« first day (1364 days earlier)      last day (2365 days later) » 

 
1 hour later…
1:53 AM
sholom 3aleicham wara7amei Aloheem ubeerchotho brothers and sisters. is there a question on the site about the masoro of ashkanazim with proper answers? im pretty sure ashkanazim dont have any masoro going to the jaonim of boval and 7azal but i am trying to see if there is even atleast some claim for it with proof. thx wa sholom
 
 
1 hour later…
3:01 AM
Is there a meta question about the other topic that was discussed in chat? (Namely whether to edit a user's answer away from their intention or in a manner they would find objectionable. One view was that if the edit qualifies an unsourced blanket assertion, such an edit is desirable even if the answerer may disapprove of the qualification. Another view was that we should not tamper that way with another user's answer, though any user has the discretion to utilize comments or downvotes).
@Shokhet ^^^^^ @DoubleAA @HodofHod @Yishai @IsaacMoses @msh210 @Shokhet @Scimonster Also pinging @MonicaCellio @TheOne @YeZ though I didn't notice y'all weighing in on that particular topic.
 
@Fred You mean, maintaining authorial intent?
....that's an edit reject reason, FWIW
 
@Shokhet Yes.
 
@Fred I dunno if there is a meta on it....you can start one, if you want.
 
@Shokhet Does that mean the original author has the prerogative to reject the edit at will, but that an editor should still feel free to try?
@Shokhet Or are you referring to reviewers?
 
@Fred I'm referring to reviewers. In the "review suggested edits" dialog, there's an option to reject the edit, with a canned comment that says something like "conflicts with author's intent" or some similar phrasing
 
3:07 AM
@Shokhet Ah, ok.
@Shokhet Hmm. I found meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/q/3417/1442 and meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/q/3422/1442 and judaism.stackexchange.com/help/editing that sort of broadly seem to address the question.
@Shokhet Would that suggest that Isaac's edit here was improper, considering that R' Tzadok may very well consider positions about later dating of the Zohar and Bahir to be unacceptable? @IsaacMoses
 
3:21 AM
@Fred Unfortunately no. Everyone else got sidetracked about niceness and forgot about the issue we were discussing. I didn't want to ruin the party.
@Fred Isaac's edit doesn't make any statement about those opinions. The previous edit might have been construed to, so Isaac edited to an uncontroversial formulation.
@Fred To your general question, I stand by my response to @Yishai:
8 hours ago, by Double AA
@Yishai It is an unsourced claim of the OP's. Either he (or someone else) can source it (and thereby imply "according to this source [XYZ follows]") or someone should edit in "according to myself, the grand Mr. OP, [XYZ follows]" to help make it clearer in the post what is being sourced and what is the OP's whim. This is no different then any other unsourced claimed on Mi Yodeya, AFAICT.
 
@DoubleAA It's not especially controversial, but it sort of implies that there is a range of acceptable views. The author may specifically disagree with that implication.
 
@Fred I don't see such an implication in the slightest. That's like saying that "according to othodox judaism, reform judaism's conversions are invalid" somehow grants legitimacy to the reform movement.
 
@DoubleAA Perhaps you are right.
 
You have to allow saying "according to X" in a neutral way, or we aren't going to ever be able to deal with different opinions.
 
YeZ
@Fred That was quite the ping.
 
3:28 AM
@YeZ He was minyan-pingin' all up in here.
 
@DoubleAA Regarding the principle in general cases, I thought the preferred approach to unsourced answers was commenting and/or downvoting.
@DoubleAA I wanted to ping those involved in the discussion, which was a lot of people. :)
 
@Fred commenting requesting further sourcing and voting (down probably) in the meantime are still encouraged. I don't see how this contradicts that.
Use editing to improve a question.
 
YeZ
@DoubleAA what is "the meantime" if you edit?
 
@DoubleAA I meant specifically in a case where the editing could somehow be contrary to the author's intent.
 
@YeZ Editing in to clarify that a certain point is the OP's own assertion (sometimes a valuable thing to do, eg if it is adjacent to something properly sourced) doesn't preclude a comment asking for more sources or a downvote if teh situation warrants it.
 
YeZ
3:33 AM
@DoubleAA Is the downvote because it's his own opinion?
 
> To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
 
YeZ
Otherwise, it seems downvoting in response to lack of sourcing is mutually exclusive to editing to identify that the OP is the source.
 
