2

This question says that

where after three months of rioting, protesters and counter-protesters have begun shooting each other on the streets with a total of three dead

I left a comment pointing out there was a fourth shooting death (preceding the most recent events) which has since been deleted. (An Austin man drove his car into a group of protestors at the end of July, then shot and killed Garrett Foster when he was approached).

I realize politics.SE is more opinion based than other SE sites, but I thought it will still strive for accuracy. Therefore, I was hopeful the information from my comment would make it into the question, or at least stay as a comment under the question.

Possible resolutions:

  • Nothing. My facts are wrong. Only three people have died.
  • Nothing. It's ok for questions to be factually incorrect.
  • Question is edited to include correct information.
  • Original comment is restored.
  • Something else? (This is a "discussion" post afterall)
| |
  • 1
    Not a full answer, but in this case, I'd just remove the specific number from the question. This isn't a news site, so unless the specific number is important to the question (which it isn't here) then there's no reason to keep it or to create a bunch of noise on the main page by trying to keep it up to date. This isn't a general solution to the main question you asked, though, which is why this is a comment not an answer – divibisan Sep 3 at 3:42
  • I deleted your comment about a 4th person being shot because it stirred up another fight between pundits trying to control the narrative. And it's not even important for understanding what the question is asking. – Philipp Sep 3 at 8:14
6

The problem with questions inspired by current events is that keeping the facts up to date with all the recent developments is 1. a lot of work and 2. often not really required for understanding the question.

The question is asking about the definition of civil war. It doesn't really make a difference if there are 3 or 4 victims of politically motivated violence. 3 or 300 might make a difference in this context. The question is perfectly understandable even if we don't list every single incident and then argue endlessly about how to frame the narrative around them in a way which appeases the political pundits of all sides. We spilled enough virtual blood about the phrasing "antifa and right-wing militia groups" in that question already.

Still, wrong information is worse than vague information. So I edited "total of three dead" to "at least three dead".

| |
  • Regarding, Should factually incorrect questions be updated?. What would be a general answer to this question without being specific to the one mentioned in the question? Can I take it as a "yes"? – Severus Snape Sep 3 at 13:26
  • 1
    @SeverusSnape I would say "Yes, but within reason". For example, you should not update a question in a way which invalidates answers. – Philipp Sep 3 at 13:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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