Revision as of 01:24, 1 March 2006 editKDRGibby (talk | contribs)2,454 edits →Criticism section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:23, 17 September 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers802,713 editsNo edit summary | ||
(531 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{oldafdfull| date = 25 March 2010 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Progressivism }} | |||
{{Attention}} | |||
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Low|political=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}} | |||
}} | |||
{{todo}} | {{todo}} | ||
{{British English Oxford spelling|flag=no}} | |||
{{Archive box|] ]}} | |||
==Comment on the "Pending" List== | |||
== Article is problematic and irrelevant to 21st century progressivism == | |||
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. | |||
The historical discussion is vague, lacks nuances and sources. The relevance to modern progressivism as most progressives themselves understand it is marginal. Experts or academics out there: Please fix. | |||
==Comments on changes== | |||
Look at how nuanced, lengthy and elaborate the article on "classical liberalism" is, for comparison. Modern progressivism is at least as sizeable a movement as "classical liberalism" ever was, and yet we have this lackluster and uninformatively dull article. Please fix. | |||
The article said that progressive is a euphamism for liberalism. That's simply POV. | |||
This article largely lacks relevance to modern progressivism. I have added a paragraph on 21st century progressivism. Please feel free to add sources and amplify. | |||
The article said the progressivism was the same thing as liberalism. If you believe that then make your modifications to the liberalism article. | |||
References to advocacy of collective action, environmental protections, workers rights, government regulation and other aspects of modern progressivism are not present here either. | |||
No mention of campaign finance reform? This is the central tenet. | |||
Also -- re the oddly grammared entry below: Nazis were not progressives. They were fascists. | |||
A lot of liberal agenda confused with progressives. | |||
] (]) 20:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
I traced progressivism through national elections starting from when the term began becoming more fashionable in the mid to early 90s. | |||
== Progressives are so totalitarians as Misplaced Pages == | |||
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? | |||
One complained that was my opinion then I gave the reference below then I was censored with no explanation and with a threat like I would be in any totalitarian environment. | |||
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/01/13/are-todays-progressives-actually-totalitarians/2/ | |||
<br> | |||
Why they allow a section called 'Authoritarian conservatism' relating it with nazi, while nazis really means National Socialism, nazi was in real progressives but Misplaced Pages deny a single sourced sentence telling the true. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:(Lets turn that bold font off shall we?</b><nowiki></b></nowiki> Ah. That's much better.) | |||
] 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Please just take a few deep breaths and then ask yourself whether ''any'' of that nonsense you said actually makes ''any'' sense? | |||
:Have been threatened? Are you in fear of your life? Do you fear detention without trial? Has anybody murdered any of your friends who have held similar opinions? Has anybody prevented you from taking your opinions to some blog or webforum where they are actually welcome and appropriate, as opposed to spamming them over an encyclopaedia? No. None of these things. All that has happened is that you have been told to stop disrupting Misplaced Pages by inserting your opinions. | |||
:I put it to you that you have no idea what totalitarianism actually means otherwise I trust that you would have the ''basic decency'' not insult its real victims by trying to compare yourself to them. | |||
:So Forbes published an opinion piece that you agreed with back in 2014, did they? Good for you. The trouble is that we can't reference factual claims to people's opinions. The difference is that Forbes is a magazine and Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. They have their standards and we have ours. That's how a free press works. --] (]) 20:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Australia == | ||
Somebody appears to have plugged a reference to the Greens in there for no apparent reason. | |||
Relevance of this? | |||
18/01/13 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== A better heuristic? == | |||
>>The word "liberal" has become essentially pejorative, through the consistent usage by critics<< | |||
Reading through discussion points, it's clear the term "progressive" needs a better heuristic for readers. The section comparing progressivism to liberalism, conservativism, and socialism provides a poor typological structure for conveying meaning. Now, I would need to read more about the early progressive movement, but most of the cited sources above fit within a framework that views progressivism as an ORIENTATION to the foundational political philosophies of liberalism and communitarianism. | |||
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.) | |||
This heuristic comes from Stiles (2006) who did an analysis of current environmental education policies/philosophies in the United States. Stiles supports his framework with a number of sources, and it makes a lot more sense with cited sources above and in the main article. The heuristic is as follows: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
* 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. | |||
progressive / liberalism (e.g. liberal democracy ala Rawls,1971)<br /> | |||
conservative / liberalism (e.g. libertarianism, neoliberalism)<br /> | |||
progressive / communitarianism (e.g. socialism)<br /> | |||
conservative / communitarinism (e.g. communism, social conservative movement in the united states)<br /> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
''Liberals and Communitarians'' by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift (1996) is a must read as well.<br /> | |||
**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. ] 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Citation:<br /> | |||
>> The term progressive is thus used to avoid confusion between the politicized term liberal and genuine philosophical views focused on social change. << | |||
Stiles, T. (2006). Place stories: (Re)locating the interests of youth in environmental education. Dissertation at Arizona State University. | |||
] (]) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:The comparison section is confusing because the terms progressive, liberal, conservative and socialist are used ambiguously. However I cannot see how your use of the term progressive fits in with any of its uses in the article. Basically the article lists how the term has been used in reference to different political groups: parties called "progressive", American politics in the Progressive, New Deal and Great Society era, and modern liberalism. The article itself needs to be re-written. ] (]) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
>> Instead, the term reactionary is more frequently used to describe those who wish to return to previously established convention. << | |||
"Progressive" is simply a political ideology of advocating for social reform through government action. Aside from the use of loaded words throughout the article, every socio-political ideology is "progressive" in the way it is now described in this article. The problem with calling it "left statism" is that "statism" is a Libertarian term for those opposite to Libertarian ideology, but it is still the opposite of Libertarianism, particularly "right Libertarianism".] (]) 00:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
:Thankyou, now we all understand. ] (]) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
>> 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. << | |||
::Understand this: 'Progressive' simply means to 'progress' to John Lennon's "Imagine" Utopia (imagine no nations) as glamorized in the Closing Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics. Note this: When the ruinous welfare state became unpopular, Progressives started to call themselves 'Liberals'; and when Liberalism/Liberals likewise became unpopular, Liberal-Progressives like Hillary Rodham Clinton reverted back to 'Progressive' instead of 'Liberal'. They are the same. Hope this helps, ] (]) 14:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
A problematic argument. The original Progressives weren't focused (entirely) on social reform through government action. In fact, many of them were classical liberals who advocated direct social engagement at the grass roots level. Bottom line? Government was simply one avenue to social, economic, and political reform. The emphasis being - in all cases - on reform and a transformation of conservative (past) ways of doing things. Additionally, this discussion ignores the scientific and empirical roots that the original Progressive movement held. 12:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
Uh, progress on getting these political terms straight is not going to be easy until American rightists get over their anti-Obama hysteria, if then. Cladistics is not easy when many of the loudest ''soi disant'' experts refer to themselves as libertarians but are really in many cases anarchists, reactionaries, fascists or just ignorant thugs, to give just four illustrative examples. Some of them are even libertarians, but this does not bode well for their objectivity nor their competence in working out the meanings of words. | |||
] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
: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. | |||
== Canada == | |||
:-- ] 07:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
I removed this wording: "...although the PCs also contained a progressive wing for the rest of its history. Most of these people were opposed to the PCs merger with the more socially conservative Canadian Alliance in 2003." Progressives who joined or re-joined the Conservatives did not form a separate wing and were not "progressive" in a modern sense. Also I added "former" (and capitalized the reference) to "progressives" who supported the Progressive Conservative Party, because the Progressive Party had ceased to exist. ] (]) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I've made some changes and added some content to restore the article's neutrality and expand it. Tell me what you think. ] 17:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
I'm not sure where this Four Deuces guy is coming from, but I did see the front half of a horse wandering down the street a few minutes ago. Call me, Deuces, and I'll point out where it went. | |||
:::Though some factual information has been added, the article's bias is the same, if not worse. I will attempt to correct it. -- ] 05:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
The original text which he excised is precisely correct and diplomatically worded. | |||
For anyone in doubt about the separateness of the wings, Google "Rob Anders." The Progressives are trying to keep him from being renominated in his Alberta riding. | |||
FWIW, Red Tories tend to be Progressives from Ontario or the East, while Progressives come from a rather different set of traditions and tend to be from the Prairies. There are individual exceptions: this Prairie nationalist Orchard tends, ahistorcally, to be called a Red Tory. Margaret Thatcher's comment at one of Conrad Black's dinners on Prime Minister Mulroney, an easterner, was "I'm sorry he pays so much more attention to the adjective than to the noun." | |||
] (]) 17:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
As you can see, I've made the promised changes. NPOV no longer disputed. -- ] 04:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Organize data better == | |||
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. | |||
Add tag: {{restructure|date=June 2009}} | |||
] 22:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
Article would exist better-presented with more subsections and subtopics, for increased clarity, objectivity, and ease of reading. | |||
== Neutrality violated by libertarian framing. == | |||
== US-centrism == | |||
The first sentence of the first paragraph is a blatant violation of wikipedia neutrality. Probably also a case of original research (ie. fantasy) since it is unsourced. | |||
The article, by sheer amount of content, is rather US-centric. This is beyond my ability to fix. -- ] 05:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
" usually in a '''statist''' or egalitarian direction for '''economic''' policies (government management) and liberal direction for '''social''' policies (personal choice)." | |||
== Explanations for certain major edits == | |||
Statist is a libertarian term of derision, and that is the dominant usage people encounter. A brief google search for statism will show that. | |||
>> New research and discussion is underway to define ] as a political philosophy counter to Big Business and a combination of many social issues from around the political spectrum. ] is working on this, and has published a paper for open discussion. << | |||
A division into economic and social is also typical of libertarian viewpoints alone, as exemplified by their quiz, and has no academic standing. | |||
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 ], 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. -- ] 07:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
The introduction ought to be based on statements of progressivism by progressives. Not framed in libertarian ideology. | |||
>> This term ''progressive'' is particularly useful when dealing with philosophical positions, since the liberal tradition has very particular and fixed ] connotations that may not necessarily have any useful meaning in the left political scene. << | |||
] (]) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
OK, I figured this one out by looking at the article ]. I wrote a new explanation that references that article instead, because the above version was opaque to me. -- ] 07:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
:"Statism" or "statist" is often used derisively by people who oppose State intrusions upon liberty. Nevertheless, it is a good term. Misplaced Pages's own ] article puts it well: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals." | |||
>>Although ] 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 ] rallied progressives and liberals (who were conservative Democrats) together around the ]. This is when the term ''liberal'' really began to be used as a pejorative by Republican partisans.<< | |||
:I think, however, the part you deleted needed to be deleted because it was inaccurate - too restrictive. The critical characteristic of progressivism is its ''means'' for social change - the political means (as opposed to voluntary social means.) That's why I added "through governmental action" to the definition. ] (]) 05:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
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. -- ] 07:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Liberals support conservatives? == | |||
"Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and a Labour party or Liberal Party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates". This seems confusing. Very few European countries have a Liberal Party as one of their big two, so the natural interpretation of the sentence is to look at Australia, where the Liberal Party is a rightwing conservative party despite its name. Besides, relatively few European countries have a two-party system, unless you mean two-party in the weak sense of two-party-dominant. In Germany for example, the third-party and fourth-party scene is about a million times more vibrant than the third-party scene in the USA. And only a small minority of Europe's mainstream social democratic parties are called Labour. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 06:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
>> The first real American progressives were the slavery ]. The term ''progressive'' did not really come into vogue until after the ]. During the ], progressives in the ] fought to create the ], and progressives outside the party fought for a number of issues, including "]" which meant an end to the ]. << | |||
: The basis for this no longer appears to be in the article but what is there now, identifying American Liberalism with "left conservatism" is pretty near the mark. "Liberal" in the universe of mainstream US political discourse equivocally refers to that and what from the in-universe view is considered to be the left end of the entire spectrum of discourse with voices like Chomsky and so forth being side show attractions. Presumably, this, the near total lack of a politically effective left is one of those contradictions in American politics overripe for resolution. So the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" is overdetermined here, "liberal" doesn't mean what it does globally, and in as much as it's a central pillar of the "centre right nation" cant doesn't mean progressive at all. ] (]) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
== Ireland == | |||
(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 , but I'm not comfortable making that assertion without doing more research. ) | |||
The section on Progressivism in Ireland shows the Progressive Democrats as being Progressive, eventhough they are not Progressive, just because their name says Progressive dosnt make it true, we could also make the same argument about the Progressive Conservatives of Canada, they are not Progressive even though their name says so, I think we should remove the Ireland section from this page considering that the party is not even close to being Progressive, they are Conservative. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Good point. I removed them. They and the Progressive Conservatives are already mentioned in the lead as parties use progressive in their names, although not belonging to that tradition. (The Irish party is actually liberal.) ] (]) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
The issue of what is "progressive" and what is not is also complex, and selective inclusion can be somewhat inappropriate. | |||
:The ] no longer calls itself "Progressive" since ]. --] | ] 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== "Idea of progress" == | |||
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. | |||
The "Idea of progress" (That technological advancement improves society) is completely unrelated to Progressivism (The theory that 'progressive' (meaning Incremental) change through government intervention is the best way to change society.) - This is a complete malapropism. The history section needs to be written from scratch, as it currently has absolutely no accurate information. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== as a eupemism for general "liberals" == | |||
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. | |||
the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. ] (]) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
== Progressivism as insanity == | |||
For the first kind: the history of the ] is probably better described in that article or in the article ], 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. | |||
The recurrent insertion of material asserting that Progressivism is a form of insanity, especially in the head section, render the page unusable as a reference. I'm not familiar with the details of Wiki conventions, but such things often seem to find a home under a "controversy" section. | |||
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. | |||
I would point out that the link, <http://about-psychology.com/progress.html> appears to refer to the work of Docjp, who put it here. I do not think this can be considered an authoritative source. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
For the third kind: Well, that just requires research or someone familiar with the recent history. | |||
:It does not qualify as a ], since it is self-published. Even if it were published by a reputable source, we would have to establish whether the opinions were ] and then present them in a ]. Please see also ]. ] (]) 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
-- ] 08:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
You've got to be kidding me to even be taking this repetitious act of flagrant vandalism seriously. | |||
== Progressive is thus an example of loaded language == | |||
] (]) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
== changes or reform == | |||
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. | |||
Advocating changes and/or reform is a pretty neutral description. One could argue Hitler was progressive because he proposed (and carried out) sweeping changes in Germany.--] (]) 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Please do not disrupt the article to make a ]. That was vandalism and I have reverted it. "One can argue" almost anything but this is not the place for original research, personal opinions or analysis. Neutrality is what we do. If you want to argue politics then please find a web forum where that sort of discussion is appropriate and do it there. --] (]) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
The entry on ] supports this conclusion. | |||
== australia section == | |||
--] 20:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) | |||
the section implies that both sides of the political spectrum are progressive is this possible or is it a contradiction where neither is progressive and they are merely opposing points of veiw. | |||
:I agree with LegCircus. I have removed the sentence. ] 02:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 07:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
:It is perfectly possible. One side might wish to progress to the left and one to the right. This is probably true of many countries where there are no truly conservative or reactionary parties. --] (]) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Another Progressivism == | |||
::hmmm what i mean is can a party be described as progressive if it is changing its own political perspective or is considered to be progressive by introducing new ideas. Or is progressiveness linked into the idea of social equity, individual freedom, social democracy, free markets. (Any of these things in isolation on in junction with one another. | |||
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. | |||
] (]) 08:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::It can mean anything and this article is just a list of definitions. It has been applied however to specific political moverments in the U. S. ] (]) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
: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. ] 23:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Organize == | |||
== United States section - list of Progressives in Congress == | |||
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. | |||
Twice in the past year, an editor mysteriously removed three names from the list of Progressive who have served in the the U.S. Congress: Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. All three are well-known progressives: Waters is a current member of the Progressive Caucus, Clinton and Obama both describe themselves as a progressives and both served in Congress. None of the other names in the list were cited, so why are these three well-known progressives being being removed? --] (]) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''Citations:'''<br /> | |||
== Apology == | |||
1) Clinton in her own words defining herself as a progressive (@50 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc | |||
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 | |||
2) Maxine Waters has been in the progressive caucus since the 1990's: http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus | |||
== Prohibition? == | |||
3) Barack Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting near Atlanta during the Presidential campaign: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive." I'll even pick a far-left progressive site to cite this admission: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html | |||
Why is there no talk of ] as an integral part of the historical ]? The Progressive Movement page is essential empty with nothing more than a skeleton saying that it existed with wiki links. For ] it would be best to add talk of prohibition here. --] 07:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Moved == | |||
Now why are these three additions continually removed by editors, without it being considered vandalism? | |||
I moved this page to political progressivism, just as said in the pending part...--] 14:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) | |||
--] (]) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:This raises the point that the inclusion of any person on this list needs to be well sourced. ] (]) 18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: None of the other names in the list were sourced, yet they were not deleted. Odd...--] (]) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::: See ]: it has a clear meaning and using it the way you are is a ]. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus and were listed as ]. While Waters is a progressive, she is neither a senator nor a committee chairman, and if you want to list her, then you would have to list the 100 or so other people who have been in the caucus. In fact a list can be found in the appropriate article. ] (]) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (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. - ] | |||
:::: Where did I ever say Clinton and Obama were part of the progressive caucus? I never stated that. I provided non-refutable citations by them IN THEIR OWN WORDS describing themselves as progressives. The first removal several months ago was done without explaination, and thus I reverted. The second removal was done as a specific target against me, not against the content. When an editor selectively picks three additions I made a year ago to remove on the basis of not being cited, but leaves the rest of the names there also without citation, it is clearly a target against my additions, even though mine carried the same (and MORE) rationale for being added. As I was clearly being personally targeted, I have strong arguments to consider that a vandalism of my edits.--] (]) 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
: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? --] 10:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::: The article listed notable members of CONGRESS, not the U.S. Senate. Waters has been a CONGRESS member (House) and member of the Progressive caucus since the 90's.--] (]) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I disagree with the move. It should be changed back to Progressivism. --] ''(])'' 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why are we listing members of Congress at all? The most famous progressives in U.S. history have come from various branches of government, including the presidency, state governors, senators, etc. By no stretch is Al Franken one of the most notable progressives in the U.S., for example. I suggest dropping the list completely. We have a whole article on the topic where readers can get details of notable progressives from across the history of progressivism. None of the other national sections list current progressive politicians in the lower houses of their legislatures. <b>] ] </b> 21:57, 1 January 2011 (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. | |||
--] 23:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
July 21, 2011: yet another political ideolog has without explanation again singled out progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for removal frfom this list. This is a political game being played on WP in an attempt to hide these two leading *self-admitted* progressives from being included in the list. Why try to intentionally hide the two most influential progressives from a list that even includes former and dead politicians? --] (]) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (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.--] 23:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Because they do not self-identify as or are considered progressives. ] (]) 04:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Well ], 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. | |||
:: Wrong. Read the very first entry in this discussion. Both identify themselves as progressives. Why is the left desperate to change history on this? --] (]) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
--] 23:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
July 22 - again reverted political-agenda removal of progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Either the entire list goes away, or the entire list stays. Political ideologs removing people they don't want seen in this list is considered vandalism. They admit they are progressives, so they are proud of it. Why continually try to hide it by vandalizing this section? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::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. :-) --] 23:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
Please see ]. All material added, especially about ] should be sourced. since your additions are unsourced, I will remove them. Please do not restore without sources. ] (]) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (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 ]. 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. | |||
:: you are ONLY targeting my additions. As I have said numerous times. only one other in the list is sourced, yet you do not remove them. Following links to Waters/Pelosi's WP pages discusses their involvement in the Progressive caucus. ***Further deletion of my valid additions WILL be treated as vandalism. Please keep your political agendas out of Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 11:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
--] 01:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:: Please provide an explanation why you left the other unsourced names on the list, and only targeted my additions for removal. --] (]) 11:56, 23 July 2011 (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." --] 02:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
:: Please remove those same names off the list on the ] WP Page. They are also unsourced.--] (]) 12:02, 23 July 2011 (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." --] 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::I removed new edits that were clearly against policy. The fact that there may be problems with this and other articles is no justification to add unsourced text. Clinton and Obama were never progressive's. Clinton's husband was in fact associated with the ]. Pelosi quit the Progressives when she became speaker. But it is not up to other editors to investigate unsourced claims. ] (]) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (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 . Try again.--] 03:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
