Talk:Progressivism/Archive 1

Comment on the "Pending" List

It requests a separate section for "progressive beliefs" but I have differentiated the two uses for progressive, as you can see in the introduction. Also, it asks for non-US examples, but "progressive" as a term is US-centric, replacing "liberal" where the term is unpopular. For non-US examples, I could make a point of redirecting readers to "socialist" or "social-democrat" pages. Again, in the US these terms are not electable, and the term progressive is used in their lieu.

Comments on changes

The article said that progressive is a euphamism for liberalism. That's simply POV.

The article said the progressivism was the same thing as liberalism. If you believe that then make your modifications to the liberalism article.

No mention of campaign finance reform? This is the central tenet.

A lot of liberal agenda confused with progressives.

I traced progressivism through national elections starting from when the term began becoming more fashionable in the mid to early 90s.

I added a section to address the concern expressed by conservatives that progressivism is the same thing as liberalism so as to sort of isolate it from the topic at hand. Again, if it's the same thing then why have the article in the first place?

harburg 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems (fixed)

>>The word "liberal" has become essentially pejorative, through the consistent usage by critics<<

I object to the characterization of "liberal" as a dirty word. All political labels are used in a negative way by their critics; those on the left often use "conservative" in that way, but some people wear that label proudly. (Just as some people wear the "liberal" label proudly.)

• The point is not that the term itself is dirty, but that the reason for using progressive in lieu lieu of liberal is a public relations one. If you have a meaningful differentiation between "left/liberal" or "progressive", please post it! I stress "meaningful," because as a liberal myself, I understand that some people attach degrees to liberal and progressive, stating that one or the other is "more left" but both are left, and the impossibility of agreeing on what is "more left" makes our job difficult.

• • The difference is that "liberal" is a distinct ideology that stands largely for social freedoms and breaking up elites. "Progressive" is non-ideological and can be used by any ideology that wishes to deliberately change the status quo. It's just that in Western Europe and America most of the people claiming to be progressive are liberals, hence the large association between the two. "Left-wing" is some very vague concept altogether and you probably should check out the page for that as its too long for me to go into here. 130.126.76.27 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

>> The term progressive is thus used to avoid confusion between the politicized term liberal and genuine philosophical views focused on social change. <<

Ahem! By the description of the article, it is not an attempt to avoid confusion, but an attempt to avoid negative connotation and stigma associated with a particular label. This sentence makes it sound like there are some "genuine" views which are somehow unworthy of criticism. But of course the substantive criticisms are the same no matter what the label is.

>> Instead, the term reactionary is more frequently used to describe those who wish to return to previously established convention. <<

I think the term "reactionary" is more apt to describe people who advocate the status quo *without thinking*. But it is also a good term for those who advocate reform in a knee-jerk fashion.

>> This is particularly useful when dealing with philosophical positions, since the liberal tradition has very particular and fixed Enlightenment connotations that may not necessarily have any useful meaning in the left political scene. <<

This isn't NPOV...I'm just not clear on what connotations are referred to here. "Liberal" has lots of different meanings in different contexts, as in "libertarian" and "liberty" or as in "lots of". The senses of "liberal" and "conservative" are also reversed outside the US. The Englightenment was a period of increased personal liberty, but it also spawned both "rightist" capitalism and "leftist" socialism, so um...I also think hardly anyone outside certain academic circles thinks of the Enlightenment when they hear the word "liberal". Quite unclear to me.

I personally find the term "progressive" has been used more often by those on the far left to describe themselves, and those on the left but closer to the center are described or describe themselves as "liberal". If anything, I see the use of the term "progressive" to mean "liberal" to be an attempt to mainstream the ideology and vocabulary of the far left, as opposed to an attempt to find an un-tarnished or better-sounding label. I'm certain some people call themselves "progressive" because it sounds good, and others do so to attempt to align themselves in rhetoric, (if not in action) with the far left.

-- Beland 07:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made some changes and added some content to restore the article's neutrality and expand it. Tell me what you think. Loremaster 17:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Though some factual information has been added, the article's bias is the same, if not worse. I will attempt to correct it. -- Beland 05:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you can see, I've made the promised changes. NPOV no longer disputed. -- Beland 04:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this still has POV problems in the US section. First, the article tries to mash progressivism into a "left/right" framework, implying that all human political thought fits neatly into this simplistic framework. I don't think it does, and I think that my opinion is widespread. I think the introduction uses this framework appropriately --saying that progressives tend to allign with the left--treating "left" as a loose coalition. Likewise, the discussion of semantics seems like personal opinion. Who made these arguments? My impulse is to delete this content, but I trust that you guys can work it into the article in a meaningful way. AdamRetchless 22:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US-centrism

The article, by sheer amount of content, is rather US-centric. This is beyond my ability to fix. -- Beland 05:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Explanations for certain major edits

