Talk:Progress

message: For now, social development redirects here, as this term is sometimes used to mean social progress. However I think that 'social dev.' may have a different meaning as well - i.e. the development of individuals, not societies. However I was unable to find a clear definition of any of 'soc. dev.', so until sb finds it and corrects it, I think the current redirect is a better solution then red link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I discoverd that social development is not necesarilly positive, and is divided into social progress and social regress. Changed the articles accordingly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bibliographical reference from J. B. Bury, who seems to me the best authority on the subject. It seems to me on reflection, that this article could be productively merged with Philosophical Progress and Progress (History) and even the Myth of Progress (other entries on wikipedia). I agree with Piotr that there is progress and there is regress -- the "myth" is that either one is inevitable (or alternatively that history moves necessarily in either a unitary direction or in cycles -- both beliefs having long histories).Mballen (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social development 

message: I do not believe there is much difference between notion of progress in social science in general and historiography in particular. Compare the leads of the two articles:
If we were to remove "In historiography" opening of the first one, they'd be pretty much interexchangable. Further, I am also thinking that Idea of Progress may be worth merging in too. Consider that lead, just remove "idea of" from it:
I believe we again get the very same lead, replicated for the third time. Progress is progress is progress.
There was a past discussion few years back at Talk:Progress_(history)#Mass_merger_proposal, which ended with the merger of [[Myth of Progress] to  Idea of Progress#Myth of Progress. I do think we should finish the merger. While the articles are not fully identical, this is simply because they are both incomplete - but they seem to cover the same basic concept: sociocultural progress in historical context, i.e. just "progress" as commonly understood. If anyone disagrees, please cite an academic work which distinguishes those three concepts, i.e talks of "idea of progress" vs. "social progreess" vs. "progress in history/historiography". I'll ping participants of past discussions I was able to ID: Userr:fhorrest, User:Rjensen, User:Maziotis, User:Sunrise. 
PS. I am open to what may be the best name for this article - frankly, I think we should move progress to progress (disambiguation) and move the merged article to just progress. And I chose social progress as a merge destination more or less at random, all three articles seem to be about as well developed (and IMHO are three forks of the same concept). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I didn't receive your ping, but I saw this comment on my watchlist (pinging , , ). I agree that additional merges need to take place, and that there should be a main article at Progress summarizing the pages currently being disambiguated there. Also, based on this discussion, I'm not convinced that the "idea of progress" and "progress" are independent concepts. Sunrise (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with everything as you've stated it, Piotrus. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seems to be agreement for a merge here; perhaps someone with a subject interest could complete the merge? This one looks a little more complex and distinct from my field of specialism for me to attempt it in an ideal manner. Klbrain (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy to learn more about any concerns you may have about the mergers. I do think it is possible some of  those articles might be plausible subarticles, but as they were, they were either content forks or original research/essays, IMHO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Progress (history)]] and [[Idea of Progress]] 

message: I wish to include this paragraph in the sub-section, Social Progress:
Social progress
According to the World Economic Forum (Agenda 2015), social progress counts because the human development model anchored on economic progress alone is not complete. Societies must also address fundamental needs of human beings, empower citizens to promote quality of life, safeguard the environment, and provide opportunities for citizens to succeed. Growth entails a combination of social and economic progress.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/why-social-progress-matters/ 
ThanksLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some content based on this source. Sunrise (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social progress 

message: Some sort of fringe writing is represented in that section - 1 citation to an author who lacks enough prominence to have a Wikipedia article but seems to be positing a "grand theory" of everything human.  Should probably be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.136.207 (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Progress of Civilizing" section 

message: Would anyone care to explain why this article from a white nationalist magazine (the occidental quarterly) needs to be in the “further reading” section?  Seems like a marginal and harmful viewpoint that Wikipedia should not be guiding readers towards. 72.95.130.125 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alain de benoist 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Progress (philosophy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Progress (philosophy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Progress (philosophy" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The part of this article about postmodernism is very clearly written by someone with no idea of what they're talking about. It has no citations. I would be extremely curious which "postmodernist" thinkers argue for the value of "inner peace." There are genuine postmodern critiques of the concept of progress, but whoever wrote this clearly did not read them. Mbarcy (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful section on postmodernism