This is an extension to this meta content-dispute discussion which I had intended to have been dealt with in the same thread.
We have a case where two mods seem to have been overly critical thinking that two parts that go along very well with the rest of my answer must have not been included in it, when me, the answerer, thought they should (for they have doctrinal and contextual significance well within the site and the question scope), and the rest of the community also received my answer positively. I quote the reasons I specified in the previous meta here again:
A few days after having written this answer, two mods just weighed in removing two chunks from the answer. I reproduce the two paragraphs and the statements removed from the end of each by Bleeding Fingers and goldPseudo
In line with these characteristics, you find that Shia scholars also hold non-sectarian, non-racial approaches to human society. For example, Ruhollah Khomeini the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout his political career frequently stressed the importance of Islamic unity among the sects as well as formation of a cross-cultural, cross-national "global coalition of the oppressed" for resistance against oppressive world powers. This vision is already expressed in the Constitution of Islamic Republic and has incarnated itself in the policies of IRI such as its outreach over the recent years to the Christian socialist-minded Latin American nations who have been struggling against US imperialism for decades.
The part in bold was removed by Bleeding Fingers and subsequently by goldPseudo after I rolled it back and explained in a comment why I thought the edit was not justified. And I explain that again:
The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran has been formed by an assembly of Shia legal experts, mostly religious scholars, and is a reflection of Shia political doctrine as well as part of Shia historical performance. So if the site scope allows answers from the perspective of Islamic sects I don't see how the part above doesn't fall within the scope by the same token. And the part on policy towards Latin America is just an extension of the same point. I understand politics alone is usually regarded as off-topic in this site but I don't see how reasonable it is when politics happens to be just a consequence of an Islamic doctrine and part of a religious identity.
But there was another part that was snatched away along by goldPseudo when he weighed behind Bleeding Finger's edit.
Obviously then the doctrine of Imamamte of the elite family members has no bearing on who can enter Shia Islam and Shia Islam is completely non-racial in admission of new members. If anything, the Shia doctrine of Imamate from Ahl al-Bayt has only a positive effect on universal outreach of Islam. For the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt assume the function of legitimate leadership of the Ummah after the Prophet and they are the ones who actually best express the universal wisdom of religion through their intellectual elaborations of Islamic theology and judicious application of Islamic law. In fact, the only reason Islamic Ummah has verged into division and conflict is disregard of the Ummah for the Imams that were ordained by Divine decree to succeed Prophet's office.
The statement in bold is a standard Shia belief! Maybe I should've have explicitly mentioned that but given that the question is about Shiism and with an answer that is clear to represent a Shia perspective, such specification didn't see necessary to me. If it is, then the statement has to be restored and the perspective clearly specified.
So why did the mods think these parts were not “necessary” in my answer?