>> New research and discussion is underway to define New Progressives as a political philosophy counter to Big Business and a combination of many social issues from around the political spectrum. Cultural Creatives is working on this, and has published a paper for open discussion. <<

Being relatively familiar with the contemporary Progressive Movement, I've never heard mention of "Cultural Creatives" nor Dr. Paul H. Ray before. Inclusion of this paragraph without describing bedrock Progressive ideas like feminism and participatory democracy makes this look out of proportion, almost to the point of advocacy. I've moved the external link to his book to the article Cultural Creatives, deleted this paragraph, and added a "See also" link to that article. I think that's sufficient mention for an article of this length on the Progressive Movement. -- Beland 07:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>> This term progressive is particularly useful when dealing with philosophical positions, since the liberal tradition has very particular and fixed Enlightenment connotations that may not necessarily have any useful meaning in the left political scene. <<

OK, I figured this one out by looking at the article Liberalism. I wrote a new explanation that references that article instead, because the above version was opaque to me. -- Beland 07:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>>Although liberalism was originally a conservative political movement that believed in rule by the enlightened few and limited government, terms became confused when the progressives left the Republican Party after Franklin Delano Roosevelt rallied progressives and liberals (who were conservative Democrats) together around the New Deal. This is when the term liberal really began to be used as a pejorative by Republican partisans.<<

I've noted the changing alignments of Dem/Rep and left/right, and the New Deal elsewhere. Those parts of this paragraph were confusing. The remainder, the last sentence, could be seen as a attack on Republicans. So this whole paragraph was removed. -- Beland 07:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>> The first real American progressives were the slavery abolitionists. The term progressive did not really come into vogue until after the American Civil War. During the Gilded Age, progressives in the Republican Party fought to create the Civil Service, and progressives outside the party fought for a number of issues, including "free silver" which meant an end to the gold standard. <<

If there's only going to be one or two paragraphs on the history of the progressive movement, we need something different than the above content. It would need to at least mention the most important or famous events, before getting into some of the smaller things mentioned above.

(Notes on content: 1: I don't think the abolitionists were the first progressives in America, though of course they were here at the founding. Several other political groups which could be considered liberal or progressive were also around at the founding. 2: "Gilded Age" might be considered a loaded term, but it's also commonly used among historians. Well, at least I remember it from U.S. history in high school. From a brief check, I think the Progressive Era was a response to the relatively laissez-faire capitalism of the so-called Gilded Age [in the article, I would probably explicitly attribute that term to Mark Twain], but I'm not comfortable making that assertion without doing more research. )

The issue of what is "progressive" and what is not is also complex, and selective inclusion can be somewhat inappropriate.

In the short run, I've decided to remove this paragraph and hope that in the long run, these scattered facts will make it into the encyclopedia, but in a proper and accurate historical context and whatnot.

I think it's clear that more than a paragraph or two of history will eventually be needed. In fact, there are at least three different types of history to attend to.

1: The history of movements calling themselves "progressive". 2: The history of the past political movements which are ideologically aligned with modern progressivism. 3: The direct historical antecedents of the contemporary progressive movement.

For the first kind: the history of the Gilded Age is probably better described in that article or in the article Progressive Era, and other movements may also need to be included mostly by reference. But there needs to be text in this article which summarizes those developments and connects them. A good first step would be to identify all "progressive" movements in world history, beyond what's currently mentioned in the article.

For the second kind: There is considerable overlap with the first kind. I'm not sure how to handle that. But a good way to make sure that major movements which are in ideological alignment are mentioned is to describe the modern ideology, which is an item on the todo list.

For the third kind: Well, that just requires research or someone familiar with the recent history.

-- Beland 08:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Progressive is thus an example of loaded language

The article states parenthetically, "Progressive is thus an example of loaded language," then goes on to speak about how the term gives a clearer indication of its meaning than the presumably non-loaded "liberal." This effectively and accurately refutes the claim "loaded language." This contradiction should not stand; the sentence should be removed.

The entry on loaded language supports this conclusion.

--LegCircus 20:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with LegCircus. I have removed the sentence. Loremaster 02:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with LegCircus. User 203.62.10.22 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another Progressivism

In the to-do list it states that you want to find other uses of the term, so here is one: In the early 20th century (peaking in the 20's) the term is associated with John Dewey and others in progressive education reform. There was also a related movement in journalism where there was a move away from partisan papers to the still dominant non-partisan (at least on the surface) form we know today. Progressivism needs a disambiguation page as these are very distinct uses.

