1

A significant portion of the questions relating to Afghanistan have a tenuous link to political discussion.

Most are questions about warfare, counter-insurgency, military tactics or strategy. Very few people on this site have the experience or education required to answer those questions.

At best they will recycle civilian sources or quote selected military commentators.

This stack exchange would not allow similar questions about World War 1, World War 2 or other conflicts that are not in the immediate news cycle.

For instance we would not accept a question asking about historical battles and losses of the allies at the Maginot Line. It would be redirected, however we have a question asking for Afghan Army losses during Op Resolute.

One of the questions has a HIGHLY suspicious answer claiming that NATO increased drug production to Russia and China by 20 fold and I am not surprised to see it has been marked as answered.

It is clear the majority of the questions are just thinly disguised attempts to voice criticism of the foreign policy and the answers even more so, often appallingly unreferenced and opinion based.

5
  • 1
    What is wrong with all of this?
    – Joe W
    Aug 20 at 20:27
  • 1
    It is not politics @JoeW. The SE site is being used for warring propaganda and unsubstantiated opinions. Aug 20 at 20:59
  • 1
    Rather than these vague CAPS LOCK accusations, it would help if you linked to the questions you think are problematic. You can also flag answers for mod attention if you think they are unsupported by sources. The mods can add a tag drawing attention to the matter/policy. Answers can be [eventually] deleted for such reasons.
    – Fizz
    Aug 21 at 0:19
  • As an aside, problematic users accepted highly biased answers does happen here, and it's alas not very easy to fix; prior discussions that I can find on meta politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3777/…
    – Fizz
    Aug 21 at 0:30
  • I was on mobile and linking via mobile is not easy. They are not vague either since you know exactly which questions I am referring to, you are being obtuse for the sake of it. Aug 21 at 8:31
-2

Most are questions about warfare, counter-insurgency, military tactics or strategy. Very few people on this site have the experience or education required to answer those questions.

I would say that these are political questions even if they involve subject-expertise that transcends knowledge about governmental politics.

The primary reason why these questions should be allowed on Politics is because governmental politics will have to make decisions about the questions you describe in the quote above. Most certainly politicians will consult subject matter experts, but a decisions will have to be made at the political level.

In a democracy, that also means citizens should have some knowledge about these subjects. If you cannot make an informed decision, how can you know what questions to ask (your political representatives) and how can you determine what they stand for vis à vis military conflicts?

Similarly, questions about the coronavirus pandemic also involve subject-expertise. For example, virologists and epidemiologists are domain experts but they will have to explain their expertise to politicians who are (in many cases) the ultimate decision makers, for example when it comes to choosing which advice to follow if there are conflicting recommendations.

At best they will recycle civilian sources or quote selected military commentators.

In some cases there might be classified information, that's true. If someone is only asking for classified information (and it's not possible or extremely unlikely that an objective answer can be given) then there is the 'speculation' close reason. This applies for example when you ask what one politician said to someone else in a private conversation. There might be a recording, but without evidence to suggest that it will remain unanswered or it might attract speculative answers (e.g. pundits guessing what might have been said).

In questions about broader conflicts, I don't think that normally applies. countries often publish about military and intelligence matters, there are public hearings and there is expert analysis and journalism. All these sources can be used to answer many questions about military matters without needing classified information.

This stack exchange would not allow similar questions about World War 1, World War 2 or other conflicts that are not in the immediate news cycle.

For instance we would not accept a question asking about historical battles and losses of the allies at the Maginot Line. It would be redirected, however we have a question asking for Afghan Army losses during Op Resolute.

Such questions wouldn't be on-topic here because there is no relation to contemporary politics. They would, however, be eligible for History.SE assuming they meet their scope. That also shows that these questions can be a good fit for the Stack Exchange Q&A format.

For example, History.SE has 859 questions tagged 'military', 457 questions tagged 'war' and they have many more tags for specific wars. They also have 22 questions tagged 'Afghanistan'.


One of the questions has a HIGHLY suspicious answer claiming that NATO increased drug production to Russia and China by 20 fold and I am not surprised to see it has been marked as answered.

I assume you are referring to this answer. It has attracted a few flags but generally we, as moderators, don't delete highly upvoted answers if they don't violate the Code of Conduct and otherwise attempt to address the question.

It may be a wrong answer and it may be worth deleting nevertheless, but I'm not sure about that. One way of getting it deleted might be to ask a meta question specifically about that, tag it with to see what the community thinks. In that question you should lay out your argument why it should be deleted and other users can vote on the merits of your reasoning. Normally the procedure would be to down vote it so that high-rep users can cast delete votes when the score is low enough, in this case the post may have too high a score to get there so putting it to meta might be warranted.

7
  • Since when is the aim of Politics SE to provide information to voters to "know what questions to ask (your political representatives) and how can you determine what they stand for vis à vis military conflicts?". Is that the aim of Politics SE? Aug 21 at 9:27
  • @Venture2099 this site is for (according to the Help Center) "exchanging objective information about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena." I think asking objective questions that help understand local and national politics interact with crises. Whether the topic is about geopolitics, deploying troops or public health emergencies, or soft power, it's all politics. And indeed, "conflicting egos" are explicitly on-topic as well.
    – JJJ Mod
    Aug 21 at 16:28
  • ...and yet the standard of question has been continually poor and answers even worse. The key word in your description is 'objective' and the majority of all posts about Afghanistan have been far from objective. That is not likely to change when a bunch of civilians attempt to answer military questions with no expertise whatsoever. Aug 21 at 17:55
  • @Venture2099: Yeah, two suspended users having a "dialogue" via a tendentious question and a tendentious answer. Kinda what I suspected for that last issue. Unfortunately HNQ works the way it does and mods don't always remove such questions promptly enough.
    – Fizz
    Aug 21 at 18:24
  • @Fizz do you mean removing from HNQ? To my knowledge, there's no clear policy on when we should do that. Instead, we may as well close the question as that removes it from HNQ too. And of course that's something regular users can do to, especially with the beta rep requirements it's easy to close a question (temporarily).
    – JJJ Mod
    Aug 21 at 18:27
  • @Venture2099: these things alas happen here from time to time. Another example I know of politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3941/…
    – Fizz
    Aug 21 at 18:52
  • That is a brilliant example and another question that definitely does not belong on Politics SE. Aug 21 at 20:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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