+1 to Spork's answer for the idea of letting the question chill for a while. In my experience some questions such as [this one](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/17674/2703) needed at least a week, for the story to be investigated and the evidence to be published.

- The value of this site is that it publishes evidence, maybe 'sober second thought' about a subject.
- Conversely perhaps it's not the purpose of this site to express an opinion on subjects for which there is (as yet) insufficient evidence, i.e. on "breaking news" stories.


Flimzy's answer said,

> Of course, that would require a meaningful definition of "current events"

One way to do that would be to say that a (notable) claim must be at least one or two weeks old, before it's allowed as the topic of a question.

Alternatively, say that new/recent claims are allowed, however the subject/topic of the claim must be an alleged fact that is at least a week or two old.


Enforcing this rule could also be seen/excused as an extension of wanting the OP to do some minimal research of their own before posting a question: IMO some of the "ISIS" questions in particular (and "current affairs" / news questions in general) suffer from, "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful".


Enforcing this rule also fits with the site's "no original research" policy: i.e. we're not allowed to research topics, therefore other people must have had time to research and publish evidence on topics.


There's a real-world value to allowing 'fastest gun in the west' answer on StackOverflow (i.e. it's helping people to fix their programming problems in real time).

It's much less clear that it's worthwhile to encourage real-time answers on this site.