Talk:Recursionism

Is 'recursionism' a word? How does it differ from recursion? A Google search of 'recursionism' brings up copies of this article. The only justification for this article seems to be recursive. Wikiwikifast 00:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it's a word of Subhash Kak's vocabulary, who writes articles about himself here. dab (ᛏ) 15:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of recursion, but never recursionism. I would like the page to include some sort of etymology or history of the term, not just a description of what it means (and the description given seems very vague). thither 04:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this been merged with recursion, really? I'm actually quite curious, because it seems that this article would serve well as a "Recursion in other areas" section in the larger and better referenced recursion article. --FreelanceWizard 03:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from copies of this page, the only Google hits that I can find for "recursionism" refer to the philosophy of Subhash Kak. I removed the non-philosphical parts of the article. There is no evidence that the artists and scientific discoveries that were referred to were influenced by Kak - they mostly pre-date Kak's writings - and I cannot find anywhere that Kak specifically refers to them as examples of "recursionism". So the non-philosophical parts of the article were OR - an independent amalgamation of ideas not found in Kak's work. Gandalf61 09:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also favor a merge/deletion if someone who knows the system will get it going. Ryoutou 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted redirect[edit]

I have reverted the change that replaced this article with a redirect to recursion. As no attempt was made to merge the contents of this article into recursion, this appears to be an undiscussed deletion of the article. If the intention is to merge then this should be proposed here or at Talk:Recursion first. If the intention is to delete then this should be proposed via Template:prod or nominated at AfD. Not saying that I oppose either of these options - just saying it should be done properly. Gandalf61 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the burden of establishing this as a standalone topic would lie with whichever party insists on keeping it separate. I can find no content worth merging. --dab (𒁳) 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've reverted your change that replaced the page with a redirect. This looks like a back-door deletion to me. I think the fate of this article deserves wider discussion to determine consensus. If you want to merge, propose a merger; if you want to delete, take it to AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you have any evidence that this concept is notable, there can be discussion. Until you do that, there is nothing to discuss. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see also[edit]

Reverted redirect[edit]