Why are these parts not "necessary" in my answer?

Question

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?

Answer 1

The reasons for both of the edits you're expressing concern about were stated in the edit summary; you seem fixated on the word "unnecessary", but you're conveniently ignoring the rest of the quotes. I'll reproduce them here for your convenience:

unnecessary bit edging toward politics removed

---

removed unnecessary political rhetoric

The issue wasn't simply that they were unnecessary; the problem was that they were unnecessarily political.

The first quote, for example, brought up the "Christian socialist-minded Latin American nations who have been struggling against US imperialism for decades." The wording here is not only politically charged, but irrelevant: What the "Christian socialist-minded Latin American nations" do or do not do has pretty much nothing to do with Shi'ism or the Shi'ite policy regarding familism, which is what the question was clearly asking about. Nor do the "decades" of "US imperialism".

Similarly, your casual claim that the "only" reason there's division in the Ummah is because everyone else blatantly disagrees with your preferred interpretation of Islam is, as-written, likely to cause argument from those who don't agree with your preferred interpretation of Islam (of which there are many). Again: Politically charged. And again, in this case, unnecessarily so; what or why other interpretations of Islam believe or disbelieve in what they do has pretty much nothing to do with Shi'ism or the Shi'ite policy regarding familism, which is what the question was clearly asking about.

Both cases, as worded, appeared to be entirely unconcerned with answering the question asked, rather attempts to promote one ideology as "more correct" than the other using loaded language. And both cases, when removed, do not appear to have affected the actual point of the post insofar as actually answering the question asked was concerned.

Thus, removed.

Answer 2

What action did either of the two editors take on that post that was only limited to a site moderator? None.

The question should rather have been directed towards the community rather than being painted simply as a moderator action.

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.

This bit has no importance to the answer. A country can do whatever, construct its constitution from monotheism, polytheism etc. And in case they take an action based on the religion of Islam, then only the bases should be discussed, without politicising it. e.g US imperialism for decades is a political idea, an attempt to denigrate one country and painting a positive image of another. The only reason the part on Ayatullah Khomeni was not removed was because he was a religious scholar and his mentioned actions were shown to be relevant to the answer and above that the subject of Islam which this site is about.

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.

That is a Truth claim. And this site is not for it. Making it very clear, with sound reference, that this particular school believes in the said claim could have made it site friendly (the community could disagree on that though) but for that particular question it is unnecessary and pushing a Truth claim.

(Meticulously) placing such political statements and Truth claims within a post, which it could do without, are not welcome on this site, irrespective of intent.

This community and its member can have whatever political affiliations, motives and opinions but we as a community shall not allow this site to be used as platform to serve that.

the rest of the community also received my answer positively

Back in the early days of the site Truth claims and politics, amongst other, was also well received by the community. But it was poisonous to the site and when brought to meta those among the well receivers could not even defend it.