If the OP is for opposed to clarity on ideological grounds (as, lets pretend, RMT may feel in this case), I'm not sure, but I think clarity has to win, and the OP can disassociate himself from the post if he wishes.
@YeZ meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/a/1446/759 see second half of my answer there for my opinion
 
@DoubleAA On second thought, even adding "according to X" might sort of impinge on the author's style. Isn't it the answerer's prerogative to choose to avoid phrasing that he thinks might even possibly imply legitimacy (even if that phrasing could also be understood not to carry that implication)?
 
YeZ
@DoubleAA that's a well written answer.
 
3:40 AM
@Fred If he can think of alternate phrasing that is equally clear without any bad implications, he can further improve the post. An editor can't be worried about every possible whim of the OP. So long as his edit is In Good Faith, let him do it and someone can always rollback if necessary.
^^ IMO.
@YeZ thanks
 
@DoubleAA Let's say RMT is so opposed, for example. There would be a more longwinded way to offer clarity without giving a hint of offering legitimacy: e.g. "The following sources say that it is totally unacceptable to disagree with the principle of early authorship of the Zohar and Bahir. Although some sources disagree, I believe that they are in the minority and don't represent a legitimate view. Therefore, the notion of gilgulim clearly traces at least back to the Tannaitic era."
But let's say the author doesn't want to expend the effort to write something like that. Is it better then, in the interest of qualifying unsourced remarks, to override authorial intent? (I guess you would say yes, @DoubleAA).
 
@Fred I'd still prefer a "in my opinion" after "Therefore", but that would work.
@Fred I don't think we need to be worried a priori about his opposing the edit in this case, as it's pretty clearly a reasonable Good Faith edit.
@Fred I don't think laziness on his part is reason to have an unclear post. He can find a way to write a clear post or disassociate (this would be rare)
 
@DoubleAA I agree, but it is a good opportunity to discuss the principle.
 
@Fred Surely.
 
@DoubleAA Not laziness, per se. Sometimes people only have a couple of minutes to write a post, don't have time to provide sources, and they think contrary opinions are marginal and don't require mention. Is it better for them not to write the answer at all, even if their answer might include substantive and helpful material?
 
YeZ
3:50 AM
@Fred Either way, it seems they should be open to reasonable edits. (I am not sure if the extent of "reasonable edit" is also part of this discussion). If your post is incomplete, for laziness or shortness of time, then it's open-season for editing.
 
@YeZ "I am not sure if the extent of "reasonable edit" is also part of this discussion." I suppose so.
@YeZ I was under the impression that editors should be more aggressive about editing questions, to ensure that they are answerable and not closeworthy, whereas editors should be conservative and err on the side of authorial intent when it comes to answers (though perhaps being liberal with helpful comments might still be good in some cases).
 
@YeZ I agree. @Fred
 
YeZ
how about this edit?
I rejected it as conflicting with author's intent. Author happens to be wrong, but it's still his intent. Was I correct?
 
@YeZ IMHO, if you want to alter an answer because you disagree with content that the author thinks is correct, you must prove unequivocally with indisputably correct sources that you are correct. A mere assertion, as is the case with this edit, will not do.
@YeZ In other words, you must prove that it was a mistake on the author's part, not just that you have a disagreement over the facts.
 
YeZ
4:07 AM
@Fred I went a step further - I assumed even if you had indisputably correct sources, you should downvote, but don't edit it. It's his choice to delete or fix his incorrect answer.
OK gnite y'all. Someone ping me when consensus is reached.
 
@YeZ I personally would comment (and downvote, if the mistake formed the bulk of the answer) rather than edit. But if an editor could show that the answerer made a mistake and that the answerer himself would almost certainly acknowledge that he was wrong, I would probably let the edit through (since you can predict with confidence that the edit is consistent with the answerer's future intent).
 
4:23 AM
@Yishai In light of judaism.stackexchange.com/a/53426/759 is that series really worth it anymore? Every day has a wikipedia page I bet.
 
4:53 AM
-6
Q: the Sixth Commandment versus the prophecy of relocation of all Jews to Israel

AndromedaIs it allowed to murder (any human from anywhere with any race and any belief) to fulfill the prophecy of relocation of all Jews to Israel, gathered from the four corners of the earth (Deut. 30:3-4; Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13) ? Details regarding different Jewish movements (especially Chabad) would be...

why -6 LOL
why not +6
why still on hold?
 