:::: After researching TFD's long history of standing guard on his favorite political pages, ensuring that his thinly-veiled leftist ideology gets bullied through, this incident is starting to make more sense. To claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama are not progressives, when they both self-identify themselves as progressives borders on the absurd. Any attempt to post those citations will no doubt result in TFD starting a month-long war deleting citations as well. We need a non-partisan experienced editor to put a stop to TFD's ongoing blockade of subjects that appear to be damaging to his political ideology. he also needs a stern warning regarding targeting specific editors, instead of content. This incident proves this accusation. --] (]) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::: We cannot determine on our own who is progressive or thinly veiled leftist or whatever categories - we need reliable sources. If you do not like that then please get the policy changed rather than argue across numerous articles. ] (]) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::Came here from a posting on ]. Any addition to the article will absolutely need to be sourced to a reliable source, and not just on the whim of what an editor thinks is appropriate or the ]. This is the core of the ]. ] (]) 16:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::The posting is at ]. ] (]) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
==What about this page?== | |||
:::::::TFD AGAIN reverted my additions, but did not remove other unsourced additions. This is my point. I have a document with notes of all of the relevant citations needed from actual transcripts, etc for inclusion in this WP section, but I am trying to prove a point. 1) TFD has a history of being reprimanded for NPOV left-wing political activism on WP. 2) TFD is ONLY cherry-picking three individuals on this list that he for some reason does not want to be publicly listed as being progressive, perhaps because in the USA 'progressive' has started taking on an increasingly negative public opinion in the past couple years. That's the only reason I can think of. My point here is why is TFD not removing ALL members from this list, since NONE are sourced, and only targeting these three, when the others on the list do not meet the requirements for the same policy?<br /> | |||
Most of what was just stamped in was moved to ]. And most of it is neither accurate nor sufficient to discuss progressivism in the U.S.--] 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
<br /> | |||
:::::::Here's the sources I am ready to create, but should I even go through the trouble, as I fully expect an edit war on my citations as well? <br /> | |||
<br /> | |||
::::::: | |||
;Hillary Clinton | |||
:CNN / YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007 | |||
: Video:<br /> | |||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc | |||
:Transcript:<br /> | |||
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24transcript.html?pagewanted=all | |||
''"I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the ::::::: beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive..."''<br /> | |||
; Maxine Waters (Founding member of the Progressive Caucus)<br /> | |||
: Congressional Progressive Caucus membership:<br /> | |||
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71<br /> | |||
; Barack Obama<br /> | |||
Town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta during 2008 campaign:<br /> | |||
: NY Times Partial Transcript:<br /> | |||
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=b690d55617d9d0db&ex=1215748800&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1215785058-T9CQHCNICPqGNIpAArg6lA<br /> | |||
''"I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."''<br /> | |||
--] (]) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
== US Progressives no longer in the past == | |||
:You are just Google-mining for sources to support your views. H. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus, and you would need sources that describe them that way. Waters of course is a progressive, notice that she is highly critical of Obama, but does not have the stature of other progressives. ] (]) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
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? ] 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
:: Google mining people quoting in their exact words??? Obama says " I am no doubt a progressive", but TFD is saying that Obama was incorrect about describing himself? TFD, I am not sure what ideology or people you are trying to protect here, but your fixation on trying to protect these three WELL-KNOWN and DEEPLY DOCUMENTED progressives is beyond absurd. So absurd, that any further removal of my PROPERLY CITED additions will lead me no choice but to file yet another NPOV complaint to add to your resume of using WP as a leftist propaganda platform. I halfway expect TFD to now start advocating for removing ALL names, since the only cited ones are the ones he is desperate to hide from public view.--] (]) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::: Could you please avoid personal attacks and false statements about other editors in your talk page discussion and edit summaries. If Obama called himself a libertarian, would you add him to the liberarianism article? ] (]) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::: referred for mediation. I'm not playing TFD's game any longer.--] (]) 07:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::: Incoming moderators, please note the name of the list involved: "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included..." This means current and FORMER, which is a detail TFD is not grasping here.--] (]) 07:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Better definition == | |||
== In a way, Nazism was progressive too == | |||
Progressivism is 'authoritarianism for social and economic equality' would be the best definition that just saying statist. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
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.'' | |||
I think you're misunderstanding what "authoritarianism" means. Advocacy of government intervention or regulation as part of the process of liberal democracy, for example, is not what authoritarianism means. ] (]) 20:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
Using that definition, in a way, Nazism was progressive too. Progressivism is a non-ideological term. | |||
==Neutrality== | |||
==Including arguments that neoliberalism is progressive== | |||
The opening sentence is not neutral because it would in reality cover every single idelogy that ever existed -- "political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes" -- as if there were ever an ideology that liked things exactly the way they were, or regarded the changes they approved of as anything but reform. And then it contradicts itself with its talk about conservative and reactionary, because reactionaries, by definition, and conservatives, in reality, want changes, and being human regard them as reform. Without some explanation about what kind of changes, it's not neutral. ("Positive changes" or other such euphemisms also don't cut it. No one wants negative change.) ] (]) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
:That's not true. In the US, conservatives don't want real reform. They want things to stay the same or to return to a previous state. They might want to reform corrupt institutions but that's not what we're talking about here. Besides what you're claiming makes no sense anyway. A neutral sentence isn't neutral because it isn't specific? What? ] (]) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
:* The opening sentence works and does not appear to have any neutrality issues. You can't read that opening phrase without taking into context the end of that same phrase, as well as the second sentence. This looks to me to properly provide the context for differentiating Progressivism from some other type of "ism". I agree with Morbius, above, that the argument for non-neutrality contains no context which is in any way descriptive or could be properly written about, short of some completely new research. So unless there is/are some other POV issues, or unless a proper context can be summoned to remove any POV from that opening sentence -- I'll be removing the neutrality tag in about a month. ] (]) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:This is true indeed, I came here to write exactly this so I support this claim. The opening sentence is not a real differentiator of progressivism. | |||
:For example, the opening sentence makes '''injustice''' to other isms by '''misleading''' people into thinking other isms do not want to advance science. | |||
:Also these claim are baseless, so please support them by concrete examples and data. As far as I can tell, progressivism advances science in accordance to a political agenda, so it is '''misleading''' readers to think progressivism advances the human kind for beneficial purposes. Otherwise, please base your claims. ] (]) 06:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
Dr. Morbius, nice blinders you have there. Your crude definition of modern conservatism in the United States is laughable in how inaccurate it is. Thank you for confirming that this article has a POV that is not neutral. ] (]) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
''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.'' | |||
:Added a context sentence, removed tags as they were both about the lede and not actively under discussion. ] (]) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
I noticed you reverted my changes to the ] 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'. | |||
:As much as I abhor involving myself within the debate of semantics and duckspeak of politics, this article is undoubtingly bias. | |||
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 <i>achieving progress and even social justice</i> by more free-market methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth, as measured by changes in real gross domestic product." | |||
:{{quote|Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.}} | |||
:By what measure is it "gradual"; in relation to what? The article states it's left-wing, so is it gradual in comparison with a socialist revolution or social liberalism? And the term "reform" used in this context is a sweet nothing: reform is the rule of politics, what party in which country promises to maintain the broad status quo? This sentence places the reader in no stead to understand the philosophy, and the rest of the article is thereafter a concatenation of a very broad spectrum. --] (]) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Section: 2 By country, 2.6 United States== | |||
] 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
:* Changed the last sentence to describe Blue Dog Democrats not as conservative, but as moderates. Too often Misplaced Pages demonstrates a sort of Moral Relativism, where everything easily relates to everything else or all things meld into one. If a Blue Dog is a Democrat, by definition, they should not be considered a conservative. You've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And typically, that is the deflection point. ] (]) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::The passage did not call them "conservative" but "more conservative Democrats". Changing that to "more moderate Democrats" is injecting bias and I will revert. Democrats btw are not by definition not conservatives, since they do not enforce ideological consistency. ] (]) 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
==Relation to other political ideologies== | |||
:I would argue that the ] 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 ] 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). --] 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
The emphasized portion of the passage below has no citation, and runs contrary to what I know. Would someone care to look into this please? Thanks. | |||
"The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the US in particular, '''the term progressive tends to have the same value as the European term ];'''" | |||
::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. ] 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
--] (]) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (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 --] 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC). | |||
== Minor edits to Canada == | |||
::::The fact is that progressivism, like ] 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. ] 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} | |||
:::::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 Misplaced Pages article on ]: | |||
Please make these minor edits regarding spelling/grammar/usability.<br> | |||
1935 election --> ]<br> | |||
amoug --> among<br> | |||
to attacked the --> to attack the<br>] (]) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp -->. Thanks for the corrections! ] (]) 06:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
::::::''To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labour policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights.'' | |||
WIKIPEDIA - Y U NO have article on anti-progressivism? Many have openly opposed progressivist policies and even called themselves "anti-progressive" in history. For example, opponents of the New Deal. --] (]) 19:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::As well as my claims that is counter-progressive: | |||
:The opposite of progressive is reactionary. And many progressives opposed the New Deal, while many non-progressives supported it. ] (]) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::''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.'' | |||
''The opposite of progressive is reactionary.'' {{citation_needed}} | |||
I would respond: No. The opposite of progressive is anti-progressive. Go ask the anti-progressivists. Nobody calls themselves 'reactionary.' --] (]) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
The opposite of progressivism is ]. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Bogus title == | |||
This whole idea of a "Progressive Era" and some cohesive "Progressivism movement" is really new. Some references should be added to confirm when the label "progressive" began to be applied in this manner. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages is just making stuff up like other publications. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:What on Earth are you talking about? The term "Progressive Era" was in use by the early 1900s, and became standard political shorthand by 1930 or so. And the Progressives very explicitly identified themselves as a movement, even using the term to name their political parties (or factions of existing parties). | |||
--] | ] 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Very biased statement in the intro of this article, not neutral == | |||
'''''"Progressivism as a political philosophy holds that societal problems can best be addressed by having government impose solutions according to "modern" principles, rather than leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices"''''' | |||
This statement above is currently in the intro, it is very biased using word usage to denigrate the topic, claiming that progressives want government to "impose solutions", mocking progressives claim to using modern principles by an inappropriate sarcastic usage of quotation marks that are unnecessary as they are not quoting anything. And lastly it invokes a libertarian or laissez-faire POV saying that this is contrasted instead of "leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices". | |||
