If those issues can be resolved, we can re-open it. But it isn't my decision; the question was closed by the community and would be re-opened by the the community. Your frustration is legitimate, but what do you want?
MCW
Oct 20, 2023 13:00
All forms of government (legitimate and otherwise) have those characteristics. Please revise so that the question has an Authoritative answer. How do you measure "similar"? Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s)
 

 Discussion on question by yuajo: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
May 25, 2023 01:14
Yuajo asks an excellent question. the intent of a revision cycle is to drive rewrites that will result in a re-open. Community needs to decide to re-open. I wonder if it is enough to change the question to "How many famine deaths occurred during China's Great Leap Forward", and then to link to references for the Great Leap, to the MROnline article and to a more conventional (non-Marxist) history of the famine associated wih the Great Leap Forward. Community???
MCW
May 25, 2023 01:14
Agree (and BTW, WP could be either Wikipedia or Washington Post). That is one of the reasons I felt it was important to link to author info. OTOH, it is both an incentive to downplay, and an incentive to investigate.
 

 The Time Machine

General discussion for history.stackexchange.com. For urgent i...
MCW
Apr 10, 2023 11:48
Again, not a criticism, just some hints on ways to improve the probability and quality of answers. Good luck.
MCW
Apr 10, 2023 11:47
Very speculative observation - frequently complex titles are driven by a set of interrelated questions. I suspect yours may be of that type. Success seems to come from picking out the simplest, most basic question (bonus if it is tantalizing), and asking that. The other, ancillary questions can either be in the body, or sometimes have to be pulled out into separate questions.
MCW
Apr 10, 2023 11:46
When the title is so complex that it requires a master's degree to decipher, I think it puts people off and they skim on to a question that is easier to understand.
MCW
Apr 10, 2023 11:43
@uhoh - you're welcome to return to your title. I've just noticed that questions are more likely to get an answer (and less likely to get mired in comments & closure loops) if the title asks a question.
 

 Discussion on question by Seeking ans…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Apr 6, 2023 00:40
Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s) This question may also run close to the edge of the sensitive topics policy.
 

 Discussion on question by bittersweet…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Nov 16, 2022 00:24
Have you explored the hypothesis that knights did not wear glasses? That the answer to your question is "they didn't" That loss of visual acuity was a career ending injury? (or, more likely, that loss of visual acuity resulted in mortality?) Battle brutally culls the physically limited, including the vision impaired.
 

 Discussion on question by Hari Kumar:…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Sep 8, 2022 15:00
I've got nothing further to add to this and I'm not interested in further discussion. I must respect SE policy.
MCW
Sep 8, 2022 14:59
I believe it is incumbent on us to apply a higher standard of evidence to separate conclusions that reached through the scientific process from the beliefs of the adherents.
MCW
Sep 8, 2022 14:59
I'm aware that assertions like the one in question have been found offensive in the past, and I think it is possible that they will be found offensive in the future. I think it behooves the science of history to be very careful when discussing issues that are considered sacred, and to approach those issues with due respect.
MCW
Sep 8, 2022 14:57
My original comment was that some people would find the statement offensive, and that if they did, I would have to treat it as a violation of the code of conduct.
MCW
Sep 8, 2022 14:56
I'm going to say this and then step away. SE has made a conscious, deliberate choice to be an inclusive community, and to respect the beliefs of all potential participants. If I ignore that choice, I will be removed as a moderator as others have been. If you wish to discuss that choice, then please direct the discussion to SE management, and exclude me.
MCW
Sep 7, 2022 23:04
Many adherents of both religions find the equivalence to be offensive; If any of them were to complain, I'd be forced to treat it as a violation of CoC. I cannot speak for the devout of either religion, but my summary understanding is that adherents of Islamic monotheism find it quite offensive to be mapped to a faith that they regard as polytheistic, and that it is a direct insult to the teachings of the Prophet. Offense in the other direction is more difficult to explain. Attempting to map between things that people hold sacred is fraught.
MCW
Sep 7, 2022 23:04
That comment is offensive to some and may violate the Code of Conduct. Absent evidence, the assertion is merely an opinion.
MCW
Sep 7, 2022 23:04
Why do you believe there are equivalents?
 

 Discussion on question by NationWideP…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Aug 30, 2022 15:35
The first couple of words of the sentence you quote are relevant "As a letter of the Old English alphabet its traditional name"... daemon was never in Old English. (if you can trace Unix processes to Old English, I think I can ensure you a doctorate from any university you want.) The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry describes ae as a ligature, which is the relevant section
MCW
Aug 30, 2022 15:35
No, it is a ligature. Wikipedia makes that clear. Mentioned in comments and answer.
MCW
Aug 30, 2022 15:35
Is it possible that you meant "cited" vice "sited"? Not sure what community is referenced here and I'm quite confused by the footnote/link. Documenting preliminary research will improve both the probability of an answer and the quality of the answer(s). Why doesn't WIkipedia answer the question? ( Why do you assume there is a reason, rather than simpler orthography?
 

 Discussion on question by Anixx: Were…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
Jul 9, 2022 09:55
My apologies - I transposed two digits in a typing error. My claim is that the only reference I can find to "Petlurovites" is that based in the novel. I added most of the other links in an attempt to understand where the boundary was between fiction and history, but the "Petlurovites" confound me
MCW
Jul 9, 2022 09:55
I think what would help is to clarify whether in history "Petlurovites" captured Kiev in 1918 (I can't find any reference to Petlurovites in google or Wikipedia; are they historical or fictional?) If we're discussing a historical event, then I retract my question and will delete the relevant comment. But I'm hampered in my research, since the only reference is yours, to a novel. Does that make sense? I'm trying to articulate my confusion, not to criticize the question.
MCW
Jul 9, 2022 09:55
I'm not sure that historical sources and methods can inform us about the relationships of characters in a novel. Can you revise to discuss historical, rather than literary events?
 

 Discussion on answer by Mozibur Ullah…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
MCW
May 11, 2022 13:35
H:SE comments are to be used only to improve the question or the answer; they are not to be used to discuss participants. See the Code of Conduct, specifically the phrase, "Focus on the content, not the person."
MCW
May 11, 2022 13:21
Comments are to be used to identify issues in the question or in the answer. Comments should almost never be directed towards another user. LangLangC's behavior or language use is not a proper subject for this site.
MCW
May 11, 2022 13:21
Comments are not for extended discussion; Deleted less-than-fully-kind comments, and comments directed at persons rather than the question or answer.