15

If one claims that a source is untrustworthy, they need to provide some reason for that. Just calling them "fake news" is an ad-hominem argument and therefore of little weight. If someone uses a source you consider untrustworthy (in general or when it comes to a specific area of expertise), then you might want to use this as an opportunity to find a more ...


14

Yes. Politics is a bit on the chatty side, compared to other Stack Exchange sites. You will often stumble upon idle discussion in comments. However, we do follow the same general guidelines. If a comment doesn't do much to clarify or otherwise improve a post, it doesn't really belong here. If people wish to challenge the veracity of a source, they are ...


8

The comment provides valid criticism to the first part of the answer, about Bill Clinton's associate. That part is a bit speculative and does not answer the question. The question asks about presidents, specifically. If that wasn't the case, it would probably get closed as either too broad or primarily opinion-based. The comment may not provide explicit ...


3

To be fair, the question was relatively low quality in itself (-2 score as of now): Is there a general consensus that Britain should continue to be a permanent member of the UN security council ? Other countries such as Japan or India have larger economies and/or militaries. The now-deleted answer harped on the distinction between the UK and Britain. ...


3

Flag as "very low quality" or "not an answer". This is a flag which not just shows up for moderators but also puts the answer in the review queue where other users can vote whether or not to delete it.


3

I came across it in the low-quality queue. I voted to delete it because it adds no supporting evidence to show why it shapes Democrats' views (which is the subject of the question). I don't think this would have been a good comment either. The reason for that is that it lacks any evidence or reasoning why this is relevant to the question. If this had been a ...


2

I declined the flags because the answer did, indeed, appear to be an answer to the question that was asked. It was deleted by vote by 4 high-rep users. Moderators aren't the only way an answer can be deleted.


1

I have flagged it as rude or abusive. The reason for that is that it is, as you say, a rant. Contrary to what LangLangC says in a comment, I don't think it is an answer. Strictly speaking, it does address the question by saying no, but then the rest of the answer is rant that is not based in fact. So, by allowing this to pass for an answer, we are ...


1

One option that LangLangC also suggested is to leave a comment to clarify the flag reason, then flag it to the low-quality queue. Whether you flag it NAA, LQ, or RA depends on the case. If the reason is so complicated that it cannot be solved by other users or it has passed the normal queues already but you still think action is needed, then you can use a ...


1

Neither. Enter a custom reason. If you pick anything else, the flag's reviewer will look at the merit of the answer and base their review on that only.


1

This debate tends to repeat itself every once in a while. The gist of the problem is that when you flag an answer which apparently misinterpreted the question, there is a chance that you misinterpreted the question yourself, while the answer did not. Or that the answer, while not answering the literal question, still provides useful information on the topic. ...


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