This statement is not neutral, is biased against the topic in the article, and other parts of the intro describe the nature of the topic already without such bias and lack of neutrality. I request that the statement be removed on these grounds.--] (]) 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:That statement might be improved, however it's not in the general introduction, but only in the portion of the introduction that concerns political progressivism, which is certainly about using the power of government to solve societal problems. Furthermore, there is nothing remotely "neutral" about the rest of the article, which is strongly biased in the other direction, conflating political progressivism with the general notion of progress, talking about it in glowing terms ("demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society" … "nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth" etc.) It's not a well-balanced article, but almost entirely paints ''political'' progressivism in the most glowing terms possible, and it's interesting that the only potentially critical statement that talks about the government power aspect (which is well-documented) is attacked as "very biased." - ] (]) 00:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:The problem is that the article conflates four distinct historical political positions that called themselves progressive (1900-1914, 1924, 1948 and today.) The connections between the four are slight and any description of their common "ideology" (in fact progressivism has never been an ideology) is just original research. The original progressive position incidentally was not that government impose solutions based on modern principles, but that governments should be run according to modern principles. So while progressives brought in prohibition and food inspection, they also gave the vote to women and introduced referenda as a method of changing laws, and re-call elections. ] (]) 00:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::The contrast in that statement of associating progressive stances as government imposition as opposed to leaving the economy alone to the free market and individual choices and actions, is a libertarian/laissez-faire outlook on progressive politics, which is fine to be included as a criticism of progresssivism in the article. A lot of the other content that Embram mentions is showing what progressives have used as justifications for their policies - it does not mean that those points are conveying truths; such is a valuable inclusion regardless of whether one believes in those justifications of not.--] (]) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Again, progressive is a term that has been used for four distinct movements in the U.S. and for unrelated groups in other nations. The ] for example was formed to fight high taxes and big government. It is progressive in the sense that it rejects (to them) old-fashioned, reactionary views that hold back progress. I do not see this article going beyond a ] page, since other than favoring progress, there is no commonality. ] (]) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree with ]. The main article in its current form seems largely a "rah-rah" page designed by the original author to cast the words ''progressive'' and ''progressivism'' in a positive light (with some limited critical provisos thrown in by other editors), rather than a scholarly article. There are not only several different political "progressive" parties in the world, fighting for similar but not identical purposes, there are also different contexts in which the words ''progressive'' and ''progressivism'' are used, not only throughout history but also in the present day, and this article fairly well mixes up and conflates them all. I agree the best thing would be to turn this page into a ] page, and then the individual different pages directed to respectively specific meanings of progressivism can be written. I expect, however, that any pages concerning <u>political</u> progressivism will be written with a partisan point of view, argued over, and eventually controlled and maintained in an ideologically pure manner by a group of senior editors with a particular political viewpoint, perhaps similar to the way the pages concerning climate change have been controlled within Misplaced Pages. The problem with a politically charged topic like this is that published articles describing progressivism will define it differently depending on the political viewpoint of the writer, they will inevitably conflict with one another, and there will be a struggle to exclude "facts" that are based on references from "biased" authors—i.e., authors whose politics differ from those of the editor doing the bowdlerizing. - ] (]) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Very ] last remark that was completely unnecessary. The contrast of the term "government imposition" versus "individual actions and choices" is very biased, it is a libertarian adage that says that progressives are authoritarian and contrasts that with a market economy with minimal government intervention as being an appropriate state of affairs. Two wrongs don't make a right, if you believe the content in the article is biased towards progressivism that does not justify inserting a reverse-bias statement. What it does warrant is a thorough re-write of the article if others agree that is necessary.--] (]) 23:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::An ad hominem remark is an attack on a person. There was no person involved, so there was no ad hominem, no attack or criticism of or against any particular person. I was expressing a concern about what might happen (something to watch out for) in any hypothetical future page involving a politically charged topic like political progressivism. I'd expect the same potential problem in a page about liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism or most any other -ism. - ] (]) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Content policy means that good articles should read like articles in standard textbooks or analyses in newspapers such as the ''New York Times/'' That means that many facts such as the universe having been created 6,000 years ago are treated as fringe. But that is based on policy which is where you should take your criticisms. ] (]) 14:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
There has been little substantive improvement in a month on the issues at hand that I regard as still open and unresolved.--] (]) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
: I've edited that portion to be more reflective of the cited source, and moved it within the political progressivism section. See if you like it better now. - ] (]) 22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::It is improved. However the examples in specific countries material is a waste of space and time. To be inclusive we would have to have progressive parties from every country in the world listed, and that is unreasonable. Where examples of people and movements in countries have substantially influenced progressivism as in a general philosophy or the contemporary political usage of the term progressivism, they are acceptable. Otherwise just listing various insignificant individuals and movements who associated in some manner with the word "progressive" in them is a total waste of space and time. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== "Progressive" as autonym == | |||
The article does not, and should make clear, preferably near the start, that the term "Progressive" is solely an autonym that is not used or accepted by those unfavourable to the philosophy. | |||
The name is not a proper noun. It coopts a common noun with pre-existing positive, complimentary and favourable meanings. Those not espousing the philosophy do not accept or use it. ] (]) 13:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
== "Progressive-conservative" oxymoron == | |||
On the last sentence of the last paragraph at the section ], we read: "Prominent progressive conservative elements in the British Conservative Party have criticized neoliberalism". I think the sentence requires clarification in regards to the "progressive conservative" phrase, which seems like an oxymoron. Does it refer to members of the Conservative Party holding progressive views, to members of a discrete movement titled "progressive-conservative", or something else? --] (]) 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I think the entire section should go. Cameron btw has described himself as a progressive conservative. It is not actually an oxymoron, some conservatives see progress as necessary in order to maintain tradition. So same sex marriage for example is defended as preserving the family. But few would describe Cameron as a progressive, but rather as more progressive than the party's Right. ] (]) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== "Modern progressives now tend to describe race as merely a social construct" == | |||
A long anti-racist section, complete with loads of sources (#21-24) arguing against race as an adequate classification (yes, in an article on progressivism), yet sources with a complete lack of anything associating these views with progressivism, which as this article explains, means the desire for rapid progress and change. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not race should be a scientific distinction. | |||
] (]) 08:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Confused/conflated topics? == | |||
This article seems to conflate a lot of things into one article. Granted, all of these things did cross paths at some point but I tend to think that perhaps some of these different topics should be split into different articles with this one just providing a short unifying basis to explain how "Progressivism" evolved into different, frequently divergent, philosophies. | |||
One interesting thing that this does not touch on very well: During the latter 19th and early 20th centuries the "Progressive movement" (at least a big part of it) was focused on the idea of a return to basic Christian values, advocating for | |||
* Making Christian values explicitly prominent. This led to Christian churches and Christian organizations gaining great power in the U.S., which had not been so much the case in the earlier days of the republic. | |||
* Eliminating consumption of drugs and alcohol (contrary to popular belief the first drug epidemic started in the 19th century, not the 20th century). This all culminated in the Prohibition Era. | |||
* Eliminating gambling. In the U.S. most gambling (even lotteries) was eliminated across the U.S. by WWII, leading to the rise of Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc. | |||
* Eliminating the scope and influence of big business. The anti-trust laws were the most obvious example of this. | |||
* Eliminating exploitive employment practices. The pro-union environment of the early 1900s being the most obvious example. | |||
* Elimination of exploitive lending practices. Anti-usury laws were strengthened and more thoroughly enforced. | |||
* Restoring cultural/racial norms. This led to the very strict segregation and rise of the new KKK in the early 1900s. | |||
These were all things that were to varying degrees common during much of the Middle Ages and during the Protestant Reformation (e.g. we forget that the Catholic Church used to oppose money lending). | |||
This movement was not a liberal vs. conservative thing in the U.S. (and in Europe). There were parts of that which laster formed the core of the modern liberal philosophy and parts that formed part of the modern conservative philosophy. But at the time these were all seen as part of one big push to make the world a better place (not that every Progressive was in total agreement, of course). | |||
Thoughts? | |||
:::::I wouldn't be surprised if you now started editing that article to fit your partisan view... --] 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
- MC <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::::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. ] 21:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
There doesn't appear to be a linked definition to how progressivism is defined. See the "" below, there is no link for "progressivism": | |||
::::::::My point is that one can non-partisanly say that neoliberalism is counter-progressive and therefore should not be mentioned in the Progressivism article. --] 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. | |||
] (]) 17:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
== More coverage of opposition of progressives and recent setbacks of progressives == | |||
:::::::::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. ] 21:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
From the article, I don't get a sense of who is the bigger opponent of progressivism in US and European politics. | |||
::::::::::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. --] 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Is it the ] or is conservatives? Does the alt-right has the greater degree of intensity against progressives, but do conservatives have the greater numbers of people against progressives? | |||
== Criticism section == | |||
Who is offering the greater degree of opposition to progressives? | |||
Although I think it is intellectually healthy to have a criticism section all Misplaced Pages articles, I am concerned that the ] 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. --] 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Which group is currently is expected to have more influence in the Democratic politics in 2018? The centrists or the progressives? | |||
: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. (] 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)) | |||
Could some of these issues be incorporated into the article by someone more familiar with progressive politics?] (]) 15:18, 9 July 2017 (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? -- ] 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That's a lot of ] better suited to anything other than an Encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::As far as the exact strength of the major segments of the right-wing political spectrum that would be speculating. Also, I would not want to project into the future given that politics has been more volatile in recent times. | |||
::But currently the article lacks context as it does not adequately address the various right-wing factions who oppose progressives. It also doesn't address the issue of the left-wing politics suffering some setbacks as of late. | |||
::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. --] 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::It would not be hard to incorporate this material into the article. | |||
'''''Criticism''''' | |||
::For example, below are reliable sources relating to this matter: | |||
''Economist and ] Fellow, Brink Lindsey argues that progressivism is the belief in moving forward, as opposed to ] which favors the ]. 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" ] 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 ], which he describes as ] ]. Critics like Brink Lindsey argue that "progressive" policies such as ]s, ]es, ]es, ]s 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.'' | |||
