Bad LOGIC

=Progressivism
On the progressivism and economic progressivism pages  some editors have deleted criticism on the following grounds.

1.  The article needs to be expanded first.
2.  The article needs to be improved first.
3.  Criticsm section puts undo weight on negatives.

Well I say this logic leads to only one outcome, the articles purpose is to argue the point which is a violation of NPOV.

1.  If the article needs expanding, expand it...criticism also helps expand.  THe purpose of the article is to report all the facts not just the facts in favor of the article title.
2.  The article is improved just by including a criticism section.  Again, THe purpose of the article is to report all the facts not just the facts in favor of the article title. Deleting the criticism on the grounds that the article needs to be improved suggests the only way to improve the article is by aruging the point. Again, violation of NPOV.
3.  Criticism does not put undo weight on negatives. Again the purpose of the article is not to argue the point of progressivism but to report the facts.
4.  The fact is criticism exists and it should be reported.  The criticism section included an AUthor and his book.
5.  The addition of a pov original research counter arguement to the criticism further proves my point (And you can look on the history page) that they believe the purpose of the article is to argue the point rather than report the facts.

All were poorly reasoned excuses to delete material they objected to.  These editors are not trying to preserve the integrity of wikipedia or be "Fair and balanced" they are simply trying to push a leftist political objective by censoring any alternative regardless of the source.

Classical Liberalism

Editor Slizor has deleted several sections and paragraphs which were cited and refrenced, including quotes from economists and think tanks on various things which Slizor has expressed disagreement with.  Dispite these citations, he deleted the material on the grounds that what he believes is the truth does not fit the facts provided.  He claims, dispite contradictory evidence and no evidence of his own that classical liberals have nothing in common with libertarians.  That classical liberals are not inheritors of liberalism.  and that modern liberals do not have a different understanding of liberalism than 200 years ago.  Furthermore, he makes the original research pov claim that classical liberals are more like elitist Republicans than libertarians (for which he has NO CITATION, and this is one of the grounds for the deletions).

This is just another example of the abuse some wiki editors will make up in order to push their own agenda.

The logic is poor.  The citation is non existant.  The pov is massive.  Slizor's edit needs a massive revert...and he needs to be drawn away from his computer and beaten with Milton Friedman and FA Hayek books until he understands the quotes from their books that he deleted.  ( )