 
2 hours later…
6:52 AM
@Andromeda Because it's a question of a sort thousands of which can be asked for no good reason, and no motivation was supplied in the question for why you might ask this one. It shows no effort and is uninteresting. "choice: You could relocate all Jews to Israel by murdering one human being (who didn't attack you, and didn't do anything). What would you have to do" can just as well be "choice: Tithe by driving on the sabbath" or "choice: Light the Hanukkah lights by bribing a judge".
(Plus other problems with it, like its lack of cohesion (rambling).)
 
 
3 hours later…
10:13 AM
Differenced between Haredi and Hasidic Judaism would be very interesting. But you don't have any idea of what is actually going on. LOL
 
 
4 hours later…
1:53 PM
@Andromeda Are you here to learn or to debate? If it's the former, I and (I expect) others here would be happy to help you work on your question and make it answerable, and hopelfully clear up some questions along the way. If it's the latter, Stack Exchange is not the right place for that.
@Andromeda ... And if you're here to learn, I'd suggest approaching people with an attitude that would preclude saying dismissive things.
 
2:24 PM
Thanks for linking to practicalhalacha.com . IT occupies an interesting point on the public-Halacha-teaching spectrum, explicitly putting itself forward as a source for pesak with R' Heinemann's authority in cases where one's own rabbi is unavailable or inadequate, but also disclaiming at the bottom that it's "no substitute" for consulting one's own rabbi. — Isaac Moses 2 mins ago
... very interesting. It intentionally includes no sources, saying instead that the authority for everything in it is RMH. It's like a mini Yad Hachazaka.
 
2:47 PM
... found this in my standard daily creepy search: religiousforums.com/threads/…
@Fred @DoubleAA (Not rhetorical:) What would you say to someone who went through Halacha answers and edited into them the preface "According to those who consider Halacha binding" or "According to those who consider the Pharisaic 'Oral Law' legitimate"? What about in theology questions "According to those who believe in one God"?
(Just in case that discussion thread didn't have enough open cans of worms.)
 
3:03 PM
@IsaacMoses Are the answers such that doing so improves their clarity? I suspect in most cases on this site adding those phrases in makes the post harder to read.
 
@DoubleAA Fair enough
 
Writing "assuming I'm not a brain in a vat" before every post is quite distracting IMO.
 
@DoubleAA Have you tried it?
 
18
A: How do we know that God exists?

Double AAAssuming we all exist, think, know and interact with our actual surroundings etc. The Ontological Proof The first class of Divine Proof is the Ontological proof. It goes basically like this: God as a concept is perfect. Perfect things must have the quality of existing, else they wouldn't be ...

I'm ok with the downvotes on my answer there. It's all the upvotes on the top answer that are frustrating.
 
@DoubleAA :) It doesn't seem distracting there
 
3:10 PM
 
@DoubleAA I followed your recommendation for adding rollover captions here
 
> Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Assuming you aren't a brain in a vat, I recommend that you start by looking at JewFAQ....
 
@DoubleAA I've got nothing against vat-brains reading JewFAQ.
 
@Shokhet I think so.
 
3:26 PM
@DoubleAA I agree.
 
3:46 PM
@DoubleAA I'd rather add a rule that discourages such an answer (like on discouraging lazy gematria. It is interesting for someone to point out a Yartzeit and give a biography. Less so to just throw out a name. Not sure how to do it, though.
 
4:11 PM
6
A: What was the volume of oil for one day's lighting of the Menorah?

YeZThey used a half of a lug of oil in each candle every night, in order that it would last through the longest night of the year (Menachos 88b). A lug is 6 egg volumes. An egg volume is disputed, but it's accepted to be either around 57 (R' Chaim Naeh) or 100 (Chazon Ish) mL. So the volume per ca...

 
I'm looking for someone to SEDE to find the mean/median/st.dv. for views on qs on MY. (ping @IsaacMoses)
 
Using R' Chaim Naeh's measurement, that is about a 40 fl oz bottle. So no wonder the Greeks made all the oil Tamei - they were looking for a 40!
 
@DoubleAA Median is decidedly non-trivial. Here's Avg and StDev: data.stackexchange.com/judaism/query/270118/…
 
@IsaacMoses The stdev is larger than the mean?
 
@DoubleAA So says the query. Note that the distribution is not Gaussian. It has a floor on the left and a potentially infinite tail on the right.
Want a PDF?
 
4:25 PM
@IsaacMoses I suppose so if it's not too hard. I'm trying to find a way to quantitatively illustrate the reach of our material.
 
