Template talk:Progressivism sidebar

message: Hi, this template seems to be very US-centric. I added the globalise template, but it was removed. If it is going to appear on non-US articles it should really be adjusted to have a more world-wide view. - FrancisTyers 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalise

message: We might as well add the prohibition movement. As Ayers notes, "Prohibition forces shared most of the ideals of the progressive crusade: control over greedy monopolies and unruly citizens, government intervention, educational campaigns, economic growth." [The Promise of the New South: 1993 p 414] Rjensen 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Prohibition, add that to the Programs section. --Northmeister 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prohibition

message: Education, univiersities, science, medicine...all were major themes of the progressive movement and should get a heading. Say, "promoting science and education".
Ayers notes "Aycock championed white education as a way to justify and redeem disfranchisement and during his term as governor oversaw dramatic changes in North Carolina's schools." [p 413] Rjensen 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this should be added to the ideas section; is there an article to point to? --Northmeister 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an article is needed badly. Rjensen 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, in so much as 'promoting science and education' which Educational progressivism speaks of already. --Northmeister 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: " progressive factions gave educational reformers the most effective support. They were more ready to tax the capitalist and property-owner to provide the funds. On the other hand, the new progressivism was "For Whites Only," and hunger for opportunity conflicted with the doctrine of equality of opportunity." Separate and Unequal: Public School Campaigns and Racism in the Southern Seaboard States, 1901-1915. by Louis R. Harlan - 1968. Page 38. Rjensen 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add education 

message: The Republican progressives (Norris, Borah, LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, Lindbergh etc) were mostly isolationists in 1920s and 1930s, fighting hard against the League of Nations and entry into WW1 and ww2.  The Democrats were mostly anti-isolationist. I would tend to leave it out, but here it is 2006 and it's that way again.  Rjensen 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but isolationist is so misused.  Roosevelt was not an isolationist and he was the prime figure of the Progressive movement. America had a long tradition of not getting engaged in European conflicts, because George Washington warned us against this in his Farewell Address, so sentiment on all sides was high in this regard. Islolationism itself was not inherently progressive, it covered all sides and really shouldn't be included, like racism above. We all know our past, that racist policies were pursued from time to time as was the case with Australia, Canada, and most of Europe at the time.  What we must put in is what signify's progressivism as a philosophy - it wasn't isolationism nor Jim Crow...it was progress through government intervention to achieve Jefferson's aims (according to Croly) with Hamilton's means (again Croly). See Here. If we keep this in mind we have a direction for what to include and not include. --Northmeister 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isolationism

message: As an example of the debate, here's an argument for discontinuity: "Looking back from the beginning of the twenty-first century, it appears that the Progressive movement was the last gasp of a polity seeking to preserve what  it could of a (rapidly receding) American past. In this sense, the antitrust movement, conservation, prohibition, immigration restriction, and even woman's suffrage were the products of a powerful preservationist impulse more than of a forward looking quest for social and economic change."
Morton Keller, "The New Deal and Progressivism" in The New Deal and the Triumph of Liberalism edited by Sidney M Milkis, Jerome M Mileur  2002: p 317  Rjensen 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I think that is a fringe view though, out of context of the whole era. Woman's suffrage as preservationist?  I don't buy that argument. --Northmeister 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keller is one of the half-dozen most outstanding historians of progressivism, in my opinion. He's not at all fringe. Rjensen 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I accept that. Point taken. --Northmeister 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deal and Progressivism 

message: On Conservation, looking ahead, and public welfare:
"The object of government is the welfare of the people." "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us." "The New Nationalism" speech, Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910 --Northmeister 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressive ideals summation

message: As Keller notes, immigration restriction 1900-1930 was also a Progressive reform. It was strongly opposed by big business (then and now--they wanted cheap labor), and strongly supported by most reformers and all labor unions. Rjensen 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Immigration restriction was more nativist in nature; but your right in so much as labor wanted to ensure wages would remain high to support a higher standard of living for working men of the time - controlled immigration would ensure that.  The progressives supported stricter guidelines because large numbers of immigrants tended as today to hold wages down which is why big business also like today supports open doors. --Northmeister 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, traditionally there was no restriction on immigration from Latin America or the Western Hemisphere - the pre-1965 law was 2% of those here already (in 1948 racist restrictions against Asians were removed). --Northmeister 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration restriction 

message: What sources are we using to justify putting the Whigs in the progressive philosophy? -Will Beback 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that out for now. To concentrate on building a consensus here for what should be included, then we will get back to specifics like above. --Northmeister 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whigs 

message: Why the heading change? In any light, if it remains that, it should read Progressive not Progressivist as that is not a standard usage. This is an attempt at a series like Christian Democracy and Liberalism and Conservatism. So I don't see a reason to change the heading. --Northmeister 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the heading to make it clear that this is about the philosophy, not the movement, as you told me above. "-Ist" vs "-ism" doesn't matter, it just sounded better. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word does matter, we should use the standard usage "Progressive" as "Conservative" is used not "Conservatist".  On the other matter, yes I said that, but this is a work in progress and in the end should resemble the Liberalism, Socialism, Conservatism, and Christian Democracy series. I understand however why you changed the heading I just don't think it needs changing. --Northmeister 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will Beback why are you breaking up the consensus making here by reverts and additions that editors here agreed should not be made until we come to conclusions? Please restore the original and let's discuss this. --Northmeister 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is about the philosophy rather than the movement, as you said before, then we should clarify that. Otherwise it will be confusing, since a number of elements of the movement are included in the template. Where did we form the consensus to make this about the philosophy rather than the movement, anyway? -Will Beback 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your the one changing the heading without discussing things to philosophy. --Northmeister 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of this is incorrect? "The template is about the philosophy of Progressivism, not the Progressive movement, which you speak of which is called the Progressive Era. This is only a working template, it is subject to change to get it right." Is it subject to change or not? Is it about the philosophy or not? Le'ts be consistent. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read our discussion here and elsewhere Rjensen and I agreed to add material to the template if we concur or a consensus forms to do so.  Discussion was underway on several fronts to ferret this template out.  What I wrote was true overall, but like Liberalism (see the template or Conservatism) I was following a general template standard with Series used. I see no reason to change that general standard.  This template will in the end, with consensus and discussion be similar to Liberalism, Christian Democracy, and Conservatism, all series.  Change -yes.  But after discussion between editors, so we can debate merits of things. --Northmeister 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict] Getting back to the scope of the template, why shouldn't it be about both the philosophy and the movement? If it's just about the philosophy, there's little reason to including all the historical material. -Will Beback 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We all have to justify our edits on Wikipedia. Anyone who wants to work alone should stick to draft pages or blogs. I'm willing to work toward consensus here. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not working alone. It has turned out to be about both per above discussion I asked you to join, but you refuse, instead you bring up stuff like the above. I don't want an edit war, I'm tired of that stuff. As I have said in the past AGF towards me, work with me not against me, and stop this following me and then giving me the third degree all the time. I removed material when you protested to discuss it here; and you carry on as if the above discussion and talk is not taking place. --Northmeister 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading change?

message: I've just created a social democracy template - after all, social democracy is arguably the most popular ideology on the planet at the moment. And although it originated as a branch of socialism, so did communism; yet communism had its own template and social democracy didn't.
Now, it seems to me that progressivism is just an American term for the kinds of policies that would be called social democratic in other parts of the world. So I am proposing to create a combined "Social democracy and Progressivism" template. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have great doubts about this template, since progressivism is a typical American ideology. Social democracy might be a non-US-equivalant, but other ideologies can be progressive. At the moment I would say, rename this template in American Progressivism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The creation of the Social democracy template was a good idea. However, I don't think a combined Social democracy and Progressivism template would be wise. --Loremaster 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'm starting to see your point already - in the sense that I can't imagine a combined template that would be fair to both sides. I withdraw my proposal. -- Nikodemos 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social democracy and Progressivism?

message: What academic sources are you using to indicate that such a term exists; that such a philosophy has anything to do with the core principles of Progressivism rooted in a Positive view of Government action to right wrongs and oversee the economy for fairness and productivity?  Let's have them forthright - and I will agree to include this term. Libertarianism is the direct opposite of Progressivism - it's view of government is negative -this term seems anarchy-based it's like saying Communist capitalism. Please provide verifiable sources below from accredited authors on this term - its uses - and enlighten me as to how this 'philosophy' resembles Progressivism by giving me an outline to compare below. --Northmeister 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response - and I didn't mean to be overbearing. Though I still do not see its connection to progressive thought I'll leave well enough alone on this as long as other editors don't have a problem with it. --Northmeister 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressive Libertarianism

message: There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as ,  etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsable sections 

message: As a movement to extend the moral circle of humankind, I think Animal rights are an article worth being included in Progressivism template. Do you agree?
Robfbms (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are [[Animal rights]] a part of progressivism? 

message: There are mentions of anti-racism and feminism in the template yet nothing about equality for sexuality. It seems to me that such ideologies would fall in line with progressivism, given the emphasis on progress in social equality (though, I admit, I don't have any sources with which to point to for evidence, unfortunately).
Jaft (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-[[Sexualism]] (anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, anti-heterosexism) 

message: I can find no evidence that purple, nor any other colour, is consistently used to represent progressive politics. No justification was given when it was added (edit history). I propose the flag be removed from this sidebar template. If a symbol can be found to replace the flag that would be ideal. (See also: Political colour) --Korakys (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour of flag