::"It was Fortuyn who blazed the trail for the new generation of far-right leaders across Europe. He may not have intended to be a pioneer, but his brand of plain-spoken political incorrectness and his depiction of Islamic culture as a “backwards” and reactionary threat to the hard-won progressive values of western Europe would provide a potent template for a modernised far right." - ''The Guardian'', 2016 | |||
''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 ] and other movements that argue for ] and ] in international relations and economics.'' | |||
::, BBC, 2016 | |||
Moving Criticism section here until the Progressivism article is improved. --] 02:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
::, ''New Statesman'', 2017] (]) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (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". -- ] 02:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Since this article is more about how the term progressive has been applied then about any specific ideological group, that level of information would be out of place. The answer to your question would depend on whether "progressive" means the left of the Democratic Party, the whole Democratic Party or the Democratic Party and Republicans who are not right-wing or left-wing extremists. ''The Guardian'' quoted above for example refers to "the hard-won progressive values of western Europe," which basically incorporates the ground between communism and fascism. ] (]) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The ] article is longer than the progressivism article. Why not expand the scope of the progressivism article so it is a more useful article. Progressives still exist just as liberals still exist. So naturally many people will want a more informative progressivism article. | |||
::The ] article has a section entitled "Criticism and support". Why not do the same for the progressivism article? ] (]) 07:45, 10 July 2017 (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. (] 10:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)) | |||
:::It's not the same thing. Progressive is a term that can mean different things, which are better covered in their own articles, per ]. Liberalism for example can be called a progressive ideology. And criticism sections are discouraged. ] (]) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (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? --] 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Source reliability == | |||
::I'd like to note that Gibby was the subject of a recent ArbCom case, and only barely escaped a 1 year ban. He is currently on probation. -- ] 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Two of the sources<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/samuel-gregg/dark-side-progressivism-exposed-eugenics-race-science |title=Dark Side of Progressivism Exposed: From Eugenics to ‘Race Science’ |last=Gregg |first=Samuel |publisher=] |date=2017-02-10 |accessdate=2017-10-04 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/25/refusing-believe-early-progressives-loved-eugenics-will-not-erase-horrible-truth/ |title=Refusing To Believe Early Progressives Loved Eugenics Will Not Erase The Horrible Truth |last=Sammin |first=Kyle |publisher=] |date=2017-04-25 |accessdate=2017-10-04 }}</ref> in the article seem to come from known opinionated outlets and the content in the article seeks to describe Progressivism in a non-neutral fashion. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 13:53, 24 October 2017 (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! (] 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)) | |||
<references/> | |||
==Neutrality== | |||
: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. --] 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
This oepns with ''Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform''. This describes a vast number of movements that are not at all Progressivism. The reforms must be those reforms supported by Progressivism to qualify, and to avoid circularity, they need to be specified more clearly than that. ] (]) 17:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Should this be merged to ]? == | |||
::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. | |||
This reads like another fork of ]... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Add it the article if it needs improvement, don't delete the criticism, WHICH IS IN AND OF ITSELF IMPROVEMENT!!!!!!!!!!! | |||
:I agree. The term progressivism is only used in American politics and is described in ], although the term progressive is used as an antithesis of reactionary. ] (]) 10:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
::(] 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--] 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
==NPOV concerns== | |||
The term should be simply described as a term for several political ideologies that were described that way to sound nice in the first paragraph. No idea how to make this statement sophisticated tn, but the current definition is horrible, jumping from one meaning to the other without any form of disclaimer for the reader, making it a mangled mess only existing to support the current usage of the term. There should be more emphasis on the term history than it's meaning considering it's usage. --] (]) 21:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed, the lead is incoherent. See my edits of lead. I believe this is more consistent with the body of the article and addresses part of your concern.] (]) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Woodrow Wilson as progressive, but promoter of Jim Crow laws == | |||
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! (] 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
I find the broad use of "progressive" to be so broad and imprecise that it is unhelpful. Be that as it may, Woodrow Wilson is listed as an example of a progressive. Should his racist actions be mentioned? Cancel culturists may want him removed from this, but we are all complex.] (]) 19:52, 23 September 2022 (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. --] 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:As the article points out, the term was used to refer to four distinct movements. While each was created by members of the previous one, it was not one movement. It's only in the third version that racial equality became a key issue. Before that, there was a range of views on race. ] (]) 11:09, 2 January 2023 (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! (] 00:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
:The progressive standard 100 years ago cannot be the same as the current progressive standard. He would certainly be a far-right ultra-conservative in his current character, but he was progressive in many other social issues in his time. ] (]) 02:17, 28 January 2023 (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. | |||
:::--] 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Progressivism; ¿The final revisionist of the politic culture? == | |||
::::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. | |||
::::(] 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
Perhaps on XXI , we know it ] (]) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::Gibby, you are the one who has a problem. First, when I said you had an agenda, I was 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 routine! Third, the POV has been the way in which Lindley's opinion was presented and edited in this article by people who clearly had an agenda. I am not including you in this list of people but look back at the history of how this section came into existence and you may undertand. 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.''' --] 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Lead issues == | |||
{{ping|Rhosnes}} Hello. The body of the article doesn't specifically mention either cultural norms nor social norms. Likewise, it doesn't mention dismantling those norms. Per ] we cannot introduce new unsourced information into the very first sentence of an article in this way. Please discuss here before restoring. Thank you. ] (]) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (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!!!! | |||
: Okay, I guess we'll just leave a verifiably false lead, then (since e.g. the Nazis also introduced a lot of political reforms, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they are progressive).] (]) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::To be verifiably false it would have to be ], but even with sources, that conflates two separate issues. | |||
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! (] 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) | |||
::If you have ] which describe progressivism as attempting to dismantle cultural norms, and these sources indicate that this is the single most important aspect of progressivism so that it belongs in the first sentence, let's see them. From that, we can modify the body of the article to explain this. | |||
::This would have nothing to do with the reforms the Nazis purportedly introduced. By the logic of your proposed lead sentence, the Nazis would still be labeled as progressive, so your proposal doesn't solve the underlying problem. The Nazis violently attempted to reform or dismantle social and cultural norms in human society based on their selective application of who counted as human. For topics as complicated as these, readers will need to read past the very first sentence to get a clear understanding of the topic. | |||
::Unfortunately a lot of people ''do'' argue that they were progressive. We have ] because of this kind of thing. That's just one reason we need to avoid ] to the first sentence of these articles. ] (]) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Yeah, I don't have enough time to scour paper after paper just to convince you to correct an obvious falsehood, but mentions social reform as a defining quality of progressivism. | |||
:::"The Nazis violently attempted to reform or dismantle social and cultural norms in human society based on their selective application of who counted as human" | |||
:::They didn't reform or dismantle any norms that already existed in *German* society. Those whom the Nazis targeted were either culturally distinct from Germans (Jews, Roma) or violated/challenged existing social norms (socialists, LGBT). You could certainly argue that the Nazis violated many ethical norms (although even that is questionable given the atrocious precedent that the communists had set), but Hitler clearly explains that these unethical decisions were a means to end; it's highly doubtful that the Nazis viewed unethical norms as inherently and universally improving human societies. | |||
:::"For topics as complicated as these, readers will need to read past the very first sentence to get a clear understanding of the topic." | |||
:::Frankly, it isn't that complicated. Fundamentally, there isn't much more to progressivism than a belief that the abandonment of certain social norms in exchange for increased social liberty or equality can be beneficial for society. But this ─ unlike my proposed change ─ is indeed WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant. More relevant is that readers will NOT get a clear understanding of the topic by reading this article. Nowhere in the article are the core tenets of progressivism actually outlined or even hinted at (except in the egregiously misrepresentative lead); instead, the article just lists what people identifying as progressives happened to support throughout history. That obviously isn't sufficient to form a "clear" understanding of the topic, much less when progressives have supported positions as disparate as pro-eugenics and anti-social Darwinism. ] (]) 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 05:23, 17 September 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Progressivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Progressivism received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Progressivism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-11-28
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Archives |
Article is problematic and irrelevant to 21st century progressivism
The historical discussion is vague, lacks nuances and sources. The relevance to modern progressivism as most progressives themselves understand it is marginal. Experts or academics out there: Please fix.
Look at how nuanced, lengthy and elaborate the article on "classical liberalism" is, for comparison. Modern progressivism is at least as sizeable a movement as "classical liberalism" ever was, and yet we have this lackluster and uninformatively dull article. Please fix.
This article largely lacks relevance to modern progressivism. I have added a paragraph on 21st century progressivism. Please feel free to add sources and amplify.
References to advocacy of collective action, environmental protections, workers rights, government regulation and other aspects of modern progressivism are not present here either.
Also -- re the oddly grammared entry below: Nazis were not progressives. They were fascists.
152.3.34.82 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Progressives are so totalitarians as Misplaced Pages
One complained that was my opinion then I gave the reference below then I was censored with no explanation and with a threat like I would be in any totalitarian environment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/01/13/are-todays-progressives-actually-totalitarians/2/
Why they allow a section called 'Authoritarian conservatism' relating it with nazi, while nazis really means National Socialism, nazi was in real progressives but Misplaced Pages deny a single sourced sentence telling the true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:F421:1337:2033:9778:D173:8945 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- (Lets turn that bold font off shall we?</b> Ah. That's much better.)
- Please just take a few deep breaths and then ask yourself whether any of that nonsense you said actually makes any sense?
- Have been threatened? Are you in fear of your life? Do you fear detention without trial? Has anybody murdered any of your friends who have held similar opinions? Has anybody prevented you from taking your opinions to some blog or webforum where they are actually welcome and appropriate, as opposed to spamming them over an encyclopaedia? No. None of these things. All that has happened is that you have been told to stop disrupting Misplaced Pages by inserting your opinions.
- I put it to you that you have no idea what totalitarianism actually means otherwise I trust that you would have the basic decency not insult its real victims by trying to compare yourself to them.
- So Forbes published an opinion piece that you agreed with back in 2014, did they? Good for you. The trouble is that we can't reference factual claims to people's opinions. The difference is that Forbes is a magazine and Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. They have their standards and we have ours. That's how a free press works. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Australia
Somebody appears to have plugged a reference to the Greens in there for no apparent reason. Relevance of this? 18/01/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.73.21 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
A better heuristic?
Reading through discussion points, it's clear the term "progressive" needs a better heuristic for readers. The section comparing progressivism to liberalism, conservativism, and socialism provides a poor typological structure for conveying meaning. Now, I would need to read more about the early progressive movement, but most of the cited sources above fit within a framework that views progressivism as an ORIENTATION to the foundational political philosophies of liberalism and communitarianism.
