I have asked a question, here. The question isn't open-ended, it is given context that is current, but is a broader question about the political science behind that context. It calls for historical evidence from similar situations and direct evidence from recent polls, etc, where possible. It makes absolutely clear that it is not about rightness or acceptability, but about the political science of the choice made.
It has been put "on hold" for being "primarily opinion-based". And when I challenged one of those who put the hold on the question, they asserted that it was opinion-based because the evidence doesn't exist (direct quote: "the data hasn't been produced that could be analyzed to determine the effects of his strategy")
In short, they put the question on hold as "primarily opinion-based" because the only answer they could give was opinion. They cannot possibly know that such data does not exist, as it would require omniscience on their part to confirm that no group anywhere in any country is doing, or has done, any focus testing or polling on this topic, either in this case or in any similar case in the past, at any time in history.
Is the hold reasonable in this case? And more generally, should a question asking for evidence be closed/put on hold for being "opinion-based" on the basis that the evidence doesn't currently exist?