Talk:Dialectics of progress

Curious name?[edit]

This article describes a very familiar phenomenon, but this is a curious name for the phenomenon, apparently coined by the translator of this Dutch work, and not used by anyone else. I certainly don't think it has anything to do with dialectics. --RichardVeryard 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user has found another article on the same topic and merged it here. I think Law of the handicap of a head start is a more meaningful title than The Dialectics of Progress which is just pretentious jargon. I think the merger is useful but I'd prefer to use the other title. --RichardVeryard (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the anonymous user who merged the articles. If you think another name is appropriated, you can always move (WP:MOVE) or make a request for it. I also noticed you added a link to an external website which seems completely unrelated to the subject, except for the words "Dialectics" and "progress" (the article deals with a book named Dialectics of progress and the website is about the link between Dialectics and progress), so I removed it. It seems to me you just typed those words in Google or somewhere.... Anyway, if you prove me otherwise, I'll appreciate it. Cheers,--79.179.135.105 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article I added has a lot more to do with dialectics than this obscure and badly translated concept. I complained about this two years ago, and I haven't seen anything that justifies the use of the word dialectics. I think the best course of action would be to move the whole thing across to Law of the handicap of a head start and do the redirect in the other direction. --RichardVeryard (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misnamed the word "external link" as an "article". Anyway, if, like you said before , what you added has nothing in common with this article but rather to dialectics (the notability or obscurity of an article is another issue, you can use template messages in the article instead), then just don't add it. I see you didn't do so again and I hope you already understand why it shouldn't have been included. The use of the word "dialectics" is simply a translation of the Dutch word "Dialectiek", included in the subject book mentioned in the article. I agree with you that this can confuse some people who can attribute this wrongly to the subject of dialectics, which is unrelated. Cheers --79.179.135.105 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]