This heuristic comes from Stiles (2006) who did an analysis of current environmental education policies/philosophies in the United States. Stiles supports his framework with a number of sources, and it makes a lot more sense with cited sources above and in the main article. The heuristic is as follows:
progressive / liberalism (e.g. liberal democracy ala Rawls,1971)
conservative / liberalism (e.g. libertarianism, neoliberalism)
progressive / communitarianism (e.g. socialism)
conservative / communitarinism (e.g. communism, social conservative movement in the united states)
Liberals and Communitarians by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift (1996) is a must read as well.
Citation:
Stiles, T. (2006). Place stories: (Re)locating the interests of youth in environmental education. Dissertation at Arizona State University.
R33f3rman (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The comparison section is confusing because the terms progressive, liberal, conservative and socialist are used ambiguously. However I cannot see how your use of the term progressive fits in with any of its uses in the article. Basically the article lists how the term has been used in reference to different political groups: parties called "progressive", American politics in the Progressive, New Deal and Great Society era, and modern liberalism. The article itself needs to be re-written. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"Progressive" is simply a political ideology of advocating for social reform through government action. Aside from the use of loaded words throughout the article, every socio-political ideology is "progressive" in the way it is now described in this article. The problem with calling it "left statism" is that "statism" is a Libertarian term for those opposite to Libertarian ideology, but it is still the opposite of Libertarianism, particularly "right Libertarianism".76.14.54.78 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thankyou, now we all understand. TFD (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Understand this: 'Progressive' simply means to 'progress' to John Lennon's "Imagine" Utopia (imagine no nations) as glamorized in the Closing Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics. Note this: When the ruinous welfare state became unpopular, Progressives started to call themselves 'Liberals'; and when Liberalism/Liberals likewise became unpopular, Liberal-Progressives like Hillary Rodham Clinton reverted back to 'Progressive' instead of 'Liberal'. They are the same. Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A problematic argument. The original Progressives weren't focused (entirely) on social reform through government action. In fact, many of them were classical liberals who advocated direct social engagement at the grass roots level. Bottom line? Government was simply one avenue to social, economic, and political reform. The emphasis being - in all cases - on reform and a transformation of conservative (past) ways of doing things. Additionally, this discussion ignores the scientific and empirical roots that the original Progressive movement held. 12:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Uh, progress on getting these political terms straight is not going to be easy until American rightists get over their anti-Obama hysteria, if then. Cladistics is not easy when many of the loudest soi disant experts refer to themselves as libertarians but are really in many cases anarchists, reactionaries, fascists or just ignorant thugs, to give just four illustrative examples. Some of them are even libertarians, but this does not bode well for their objectivity nor their competence in working out the meanings of words.
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Canada
I removed this wording: "...although the PCs also contained a progressive wing for the rest of its history. Most of these people were opposed to the PCs merger with the more socially conservative Canadian Alliance in 2003." Progressives who joined or re-joined the Conservatives did not form a separate wing and were not "progressive" in a modern sense. Also I added "former" (and capitalized the reference) to "progressives" who supported the Progressive Conservative Party, because the Progressive Party had ceased to exist. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this Four Deuces guy is coming from, but I did see the front half of a horse wandering down the street a few minutes ago. Call me, Deuces, and I'll point out where it went.
The original text which he excised is precisely correct and diplomatically worded.
For anyone in doubt about the separateness of the wings, Google "Rob Anders." The Progressives are trying to keep him from being renominated in his Alberta riding.
FWIW, Red Tories tend to be Progressives from Ontario or the East, while Progressives come from a rather different set of traditions and tend to be from the Prairies. There are individual exceptions: this Prairie nationalist Orchard tends, ahistorcally, to be called a Red Tory. Margaret Thatcher's comment at one of Conrad Black's dinners on Prime Minister Mulroney, an easterner, was "I'm sorry he pays so much more attention to the adjective than to the noun."
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Organize data better
Add tag:
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Misplaced Pages's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (June 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Article would exist better-presented with more subsections and subtopics, for increased clarity, objectivity, and ease of reading.
Neutrality violated by libertarian framing.
The first sentence of the first paragraph is a blatant violation of wikipedia neutrality. Probably also a case of original research (ie. fantasy) since it is unsourced.
" usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice)."
Statist is a libertarian term of derision, and that is the dominant usage people encounter. A brief google search for statism will show that.
A division into economic and social is also typical of libertarian viewpoints alone, as exemplified by their quiz, and has no academic standing.
The introduction ought to be based on statements of progressivism by progressives. Not framed in libertarian ideology.
Mhuben (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Statism" or "statist" is often used derisively by people who oppose State intrusions upon liberty. Nevertheless, it is a good term. Misplaced Pages's own statism article puts it well: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals."
- I think, however, the part you deleted needed to be deleted because it was inaccurate - too restrictive. The critical characteristic of progressivism is its means for social change - the political means (as opposed to voluntary social means.) That's why I added "through governmental action" to the definition. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Liberals support conservatives?
"Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and a Labour party or Liberal Party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates". This seems confusing. Very few European countries have a Liberal Party as one of their big two, so the natural interpretation of the sentence is to look at Australia, where the Liberal Party is a rightwing conservative party despite its name. Besides, relatively few European countries have a two-party system, unless you mean two-party in the weak sense of two-party-dominant. In Germany for example, the third-party and fourth-party scene is about a million times more vibrant than the third-party scene in the USA. And only a small minority of Europe's mainstream social democratic parties are called Labour. 86.176.49.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
- The basis for this no longer appears to be in the article but what is there now, identifying American Liberalism with "left conservatism" is pretty near the mark. "Liberal" in the universe of mainstream US political discourse equivocally refers to that and what from the in-universe view is considered to be the left end of the entire spectrum of discourse with voices like Chomsky and so forth being side show attractions. Presumably, this, the near total lack of a politically effective left is one of those contradictions in American politics overripe for resolution. So the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" is overdetermined here, "liberal" doesn't mean what it does globally, and in as much as it's a central pillar of the "centre right nation" cant doesn't mean progressive at all. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Ireland
The section on Progressivism in Ireland shows the Progressive Democrats as being Progressive, eventhough they are not Progressive, just because their name says Progressive dosnt make it true, we could also make the same argument about the Progressive Conservatives of Canada, they are not Progressive even though their name says so, I think we should remove the Ireland section from this page considering that the party is not even close to being Progressive, they are Conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I removed them. They and the Progressive Conservatives are already mentioned in the lead as parties use progressive in their names, although not belonging to that tradition. (The Irish party is actually liberal.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Tory party of Canada no longer calls itself "Progressive" since the merger/coup (depending on your point of view) of 2003. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"Idea of progress"
The "Idea of progress" (That technological advancement improves society) is completely unrelated to Progressivism (The theory that 'progressive' (meaning Incremental) change through government intervention is the best way to change society.) - This is a complete malapropism. The history section needs to be written from scratch, as it currently has absolutely no accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.182.207 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
as a eupemism for general "liberals"
the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Progressivism as insanity
The recurrent insertion of material asserting that Progressivism is a form of insanity, especially in the head section, render the page unusable as a reference. I'm not familiar with the details of Wiki conventions, but such things often seem to find a home under a "controversy" section.
I would point out that the link, <http://about-psychology.com/progress.html> appears to refer to the work of Docjp, who put it here. I do not think this can be considered an authoritative source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.25.19 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- It does not qualify as a reliable source, since it is self-published. Even if it were published by a reputable source, we would have to establish whether the opinions were notable and then present them in a neutral manner. Please see also no original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me to even be taking this repetitious act of flagrant vandalism seriously. MondoManDevout (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
changes or reform
Advocating changes and/or reform is a pretty neutral description. One could argue Hitler was progressive because he proposed (and carried out) sweeping changes in Germany.--77.248.75.39 (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not disrupt the article to make a point. That was vandalism and I have reverted it. "One can argue" almost anything but this is not the place for original research, personal opinions or analysis. Neutrality is what we do. If you want to argue politics then please find a web forum where that sort of discussion is appropriate and do it there. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
australia section
the section implies that both sides of the political spectrum are progressive is this possible or is it a contradiction where neither is progressive and they are merely opposing points of veiw.
Digmores (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is perfectly possible. One side might wish to progress to the left and one to the right. This is probably true of many countries where there are no truly conservative or reactionary parties. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- hmmm what i mean is can a party be described as progressive if it is changing its own political perspective or is considered to be progressive by introducing new ideas. Or is progressiveness linked into the idea of social equity, individual freedom, social democracy, free markets. (Any of these things in isolation on in junction with one another.
Digmores (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- It can mean anything and this article is just a list of definitions. It has been applied however to specific political moverments in the U. S. TFD (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
United States section - list of Progressives in Congress
Twice in the past year, an editor mysteriously removed three names from the list of Progressive who have served in the the U.S. Congress: Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. All three are well-known progressives: Waters is a current member of the Progressive Caucus, Clinton and Obama both describe themselves as a progressives and both served in Congress. None of the other names in the list were cited, so why are these three well-known progressives being being removed? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Citations:
1) Clinton in her own words defining herself as a progressive (@50 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
2) Maxine Waters has been in the progressive caucus since the 1990's: http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
3) Barack Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting near Atlanta during the Presidential campaign: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive." I'll even pick a far-left progressive site to cite this admission: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html
Now why are these three additions continually removed by editors, without it being considered vandalism?
