1

Why is https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/28207/2703 closed by @LarianLeQuella?

It apparently passed @Sklivvz's inspection with only a title edit.

Should I have not answered it, and flagged or voted to close instead, for some reason?

What's the benefit of closing it after it has an accepted answer?

  • 1
    I wish people wouldn't downvote without comment: it's no way to communicate. – ChrisW Jun 27 '15 at 11:02
  • It would be preferable to discuss whether to reopen (which, incidentally, the community can choose to do independently) – Sklivvz Jun 28 '15 at 20:55
  • 1
    @Sklivvz You might prefer that but I prefer not. I assume the action (closure) was for some reason, and I'd like to know what that reason was. If it was a reasonable reason, then hopefully I'll learn from it; and if it wasn't a reasonable reason then hopefully Larian might reverse it. Also I've rolled back your edit: because given that it was Larian who closed the question, and no other mod will explain that action, I suppose that Larian is the only person who could explain it, and therefore this question is correct to name him. – ChrisW Jul 1 '15 at 0:13
  • I'll downvote it then. – Sklivvz Jul 1 '15 at 0:15
  • @Sklivvz Well thank you and I think you should: vote your conscience. And thank you twice, for posting your explanatory comment as well as downvoting. You're perfectly right that reopening would be the proper topic, if the subject of interest were the question. My interest isn't only the question, but it general the rules which govern closure. – ChrisW Jul 1 '15 at 0:23
  • Even then, I don't see why make it personal. There are plenty of users with rights to reopen that didn't. Any of them is equally responsible for the current state of the question. Naming users in meta is generally a bad idea, in my experience. – Sklivvz Jul 1 '15 at 0:33
  • 1
    @Sklivvz It isn't "personal" (i.e. I'm not saying he's a bad "person"), it's that I don't understand something which he did and which apparently only he can explain. Either the two of us are operating from a different set of rules (e.g. I believe that rules say something which he doesn't, or vice versa), or we're applying the same rules to a different set of data (e.g. I know something which he doesn't, or vice versa), or there's a third (as yet unknown to me) possibility. If you're trying to protect him from my wrath oslt that's kind of you, but he's robust akaik and I'm fairly inoffensive. – ChrisW Jul 1 '15 at 0:45
4

Chris, I personally closed it for lack of notability. I didn't see this as something widely believed to be an actual Peanuts comic by Charles Schultz. In all the instances of this picture being referenced, that was not the position held by people who were posting links or observations on this, but rather that these are words that should be put into the comic (much like those sites where you can make a person of note hold a sign that says virtually anything).

If there are a bunch of folks who sincerely hold that this is indeed the original work of Charles Schultz, then I can see opening it back up again.

  • Are you saying that you read the pages which have instances of this picture being referenced? I only did a Google Search for the image, and found that there are more than 400 web pages (blogs etc) which have this picture, that it's translated ... given that they're so widely published, I thought I couldn't argue that nobody believed they're original (even though I didn't believe it, but that's because I read most of the originals). – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 13:41
  • Oddthinking's definition doesn't say how many people must believe it, but says "a notable claim will have many mentions doing a quick Google search". So I did that "quick Google search", and found it referenced more than 400 times: here is one (approximately #330 in the results) that attributes it to Schultz; or here is a post where the person who posted says (in comments) they didn't know it was fake. – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 13:49
  • You searched through 400 results to find two examples? I would say that would indicate a less widely held belief than in lizard people! – Larian LeQuella Jul 2 '15 at 15:58
  • I didn't. I searched, found 400+ examples (which I didn't read) and therefore decided it was probably notable. When you wrote "that was not the position held by people", I read 3 of 400. Do you think I ought to read more of them (to see whether more people believed it)? Or should I have required the OP to prove that some believed it? I thought I'd give the OP the "benefit of the doubt"; should I instead prefer to close questions pending better proof of notability i.e. proof that the 'claim' is not only widely published but is also believed? – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 16:12
  • @ChrisW the claim is that this picture is from Shultz. Did you find 400 examples of the claim? Or of the picture? – Sklivvz Jul 2 '15 at 16:37
  • @Sklivvz In a simple+easy search I found examples of the pictures (400+ sites on which the pictures are published); I didn't read those pages (so don't know what was written on them). Isn't it implied the pictures from Schultz? Implied e.g. because they're copyrighted characters, and have a famous (dare I say unique) art style. And I'd guess the pictures are from Schultz, that what's not from Schultz is the associated dialog text. – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 16:46
  • Implied claims are not allowed (plenty of discussion already on meta). In any case: vote to reopen and move on. – Sklivvz Jul 2 '15 at 16:49
  • @Sklivvz Yes it's evident that you don't believe in "implied claims". IMO if someone posted a portrait of me with the caption, "I like bananas" then that would be an implied claim that I like bananas, that I've said I like bananas, or at least that I've agreed to advertise that I like bananas, IOW that I'm an author of the statement: and (if it were sufficiently wide-spread), because it's a claim therefore on-topic. – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 17:09
  • Larian, you're right, having looked through the first dozen or so I don't see its being claimed. – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 19:28
  • @ChrisW That is what my search also turned up, but as Sklivvz said, if there are enough people that truly believe it to be a genuine Schultz comic, please point me towards it, and I will re-evaluate my position. – Larian LeQuella Jul 3 '15 at 4:38
2

To complete Larian's answer, I left the question open because I didn't check whether the claim was notable. I assumed it was a notable viral image. Given that our stance is to assume notability lacking an explicit Google search, I simply improved the question and moved on.

Had I known that no one seems to take the claim seriously, I'd have closed too.

  • 1
    Do you know, now, that no one believes the claim? Anyway well done for not closing it if didn't do a Google search. – ChrisW Jul 2 '15 at 13:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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