Although you are right, I think we should focus on simply improving this article for now before creating new ones. The Beliefs section, which sounds like a fluffy broadside for a Progressive party, needs some work. Furthermore, due to the new introduction, the article should focus on defining progressive movements rather than the term. Loremaster 23:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Organize

May I suggest to move the article to a Political Progressivism page, and then a more general article regarding Progressivism in economics, politics, society, etc be put in its place. That way the reader may not be confused.

Apology

Sorry, I was editing thsi page and something messed up, adn I ended up erasing a large partof this page. I'll work to fix it when I hvae time, sorry again- Curufinwe

Prohibition?

Why is there no talk of prohibition as an integral part of the historical Progressive Movement? The Progressive Movement page is essential empty with nothing more than a skeleton saying that it existed with wiki links. For NPOV it would be best to add talk of prohibition here. --66.229.137.83 07:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved

I moved this page to political progressivism, just as said in the pending part...--Humble Guy 14:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section "Liberal criticisms on progressivism". I replaced the word liberal with leftist as this is more accurate. Socialists/communists - the subject of the paragraph - are not liberals. They are in fact opposed to liberalism as an economic ideology. I get the feeling that a lot of the people making edits to this article are americans. It should be remembered that in most parts of the world liberalism is viewed as being on the right wing of the political spectrum. - Anonymous

I strongly agree. There are green progressives, liberal progressives, conservative progressives, socialist progressives, etc. This article does not represent progressives as whole. There is also an articele about if progresssvism exist? Sounds fishy...Alot has to be changed. What do you suggest that we do about it? --Humble Guy 10:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. It should be changed back to Progressivism. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits

I apologize for reverting your edit that was done in a good faith manner. I would normally edit yours, but I just couldn't get it to work. Here is why: 1. the forward direction part is always what people want, they want it different than before and 2. emphasizing liberals and socialists is a U.S. centric approach and even then is only partially accurate, progressive is such a positive term without real meaning that all different groups have used the term, especially throughout history. --Noitall 23:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please read the text. It talks about progressives in the other countries listed as mostly on the left. Reversion is not a sign of good faith.--Cberlet 23:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well Cberlet, I don't know how long you have been on Wiki. But if you have been on here awhile, please tell me the last time someone tried pretty hard to first fix your edit, then went on the talk page and fully explained themselves, and apologized for the reversion to boot. It hasn't happened to me yet, so by your assertion, all reversions are bad faith. I think I was respectful of your attempt. Now on the substance: your points are best made in the body of the article where you can be specific. This top part is generallizing something that is difficult to generalize.

--Noitall 23:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you have evidence that political progressivism is not primarily a form on the political left, please present it. Since the evidence on the page contradicts you, your reversion showed a certain POV trumping evidence. Note that I complained, but did not revert you.  :-) --Cberlet 23:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intro statement is meant as generalization, and as such it is accurate. There have been and are uses of the term progressivism across the board and across history and across countries. Republican Theodore Roosevelt, the most famous "progressive" of all of them, was certainly not "left". And over the years, what is left and right have certainly changed to some extent, see discussion in neoconservatives. You have the entire intent of the introduction entirely wrong. If you want to insert a "primarily" in there, along with a lot of others words, it is up to you to prove it -- the generalization trumps without specific evidence.

--Noitall 01:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are straining for vagueness over evaluation. The fallacy of your argument can be demonstrated with this example. Most deer are brown. Some deer are white. You argue that an introduction to an article on deer would say that "deer come in a variety of colors." I am arguing that the lead should say "deer come in a variety of colors; most are brown, but some are white." --Cberlet 02:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1. Deer are really one color and that color has not changed throughout time and they are the same color in the U.S. as in other countries (I guess, but I am not yet a deer expert). and 2. The biggest famous father deer of them all was a different color than you want to use with the word "primarily." --Noitall 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Know it all? I think not. The White Fallow Deer is not an albino, but a type of deer that is naturally white. Pictures [1] [2]. Try again.--Cberlet 03:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about this page?

Most of what was just stamped in was moved to Progressivism_in_the_United_States. And most of it is neither accurate nor sufficient to discuss progressivism in the U.S.--Cberlet 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US Progressives no longer in the past

It looks like most of the language under the US section relates to the past. I'm willing to work on it to reflect the differences between the historical movement from the late 1800's / early 1900's and the current movement in the early 21st century. Comments or concerns? Chadlupkes 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In a way, Nazism was progressive too

The definition given on the main article page": As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism can refer to left or antiestablishmentarianism, in which case it may be right or left, as long as the platform is reformist.

Using that definition, in a way, Nazism was progressive too. Progressivism is a non-ideological term.

Including arguments that neoliberalism is progressive

The following dialogue comes from a dispute that took place between myself and Loremaster on his userpage. As the discussion reached a deadlock, I think it should be open to third opinions here.

