Talk:Historiography of the Pauline Epistles

Discussion from WP:RfD about a request to delete this, archived here:

Note that historiography is writing about history rather than of history. Historiography is meta-analysis of descriptions of the past. The analysis usually focuses on the narrative, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians. As such I don't believe this is an appropriate redirect to that article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's an awfully fine hair to split! To me, discussions over authorship are just one aspect of the historiography of a writing (which is clearly subtly different from the historiography of an event); i.e. they are meta-discussions about the writing. So I would say that it's basically on-point, unless someone wants to write about e.g. the history of various translations, at which point it would properly become a separate article. Noel (talk) 15:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's my point. Authorship discussions are only one part of the historiography of a writing! So it's not appropriate to redirect to a more specific article that only covers one aspect of that topic. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but do we have any other content at all on the historiography of the Pauline Epistles? If not, then the redirect serves a useful purpose, which is to send anyone looking for content on the HofPE to whatever material we do have on that subject (albeit on a limited subset of that topic). It's not like the canonical bad redirect ([Emperors of Foo] - [Foo]) which sends you to an article which covers a lot more material, other than the topic of the redirect. About the only argument I can see for ditching this is that it will stop links to HofPE showing up as a red link (and thereby inciting someone to write it). Noel (talk) 12:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)