Talk:Progressivism/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments on changes

message: 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)
thread_title:  US-centrism 

message: >> 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)
thread_title:  Explanations for certain major edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: I also agree with LegCircus. User 203.62.10.22 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive is thus an example of loaded language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another Progressivism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prohibition? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: 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)
thread_title: What about this page?

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Progressives no longer in the past 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Avoiding US-Centrism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism section

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet sponsorship of left-wing terrrorism 

message: 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)
thread_title: reactionary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reconstruction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. --Loremaster 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressivism vs Liberalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fixed link 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: And please refrain from personal attacks on Wiki pages, as it may result in a block.--Jackbirdsong 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What personal attacks? Doctors without suspenders 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  justice vs welfare