I noticed you reverted my changes to the Progressivism page. First of all I'd like to point out that I am not a neoliberal and disagree with many of its policies. However, I do study politics and the debate on the Right in the UK in the 70s was between traditional conservativism and neoliberalism. Whilst the former was considered to retain the status quo via gradual change, the latter was intentional radical and wanted to move forward (in the eyes of its proponents), thus far from "conserving", it tried to "progress" - like all 'progressive' movements however, its opponents disagree about what constitutes progress. I also put in that it was 'arguably' progressive as I know a lot of people would have problems with it. I fail to see how it constituted 'propaganda'.

From www.moral-politics.com, a seemingly neutral site - "Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and a political-economic movement beginning in the 1970s that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by more free-market methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth, as measured by changes in real gross domestic product."

130.126.76.27 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the Progressivism article focuses on progressivism through governmental intervention, which is the most common and accepted understanding of this political philosophy. Keep in mind, nothing prevents you from describing neoliberalism as a form of progressivism in the Neoliberalism article (despite the overwhelming evidence that neoliberalism not only does not acheive social progress/justice but is actually an obstacle to it being achieved when implemented). --Loremaster 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should focus on intervental progressivism as the most common belief, but dissenting viewpoints should also be mentioned - and it is not propaganda to do so. As for the supposed 'overwhelming evidence' against neoliberalism, the fact is that some of the basic premises of neoliberalism as limited government, weaker unions, no nationalised industries and an increase private element in public services are accepted by all three major parties in the UK. I think the fairest thing to do would be to cover neoliberalism briefly in the article, include the disagreement about whether it really is progressive, and allow you to add the 'overwhelming evidence' to refute it. 130.126.76.27 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Everything you listed as the basic premises of neoliberalism are counter to the basic premises of various forms of progressivism throughtout history! The fact that formely progressive political parties have sold out to corporate interests by adopting neoliberal policies does not in any way prove that neoliberalism is a form of progressivism. I am opposed to any mention of neoliberalism in this article and I will remove any mention of it --Loremaster 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

The fact is that progressivism, like conservatism is more of a concept than a distinct ideology. Just as the policies connected with conservatism in a particular nation depend on where the nation has been (see the mention of Dutch tolerance vs Islamic law on the conservatism page), different concepts of progressivism depend on where the nation is going. Thus many reformers in the ex-Soviet bloc have sought for policies of Atlanticism, privatisation of state industries and market-orientated polices, and have touted them as progress. The proponents of these policies have argued that this would break up power elites, reduce corruption and the resulting economic growth would reduce poverty. It is also worth noting that the Thatcherites in the Conservative party were often criticised by the traditionalists for being radical and not truly conservative. Your claim that neoliberalism equates to selling out to corporate interests is merely showing your own partisan view on the issue. I know your quote on your userpage shows your wish to control the means of information, but the wiki philosophy is to include all viewpoints and the criticism of them, not omit them entirely. 130.126.76.27 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China the corrupt capitalist privatization processes, which are extremely unpopular, has led to a concentration of wealth in the hands of oligarchs. Although political reform is the favored tool of progressives, reform can lead to a more progressive society or a more regressive one depending who is using this tool. In other words, a reformist is not necessarily a progressive. My claims that adopting neoliberal reform policies equates to selling out to corporate interets are supported by the Wikipedia article on neoliberalism:

To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labour policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights.

As well as my claims that is counter-progressive:

Neoliberalism is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue that labor rights and social justice should have a greater priority in international relations and economics.

I wouldn't be surprised if you now started editing that article to fit your partisan view... --Loremaster 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually how unpopular privatisation is in the ex-Soviet states depends on the country. In the Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic states privatisation is still widely supported. Its true that a reform can be progressive or regressive, but whether a particular reform is one or another depends on one's point of view. The partisan thing is to only include one view and censor the others, the NPOV of wikipedia demands that all views and interpretations about something should be given space. And for the record, I am not a neoliberal but that's not to say the views of neoliberals should be deliberately repressed. 130.126.76.27 21:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that one can non-partisanly say that neoliberalism is counter-progressive and therefore should not be mentioned in the Progressivism article. --Loremaster 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But that entirely depends on what one's definition of "progressive" is. Some would claim that the neoliberal goal of economic growth helps all of society and lifts many out of poverty. This is currently the argument of the New Labour British govt who have reigned over a period of increasing inequality but claim their policies to be progressive as they are reducing the number of people below the poverty line. The other arguments I have heard are that neoliberalism is progressive as (a) it increases individual freedoms and (b) reducing the barriers to entry in a market allows greater social mobility for the poorest in society. I know these are disputed claims but they are prevalent enough in the political debate that they should be covered, albeit with a disclaimer that such views are much criticised. 130.126.76.27 21:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If we were to include in the Progressivism article ideologies, philosophies, movements, parties and personalities simply because they claim to be progressive, it would render the term meaningless. Claims and facts are two different things and the facts do not support the claims you want to include in this article. I stand by my position and have nothing else to add. --Loremaster 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Although I think it is intellectually healthy to have a criticism section all Wikipedia articles, I am concerned that the Criticism section in the Progressivism article is or will be used by market libertarians for propaganda purposes. Since the article doesn't yet do a good job of explaining (and making an apology of) progressivism, it is unbalanced. --Loremaster 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Book, Against the Dead Hand by Brink Lindsey, he discusses some of this, including his dislike of the misleading term progressive. Milton Friedman also discusses the regressive nature of progressive policies. I do not think this is propoganda because this is a factual treatment of a published authors pov. That means it is cited in npov fashion. (Gibby 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

