Jump to content

Talk:Eternal return (Eliade)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Much of this article was written like a lecture, which is unacceptable according to WP:NPOV. Given the large unreferenced passages, it is still unclear to me whether the contributor has written down aspects of the theory as defined and applied by Eliade and other researchers (which should be referenced), or if he or she has made his/her own guesses (which should mean that fragments in question are to be deleted pronto). See for example the entire section about the theory's implications for Christianity. Also note that one of the references given (namely, Squire) does not appear to use or endorse the theory - since wikipedia does not allow original research, we should have a source saying that the theory has been applied to Irish mythology, and not that it could be applied. Not to mention the Kalevala, where the actual citation needed would be not the text itself, but what a published author applying Eliade's theory has used Kalevala for. Dahn 11:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back through what I wrote, I realize what you're saying. I take full responsibility for adding what is arguably original research into this article and will remove the material that is not directly endorsed by Eliade or a scholar applying his theory. At the time I wrote this, it seemed that the examples I was citing were fairly obvious examples of Eliade's theory, even if Eliade had not cited them himself. (Actually, I believe he did apply his theory to the Kalevala; but, for now, I'll remove the Kalevala references anyway.) Eliade does specifically apply his theory to Christianity; at the moment, however, I can't remember where the exact references are; so I'll delete those parts as well. --Phatius McBluff 23:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dahn 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, I'll remove the material shortly, when I have another moment to sit down. BTW - because I hate to see articles that don't cite specific examples, could someone with a background in myth scholarship add some specific, well-known or Wikipedia-articled examples that are cited by Eliade? I have read his books, but many of the examples he gives are rather obscure and not as well known. --Phatius McBluff 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed all the material that I did not clearly trace to Eliade himself or to a scholar applying Eliade's theory. Many of the points I deleted actually were mentioned by Eliade, if I remember correctly; I just need to find where exactly he cited them. For instance, he does mention altars, etc. in connection with the "fixed point" established by the Sacred during the mythical age. I'd still like someone who has also read Eliade's work to help in adding specific examples. --Phatius McBluff 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Myths, rituals, and their purpose" and "Cyclic time" sections are seriously messed up. In the end, I could only get them to work by posting part of the "Cyclic time" section between the "Myths..." and "Cyclic time" sections. If you try to remove that fragment, exactly that much of the "Cyclic time" section vanishes in the article as it appears to users. Is this happening because I tried to add the "Cyclic time" section after the "Myths..." section by clicking on the edit button for the "Myths..." section only and then scrolling down and adding the "Cyclic time" section at the end? --Phatius McBluff 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to tell, since it may be a really small detail, but you are in a best position to review your own text: this usually happens when a citation template is incomplete (usually, because it is missing a "</ref>" at the end, or because that "</ref>" part is missing a "/"). If it is not that, it is something similar: try and look over all your recent edits again. Dahn 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right: I was missing a "</ref>". It's fixed now. Thanks. --Phatius McBluff 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]