Hot answers tagged

35

Yes, answers should be backed up. However, I think that absolutely requiring references for all answers, as Skeptics does, is not suitable for our site. On the one hand, always requiring references is too much. There is a key difference between us and Skeptics. On Skeptics, every question probably has one and only one answer that can be backed up up with ...


23

People don't downvote you because they disagree that your opinion should be posted on this website, they disagree that any opinion should be posted on this website. Many people on this website will downvote any question or answer which is one-sided and opinionated even when they completely agree with the opinion. The reason is that such contributions do ...


20

Good Faith involves the following Be Serious - As Sam I Am noted, there was a recent unserious answer that was upvoted and defended. People liked the snarkyness and the political jabs. A serious question can contain jabs, but it needs to have a real point. Good Faith means that you're not solely playing (or pandering) to an audience. Defensible viewpoints - ...


15

How to be partisan on Politics.stackexchange Here's a typical partisan answer: Barack Obama is corrupt and gives money to his union cronies. It happened [ here ] (partisanSite). This is bad bad bad. Barack Obama and unions are bad. Comments: ObamaFan1138:No way Barack Obama is the best! Unions are good you're opinion is wrong OP: No your wrong ...


11

I mostly agree, this will also encourage the community to close questions that can't be answered with solid references. If a question is asking for pure speculation or opinion, it's probably not a constructive fit for the site. In fact, this may resolve some our current discussions regarding what should and should not be asked. With that being said, I don't ...


10

Good Faith according to Dictionary.com: accordance with standards of honesty, trust, sincerity, etc. (usually preceded by in) Questions: The purpose of asking a question is to get an answer. In order for a question to be in "Good Faith", it's purpose needs to be to be to obtain an answer. Rhetorical questions are not in good faith. Push Polling ...


6

This SE is for answering objective questions about Politics. It is not a place to advance opinions or debate, but rather for exchanging objective information about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena. If you can't back it up, it's subjective. For purposes of this site, we define politics as: The end result of ...


6

Yes please. This is the only way to avoid overly opinionated answers. I like the approach on Skeptics where answers without references are just not allowed.


5

I think the workplace method works well there and would help improve answers here. Saying what the answer is is not enough. You must explain why your answer is right. It eliminates one line and me too answers and helps to improve answers as a whole. That said good questions beget good answers. Bad questions beget bad answers. If you ask a ...


4

The problem with the question proposed, is that it was asking a different question than the way it was worded. In the United States, is there any significant "opposition" against Amnesty International? (for example) are there any significant political groups or pressure groups that denounce reports from Amnesty as "liberal bias"? Is the human rights group ...


4

Good answers, in general, are those that have lots of non-partisan facts and analyses, and are clear in their use of partisanship when stitching them into a coherent narrative. By and large, to the extent that fact-laden and coherent answers that actually deal with the asked question should (and I think are) be voted up. Questions need to elicit facts. If ...


3

Disclaimer: I'm not a moderator. I can't understand a mind of someone who's willing to do such an onerous job. So I can't speak for one :) However, I noticed one answer (Dodd-Frank one I was reading today) deleted with such a wording; ironically right before I saw the link to this Meta question. In that case; I happen to fully agree that it was indeed an ...


3

At this point in time, I would say no. Specifically, I think things on topic here should be primarily of a ruling body based off of where a person lives, and the interaction between such entities. This would include district, city, county, state, country (And the synonyms for such outside of the US), as well as managing between them. I might even say that ...


3

I think in general practice this is the right approach, and would have helped out this question quite a bit, however, I am afraid that a blanket rule risks deflating the effectiveness of some questions that require an accurate description of one side's argument in order to be of value to the questioner. Questions of the sort "It is my understanding that ...


2

I haven't been to the site for some time and coming back I notice a lot of questions which are not factually answerable, highly subjective and usually not contribute to the better understanding and not "make internet a better place", but just rehash existing arguments or express an opinion in the form of a question. So I think we need to declare questions ...


2

Questions about politicians and politically relevant personalities should be perfectly on topic. The reason should be obvious, I hope! However, any questions on this site should respect our FAQ and in particular: To avoid asking subjective questions where … every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?” your answer is provided ...


2

I would argue that well known political persons should be completely on target for this site. It is completely within bounds to ask, "Who supports President Obama," for example, because it gets to the nuts and bolts of politics. On topic answers could appeal to: polling data SME's analyses (I would set the bar here as a pundit writes for a periodical with ...


2

Yes: If you want Stackexchange to be a place that means all answers are links to research, or specific interpretations of referenced research. No: If you want Stackexchange to be a source of primary research or opinion. I think Yes: is not enforceable and encourages lazy researchers to hijack the volunteerism of Stackexchange participants. I think No: ...


1

No. A lot of political questions don't have squat to back them up. How did Khrushchev end up in charge after Stalin died? I've read a number of books on that period and none of them has anything more than wild guesses. Lots of interesting possibilities. Or take one of the biggest questions in U.S. politics right now - should we have a balanced budget with ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible