5

Can "false premise" ever be used as a reason to close a question? I know it can inspire comments which ask the questioner to provide sources, but if the evidence shows that the underlying presumption in the question is wrong, can that drive a valid "vote to close"?

Inspired by this question -- not only does the asked point not provide any sources, but sources are provided which indicate that the premise of the question is not correct. The current choices don't clearly have that as a category for closure AFAICT.

I am sure that for some questions, this option might be used prematurely, before the question provides its own source or the responses are shown not to be on point, but at least then the questioner could rework the question and it can be nominated for re-opening.

7
  • 3
    Just some food for thought, not really an answer to this question (yet): Maybe it depends on how clearly false the premise is and/or on how crucial to the question the false premise is.
    – msh210 Mod
    Commented Aug 2, 2016 at 16:55
  • 8
    Usually a false premise is best corrected in an answer. An obviously false premise certainly deserves down votes as the question is then very poorly motivated.
    – Double AA Mod
    Commented Aug 2, 2016 at 17:10
  • 1
    If any standard close reason would apply, I think it would be "unclear what you are asking"
    – Double AA Mod
    Commented Aug 2, 2016 at 17:51
  • @DoubleAA in the linked question, the "what" is discernable, but I just wish I could push a button and have it say "What's your hava amina for asking?"
    – rosends
    Commented Aug 2, 2016 at 18:36
  • About sometimes similar types of questions: meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/q/1975 and meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/q/3540
    – msh210 Mod
    Commented Aug 2, 2016 at 22:27
  • @DoubleAA I think your comments could constitute an answer.
    – Isaac Moses Mod
    Commented Aug 3, 2016 at 14:35
  • There's a "Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted." post notice we could use. I don't think we should, personally, or at least not if it's worded like that, but maybe some will differ.
    – msh210 Mod
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 21:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

I think the FAQs do a fine job of defining things as off-topic. I see no reason to add this new reason. Furthermore, it would be inconvenient to have a question that you can only know is off-topic once you know the answer, or at least part of it.

As @doubleAA noted: Usually a false premise is best corrected in an answer. An obviously false premise certainly deserves down votes as the question is then very poorly motivated.

0

If there are multiple opinions or the premise is hard to define (e.g. because it is about an esoteric subject that is hard to put into words; doesn't translate well; isn't widely understood or extensively written about etc), it would be best to not VTC or even correct in an answer.

The questioner in this case can be assumed to have an understanding of the premise or hold by an opinion that maybe others disagree with but isn't wrong, so correcting the premise seems a waste of time.

At best, in these cases there should be a drive in the comments to press the questioner to explain better or cite their controversial opinion, if not done already (with the possibility of closing for lack of clarity if necessary, but not correcting in an answer imo) but I believe this approach counts for what people have been saying: there is a difference between an obviously false premise and a controversial or obscure one.

We don't want to unnecessarily stifle conversations, patronise people or otherwise waste time by insisting on only "mainstream" opinions (so long as they conform with the site's acceptability for sources), which seems in keeping with the site's general open minded theme.

You must log in to answer this question.

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