Recently a question of the form "Why is country X against project Y of country Z" was closed (and now deleted by its maker) as off topic as requiring non-public sources.

That we shouldn't guess is certainly true, but perhaps referencing the informed guesses of others wouldn't be wholly bad.

Now I'd not like this become a propaganda platform, and voting based on what viewpoint a voter promotes is an issue here, but I would think linking to professionals' interpretations of events or position changes would help make sense of the workings of politics.

Emerging issues may have less meaningful official statements and less studied unofficial analysis, but I would presume most issues that end up here have someone seriously looking at them, and quite possible publicly releasing their opinion hopefully with notes on how they came to those conclusions.

When a major player makes what is presumably a considered move some external evaluation of motives and potentials seems a reasonable way to proceed.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with this closure, but more I'm not clear how anything can be explained without using external views to guess motivations for actors who may not be trusted to self report.

2 Answers 2


If we leave such questions open, then this happens.

The question gets answers which are just personal guesses which aren't backed up by any official sources. People upvote or downvote depending on how plausible the answer seems to them, but nobody can tell if what the answer claims is actually true. If we want to become an authoritative source of political information, then we can not allow that.

A question can also not just ask for "expert opinions". The number of people providing political commentary for various media outlets is uncountable. If you look long enough, you will always find some editorial which says exactly what you want, no matter if it actually makes sense or not. The author of the question must set the bar for what level of expertise is appropriate for the answer.

  • 1
    Those questions are trivial to fix so they are far more objective or at least good subjective. Less work than flagging and closing, usually.
    – user4012
    Oct 9, 2017 at 19:47

I think it's possible for such a question to be acceptable. Often times such questions can have solid answers that are dependent on what the countries stand to gain or lose, previous history of the country, and other aspects of political science.

However, If the question seems like it would require too much wild speculation, then it will likely be closed.

You must log in to answer this question.