The point is that it makes the article unbalanced, because right now the article doesn't properly discuss the arguments for progressivism. Furthermore, I don't see how any of the information in the criticism section is specifically anti-progressive, rather than pro-libertarian. Certainly, any book that is pro- something other than progressivism can be counted as anti-progressive by default. Should we start discussing the specific views of every non-progressive ideology in the criticism section? -- Nikodemos 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm coming into this discussion late, but doesn't the Lindsey critique of the very name "progressive" as well as the underlying politics pretty well embody the concept of being "anti-progressive?" If the article seems imbalanced because it doesn't adequately explain what progressivism is-- which I think is still a problem-- the solution is to expand that part of the article, rather than making another section less adequate to keep it even. I think it's bizarre that the most complete definition of progressivism in the article is located in its rebuttal to criticism.DCB4W 15:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

DCB4W, the issue has already been settled. The Criticism section is fine now. --Loremaster 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was just commenting that it was a weird argument to begin with. The body of the article, however, still needs work.DCB4W 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibby, correct me if I am wrong but you are reporting Lindsey and Friedman's opinions as facts which leads me to suspect that you endorse these views. --Loremaster 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Economist and Cato Institute Fellow, Brink Lindsey argues that progressivism is the belief in moving forward, as opposed to conservatism which favors the status quo. From this he derives economic policies and their outcomes from perceived "progressives" to actually being highly "regressive" or having status quo policy preferences. He believes that by terming themselves "progressives" liberals and social democrats have put a positive spin on what he believes are their regressive economic tendencies. Lindsey believes that the only true progressive movement is libertarianism, which he describes as free market liberalism. Critics like Brink Lindsey argue that "progressive" policies such as minimum wages, income taxes, payroll taxes, trade barriers help to increase unemployment among the poor and unskilled, as well as increase costs for all members of society hurting the poor the most. Despite their good intentions, Lindsey believes the outcome of "progressive" preferences is in fact regressive and creates disencentives toward building wealth, reducing poverty, creating employment, and promoting effeciency and innovation in the economy.

Progressives counter that, since progress is always progress toward an end and regress is always regress from an end, conservatives and libertarians have different ends than liberals and social democrats do and define "progress" and "regress" in terms of those different ends. Furthermore, progressives argue that free market liberalism can be demonstrated to be regressive due to negative social consequences caused by its rejection or mitigation of labor policies to improve corporate efficiency, and the fact that it is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue for labor rights and social justice in international relations and economics.

Moving Criticism section here until the Progressivism article is improved. --Loremaster 02:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I support your decision. In addition to the imbalance I noted above (the article does not discuss the arguments for progressivism), the text in the criticism section wasn't even particularly relevant. It basically said that some people believe progressivism does not truly advance "progress". -- Nikodemos 02:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Niko you support any decession that removes market oriented arguements. I'm returning it until there is more discussion...as a matter of fact, legitimate discussion. Improve the article don't remove the criticism. (Gibby 10:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

With comments like that, your POV seems clear. Regardless, moving the disputed content to the discussion page is the proper thing to do so I reverted your edits. Off topic: Do you have a spelling problem? --Loremaster 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Gibby was the subject of a recent ArbCom case, and only barely escaped a 1 year ban. [3] He is currently on probation. -- Nikodemos 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete the legitimate criticism section. Improve the article section reporting its views and support of its views. It is not legit to delete the criticism on the grounds that you havnt yet added enough to be criticsed. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Criticism exists, it must be reported! (Gibby 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, the section has not been deleted. It has been moved to this discussion temporarily until the page is improved. Criticism of progressivism exists and will be reported in a good time. However, the fact that you are so adamant about having this criticism section seems to indicate that you may an agenda. --Loremaster 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DELETE A SECTION. Why don't you find it in the rule book that says you can remove stuff until you determine the article is improved enough. I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material.

