3:59 AM
Q: Proposal To Separate History Beta Into Army Beta and "Historical Matter" Beta

Kentaro TomonoI am recently rather active at History. To be honest, I am getting sick and tired of watching at tons of military questions that are questioned over there. Would you consider to divide History Beta Exchange into Army Beta and "Historical Matters Beta" ( army issue should not be questioned )? Tha...

Related link[history.stackexchange.com/questions/51005/…, link[history.stackexchange.com/questions/50972/… These seemed to be "historical issues" at a glance, but rather should be categorized into "Army" since they are so minute in details.
The highest answer only got 5 upvotes.
I'd like yer still to wait for the answer though with sorry. History Beta is too much congested by the military questions.
@KentaroTomono: If you don't want to see military questions anymore, why not ignore the tags that attract military questions?
@Nicol Bolas Then there will be very few intelligent history related questions.
@KentaroTomono: Why do you believe so? Stack Overflow has plenty of questions on a wide variety of mutually exclusive programming languages. Are you saying that people who know about military history cannot answer questions about non-military history, and vice-versa? Should Seasoned Advice have a site split off for Italian food?
@n8te Do you think how low ammo Nazi Germany had at the end of war is very relevant to History? No. It belongs to another Beta.
@NicolBolas Again, there are too many military related questions. Why can't you think positively by the way?
3:59 AM
@KentaroTomono: "Again, there are too many military related questions." Too many for what? Besides the fact that their existence annoys you personally, what objective reason is there for those questions not to be asked on that site? "Why can't you think positively by the way?" You're the one who thinks that your site is broken, so maybe that's a question you should ask yourself.
@n8te If the things are on the contrary? The reason why History can not graduate from Beta is, there are too many military related questions? ( even assumptions )
@NicolBolas What do you mean by "objective". Please give me a comment with phylosophical sense.
@KentaroTomono: The point he's making is this. Let's say that every day, there are 8 military questions and 2 non-military questions. Well, if you split the sites... there will still only be two questions per day on the non-military site. There is nothing stopping people from asking more non-military questions on the current site. So clearly, the reason they're not asking more is lack of interest. Why would creating a new site create more interest in asking such questions?
@KentaroTomono: "What do you mean by "objective"." In this case, I mean "not based on how you personally feel, but based on some independently-verifiable facts". It's clear that you are not interested in military questions, but that is not a reason to split the site.
@NicolBolas So?, other sites such as Bios are having the same tendency.
@KentaroTomono: "other sites such as Bios are having the same tendency." I've lost track of the conversation. What are "Bios" and what sites have a tendency towards them?
@NicolBolas If you mean by "objective" "independently verifiable facts". Just observe. Observation is a kind of phylosophical methods to monitor the matter in question.
@NicolBolas I meant Biology, sorry.
3:59 AM
@KentaroTomono: Observe what? That such questions exist? That's not in dispute. You want these questions gone; why? What will be gained besides removing those questions? How will that help either of the two sites, besides the fact that you personally no longer look at questions you could easily ignore? Provide some objective benefits to splitting these sites.
This "discussion" is recommended to chat. If you don't like my sincere proposal, just downvote. I am very happy with that.
@Kentaro I'm trying to help you improve it. At present, it consists of nothing more than "Here are some questions that happen on the site I use. I don't like these questions, so can we shunt them off on some other site?"
You need to provide something more than that if you actually want to get it done.
@KentaroTomono So, what reason can you give for this site split?
No, it is not "I don't like". Objectively or Subjectively or not, the site is too much full of military oriented questions. Who cares if bricks were used instead of bombs in WW1? Army. Just and Army.
Sites don't have a capacity; there is no concept of being "too full" of one type of question. So long as other types of questions exist and get answered, there is no problem.
Someone asked a silly, seemingly pointless question about a historical footnote. So what?
Someone could ask an equally silly, seemingly pointless question about a piece of non-military history.
Also, the facts do not seem to be on your side. I looked at the 15 most recently asked questions. Of them, only 6 questions, less than half were military questions.
Is 6 out of 15 really being "too full" of military questions?
@KentaroTomono Are you there?
4:25 AM
So whart? That silly question makes the sire look more stupid.
2 hours later…
6:13 AM
@KentaroTomono That is your opinion, and if enough people agree, you could reshape the site scope and declare those questions as off-topic.
But if the rest of the community would disagree, all you can do is downvote the questions you deem not useful.
1 hour later…
7:37 AM
Did you count how many militaristic questions occupy of the whole questions? For example, now, "How low on ammunition were the German..." "Operation Vengeance...", ""Why Eisenhower was chosen to be..." "What was the largest are that Germany..." "Were bricks instead of bombs..." ""Were there British soldiers in Tokyo..." "How did attitudes of German citizens toward Hitler..." "Are there any reliable documented records..."
"Was the tugboat ever part of WW2..." "Why was Anne Frank..." "Did firing trials of pre-WW1..." "Did Truman believe..." "Public knowledge of hypothetical nuclear..." "Were U.S decision makers aware of..." "Was it possible..." 18 questions were about war. Isn't it crazy?
@KentaroTomono No it is not if people are okay with it.
You keep repeating that the number seems appalling to you
If it also seems appalling to others, you could get a shot at reframing site scope.
I could also make the same argument for why there are so few questions touching the rich Eastern philosophies on philosophy.SE
But if there isn't any interest, if people just aren't doing it, then what would I be hoping to achieve?
Because strictly speaking, there is no "philosophies" in Asia. All of them are metaphysics. You can ask them.
8:01 AM
I don't want to get into that debate
7 hours later…
2:44 PM
@KentaroTomono: "18 questions were about war. Isn't it crazy?" No. War is a part of human history, so a lot of questions about history will naturally involve warfare. Also, you've moved the goalposts of your definition: the attitudes of Germans towards Hitler is not about war; it's about the Third Reich, which isn't just a matter of warfare.