--216.114.194.20 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- This raises the point that the inclusion of any person on this list needs to be well sourced. ClovisPt (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- None of the other names in the list were sourced, yet they were not deleted. Odd...--216.114.194.20 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:VANDAL: it has a clear meaning and using it the way you are is a personal attack. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus and were listed as New Democrats. While Waters is a progressive, she is neither a senator nor a committee chairman, and if you want to list her, then you would have to list the 100 or so other people who have been in the caucus. In fact a list can be found in the appropriate article. TFD (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Where did I ever say Clinton and Obama were part of the progressive caucus? I never stated that. I provided non-refutable citations by them IN THEIR OWN WORDS describing themselves as progressives. The first removal several months ago was done without explaination, and thus I reverted. The second removal was done as a specific target against me, not against the content. When an editor selectively picks three additions I made a year ago to remove on the basis of not being cited, but leaves the rest of the names there also without citation, it is clearly a target against my additions, even though mine carried the same (and MORE) rationale for being added. As I was clearly being personally targeted, I have strong arguments to consider that a vandalism of my edits.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The article listed notable members of CONGRESS, not the U.S. Senate. Waters has been a CONGRESS member (House) and member of the Progressive caucus since the 90's.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why are we listing members of Congress at all? The most famous progressives in U.S. history have come from various branches of government, including the presidency, state governors, senators, etc. By no stretch is Al Franken one of the most notable progressives in the U.S., for example. I suggest dropping the list completely. We have a whole article on the topic where readers can get details of notable progressives from across the history of progressivism. None of the other national sections list current progressive politicians in the lower houses of their legislatures. Will Beback talk 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
July 21, 2011: yet another political ideolog has without explanation again singled out progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for removal frfom this list. This is a political game being played on WP in an attempt to hide these two leading *self-admitted* progressives from being included in the list. Why try to intentionally hide the two most influential progressives from a list that even includes former and dead politicians? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because they do not self-identify as or are considered progressives. TFD (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong. Read the very first entry in this discussion. Both identify themselves as progressives. Why is the left desperate to change history on this? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
July 22 - again reverted political-agenda removal of progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Either the entire list goes away, or the entire list stays. Political ideologs removing people they don't want seen in this list is considered vandalism. They admit they are progressives, so they are proud of it. Why continually try to hide it by vandalizing this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS. All material added, especially about living persons should be sourced. since your additions are unsourced, I will remove them. Please do not restore without sources. TFD (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- you are ONLY targeting my additions. As I have said numerous times. only one other in the list is sourced, yet you do not remove them. Following links to Waters/Pelosi's WP pages discusses their involvement in the Progressive caucus. ***Further deletion of my valid additions WILL be treated as vandalism. Please keep your political agendas out of Misplaced Pages.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide an explanation why you left the other unsourced names on the list, and only targeted my additions for removal. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please remove those same names off the list on the Congressional Progressive Caucus WP Page. They are also unsourced.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I removed new edits that were clearly against policy. The fact that there may be problems with this and other articles is no justification to add unsourced text. Clinton and Obama were never progressive's. Clinton's husband was in fact associated with the New Democrats. Pelosi quit the Progressives when she became speaker. But it is not up to other editors to investigate unsourced claims. TFD (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- After researching TFD's long history of standing guard on his favorite political pages, ensuring that his thinly-veiled leftist ideology gets bullied through, this incident is starting to make more sense. To claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama are not progressives, when they both self-identify themselves as progressives borders on the absurd. Any attempt to post those citations will no doubt result in TFD starting a month-long war deleting citations as well. We need a non-partisan experienced editor to put a stop to TFD's ongoing blockade of subjects that appear to be damaging to his political ideology. he also needs a stern warning regarding targeting specific editors, instead of content. This incident proves this accusation. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- We cannot determine on our own who is progressive or thinly veiled leftist or whatever categories - we need reliable sources. If you do not like that then please get the policy changed rather than argue across numerous articles. TFD (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Came here from a posting on WP:RSN. Any addition to the article will absolutely need to be sourced to a reliable source, and not just on the whim of what an editor thinks is appropriate or the WP:TRUTH. This is the core of the policy on verifiability. Yobol (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- We cannot determine on our own who is progressive or thinly veiled leftist or whatever categories - we need reliable sources. If you do not like that then please get the policy changed rather than argue across numerous articles. TFD (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- After researching TFD's long history of standing guard on his favorite political pages, ensuring that his thinly-veiled leftist ideology gets bullied through, this incident is starting to make more sense. To claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama are not progressives, when they both self-identify themselves as progressives borders on the absurd. Any attempt to post those citations will no doubt result in TFD starting a month-long war deleting citations as well. We need a non-partisan experienced editor to put a stop to TFD's ongoing blockade of subjects that appear to be damaging to his political ideology. he also needs a stern warning regarding targeting specific editors, instead of content. This incident proves this accusation. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I removed new edits that were clearly against policy. The fact that there may be problems with this and other articles is no justification to add unsourced text. Clinton and Obama were never progressive's. Clinton's husband was in fact associated with the New Democrats. Pelosi quit the Progressives when she became speaker. But it is not up to other editors to investigate unsourced claims. TFD (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The posting is at WP:RSN#Progressivism. TFD (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- TFD AGAIN reverted my additions, but did not remove other unsourced additions. This is my point. I have a document with notes of all of the relevant citations needed from actual transcripts, etc for inclusion in this WP section, but I am trying to prove a point. 1) TFD has a history of being reprimanded for NPOV left-wing political activism on WP. 2) TFD is ONLY cherry-picking three individuals on this list that he for some reason does not want to be publicly listed as being progressive, perhaps because in the USA 'progressive' has started taking on an increasingly negative public opinion in the past couple years. That's the only reason I can think of. My point here is why is TFD not removing ALL members from this list, since NONE are sourced, and only targeting these three, when the others on the list do not meet the requirements for the same policy?
- TFD AGAIN reverted my additions, but did not remove other unsourced additions. This is my point. I have a document with notes of all of the relevant citations needed from actual transcripts, etc for inclusion in this WP section, but I am trying to prove a point. 1) TFD has a history of being reprimanded for NPOV left-wing political activism on WP. 2) TFD is ONLY cherry-picking three individuals on this list that he for some reason does not want to be publicly listed as being progressive, perhaps because in the USA 'progressive' has started taking on an increasingly negative public opinion in the past couple years. That's the only reason I can think of. My point here is why is TFD not removing ALL members from this list, since NONE are sourced, and only targeting these three, when the others on the list do not meet the requirements for the same policy?
- Here's the sources I am ready to create, but should I even go through the trouble, as I fully expect an edit war on my citations as well?
- Here's the sources I am ready to create, but should I even go through the trouble, as I fully expect an edit war on my citations as well?
- Hillary Clinton
- CNN / YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
- Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
- Transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24transcript.html?pagewanted=all
"I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the ::::::: beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive..."
- Maxine Waters (Founding member of the Progressive Caucus)
- Congressional Progressive Caucus membership:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
- Barack Obama
Town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta during 2008 campaign:
- NY Times Partial Transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=b690d55617d9d0db&ex=1215748800&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1215785058-T9CQHCNICPqGNIpAArg6lA
"I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
--216.114.194.20 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are just Google-mining for sources to support your views. H. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus, and you would need sources that describe them that way. Waters of course is a progressive, notice that she is highly critical of Obama, but does not have the stature of other progressives. TFD (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Google mining people quoting in their exact words??? Obama says " I am no doubt a progressive", but TFD is saying that Obama was incorrect about describing himself? TFD, I am not sure what ideology or people you are trying to protect here, but your fixation on trying to protect these three WELL-KNOWN and DEEPLY DOCUMENTED progressives is beyond absurd. So absurd, that any further removal of my PROPERLY CITED additions will lead me no choice but to file yet another NPOV complaint to add to your resume of using WP as a leftist propaganda platform. I halfway expect TFD to now start advocating for removing ALL names, since the only cited ones are the ones he is desperate to hide from public view.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please avoid personal attacks and false statements about other editors in your talk page discussion and edit summaries. If Obama called himself a libertarian, would you add him to the liberarianism article? TFD (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- referred for mediation. I'm not playing TFD's game any longer.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Incoming moderators, please note the name of the list involved: "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included..." This means current and FORMER, which is a detail TFD is not grasping here.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please avoid personal attacks and false statements about other editors in your talk page discussion and edit summaries. If Obama called himself a libertarian, would you add him to the liberarianism article? TFD (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Google mining people quoting in their exact words??? Obama says " I am no doubt a progressive", but TFD is saying that Obama was incorrect about describing himself? TFD, I am not sure what ideology or people you are trying to protect here, but your fixation on trying to protect these three WELL-KNOWN and DEEPLY DOCUMENTED progressives is beyond absurd. So absurd, that any further removal of my PROPERLY CITED additions will lead me no choice but to file yet another NPOV complaint to add to your resume of using WP as a leftist propaganda platform. I halfway expect TFD to now start advocating for removing ALL names, since the only cited ones are the ones he is desperate to hide from public view.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Better definition
Progressivism is 'authoritarianism for social and economic equality' would be the best definition that just saying statist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.180 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding what "authoritarianism" means. Advocacy of government intervention or regulation as part of the process of liberal democracy, for example, is not what authoritarianism means. 152.3.34.82 (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality
The opening sentence is not neutral because it would in reality cover every single idelogy that ever existed -- "political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes" -- as if there were ever an ideology that liked things exactly the way they were, or regarded the changes they approved of as anything but reform. And then it contradicts itself with its talk about conservative and reactionary, because reactionaries, by definition, and conservatives, in reality, want changes, and being human regard them as reform. Without some explanation about what kind of changes, it's not neutral. ("Positive changes" or other such euphemisms also don't cut it. No one wants negative change.) Goldfritha (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's not true. In the US, conservatives don't want real reform. They want things to stay the same or to return to a previous state. They might want to reform corrupt institutions but that's not what we're talking about here. Besides what you're claiming makes no sense anyway. A neutral sentence isn't neutral because it isn't specific? What? Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The opening sentence works and does not appear to have any neutrality issues. You can't read that opening phrase without taking into context the end of that same phrase, as well as the second sentence. This looks to me to properly provide the context for differentiating Progressivism from some other type of "ism". I agree with Morbius, above, that the argument for non-neutrality contains no context which is in any way descriptive or could be properly written about, short of some completely new research. So unless there is/are some other POV issues, or unless a proper context can be summoned to remove any POV from that opening sentence -- I'll be removing the neutrality tag in about a month. 10stone5 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is true indeed, I came here to write exactly this so I support this claim. The opening sentence is not a real differentiator of progressivism.
- For example, the opening sentence makes injustice to other isms by misleading people into thinking other isms do not want to advance science.
- Also these claim are baseless, so please support them by concrete examples and data. As far as I can tell, progressivism advances science in accordance to a political agenda, so it is misleading readers to think progressivism advances the human kind for beneficial purposes. Otherwise, please base your claims. 147.235.199.20 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Morbius, nice blinders you have there. Your crude definition of modern conservatism in the United States is laughable in how inaccurate it is. Thank you for confirming that this article has a POV that is not neutral. PokeHomsar (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Added a context sentence, removed tags as they were both about the lede and not actively under discussion. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- As much as I abhor involving myself within the debate of semantics and duckspeak of politics, this article is undoubtingly bias.
Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.