Add it the article if it needs improvement, don't delete the criticism, WHICH IS IN AND OF ITSELF IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

(Gibby 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Like I said before, the criticism section (which also needs improving) has simply beem moved temporarily to this talk page because it makes the article unbalanced, which is unfair to the subject matter. So I am reverting your edits. I don't see why you are making such a big fuss about this unless you have some kind of anti-progressive and/or pro-libertarian agenda--Loremaster 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This has now become vandalism and pov editing. You do not have a legitimate reason to delete it. What you are arguing, following your OWN LOGIC, is that the article can only be improved by providing material supporting progressivism. THIS IS POV. I am reverting your pov vandalism. NOW STOP IT! (Gibby 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Although Gibby's POV is clear to everyone, I am moving back the complete criticism section from the talk page to the Progressivism article. However, I have added a neutrality dispute tag which will remain there until that section and the entire article is improved. Let's discuss like adults rather then indulging in a needless edit war. --Loremaster 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE! (Gibby 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

1. Stop screaming. It's inappropriate.

2. By accusing all of us of being lefties, you are exposing your bias.

3. Nothing has been deleted. On the contrary, eveything has been restored.

4. The neutrality dispute tag is perfectly legitimate.

--Loremaster 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I type big so you can see the emphasis. You've already missed some major points, I don't want you to miss more.

2. This is the problem with people like you. You conflate personal beliefs for what is reported. You already assumed I was libertarian anti progressive based on the section addition and deleted it for bogus reasons...aka your own pov. By deleting all material contradictory to the articles title you expose your own bias. Especially if your reasons are total bs.

3. Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions.

4. The dispute tag is legitimate insofar as complete ignorance on the meaning of NPOV is concerned. Reporting what Brink Lindsey said is not POV. Again, you show your bias. Anything you disagree with is POV regardless of how it is presented.

(Gibby 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, you are the one who has a problem. First, when I said you had an agenda, I was only refering to comments you made in this talk page. Second, nothing has been deleted. A section was moved to the talk page to discuss the legitimacy of its inclusion in the article. This is perfectly routine! Third, the POV has been the way you included and edited Lindley's opinion as fact in the article. Fourth, regardless of whether of not you agree, if someone disputes the neutrality of an article, it is perfectly legitimate to include a POV tag in the article until the dispute is resolved. --Loremaster 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your dispute is nothing more than outright deletion of the section. That is not a dispute! Especially considering your reasons for deletion are not only logically fallacious, they don't even fit in with WIKI RULES!!!!

There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule! :::::::(Gibby 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Dude, you are beating a dead horse... The so-called deleted material has been restored so this is no longer an isssue. As for the neutrality issue, reporting other people's biased opinions as facts to support one's opinions within an article is clear POV. --Loremaster 01:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No it is not, if it was wikipedia would be EMPTY! We gather facts based on other peoples information because we have to have sources and citations from published persons.

WITHOUT THEM WIKIPEDIA IS NOTHING. THerefore, reporting what other people say is a must, and as a must cannot be a violation of NPOV! (Gibby 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

What you fail to understand is that this information needs to be improved because it was POV in its attack on a US-centric definition of progressivism.

Also, stop screaming. It is considered inappropriate regarless of your intent. --Loremaster 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, I hope you will not object to my re-deleting Gibby's text for the same reasons as before. I do not believe any concessions should be made until Gibby shows that he can be civil and reasonable. -- Nikodemos 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It was an attack on the use of progressivism to mean state intervention and trade barriers which according to the cited and published views of the author is actually conservative bordering on regression. Milton Friedman also agrees. Shall I quote him too? (Gibby 02:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, my comments don't have to be POV; the article has to be. Furthermore, I advise you not to make frivolous accusations of vandalism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit! (Gibby 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Citing and reporting an author is factually accurate, it does not make it POV. Please see undue weight. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, it makes it NPOV...I'm assuming you made a type-o. There is no undue weight it is a short paragraph that is needed by the page. It is also NPOV already. Please start discussions before slapping tags up. Also, if you think there is "undue weight" which there is not (this is not a severe minority view,,,but you are really using this to make a comparison in text sizes), just add more to the article. DO NOT DELETE THE SECTION! (Gibby 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

You are not making any sense. Nobody is still suggesting deleting the section. It, like the rest of the article, needs to be radically improved by an expert on progressivism. However, this improvement might wipe out your text for something much better that you may or may not approve of... --Loremaster 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The 20:52, 6 March 2006 version of the Criticism section is perfect. I am removing the NPOV tag I added. However, I still think the Progressivism article should be improved by an expert. --Loremaster 18:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding US-Centrism

