In this comment, Jaydels wrote,

This is what I've taken to calling an "allergic" reaction - where we ban something harmless or useful (like all current events) because they are similar or correlated with an actual threat (questions about which there is no verifiable truth. Some of the most interesting questions are current, and information is most useful at the time misinformation is most visible. What we want to address is questions that appear to lack verifiable facts. But that's hard, because we often don't know what's not out there till we ask. TL;DR -Banning all current events would do more harm than good, IMO.

IMO the real motives are revealed in the OP:

• We keep on getting asked questions on (the same topic)
• They seem to be focused on the shock value of the claims
• All the discussions are not good for the community

The fact that the claims are based on unverifiable evidence is another factor but perhaps not the main or only factor. You could ignore (not try to make a point of) the "it's hard to find other evidence for this" aspect of the problem, and instead concentrate on three bullet-points above, for example:

• This situation happens rarely (don't need a new, general rule for it)
• When it happens it can be dealt with by moderators using their existing discretion / freedom and power of execution action / benevolent-dictatorial powers / intra-moderator consensus, e.g. as outlined in this answer.

IOW a moderator could close it with a comment like, "We've already had enough questions like this; more like this one wouldn't be good for the community", perhaps adding some words like "community values".

In this comment, Jaydels wrote,

This is what I've taken to calling an "allergic" reaction - where we ban something harmless or useful (like all current events) because they are similar or correlated with an actual threat (questions about which there is no verifiable truth. Some of the most interesting questions are current, and information is most useful at the time misinformation is most visible. What we want to address is questions that appear to lack verifiable facts. But that's hard, because we often don't know what's not out there till we ask. TL;DR -Banning all current events would do more harm than good, IMO.

IMO the real motives are revealed in the OP:

• We keep on getting asked questions on (the same topic)
• They seem to be focused on the shock value of the claims
• All the discussions are not good for the community

The fact that the claims are based on unverifiable evidence is another factor but perhaps not the main or only factor. You could ignore (not try to make a point of) the "it's hard to find other evidence for this" aspect of the problem, and instead concentrate on three bullet-points above, for example:

• This situation happens rarely (don't need a new, general rule for it)
• When it happens it can be dealt with by moderators using their existing discretion / freedom and power of execution action / benevolent-dictatorial powers / intra-moderator consensus, e.g. as outlined in this answer.

IOW a moderator could close it with a comment like, "We've already had enough questions like this; more like this one wouldn't be good for the community", perhaps adding some words like "community values".