I was sad this morning to see Gil Kalai's great question about the role of rigor closed for being too broad. I was even sadder this afternoon when Prof. Kalai's narrower follow-up question, was also closed for being too broad. The question also got some downvotes and, in my mind, unnecessarily condescending comments,
To be (slightly) flippant about it, why the concentration on math?
The original question was put on hold as being too broad, yet here you are again with a subset of that question that is certainly going to be closed for the same reason. You're somehow not getting the message being sent to you. This sort of question just won't be acceptable. I'd suggest you go to the physicsforum.com where they may allow such loose questions.
My first reaction is that it's a shame an extremely knowledgeable and capable mathematics professor is getting condescended to by people who only know the undergraduate curriculum or less, and that this might have something to do with the loss of knowledgeable users from this site.
My second reaction is that I don't agree with the 'too broad' criterion. I got hooked on Phys.SE in the first place by the great answers to 'too broad' questions. If you look through the top questions of all time, almost all of the ones about general theory (i.e. excluding 'everyday-life' tags) are closed as too broad, or would be under the current criterion. The answers I am most proud of are all teetering on the edge of 'too broad'. I would bet that if you took a random 10k+ user and subtracted off the HNQ spam, the same would be true of their top answers.
Put simply, I think questions that are "too broad" provide enormous value to the site and the physics community at large, and the only negative about them is that they're justifiably hard to answer. Why not rethink this closure criterion?
Edit: it looks like I'm hitting some prescriptivist/descriptivist divide here. To be clear, I'm not asking what the current policy is. I'm proposing we change it.