I've twice reverted the article because the lead is being expanded in a way that is unfairly and inaccurately US-centric. --Loremaster 20:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section of the Progressivism article should not be used (by User:KDRGibby) to promote libertarianism or free market capitalism, topics which all have articles of their own that can be expanded with the material that has been recently added. The current version of this section is comprehensive. Anything else is redundant. --Loremaster 02:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is published criticism on the use of the term progressive. The cited authors believe that progressive economic and political prefrences are in fact conserviatve, reactionary, and or regressive. It should be noted there is decent on the use of the term. Repeating, they are published, documented, and well cited respectable sources. Deal with it, don't censor it. (Gibby 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Clearly the opinions are true opinions. But the fact of the matter is that they are not relevent enought to merit a paragraph here. Educated people often make generalised statements condemning other points of view. WP:Cite Sources does not say every sourced statement has encyclopedic merit. Your edit essentially states that progressivism is actually backwards, however that can (and is) better delt by looking at the issues rather than the general scope. Myciconia 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I think we need more of an NPOV on the criticism section of this article. It seems rather biased toward libertarianism, it's a good start though. Sterichinderance 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased how? The version I am refering to seems balanced enough in my opinion. --Loremaster 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

biased as in they don't agree with the CITED AUTHORS OPINIONS!!!! (Gibby 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Im not making any changes, and I guess it's easy to sit back and criticize, but that's what the talk section is for. AND... just because you cite something doesn't inherently make it correct. Sterichinderance 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, like citing Marx never means that communism will actually work. (Gibby 03:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, since I assume you see yourself as man of character, can you please answer the following questions honestly?

1. Do you believe free market capitalism is socially progressive?

2. Do you believe free market capitalism is the ideal socioeconomic system?

3. Are you trying to use the Progressivism article to promote the opinions of these libertarian authors you support?

4. Are you hoping that including the opinions of these libertarian authors in this article will convince its readers to reject progressivism in support of free market capitalism?

--Loremaster 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The myciconia edit in the article is a more NPOV wording of criticism. Sterichinderance 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No, Inform readers that there is criticism of the use of the term progressive. So long as the current information is not deleted I won't press further on including Virginia's statement. 4. No, given that this sort of information is around us all the time and some of the world's smartest people still fail to understand it (I think they read the wrong books) its unlikely that people will all of a sudden say "Gee I've been wrong all along" no I think it will take more than words to convince people...try a full scale live social experiment. (Gibby 03:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Although I have my doubts about your answer to the third question in light of your statement that you believe people read the wrong books, I have to accept them all in good faith. So, since no one was planning on deleting the current information, this issue is settled. --Loremaster 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of books, I recommend you read Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich by Kevin Phillips. --Loremaster 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

The opening sentence has neutrality problems. Is there anyone working for public policies that they believe would lead to negative social change? Goldfritha 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the text to reflect your comment. --Loremaster 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

the sentence'Conservatives, by definition, advocate tradition and the status quo. is not correct. the definition of Conservatives directly reference conservatism which by reference does reference tradition but says nothing about advocating the "status quo". So to fix this I will quote my Websters 1971 and 1983 Collegiate Dictionary to change this sentence to. "advocates tradition and social stability. good luck with this page guy's! --MadDogCrog 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)--204.10.247.1 07:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)forgot to sign in

Soviet sponsorship of left-wing terrrorism

I've removed the following text from the article:

Soviet Union

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union continued to sponser pro-soviet elements throughout the western world. Including the Red Army Faction, Movement 2 June, Revolutionary Cells (RZ) and other organizations considered by european and western governments as Terrorist organizations. Terrorists to the west, to the Soviet Union they were actually refered to as progressive elements throughout the Cold War. Refering of course to the fact that the members were politically advanced or progressive over their western countrymen.

I don't think this unreferenced POV material Soviet sponsorship of left-wing terrorism belongs in an article about progressivism. --Loremaster 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

reactionary

To use this term that was a critic of the monarchy and its supporters in the late 17th century as a actual political philosophy is ridiculous. there is no reactionary movement! reactionism can come from any political philosophy. I will delete.--MadDogCrog 08:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Progressivism and Socialism differentiated

Since many anonymous users (who are probably conservatives or libertarians) want to "discredit" progressivism by implying that it is crypto-socialism, it might be very useful and informative to create a section in which we explain the similarities and difference between progressivism and socialism. --Loremaster 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense, although as extreme socialism would be communism, I suspect that many moderate (or right of center) socialist thoughts would be pretty much in line with more than a few Progressive thoughts. --greroja 16 June 2006

