Hello, everyone! Welcome to the ninth installment of our continuing series of Rules Roundtables! This project is an effort to demystify what the rules of the Subreddit are, to explain the reasoning behind why each rule came into being, provide examples and explanation why a rule will be applicable in one case and not in another. Finally, this project is here to get your feedback, so that we can hear from the community what rules are working, what ones aren't, and what ones are unclear.

Today, the topic for discussion is our ‘No “Soapboxing” or Loaded Questions” rule! This rule, which goes hand-in-hand with our ‘No political agendas or moralising’ rule, exists to ensure that acceptable questions for /r/AskHistorians are asked in ‘good faith.’ The two rules read:

No "Soapboxing" or Loaded Questions.

This subreddit is called AskHistorians, not LectureHistorians or DebateHistorians. While we appreciate your enthusiasm for the history of issues that play a role in your life, we are here to answer your questions about issues, not provide a sounding board for your theories or a podium for your lectures. All questions must allow a back-and-forth dialogue based on the desire to gain further information, and not be predicated on a false and loaded premise in order to push an agenda.

Additionally when posting, we prefer that any posts that you make are well-sourced and directly address the asker's question. Do not take the opportunity to make claims that are politically or religiously motivated. All comments are expected to be sourced, answer the asker's question, and relevant.

and:

Answers should not include a political agenda, nor moralise about the issue at hand. This is not the place for you to say that communism is a failure and against human nature, nor that capitalism is evil and dehumanises people. Historians report the facts and events as neutrally as possible, without an agenda - moral or political.

These rules are perhaps some of our more esoteric, as they hinges more heavily than many rules on the judgement of the moderation team – is a question loaded in wording or intent, is it soap-boxing, and is it acceptable? To lay out the thoughts underpinning our Soapboxing / Loaded Questions and Political Agendas / Moralising rules, let’s first look at how we define Soapboxing or loaded questions, and what examples of these questions might look like. Secondly, we’ll address exactly why it is Soapboxing and moralising are problematic on /r/AskHistorians.

So, how do we define Soapboxing or Loaded Questions?

A ‘Soapboxing’ question, broadly defined, is a question which is designed to promote a specific agenda. /r/AskHistorians expects questions to be asked in good faith – that is, in the genuine interest of learning and seeking knowledge. A Soapboxing question, rather than being asked in good faith, is asked as a pretext to push a particular agenda or viewpoint, generally through editorialised titles or descriptions. Soapboxing questions are often also loaded ones, and often also break our no current events rule.

There is no one-size-fits-all description for a Soapboxing question, and they do rely on judgement calls from the moderating team. They will, however, often appear in the following formats:

• OP posts a reasonably framed question title: “What drove the escalation of US military involvement in Vietnam in 1964?”, but upon opening the body of the submission, OP’s description contains an enormous wall of text promoting a particular view on the above question title. “[Magnum Opus about the merits/evils of the LBJ administration.]”

• OP posts a reasonably framed question, but when receiving an answer, becomes antagonistic or combative with the answerer when not getting a response to fit their preconceived notions.

• OP’s question employs loaded language to push their agenda and steer any discussion: “Why did America's morality decline so sharply after 1964?" This question clearly pushes a particular worldview, and a subjective view of ‘morality’ which warps subsequent discussion. Worded more appropriately (and hopefully in good faith!), a question like this might ask: "Did the cultural upheaval of the 1960s have a noticeable change on public perceptions of morality in the ensuing decades?"

The same definitions and examples that apply to Soapboxing and Loaded Questions apply to comments which breach our Political Agendas / Moralising rule. While there is once again no universal format or form which these comments will take, they seek, either overtly or implicitly, to drive a particular agenda at the expense of good history and academic integrity.

This is not to say that answers can not or should not delve into controversial topics, or deal with political hot-button issues when necessary, but rather that we would expect the answerer to approach the issue earnestly and in goodfaith, and in this case more than any other, draw on proper, academic sources and be clear in their citations. History often is controversial, and we aren't shying away from that, but simply asking that all users show proper respect for the historical method, as opposed to an approach which could be called polemical.

Every question and explanation is driven by a given historical narrative, but it is the disregard for or deliberate manipulation of language, arguments and evidence to drive a particular agenda at the expense of learning, and open-minded and good-faith discussion which sets soapboxing and moralising questions and comments apart.

/r/AskHistorians and you: Why are Soapboxing and Moralising bad for the Sub?

Soapboxing, editorialising, and firebrand argumentation have their place in modern politics, be it in a newspaper Op-ed, an online blog, or a message board - but /r/AskHistorians isn’t that place. This Subreddit operates on the fundamentals of evidence-based argumentation, civility, good-faith, and general respect for the historical method. A core aspect of the functioning of /r/AskHistorians is that questioners seek to learn in good faith, and that those answering seek to teach in kind. Questions and answers that seek to promote certain agendas at the expense of these values run counter to good historical practice and to the culture we seek to promote on here.

When discussions on /r/AskHistorians are driven or disrupted by Soapboxing and moralising, the quality and rigour of the Sub’s content inevitably suffers, and threads often become politicized and filled with vitriolic back-and-forth arguments. This is obviously something we’d all rather avoid, and, much like the 20 Year Rule, the Soapboxing/Moralising rules exist in part to help prevent those situations.

So what about the Mods?

At the end of the day, it’s the moderating team that call the shots as to which questions and comments breach our Soapboxing and Moralising rules, and we are the first to admit that we won't always get it right, but we do our best to be objective and fair. We're a diverse team, and calls which might be controversial are reviewed by multiple mods, who bring together a wide array of view points. We aren't trying to push some specific agenda, and if nothing else, we get complaints from all over the spectrum! So in the event that you do believe the wrong call was made, you can always reach us with a modmail to politely state your case for reversal.

So that's the sum of it! If you have any further questions or want clarification, please don't hesitate to ask.

Edit: Based on discussion from this Roundtable, while the interpretation of the rule remains the same as laid out here, the wording of the rule has been modified to better reflect the intent of it:

This subreddit is a place for learning and open-minded discussion. As such, answers should not be written in the interests of advancing a personal agenda, but should represent a sincere effort to make an argument from the historical record. They should be constructed in keeping with the principles of the historical method - that is to say, your evidence should not be chosen selectively to support an argument that you feel is right; your argument should instead demonstrably flow from your critical engagement with an appropriate range of evidence. This is not to say that answers can not or should not delve into controversial topics, or deal with political hot-button issues when necessary, but rather that we would expect the answerer to approach the issue earnestly and in good faith. History often is controversial, and we aren't shying away from that, but rather asking that users will show proper respect for the historical method in constructing their response and avoid approaches which might be viewed as polemical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsC_qQn7ctk&nohtml5=False starting at 23.07 in this video, he goes into detail explaining why European Scholars deemed Mesopotamia/Sumeria as the origins of writing because they were biblically, politically bound too

that they were afraid to admit that Africa/Ancient Kemet is the origin of writing and civilization and goes into detail about it

how accurate is he?

(I was asked over at https://np.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/4e90xi/in_the_us_why_didnt_the_framers_choose_to_have/ to post this question here, which I think is good advice. I trust this will not be an issue.)

In the novel, 'The Great Gatsby' a character is asked "What part of the middle west?" And his answer is "San Francisco" I looked up what is the mid-west of the US today, here is a picture. If you don't want to click it, know that San Francisco is no where near the shaded area, it's on the other side of the country.

So I'm wondering if, in the past, the mid-west was not the same as it is today. Simple question really, but google hasn't turned anything up, except city plans.