Talk:Historic recurrence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ? 2 Original research 3 Article revised 4 What is this article? 5 Still need a category 6 Gods return is bad interpretation

[edit] ?

What is this article about? Piet 09:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be a well-written personal essay historiography. I say Keep. --Ancheta Wis 10:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's well written and almost interesting, but what is it about? Is it about a Mark Twain quote? Then I think the name should be the full quote. But it doesn't seem to be about the quote but about some principle or theory or view about history. Is this theory or view called "History rhymes"? That doesn't seem very scientific. I propose we find a better name. I was reading an article about Hernán Cortés and out of the blue I find a link to History rhymes, showing me a Mark Twain quote. My first reaction was wtf, throw this out please, nothing to do with Hernan Cortes. If this would be called "Resonance in History" or "Converging histories" it would make more sense and be a bit more encyclopedic. Further remarks:

• It seems like a personal essay, like your first remark said, and I don't think it's a historiography. This can be fixed.
• Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This article gives references on the particular stories, but there seems to be no reference indicating that the "History rhymes" view is something that has ever been published before. If this is not the case, the article is a candidate for deletion.
• Style: see lead section, but first we have to make sure what the article is about.
• I think I read in one of the guidelines (I don't find it now) that an article should not begin with a quote. Regardless, I don't think it's encyclopedic; any article should begin with a clear definition of the subject.

Piet 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If nobody reacts, I will propose deletion because of Wikipedia:No original research. Piet 11:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Seems that there's already a lot of "original research" being done on Wikipedia--for example, every time somebody adds another item to any of the "lists" that have multiplied here. In fact, if an article doesn't involve "original research" (the recombining of information) then it's plagiarism.

False or clearly useless material needs to be purged. But working on Wikipedia surely doesn't require the mere uncritical copying of information.

Adding a Bolivian writer to the list of Bolivian writers can hardly be called original research. And the lists link to articles which should contain references. Writing a short section on whichever topic from the head without having a reference, I have no problem with. We have to move on. But introducing theories that have never been published is a no-go. Anyway I am much more happy after the changes. Piet 07:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article revised

This article has been revised and retitled to address foregoing critiques and achieve greater clarity and focus. logologist|Talk 07:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, logologist. Sorry to be a nuisance, I hope you agree it has led to an improvement. Piet 07:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive criticisms. I think they have improved the article. logologist|Talk 09:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article?

I have read both "Maps of Time" and "Guns, Germs an Steel" and I don't remember coming across anything called "Historic recurrence", and I don't see it in the index's of those books either. Is "Historic recurrence" a made-up term, who uses that term? Also, this is not a historiography article, because it never mentions any historians! It seems like original research, piecing together various concepts and ideas from new approaches to history (World History, Big History, etc..) and then coming up with the idea that history has repeating patterns. -- Stbalbach 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still need a category

While I still don't see how this fits within the WP:NOR policy, it still needs to fit within some category. If you don't want to call it historiography (the original author removed that category in one of the latest edits), then what is it? Lack of categorization implies original research IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gods return is bad interpretation

The idea that Aztecs in general and Moctezuma in particular should have thought that Cortes and the spaniards were deities is one of the seven myths exposed and refuted by Matthew Restall in his book "Seven myths about the spanish conquest". It also holds a critique of Jared Diamonds interpretations of Aztec weaknesses that lead to their fall. Unable to critizie the other parts of this article I can only say that this is a porr example of historic recurrence if there is indeed such a thing, because the thing supposed to have recurred is in fact myths based on after rationalisation.