This question arose yet again, this time in reference to this question that, at the time of this writing, remains open on Main:

Rather than having the same discussion in the library over and over again, I thought it might be good to document a votable discussion here.

A sampling of prior questions that in my mind fall into this category, currently on Main:

On the other hand, this one was recently migrated to Meta (against the better judgement of at least two – I think exactly two – mods):

And there are a few other earlier ones on Meta:

(Feel free to add more if you recall them. I found it not an easy thing to search for.)

A few of these are just crummy questions for a Q&A format of any sort because they are list questions. However, some are reasonable, interesting, and answerable. Many of us, myself included, hesitate to close them. However, they are neither about analysis of the text nor about principles of hermeneutics.

Should these questions be on Main, on Meta, or closed altogether?

  • @David Thanks for the additions. The penultimate is actually framed (to the extent that it’s framed at all) in terms of the site. Of course, one could artificially frame any of them in those terms (“....for answering questions on BH.SE”), but the scenario I’m interested in here is when the actual motivation is obviously elsewhere. (By the way, you’re supposed to downvote answers that you disagree with. ;-))
    – Susan
    Commented Sep 22, 2015 at 20:37
  • Ah right. I just piled in "tools-and-related" questions that came to mind. Feel free to excise. Btw the second one in the last bullet list is actually on main, yes? (And I did!)
    – Dɑvïd
    Commented Sep 22, 2015 at 21:16

1 Answer 1


In my understanding, Meta is for discussion of Hermeneutics.SE site policy. None of these questions is about the site. They are indeed “meta-” in a way, but they are meta-hermeneutics rather than meta-Hermeneutics.SE. Some, such as the reading recommendations question, could be tweaked to become meta-Hermeneutics.SE questions: “What shall we use as references in answers on Hermeneutics.SE?”* Most of them, though, are really not about the site at all.

I would like to allow these on the Main site. I think we need a tag, or something along those lines, to label them.

*That particular question is inappropriate for main in any case because it’s both opinion-based and list-oriented.

  • 2
    The question that inspired this discussion is clearly opinion-based, so would be off-topic regardless. However, I do agree that tools questions (or as I would call them resource requests) should be on-topic.
    – ThaddeusB
    Commented Sep 22, 2015 at 20:12
  • True. I was sort of ignoring that aspect of these Q&A’s (that one could be revised to something like, ‘what are the advantages of the G-K system compared to XYZ?’), more looking to get an answer about the topicality issue.
    – Susan
    Commented Sep 22, 2015 at 20:30
  • 1
    I've noted concerns about moving to main here. If the community elects to allow these, then the what's on topic page would need a face-lift, as these questions do not fall into the list. Many would continue to remain "opinion-based" (subjective) or "list-oriented," as that is the nature of asking for recommendations or about "tools" to do something. Yet I can agree that the tools are part of the process of hermeneutics, so an argument can be made for inclusion on main.
    – ScottS
    Commented Sep 23, 2015 at 18:59
  • @Susan Tricky waters to navigate through-questions regarding tools and their efficacy are definitely On-topic, providing they contribute to "Biblical Hermeneutics" and are not merely linguistic schemas. Questions merely looking for resources should be confined to the Library(if someone wants to take the time to respond).
    – Tau
    Commented Oct 29, 2015 at 8:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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