2

Which factions of the Japanese government were in favor of racial hygiene practices during WW2 and prior to WW2?

The question was asking if there were more factions and people who supported racial hygiene practices out of curiosity, and it was deemed like a question that was intended to discredit an idea, but what idea am I allegedly trying to discredit and where's the proof? I didn't answer my own question since it is impossible to know from one source whether there are other people who supported the practice or not. It seems like you can close any question without any basis and abuse the system.

Your questions appear to push an agenda of anti-Japanese sentiment. Intolerance of of others based on their race, nationality, political affiliations, or other similar criteria is not allowed and will not be tolerated anywhere on the Stack Exchange network.

I got a private message claiming I am trying to push an agenda of anti-Japanese sentiment, but I am asking certain questions about Japan since there seems to be blatant anti-Japanese misinformation spreading on Wikipedia, and this is done by citing only one or a few historians and not checking other sources who came to a different conclusion. The person moderating the stackexchange is not even trying to moderate properly.

It's ridiculous, because when I post a question without research or little research, some people try to close it by saying there's a lack of research and when I do a lot of them, it's deemed as a push question when I am genuinely interested in getting more information. Like what the hell? The stackexchange feels like it's run by a group of propagandists.

6
  • 3
    What single person closed your question? Your question was closed by the vote of 5 different members of the site.
    – justCal
    Commented May 17, 2022 at 12:24
  • When I check the question, it doesn't say it was closed through a vote.
    – Sayaman
    Commented May 17, 2022 at 12:27
  • 2
    That may be a level of access due to reputation difference. It shows me a big blue box and lists the names of the five users who voted to close your question. The question was closed via normal SE procedures.
    – justCal
    Commented May 17, 2022 at 12:31
  • Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers. The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific idea, theory, cause, group or person. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about history as defined in the help centre. Closed 20 mins ago. (Private feedback for you)
    – Sayaman
    Commented May 17, 2022 at 12:33
  • I actually don't see any name. Do you have a picture?
    – Sayaman
    Commented May 17, 2022 at 12:33
  • The same close reason appears on my screen as well. It then includes the voters and the message:'(Viewable by the post author and users with the close/reopen votes privilege)'. Which indicates a certain reputation level is needed to see more than the basic message.
    – justCal
    Commented May 17, 2022 at 12:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

Please read the moderator message you received and consult the resources you were sent.

Your question history, taken as a whole, follows a specific pattern. You post a quotation or source claiming racism in the Japanese government of the World War Two era, and then ask a question that is more or less "Is this really true?" or "Please explain". These questions fit our definition of "push" questions. These questions also veer dangerously close to (if not over) our existing line on Holocaust questions. This site has a long history of misuse by users looking to push an agenda regarding racist viewpoints and/or actions by the Axis powers, so questions that ask about such things are held to a higher standard.

Please note that you are not suspended, and your most recent question has not been deleted.

The real issue I see is that questions such as these can bring out the worst in people, draw out the wrong kind of attention, and are often not asked in good faith. A question that is essentially asking "Please give me a list of Japanese government departments that were racist" is already jumping to a conclusion that many people are going to react strongly to.

4

Stating facts here: Not only were there 5 users who voted to put that question on hold, but there was a comment pointing out exactly that problem before any hold votes happened so that it could possibly be addressed with edits. That comment currently has 6 upvotes, which indicates no less than 7 users of this site felt that was a problem with the question.

No such edits were made, and then 5 users voted to put the question on hold.

My general rule when I'm the author of a post is that if one person has an issue with it, that could just be their problem. I can perhaps gently steer that user back to enlightenment in the comments. However, if more than two have the same problem with it, and were kind enough to inform me of that fact, that's a problem with the post. People are getting that from what I wrote, and if that's not what I meant them to get, I should have written it better.

In this case it was seven users.

3
  • Please: "that's probably a problem with the post"? Or 'likelihood increases, or… In most cases, 'the majority'/'the community' is somewhat right, a good indicator, etc, but certainly not always. Nobody can ever please really everybody, and sometimes bad dynamics develop. Even only 3 '(negatively) motivated' voters are enough to exclude early on many future readers…
    – LаngLаngС
    Commented May 18, 2022 at 0:21
  • 1
    There are occasions where people are reading me right but don't agree with me, but that's a different issue. One of the things I do for a living is write software docs (along with the software), and if I have to explain offline what a passage in my docs meant to multiple people, that passage needs work. The point of the documentation is for me to not have to tutor every user individually. If they aren't doing that job, then no matter how wonderfully I think they are written, they are by definition broken.
    – T.E.D. Mod
    Commented May 18, 2022 at 4:00
  • A good argument for the given example of docs. But on-site too often it's both 'issues' conflated, inseparable by means of 'the system'; unlucky dynamics, comment/voting-system, etc. If emotions get in, all bets are off. If you have to explain the meaning of a doc to seven users, while 700 just use it 'successfully/'without issues', then I'd say the definition of 'broken' might benefit from a closer look? It might fit here, I agree. But stats less clear: I see -2/+1, 3 CVs from queues, 1 en passant, +a 'watching mod' vote, while I never saw that queue and some 60 views did not act?
    – LаngLаngС
    Commented May 19, 2022 at 6:58
2

I'm glad you asked this - it will take me more time to answer than I have at the moment, but the core of the answer is in the comments. Those of us with higher reputation or deeper insight into the system can see that it was closed through the normal procedure (5 votes). I wish that were clearer, and I wish I had a quick link to a full description of the procedure. SE has a process, but the process is not always transparent.

Good opportunity to improve our site.

(Note: before I found the time, others provided answers that are, in my opinion, superior to what I would have provided.)

3
  • 1
    One first page to point to might be history.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions, but: that's already linked in the 'close banner', & the page linked to seems a bit dated in section "community specific reasons"; should this be updated? On that note: help page talks about "previously known as "off-topic", close banner bluntly states "off topic"? / So, is there a better explanatory page than help-centre, or a a MetaSE one, or should perhaps we write one up?
    – LаngLаngС
    Commented May 19, 2022 at 9:56
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС - That page is not editable, and is presumably supposed to be generic. You're supposed to follow the links it provides to our meta or to this help center page (which is editable) for site-specific information on topicality, I believe. If you think that's unclear, I'd probably agree, but that discussion would be for meta.stackexchange.com, since we can't edit it here.
    – T.E.D. Mod
    Commented May 19, 2022 at 13:00
  • My impression is that OP is not the first user to be confused by the closure process, and I completely understand why the closure process is confusing to new users who don't have the privilege to see the closure reason (which is the way I interpret the question above). What's the reference we can point such users to to (1) explain the process and (2) help them re-engage with the re-open process (after resolving any issues addressed in comments)? This may exist, but I can't locate it, and I'd be happy if someone were to educate me.
    – MCW Mod
    Commented May 19, 2022 at 13:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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