Talk:Social cycle theory of Sarkar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 April 27. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Anyone else find the parallels between this classification system and the four Hogwarts houses unexpected?Turidoth 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed move to Law of Social Cycle
The current title is clunky and non-natural because of the parenthetical. It is the result of a feud on which article gets the name Social Cycle Theory. Since there are multiple social cycle theories and there was no consensus to rename the other article, Social Cycle Theory appears to not be an option. Since for months this article has said in the lead "also known as the Law of Social Cycle", I propose it be renamed to Law of Social Cycle. —dgiestc 16:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- This theory is almost universally referred to as "The Social Cycle Theory". The Law of the Social Cycle is a formal name that gained less currency in the futures studies and scholarly community. It was a compromise to name it Social Cycle Theory (Sarkar) after the another entry had been created as Social Cycle Theory. A proposal to rename that entry Social Cycle Theories (in the plural - as the article deals with an amalgam of sociological theories) was not acceptable to the creators/proponents of that page. In view of the uneasy compromise, I propose the present titles be left as is.Rumbird 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of plural naming. It makes it very confusing for people trying to find the right article. Almost all articles use singular naming: We have dog not dogs, theory not theories. This is but one social cycle theory among many so it is misleading to name it as if it were the only social cycle theory. Also note that the article on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar refers to this as the Law of the Social Cycle. I am aware that the current title is a compromise, I'm suggesting we can come to a better compromise. What would you think of Sarkar's social cycle theory? —dgiestc 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, this is a difficult choice. Interestingly, none of the Social theories being discussed under the rubric of Social Cycle Theory have that particular title originally. Neither do they embody a dynamic historical cycle that repeats. Rather they are mostly statist sociological theories of historical evolution, of stages, that more aptly deserve the title Theories of macrohistory or Sociological theories of macrohistory. Only the Social Cycle Theory of Sarkar is truly a theory that embodies a historical cycle that repeats itself. Hence, their claim to this title is far more questionable than that of Sarkar´s theory. In my view, the present title for Sarkar's theory is an unwieldly compromise. Social Cycle Theory of Sarkar could work as well (badly!), but it is equivalent to Theory of relativity of Einstein. I would much prefer that the other entry be renamed as suggested above and Sarkar's theory being given the proper title it deserves.Rumbird 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of plural naming. It makes it very confusing for people trying to find the right article. Almost all articles use singular naming: We have dog not dogs, theory not theories. This is but one social cycle theory among many so it is misleading to name it as if it were the only social cycle theory. Also note that the article on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar refers to this as the Law of the Social Cycle. I am aware that the current title is a compromise, I'm suggesting we can come to a better compromise. What would you think of Sarkar's social cycle theory? —dgiestc 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
