0

Why is this message:

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

attached to my answer to the question "What is the proper translation of Proverbs 22:6"?

If you wish to enlighten me in regard to my "yellow box mystery", please be specific about what assertions I have made that need references/citations, other than those given.

6

Dan's post covers most of the basics but here are replies to the comments you left on the post itself.

To the DVoter: […]

Commenting about downvoters is never constructive. Just don't do it. For background on why downvoting works the way it does you can start with this meta post. Comments complaining about downvotes should be flagged as "not constructive" and will be removed on sight.

@Caleb Can you have the message attached to my answer removed, please?

First, you can't ping random people just by adding their name. The system only lets you ping names that have previously commented on or edited a specific post. Other names will just go into the ether. I didn't get notified about these comments at all.

Second, commenting isn't the right mechanism. If you need a moderator to review something (including having post-notices removed) use the flag link and follow the form. That way whatever moderator on duty is notified about the task. Please don't flag until after you've edited posts to address the issues.

If the DV was a part of some new automated process, then there needs to be an automatic warning prior to its implementation.

No, it doesn't need a warning, it is the warning. It is placed on posts that sort of but don't quite qualify as answers. It's meant to prod the user to fix the issue and (almost more importantly) let other site readers know that the post isn't a template to follow so they don't think it's okay to post similar material.

If the issues get addressed in a timely manner then the post-notice can be removed. If not, it's likely the post will eventually get deleted.

More egregious violations will just be deleted and can be un-deleted if the issues are addressed. Post-notices are a early warning system providing a grace period — there is no need for an early warning system for the warnings.

Lastly, no these are not automated; they are placed by site moderators. Generally this happens in response to flags on posts, either Not an answer or Very low quality, that moderators agree have some validity but not enough to delete outright.

3

Moderators place those messages on posts that fail to comply with guidelines to "show your work", which is a requirement here.

Now that a source is cited for your assertions about the meaning of various lemmata, the post is compliant with the requirement to 'show your work', and so the 'yellow box' has been removed.1

Please see the following posts:

1 I would also note that using a concordance as a lexicon is not how it is intended to be used. A concordance can be helpful in giving a general understanding of the lemma's meaning, but this should not be used as the sole source to justify the meaning or definition of the word in a specific textual context. Even so, you did show a source, albeit a poor one for asserting the meaning of a word in a specific context.

6
  • I appreciate the explanation, Dan. Surely, though, a comment added to my answer would have been a better option than the path you have made me tread. Perhaps you might, now, add a comment to my answer that will give me some indication of the particular Hebrew word(s) for which you believe my lexicon/concordance has led me astray.
    – enegue
    Mar 8 '16 at 6:30
  • 1
    The moderator annotation tool (yellow box) was used as designed, and you clearly received the message. I could have actually deleted the post as not an answer, but I elected to annotate it, which gave you time to correct the issue. Concerning the use of a concordance as a lexicon (or even using a lexicon divorced from grammar and context), it's simply that the lexical gloss of a word divorced from morphology, syntax, and semantic context does little to inform meaning. Language is more complicated. The post I shared explains further. There are also recommendations for lexicons on meta.
    – Dan
    Mar 8 '16 at 13:40
  • Dan, why not simply answer my question. Do you think the double-talk is going to convince me you have any real desire to be helpful? Come on, man! Share your expertise. Add a comment to my answer that will indicate the particular Hebrew word(s) for which you believe my lexicon/concordance has led me astray?
    – enegue
    Mar 8 '16 at 21:07
  • 2
    You're apparently not understanding me. A concordance tells how a word has been translated, not how it could or should be in a specific context. It's like using a wrench to hammer in a nail. It may work out sometimes, but ultimately the tool is being used in the wrong way. It doesn't matter whether or not the nails were actually set in place - that's not what a wrench is for. If I didn't want to be helpful, I wouldn't have wasted my time writing that long article on Strong's Concordance nor pointing it out to you here.
    – Dan
    Mar 9 '16 at 1:43
  • I understand you completely, but you further comment does nothing to address what I've requested. In regard to the tool I linked to at Blue Letter Bible, it is clearly more than a concordance, since it shows: transliteration; pronunciation; parts of speech; root words; outline of Biblical usage; Strong's Definitions; Thayer's Greek Lexicon (for the NT); Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon (for the OT); and has links to various dictionary aids.
    – enegue
    Mar 9 '16 at 4:39
  • 1
    Anyways, the moderation issue with the "yellow box" has been resolved. The source(s) you used are sufficient for that. The accuracy of public domain 19th (and earlier) century Greek lexical works and pre-DSS and pre-Nag-Hammadi Hebrew lexical sources (BDB is OK, but dated; all older Hebrew lexical resources should be used in consultation with something taking into account more recent scholarship such as HALOT) is a completely different topic wherein we'll just have to agree to disagree.
    – Dan
    Mar 9 '16 at 12:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .