What sort of questions would you want answered that can't be asked now and would be well answered by a historian? When ISIS was rapidly expanding, we got a lot of questions on the history of Yazidis, Assyrians, Islamic destruction of art, the reasons why Islamic terrorism has exploded since the Cold War, the philosophical roots of modern Jihadism, etc. Just this week, the Pope used the phrase "Armenian Genocide", and we quickly had a question that basically asked "Why does Turkey not use the phrase 'Armenian genocide'?"

When I was a mod, I'd often have to ask people to rephrase their questions to make it one that a historian could answer, but there were very few that couldn't be rephrased and resubmitted. From experience, the narrower, rephrased questions seemed to attract better answers (something like, "What are the historical roots of modern Jihadist groups like ISIS" vs. "What does ISIS believe"--the latter a historian probably isn't particularly well equipt to answer).

Other than subjects that entirely and unambiguously break the 20-year rule (like ones only about September 11th, for example, or the more recent invasion of Iraq), I don't know what couldn't have here that you'd want. Too recent questions, ones that are "current event-y" enough that there's been limited professional reflection on them, but widespread public emotions tend to be the ones that draw the most low quality answers, and the most loud-mouths who are sure they are right, and consequently create the biggest headaches for mods.

If this does get implemented, and they don't put the thread on Monday and call it:

"Modern Mondays"

I will have lost a bit of faith in humanity. It writes itself.

Can you give an example of what you mean?

At worst we need a re-phrasing of the rule, at best it needs no change. As others have stated, I come here for history. History in relation to modern events is fine and can be fascinating. However, people who want to ask questions about "modern" topics should put in a little extra thought and effort, can their question be phrased appropriately so that a historian can answer it based off of their study and expertise?

I think this would be a bad idea. The 20 year rule seems to work, though I can't quite figure out why (it's sort of annoying, if you have a question/answer that is right on the edge... if I want to know about something that started in 1994, too bad, the answers will be out of bounds most likely).

I think part of it is, at least, it tamps down the desire for answers to become political. But also that current events are just too fresh for there to be much insight yet. There are things happening today that we won't get a clear picture of for years. Sometimes people even have to die and for their personal papers to be made public and researched. Will we know what's really going on in Crimea until Putin has croaked and the world gets access to a diary or the internal memos sent to cronies (I hear they're using typewriters just to avoid hacking).

I don't see the point. It is not like you're not allowed to mention recent events in a question.

Unless what your mean is a day where current events can be discussed. In that case, it would be a bad idea and is better suited to happen elsewhere.

I dislike the idea. But suggest a compromise: As long as it doesn't turn into a tradition that happens more often than annually, or every other year. ..but really I prefer not at all.

Are you thinking of something from the same angle as BBC Radio Four's The Long View?

I would love to see something along those lines on this sub.