Reconstruction

I've long been dissastified with the quality and content of the Progressivism article so I've made some radical changes that I hope other contributors will build on. --Loremaster 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also did some work that I hope is appreciated. Will work on US history section some time in future as i find it a little erroneous--MadDogCrog 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster your Progressive vrs (insert political philosophy) is so unEncyclopedic! And lacks Wiki Style. What are trying to do!--MadDogCrog 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you are right, I've seen other articles with the same style. However, I am open to suggestions on how to improve the article but I think its important for the article to discuss the similarities and/or differences betwen progressivism and the 4 political philosophy I listed. --Loremaster 14:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So Progressivism vrs Communism is that a good idea. The wiki reader might get the idea that Progressivism is communist light or socialist. sense Progressivism has about half of the planks of Marxist Communism. Again trying to show this is not the correct way to go! But if you want to keep it this way I will be happy to write the section--MadDogCrog 11:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There already is a Progressivism vs Socialism section, which can include content regarding communism. That being said, my thinking is that these sections are a temporary means of guiding the way the article should be expanded. Once all these sections are complete, we can do away with them by merging them into one section. --Loremaster 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Progressivism vs Liberalism

Although no one disputes that many Liberals began to call themselves "progresives" in the 1980s in reaction to Republican's success in vilifying the world "liberal", progressivism is a political ideology distinct from liberalism and the article should reflect this. --Loremaster 10:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think most Liberals today are also concerned about economic issues. That section has got to be rewritten. --evrik 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link

Muckrakers now points to the right muckrakers rather than the band of the same name.

Thank you but you don't need to mention that you've made such a small correction in the article on this talk page. --Loremaster 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

Does this lack worldwide view? The intro clearly states that progressivism was a North American movement. Except for a Canadian entry, what more geography can be added? We might similarly note that the discussion on the Tennessee Valley Authority seems overly focussed on the US and lacks worldwide view. -The Gomm 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just it, Gomm. Progressivism is not just a North American movement. Although they may be known by other names in other countries, there are progressive movements all around the world. --Loremaster 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Loremaster, Don't they just call themselves something like 'Social Democrats'? Do they actually hold the same positions as Progressives in NA, or are they as differnt from NA progressivism as any other Social Democrat movement in the world. On this one, I come down with the Splitters rather than the Lumpers. Let's just identify all the other center-left movements around the world, and identify their similarity and differences with NA Progressivism, rather than trying to figure this social democrat movement or that can truly be called 'progressive'. -The Gomm 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let's work on it here before adding new content to the article. --Loremaster 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that I suggest (above) is eliminating the 'worldwide view' tag, and simply allowing the page to continue along its North American path. That's all. -The Gomm 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I misunderstood. Actually, I disagree. If you look at this previous version of the article, you can see that progressivism is worldwide. --Loremaster 12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So why did this get cut? Why isn't this World sections pasted directly into the current version? Wouldn't that fix the wwv problem? -The Gomm 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it go cut temporarily because people were focusing too much on current political parties rather than the history of progressivism in all those countries. --Loremaster 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

justice vs welfare

jackbirdsong overwrote my edit without responding to my comments in the talk section. To call a welfare program a "justice" program is a misuse of the english language.

Regarding your personal commentary on a Wiki page, You clearly have a hatred for any opposing perspective, but let me just say that the reason I reverted your edit was not to defend social welfare, but to point out that the category refers to more than just the welfare aspect, it refers to something progressives call social justice, which is more broad. Please understand this is not about you or your beliefs, nor mine, but about contributing constructively to an encyclopedia. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And please refrain from personal attacks on Wiki pages, as it may result in a block.--Jackbirdsong 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Doctors without suspenders 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

These are considered personal attacks personal attacks on a Wiki page. Besides, this is not the place to hold a political debate. There are forums for this kind of discourse, and Wikipedia is not one of them. I have not reported your attacks nor have I attempted to have you blocked, and I could care less what your political opinion is. Please refrain from starting edit wars.--Jackbirdsong 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a criticism section to the whole concept that today's leftists are "progressive". If you delet it you just show that criticism is not allowed by the high preists of leftism as they consider it a sacralidge to their cult.

Here is some logic for members of the cult of "liberalism" to consider

You have legitimized yourself by responding. We can now have a debate. I do not have a "hatred for any opposing perspective". Such a claim is riduclous. Helping people in society is called "social welfare". People receiving welfare should feel grateful for the help. But the way the left gets votes is not by people feeling grateful. It is by making them feel hateful. The left wants poor people to hate and envy the wealthy. So they changed the language to "social justice". As if the wealthy are guilty of a crime for being rich and justice must punish them.

"social justice" is a loaded term invented by the left to pander to stupid people to get their votes. It is not a legitamate part of the english language and has no place in an encyclopedia.

Maybe we should use in wikipedia some of the vague loaded terms the right has invented like "family vaules" "war on terror" "weapons of mass destruction" "good man, good heart" "patriot act" "no child left behind"

These terms are meaningless gibberish. They belong in campaign propoganda. Not in an encyclopedia.

Don't just block me, change history too

Are you thinking of blocking me because you can't debate me with logic. Don't stop at censorship, try changing history too. It worked for Stalin and it can work for you too. Stalin edited people out of photos after he murdered them. Think what you could do with photoshop?