@DoubleAA May I ask what the purpose/audience is?
 
@IsaacMoses related to comments i recently left you. i didn't have a good answer when asked about views
 
@DoubleAA Here's a PDF. I think a CDF would be more useful. stand by ...
 
4:56 PM
...
I must have used CUME_DIST wrong. ...
Fixed. It's in unit views now, not hundreds, which would be too coarse.
median: 130
10th percentile (90% have more): 46
@DoubleAA Now with magnitudes, too.
We have 1281 questions with at least 500 views
430 with at least 1000
That fits roughly with 414 Popular question badges (Whatever the cause of the discrepancy, it's probably not a big deal.)
Now, if you want me to tell you how many questions with certain qualities that are at least N days old have how many views, let me know.
 
 
2 hours later…
YeZ
7:38 PM
@Fred I feel like that should be involved in a machlokes Abaye and Rava in ch.2 of bava metzia
 
YeZ
8:26 PM
@IsaacMoses I'm not sure what the axes were on that graph. I thought it was views, but it has the highest value as low 5k. We have questions with 30k views.
@IsaacMoses I want to know about questions asked on days that have an S and a U in them, but not on leap years.
 
@YeZ X is hundreds of views. Y is number of questions.
 
YeZ
@IsaacMoses Ah that makes much more sense.
 
YeZ
@IsaacMoses How come the hover-over displayed link was different?
 
8:38 PM
@YeZ different from what?
@YeZ Oh, sorry. I pasted the wrong link. Here you go.
 
YeZ
@IsaacMoses That link makes more sense. (I won't ask why you had that other one in your clipboard)
 
I love how Sefaria provides a way to point directly to a phrase in the Gemara. Of course, that I love this is a manifestation of yeridat hadorot, at least according to R' Rakeffet, who says that early sources would make references at the masechta level, later ones would refer you to a chapter, and more recent ones have to condescend to pointing you to the daf. But still.
 
@IsaacMoses So was the rickroll intentional?
 
@Scimonster Means, motive, and opportunity all present.
 
YeZ
8:57 PM
@IsaacMoses I'm still confused about the mouse-over link
 
YeZ
@IsaacMoses I'm afraid to click that link now
 
@YeZ Don't worry.
It's just the homepage, explaining what goo.gl is.
It's Google's link shortener, btw.
 
YeZ
@IsaacMoses having fun with the technologically challenged is only funny when done to people other than myself.
 
9:01 PM
@YeZ BTW, if you're ever afraid of clicking a goo.gl link, you can copy the link URL, manually paste it, and edit before going to it to be goo.gl/info/5yG3RP (notice the info part) to see where it leads to.
 
@YeZ 8^P
 
YeZ
@Scimonster neato.
 
Hmm. It can't even tell what OS i'm on. :/ It says X11, not Ubuntu.
 
@Scimonster ... or country, right?
 
@IsaacMoses Country it seems to have picked up on.
See the blue dot in the Mid-East? :P
 
9:03 PM
@Scimonster Oh! There it is.
 
Now who's in Alaska? :P
 
@Scimonster It's not that granular
 
@IsaacMoses (I know)
 
YeZ
9:16 PM
@msh210 Upon further review - The last line of my question is not a dupe. I would rephrase it to make that the focus of the question, but there is already a +3 answer which would be invalidated. What's proper procedure here? — YeZ 2 hours ago
 
YeZ
9:39 PM
wow I have a nice round number for my reputation at this exact moment.
 
9:57 PM
To clarify, my −1 vote on this answer is primarily because it's in Hebrew. This is an English-language site. (That this is a reasonable answer to the question probably indicates a problem with the question, but that's another issue.) — msh210 ♦ 24 secs ago
@YeZ I agree with and upvoted @IsaacMoses's comment there.
 
10:34 PM
I don't see how this isn't too broad. It ended up as just a list of Jewish-related apps. The question doesn't even ask for what an app they're looking for would do -- just "be Jewish". Voting to close. — Scimonster 30 secs ago
 
 
1 hour later…
11:51 PM
@YeZ I think this would be more appropriate as a comment, possibly a DV as well. That shouldn't be an edit. (catching up)
@IsaacMoses I'm very annoyed at that website that they'll just say things, but not explain their reasoning or sourcing. That reduces its usefulness to me drastically.
 

« first day (1364 days earlier)      last day (2365 days later) »