Is 'not a real question' a misnomer?

Question

I'm not sure if this applies to all the Stack Exchange sites, but one of the close votes is 'not a real question'.

Surely this is a poor choice of words, when is a question not a question? I would expect it either is or it isn't a question, the only area of confusion would be when rhetorical?

Just so I am clear, I'm not asking for it to be changed on the site, I'm actually asking whether it is a misnomer or not.

Update

Well, despite my question making it explicitly clear it was about the use of language, it has been migrated and as such, I'll change the question.

Should the phrase "not a real question" be changed to "to not a suitable question"?

Answer 1

I never liked NARQ as a choice for closing. Its reasons seem solid, but the phrasing of the title itself is inaccurate and condescending.

Still, it is what we use when we throw up our hands in bafflement at some of the questions we see here. I think in those cases it could easily be replaced by the following two choices:

Answer 2

(I am seeing your question for the first time after the migrate. I'll try to address both the original and the updated question.)

“Not a real question” is not a misnomer, for two reasons: (i) it has a definition in context, and (ii) it is actually common in English to use “not a real X” rhetorically to mean “not having the qualities that we expect a proper or suitable X to have”.

In context, “not a real question” is defined to mean “cannot be reasonably answered in its current form”. Once you define something in context, it becomes a technical term and it doesn’t so much matter what the general meaning is. So your apparent contradiction evaporates. A question is “not a real question” when it “cannot be reasonably answered in its current form”, and that makes sense.

When defining in context there is a practical consideration that the definition should not create a completely confusing situation. Its meaning should not be completely unrelated or contradictory to the general term. But that does not apply to “not a real question”, because of how we use “not a real X” rhetorically.

Consider the words gentle and gentleman. From the root *gen- (“beget” or “be born”), and cognate with genus and kin (and the kinder- in kindergarten), gentle once meant simply “born of a high-ranking family”, and gentleman meant “high-born man”.¹ And it made sense, rhetorically speaking, to say that “John is not a real gentleman” meaning that John, while high-born, lacks the qualities that we expect a proper gentleman to have. Notice we have made such rhetorical judgments so easily and so often that the word gentle has lost its original sense completely and the word gentleman is not far behind.

On to the metaquestion of whether it should be changed to read “not a suitable question”. I think both the original wording and the proposed wording are fine. You could also substitute proper, or answerable. Regardless of the wording, the meaning seems clear, especially considering that it is defined in context. So I am not convinced that any change is necessary.

Answer 3

For me I have always disliked the label and especially its subtitle: "It is difficult to tell what is being asked here." It is difficult to understand X it could mean either that X is inherently incoherent, or that the person considering X is simply not up to the task of understanding X, understandable as X may be. The phrase gets used in polite company when one wants to ask for a clarification without directing blame for the confusion. At this point the one who is challenged will either apologize for not communicating clearly, assuring the challenger that it is not their fault, or the matter gets clarified quickly and the challenger apologizes for being slow to grasp something he/she should have understood on the first pass.

When the question gets closed it is always understood that the OP is the one who is at fault for misunderstanding, so the usual double meaning of the phrase is not there anymore (this might be different if there were more time for the OP or someone else to offer clarifying edits). There is an air of pretension with this nice little phrase getting used tactlessly.

I do endorse the OP's suggestion of reworking the language for this closure category.