Talk:Social cycle theory
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 April 27. The result of the discussion was Kept. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inclusion of The Fourth Turning by Strauss & Howe
editI'm surprised that this article doesn't link to Strauss–Howe generational theory, one of the most detailed expositions of the secular cycle, especially for the past 600 years British and American history, by William Strauss and Neil Howe. Gandalf2000 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Be bold (a Wikipedia policy), and do it yourself if you think that it's worth doing. There's nothing standing in your way, though someone else may think that that's not worth including and remove it in a later edit. For my part, I prefer theories that have gotten discussion among professional historians and political scientists, like the Schlesingers' cycles: Cyclical theory (United States history). Lpetrich (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits
editI don't see sufficent reason for the recent move of the article to Sociological cycle theorie. Compare the old talk, now at Talk:Sociological cycle theorie.
Some disambig-based solution should be employed.
Pjacobi 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If the title is what's causing a problem, then the article should be re-named and not deleted. The article contains some useful information, more than would fit on a disambiguation page.
58.169.47.105 17:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for renaming of this article
editIn announcing the decision to keep the article, dgies said "Title changes can be requested at WP:RM".
- It is hereby requested that the name of this article be changed to reflect the fact that the title Social Cycle Theory is specifically attributed to the original ideas of P.R. Sarkar concerning the Law of the Social Cycle. This theory is the first theory to involve a true cyclical view of history. The name was popularised in the work of best selling author Ravi Batra, a disciple of Sarkar.
- The ideas of this article, while dealing with social dynamics are cyclical only in a limited sense. For instance, Sorokin's theory is bi-polar (sentient/sensate) and Spengler's ideas have never been seen to embody a perpetual cycle of social dynamics. While Danilewski's idea of a life cycle refer to a cycle, they are about the inherent dynamism of society, which is different from a true social cycle concept.
- Nevertheless, as the ideas of P.R. Sarkar are now also included in this article, and the ideas also potentially encompass those of Ibn Khaldun, Ssu-Ma Ch'ien and Vilfredo Pareto, a compromise is suggested and it proposed that the name of this article be changed to SOCIAL CYCLE THEORIES (in the plural).
- A further compromise would then be that the page on Sarkar's theory would be restored to its rightful name SOCIAL CYCLE THEORY. At the same time, while this theory arises out of the Indian episteme of the Varnas, it would offer a link to this page, for those interested in more background on nascent such conceptions.Ramayan 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per my arguments in AfDs. Rename Sarkar's article into his book instead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The important thing is that you chose Social cycle theory as a name for a page you created about theories of social dynamics. You are now trying to kill the Sarkar page because it upsets this arrangement by laying a valid claim to the name. Indeed, it is a fact the name first came with Sarkar's theory. Before that no one referred to the theories on this page as social cycle theories. As a compromise, I have proposed the article created by you be renamed to the plural Social Cycle Theories and the Sarkar page named in singular Social Cycle Theory. You, however, waste no time to oppose the proposed solution. Rather you still you seek to have the Sarkar page relisted for deletion in the vain hope of getting rid of the problem that way. That is not going to happen simply because Sarkar's theory is too important and has become too well known. This issue will not go away unless a solution that is acceptable to all is identified.Ramayan 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
isac asimov: foundation trilogy
editperhaps a (pop) cultural reference could be mentioned somewhere towards the end of the article. 80.99.38.199 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC).