Talk:Development criticism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Development criticism redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International development High‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Globalization Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

General comments

I must say that development criticism, as explained here, has almost nothing to do with Antimodernism, as aesthetical tendency in Europe between 1890s and 1930s (Klages, Schuler, Evola, Ortega y Gasset, George, Pound, Eliot, Lawrence, Guenon, Berdjajev, Benn, Juenger). So, I think that redirection from Antimodernism to this page has to be terminated. The best online history of the term "antimodernism" I found so far is located on http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E375L/Antimodernism.html Tomsak 10:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As author of Antimodernism MSN Group, I take the opportunity to voice my total disapproval of the other external link "compost modernity" which is obviously Nietschean in inspiration and antichristian as much as antiislamic.

Toulon, 4 février 2006 Hans Georg Lundahl

I think that we need an article "development criticism" (like there is "kehityskritiikki" at fi.wikipedia.org). Antimodernism is mostly the same thing but the concept is seldom heard. Gandhi, Ivan Illich, Gustavo Esteva, Henry Thoreau etc. are among the most well known development critics --128.214.200.146 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have endeavoured to turn this page into a sort of non-canonical disambiguation page. The anti-modernist kerfluffle in the Roman Catholic Church surely deserved some kind of mention here. I have just been working on expanding the former stub at high modernism, which at least has references. Perhaps this might be made into a more canonical disambiguation page by moving some of the see also's there, although I am somewhat at a loss to figure what Fascism or Unabomber have to do with anything discussed there. Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Postdevelopment Theory article is a better place for this subject? --User1756 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. This page has got to go– there is a 'famous development critics' section listing a number of biographical pages in which not one person is characterized as a 'development critic.' I have never seen this phrase before seeing this article. It lists no sources. No question- 'development criticism' is a neologism without bibliographic authority or theoretic relevance. Can someone please clarify why this page is still up? Ebenheaven (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now incorporated the lists from this stub into the Postdevelopment Theory article. Perhaps now we can just redirect from here to there? --User1756 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from anti-modernism

I came to this article redirected from anti-modernism, and I think there's a problem with the redirect. Anti-modernism refers to either Catholic anti-modernism, expressed in Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical; or is used as a general term to describe reactionary responses to modernism or modernity, sometimes implying fundamentalism and fascism, but often simply conservatism. I can see why development criticism has advantages as an expression of the latter, without some of the negative connotations, but anti-modernism is surely the broader term. I know a Google count isn't definitve but here are the results: "development criticism" 1,980 hits; "anti-modernism" 40,000 hits. The "development criticism" hits for the first couple of pages were simply the words used as parts of sentences e.g game development criticism, character development criticism. Development criticism appears to be a neologism. I won't put a neologism tag or references tag on the article just yet, but the redirect from anti-modernism definitely has to go.--Ethicoaestheticist 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes for a good article opening:

Anti-modernism refers to either Catholic anti-modernism, expressed in Pope Pius X's 1907 encyclical; or is used as a general term to describe reactionary responses to modernism or modernity, sometimes implying fundamentalism and fascism, but often simply conservatism.

--Sum (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad title

This is a bad title. I have started a page called Criticisms of globalization. "Development" is not NPOV as it is a vague term. What one would consider developement another would not. Development of what is the question.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bad title maybe; badly written certainly. Perhaps it should be rewritten and merged with Postdevelopment Theory? --User1756 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what the exact definition of "development" might be is a part of what the subject concerns. Establishing a parallel with "criticism of globalization" doesn't make much sense in this context as that subject represents one particular face of what development criticism is. Maziotis (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly is development criticism? How does it differ from post-development or anti-globalisation? Where are the contested definitions? Some refs would help...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rahnema

Somebody deleted Rahnema. He is a leading proponent of post-development. Have a look at the bibliography if you don't know the literature! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minority2005 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The critics are silent

This article is remarkably free of content.
Many critics, none of whom apparently has any idea worthy of documentation here.
Varlaam (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge rather than delete

This article has been stripped of earlier content leaving just a hodge-podge list. I'd rather not loose the history as would happen if it is deleted. I can't tell if this is an official delete request or not because the tag is unclear and there is no link to a delete discussion. It could be merged to Criticisms of globalization if necessary. Or, if there is no other way, rather than delete please move it to my personal user space. Meclee (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. - Since the article wasn't nominated for deletion but rather proposed for deletion anybody can simply remove the template at the top of the article. If someone wants to, at that point it can be nominated and a discussion will take place to determine whether or not it should be kept/deleted/merged/redirected. Since I assume it's what you intended, I went ahead and removed it. And since I'm the one who added the prod and I think merging is a perfectly good option, I imagine nobody's going to take the deletion process further. You could even start moving content over right now and then change this page to a redirect yourself (which keeps the history intact) if nobody objects. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would kindly suggest that it would not be appropriate to merge this article with 'Criticisms of globalization'. While there may be a relationship, globalization and development are not identical, nor are criticisms in relation to each. Perhaps merge with the article on the latter topic? I would recommend discussing this further on one of the related WikiProject talk pages. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Agree with the preceding comment, but also feel there is merit in the earlier suggestion that the article be subsumed under Anti-modernism, which is how I too came to it.Jacobisq (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I believe it should be merged with Postdevelopment_theory, as several authors are already there. The ones that are not can be added as a final note called "other development critics". Anaonmars (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 19:44, 29 November 2014 (EST)[reply]

Redirect

This article was already merged into postdevelopment theory by User1756 in 2010, but nobody finished the redirect. Since that time, other editors have repeatedly had similar discussions here about how inadequate this page is, but nobody has been bold enough to finish the redirect. This state of affairs is unfortunate, because this article has been a content fork of postdevelopment theory since 2010, but people have continued to waste time making minor tweaks to this page, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was already merged into postdevelopment theory. Therefore I am going to be bold and finally redirect this page to postdevelopment theory, which should have been done years ago.

However, the redirect creates the problem of what to do with anti-modernism, which redirects here but clearly should not be redirected to postdevelopment theory because the meaning of anti-modernism is much wider than postdevelopment theory, as was noted above in § Redirect from anti-modernism. For now, I will redirect anti-modernism to Modernism § Criticism and hostility to modernism. I don't know if that is the best redirect for anti-modernism, but it's all I have at the moment.

If anyone is willing to comb through the last version of this article before the redirect and merge into postdevelopment theory any relevant information that was added to this article since the last merge into postdevelopment theory in 2010, it would be appreciated. However, I doubt that there is much remaining to merge given that this page is essentially a list rather than an article with substantial content. Biogeographist (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]