This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Progressive utilization theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was completely rewritten in December 2012 |
Please be specific. Here's mine:
1) There were a couple of independent, reliable sources unearthed after the current text was proposed. There are two in particular I can get out of UC Berkeley later this week.
2) Prout logo and photo of Sarkar would help the layout a lot.
3) More reliable sources. Not sure how realistic this is, but the ceiling on the quality of this article is going to be determined by WP:RS more than anything else.
Others?
Garamond Lethe
t
c
05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As to additional sources, there's
this. It's peer-reviewed, but I'm not sure how to describe the author. According to
this he's getting around to getting his Ph.D. in economics but has taught the topic at the community college level for years. "Professor" is a bit too strong, as is "economist", but "teacher" and "instructor" are a little too weak. Suggestions?
Garamond Lethe
t
c
04:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A few other ideas on what I'd like to see added to the article:
Garamond Lethe
t
c
22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The "criticism" section isn't really about the possible downsides of prout. It should probably be called "reception" instead. Magnigornia ( talk) 08:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking of splitting the description into "PROUT as social order" and "PROUT as economic theory" with Crovetto's work in the former and Friedman in the latter. Ravi Batra may be able to make an appearance in both; I won't be able to tell until I get back to the library.
Thoughts? I'm a little be leery of giving so much weight to Friedman—the paper has only been cited once—but there's so little independent work in this area that I hate to discard anything that has been peer reviewed.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
17:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
User @ Maheśvara: appears to have ties to this article's subject as it is the only article they have edited. Jonpatterns ( talk) 10:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI: https://www.amazon.com/After-Capitalism-Prouts-Vision-World/dp/1877762067
The quote was rendered correctly, but in context, Erdman's verdict seems to be on the book as a whole; it's not clear that Proutism itself involves any "voodoo historical theories." Copying here for the sake of WP:PRESERVE; maybe something can be salvaged from this source.
Part removed:
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Progressive utilization theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was completely rewritten in December 2012 |
Please be specific. Here's mine:
1) There were a couple of independent, reliable sources unearthed after the current text was proposed. There are two in particular I can get out of UC Berkeley later this week.
2) Prout logo and photo of Sarkar would help the layout a lot.
3) More reliable sources. Not sure how realistic this is, but the ceiling on the quality of this article is going to be determined by WP:RS more than anything else.
Others?
Garamond Lethe
t
c
05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As to additional sources, there's
this. It's peer-reviewed, but I'm not sure how to describe the author. According to
this he's getting around to getting his Ph.D. in economics but has taught the topic at the community college level for years. "Professor" is a bit too strong, as is "economist", but "teacher" and "instructor" are a little too weak. Suggestions?
Garamond Lethe
t
c
04:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A few other ideas on what I'd like to see added to the article:
Garamond Lethe
t
c
22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The "criticism" section isn't really about the possible downsides of prout. It should probably be called "reception" instead. Magnigornia ( talk) 08:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking of splitting the description into "PROUT as social order" and "PROUT as economic theory" with Crovetto's work in the former and Friedman in the latter. Ravi Batra may be able to make an appearance in both; I won't be able to tell until I get back to the library.
Thoughts? I'm a little be leery of giving so much weight to Friedman—the paper has only been cited once—but there's so little independent work in this area that I hate to discard anything that has been peer reviewed.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
17:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
User @ Maheśvara: appears to have ties to this article's subject as it is the only article they have edited. Jonpatterns ( talk) 10:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
FYI: https://www.amazon.com/After-Capitalism-Prouts-Vision-World/dp/1877762067
The quote was rendered correctly, but in context, Erdman's verdict seems to be on the book as a whole; it's not clear that Proutism itself involves any "voodoo historical theories." Copying here for the sake of WP:PRESERVE; maybe something can be salvaged from this source.
Part removed: