Talk:Historic recurrence

message: What is this article about? Piet 09:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a well-written personal essay historiography. I say Keep. --Ancheta Wis 10:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: obviously, this article is a one-sided personal essay. the author is laughing all the way to the left. 98.97.58.218 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: 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)
thread_title: Original research

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is this article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Still need a category 

message: I'm a bit wary of this article - for a start, the article claims that looking at "events, widely separated in time and geography" only came about in the 1980s, yet this comparative approach was a key concept of the Annales school of history which was the most influential historical school of the mid-twentieth century, even if its ideas took longer to catch on in the UK and USA than they did in Europe.
Also, the 3 examples given seem abitrary, and give the impression of a distorted level of historical importance being placed on them and the notion of historical recurrence itself which there isn't any argument to provide.
This should be deleted immediately. I'm incredibly surprised it has lasted so long. It is a personal essay and has nothing to do with modern historiography. It is also not encyclopedic in the least.24.250.242.46 (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Annales, and Distorted Importance

message: I've started a discussion at WP:NORN#Historic recurrence. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research redux 

message: This page is garbage, personal essay, personal philosophy. It should have been deleted a dozen times over. I don't know what is wrong with you people. It was created and maintained by one person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.254.205 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I didn't follow up on the NORN discussion at . Time to do so I guess. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage 

message: I changed a recent edit explaining why in my edit summary - it was attributing something to Wikipedia that was actually the author's view. That now reads:
He also notes [t]he view proceeding from a belief in the uniformity of human nature [Trompf's emphasis]. It holds that because human nature does not change, the same sort of events can recur at any time."[12]
Sorry, but I don't understand this. Where does the quote start? And isn't there something missing? Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  There should have been a quotation mark between "He also notes" and "[t]he view..."  I've corrected this.  Thanks.  Nihil novi (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think I understand it now. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit on Tromp now makes no sense 

message: I think there are books/movies/whatever with this (eg. Battlestar Galactica?).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.172.7 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historic recurrence in popular culture" section? 

message: I laboured long to include several relevant quotations, with detailed references, but now the entire section appears to have been deleted.
Does anyone know why? Crawiki (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted in accordance with WP:LONGQUOTE.  The quotations now appear at WikiQuote, which can be seen by clicking the link near the bottom of the article.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations section.