I suggested this be toned down:

In contrast, the men who flocked to the American banner, from the first day of the occupation, were naught more than self-interested traitors to their own people and faith.

But the flag was declined. Yeah, the US-backed gov't in Afghanistan collapsed. But can I write like that about South Korea? Whenever they come up refer to it as the "US puppet government"? Or is it restricted to countries/sides that lost some war?

Mind you, that language is extremely common in 'hard left' circles, not just the DPRK itself; e.g. 1, 2. So if the Taliban point-of-view is OK unattributed in posts, why is the hard-left one not?

  • How did you flag it? It could have been declined because of how you did your flag not making things clear.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 18 at 15:54
  • @JoeW: custom flag: '"self-interested traitors to their own people and faith" sound[s] a bit too propagandistic?' Commented Mar 18 at 15:55
  • @JoeW I think he clarified what he thought in a different meta post, so the mods probably understood what he meant. Commented Mar 18 at 15:55
  • @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica That doesn't help anyone who is looking at this question and trying to get proper context. If a question is asking about a flag being declined it should include the flag type and custom text if that is part of the flag.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 18 at 15:59
  • 1
    Asking a question and accepting an answer 13 minutes later that it appears you are the only one who upvoted at that time makes it seem like you are looking for an answer and not trying to get any sort of community opinion.
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 18 at 16:00
  • @JoeW meh Commented Mar 18 at 16:02
  • What exactly does answer sorting on meta have to do with asking a question and accepting the first answer that is posted 13 minutes later?
    – Joe W
    Commented Mar 18 at 16:03
  • 2
    If you just thought it should be toned down, why did you flag it instead of editing it yourself? I'd understand not wanting to change the substance of a question or answer, but removing inflammatory language or clarifying where it's coming from seems like a good use of the edit privilege.
    – Giter
    Commented Mar 18 at 17:07
  • If you look at the answer's edit history, you'll see that it was trimmed back, way back, from its initial, a whole lot more inflammatory, content. What's left really wasn't worth fighting about. The guy had his opinions and biases, for sure. Still it was a more solid answer than the politically correct and pious wishful thinking on display in the other answers. Commented Mar 19 at 6:34
  • Can you link to the question / answer?
    – Ben Cohen
    Commented Mar 19 at 23:42

3 Answers 3


I'd say these kinds of edits don't require mod intervention. You would normally make the edit yourself, suggest the edit or discuss it with the author in comments.

In this case, the flag was declined with a message that it captures the Afghan POV pretty well.

Other parts of the answer contain notes saying it's from the Afghan point of view. For example, if we take the whole paragraph it reads:

In contrast, the men who flocked to the American banner, from the first day of the occupation, were naught more than self-interested traitors to their own people and faith. The [mo: from the Afghan point of view] completely insane, outlandish, foreign ideas brought by the Americans were, and remain, so utterly unworkable in the Afghan context, that it could not be otherwise.

The language is a bit dramatic but it doesn't need changing per se. It may be changed through editing but you'd have to be careful not to change the answer too much.

Remember that it's an answer to a question asking for the Afghan POV. Ideally, the answer would be written more cautiously so it's clear who's opinion is on display.

Taking a slightly closer look at the types of sources that have been used I would say the answerer mostly has their own opinion on display supplemented with anecdotal evidence (news stories of events rather than anecdotal evidence representing an Afghan POV) and their own interpretation.

  • I'm glad posts about 'hangry Muslims' get taken down, but posts that say that democracy in an Islamic country is an insane idea don't. Commented Mar 19 at 18:15
  • @Dolphin613Motorboat clearly it's an insane concept to some Afghans, notably the Taliban who regained power.
    – JJJ Mod
    Commented Mar 19 at 18:42
  • "Promotes the specific views of a party, government, or ideology by using false claims regarding others". Are you saying there's no democracy anywhere in an Islamic country? Or that Afghans, not Talibans largely believe that? The post says "from the Afghan point of view". Commented Mar 19 at 19:17
  • @Dolphin613Motorboat it's certainly an Afghan point of view. The question is literally asking about public opinion in Afghanistan so the view is on topic. What remains is wording it so as not to promote [too much] and that the claims are worded carefully as a point of view rather than a fact (when the claims are opinions rather than facts). That's something editors are welcome to do at their discretion.
    – JJJ Mod
    Commented Mar 19 at 19:38
  • I'm curious if you also agree with the statement that "In the late 1930s, the Germans believed democracy to be an insanity". Commented Mar 19 at 19:47
  • @Dolphin613Motorboat I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. If you want to improve something in the post you can go ahead and do it.
    – JJJ Mod
    Commented Mar 19 at 21:32

No, just because a flag got declined doesn't mean that you can do the same activity that you flagged something for.

It doesn't matter how much you dislike flags being declined and bad content not getting dealt with it doesn't mean that you can turn around and post bad content of your own.



You can write stuff that is incorrect (not saying whether your example is or not), and if it is a meaningful part of your argument it can’t be edited out. Do be careful not to take it too far to the point where it’s rude or abusive.

I do think this question would be more productive as a , instead of a rhetorical question.

  • can't see how it's a feature; that just requires some mod action. This requires just community consensus to trash-talk/propagandize. Commented Mar 18 at 15:56
  • @Dolphin613Motorboat fair enough, but it seemed to me that you’re asking for a policy to be changed, and iirc that’s feature request. idk tho Commented Mar 19 at 0:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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