- By what measure is it "gradual"; in relation to what? The article states it's left-wing, so is it gradual in comparison with a socialist revolution or social liberalism? And the term "reform" used in this context is a sweet nothing: reform is the rule of politics, what party in which country promises to maintain the broad status quo? This sentence places the reader in no stead to understand the philosophy, and the rest of the article is thereafter a concatenation of a very broad spectrum. --Inops (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Section: 2 By country, 2.6 United States
- Changed the last sentence to describe Blue Dog Democrats not as conservative, but as moderates. Too often Misplaced Pages demonstrates a sort of Moral Relativism, where everything easily relates to everything else or all things meld into one. If a Blue Dog is a Democrat, by definition, they should not be considered a conservative. You've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And typically, that is the deflection point. 10stone5 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The passage did not call them "conservative" but "more conservative Democrats". Changing that to "more moderate Democrats" is injecting bias and I will revert. Democrats btw are not by definition not conservatives, since they do not enforce ideological consistency. TFD (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Relation to other political ideologies
The emphasized portion of the passage below has no citation, and runs contrary to what I know. Would someone care to look into this please? Thanks.
"The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the US in particular, the term progressive tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat;"
--Ratha K (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Minor edits to Canada
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make these minor edits regarding spelling/grammar/usability.
1935 election --> 1935 election
amoug --> among
to attacked the --> to attack the
24.57.210.141 (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the corrections! BryanG (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Anti-progressivism
WIKIPEDIA - Y U NO have article on anti-progressivism? Many have openly opposed progressivist policies and even called themselves "anti-progressive" in history. For example, opponents of the New Deal. --99.185.229.78 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- The opposite of progressive is reactionary. And many progressives opposed the New Deal, while many non-progressives supported it. TFD (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The opposite of progressive is reactionary.
I would respond: No. The opposite of progressive is anti-progressive. Go ask the anti-progressivists. Nobody calls themselves 'reactionary.' --BenMcLean (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The opposite of progressivism is Conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:F421:1337:2033:9778:D173:8945 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Bogus title
This whole idea of a "Progressive Era" and some cohesive "Progressivism movement" is really new. Some references should be added to confirm when the label "progressive" began to be applied in this manner. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages is just making stuff up like other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.227.151 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- What on Earth are you talking about? The term "Progressive Era" was in use by the early 1900s, and became standard political shorthand by 1930 or so. And the Progressives very explicitly identified themselves as a movement, even using the term to name their political parties (or factions of existing parties).
--Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Very biased statement in the intro of this article, not neutral
"Progressivism as a political philosophy holds that societal problems can best be addressed by having government impose solutions according to "modern" principles, rather than leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices"
This statement above is currently in the intro, it is very biased using word usage to denigrate the topic, claiming that progressives want government to "impose solutions", mocking progressives claim to using modern principles by an inappropriate sarcastic usage of quotation marks that are unnecessary as they are not quoting anything. And lastly it invokes a libertarian or laissez-faire POV saying that this is contrasted instead of "leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices".
This statement is not neutral, is biased against the topic in the article, and other parts of the intro describe the nature of the topic already without such bias and lack of neutrality. I request that the statement be removed on these grounds.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- That statement might be improved, however it's not in the general introduction, but only in the portion of the introduction that concerns political progressivism, which is certainly about using the power of government to solve societal problems. Furthermore, there is nothing remotely "neutral" about the rest of the article, which is strongly biased in the other direction, conflating political progressivism with the general notion of progress, talking about it in glowing terms ("demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society" … "nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth" etc.) It's not a well-balanced article, but almost entirely paints political progressivism in the most glowing terms possible, and it's interesting that the only potentially critical statement that talks about the government power aspect (which is well-documented) is attacked as "very biased." - Embram (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the article conflates four distinct historical political positions that called themselves progressive (1900-1914, 1924, 1948 and today.) The connections between the four are slight and any description of their common "ideology" (in fact progressivism has never been an ideology) is just original research. The original progressive position incidentally was not that government impose solutions based on modern principles, but that governments should be run according to modern principles. So while progressives brought in prohibition and food inspection, they also gave the vote to women and introduced referenda as a method of changing laws, and re-call elections. TFD (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The contrast in that statement of associating progressive stances as government imposition as opposed to leaving the economy alone to the free market and individual choices and actions, is a libertarian/laissez-faire outlook on progressive politics, which is fine to be included as a criticism of progresssivism in the article. A lot of the other content that Embram mentions is showing what progressives have used as justifications for their policies - it does not mean that those points are conveying truths; such is a valuable inclusion regardless of whether one believes in those justifications of not.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Again, progressive is a term that has been used for four distinct movements in the U.S. and for unrelated groups in other nations. The Progress Party (Norway) for example was formed to fight high taxes and big government. It is progressive in the sense that it rejects (to them) old-fashioned, reactionary views that hold back progress. I do not see this article going beyond a disambiguation page, since other than favoring progress, there is no commonality. TFD (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with TFD. The main article in its current form seems largely a "rah-rah" page designed by the original author to cast the words progressive and progressivism in a positive light (with some limited critical provisos thrown in by other editors), rather than a scholarly article. There are not only several different political "progressive" parties in the world, fighting for similar but not identical purposes, there are also different contexts in which the words progressive and progressivism are used, not only throughout history but also in the present day, and this article fairly well mixes up and conflates them all. I agree the best thing would be to turn this page into a disambiguation page, and then the individual different pages directed to respectively specific meanings of progressivism can be written. I expect, however, that any pages concerning political progressivism will be written with a partisan point of view, argued over, and eventually controlled and maintained in an ideologically pure manner by a group of senior editors with a particular political viewpoint, perhaps similar to the way the pages concerning climate change have been controlled within Misplaced Pages. The problem with a politically charged topic like this is that published articles describing progressivism will define it differently depending on the political viewpoint of the writer, they will inevitably conflict with one another, and there will be a struggle to exclude "facts" that are based on references from "biased" authors—i.e., authors whose politics differ from those of the editor doing the bowdlerizing. - Embram (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Very ad hominem last remark that was completely unnecessary. The contrast of the term "government imposition" versus "individual actions and choices" is very biased, it is a libertarian adage that says that progressives are authoritarian and contrasts that with a market economy with minimal government intervention as being an appropriate state of affairs. Two wrongs don't make a right, if you believe the content in the article is biased towards progressivism that does not justify inserting a reverse-bias statement. What it does warrant is a thorough re-write of the article if others agree that is necessary.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- An ad hominem remark is an attack on a person. There was no person involved, so there was no ad hominem, no attack or criticism of or against any particular person. I was expressing a concern about what might happen (something to watch out for) in any hypothetical future page involving a politically charged topic like political progressivism. I'd expect the same potential problem in a page about liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism or most any other -ism. - Embram (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Content policy means that good articles should read like articles in standard textbooks or analyses in newspapers such as the New York Times/ That means that many facts such as the universe having been created 6,000 years ago are treated as fringe. But that is based on policy which is where you should take your criticisms. TFD (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- An ad hominem remark is an attack on a person. There was no person involved, so there was no ad hominem, no attack or criticism of or against any particular person. I was expressing a concern about what might happen (something to watch out for) in any hypothetical future page involving a politically charged topic like political progressivism. I'd expect the same potential problem in a page about liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism or most any other -ism. - Embram (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Very ad hominem last remark that was completely unnecessary. The contrast of the term "government imposition" versus "individual actions and choices" is very biased, it is a libertarian adage that says that progressives are authoritarian and contrasts that with a market economy with minimal government intervention as being an appropriate state of affairs. Two wrongs don't make a right, if you believe the content in the article is biased towards progressivism that does not justify inserting a reverse-bias statement. What it does warrant is a thorough re-write of the article if others agree that is necessary.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
There has been little substantive improvement in a month on the issues at hand that I regard as still open and unresolved.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've edited that portion to be more reflective of the cited source, and moved it within the political progressivism section. See if you like it better now. - Embram (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is improved. However the examples in specific countries material is a waste of space and time. To be inclusive we would have to have progressive parties from every country in the world listed, and that is unreasonable. Where examples of people and movements in countries have substantially influenced progressivism as in a general philosophy or the contemporary political usage of the term progressivism, they are acceptable. Otherwise just listing various insignificant individuals and movements who associated in some manner with the word "progressive" in them is a total waste of space and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.74.119 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Progressive" as autonym
The article does not, and should make clear, preferably near the start, that the term "Progressive" is solely an autonym that is not used or accepted by those unfavourable to the philosophy. The name is not a proper noun. It coopts a common noun with pre-existing positive, complimentary and favourable meanings. Those not espousing the philosophy do not accept or use it. PeterColdridge (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Progressive-conservative" oxymoron
On the last sentence of the last paragraph at the section Progressivism#Contemporary_mainstream_political_conception, we read: "Prominent progressive conservative elements in the British Conservative Party have criticized neoliberalism". I think the sentence requires clarification in regards to the "progressive conservative" phrase, which seems like an oxymoron. Does it refer to members of the Conservative Party holding progressive views, to members of a discrete movement titled "progressive-conservative", or something else? --Dead3y3 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think the entire section should go. Cameron btw has described himself as a progressive conservative. It is not actually an oxymoron, some conservatives see progress as necessary in order to maintain tradition. So same sex marriage for example is defended as preserving the family. But few would describe Cameron as a progressive, but rather as more progressive than the party's Right. TFD (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Modern progressives now tend to describe race as merely a social construct"
A long anti-racist section, complete with loads of sources (#21-24) arguing against race as an adequate classification (yes, in an article on progressivism), yet sources with a complete lack of anything associating these views with progressivism, which as this article explains, means the desire for rapid progress and change. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not race should be a scientific distinction. 85.194.2.41 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Confused/conflated topics?
This article seems to conflate a lot of things into one article. Granted, all of these things did cross paths at some point but I tend to think that perhaps some of these different topics should be split into different articles with this one just providing a short unifying basis to explain how "Progressivism" evolved into different, frequently divergent, philosophies.
One interesting thing that this does not touch on very well: During the latter 19th and early 20th centuries the "Progressive movement" (at least a big part of it) was focused on the idea of a return to basic Christian values, advocating for
- Making Christian values explicitly prominent. This led to Christian churches and Christian organizations gaining great power in the U.S., which had not been so much the case in the earlier days of the republic.
- Eliminating consumption of drugs and alcohol (contrary to popular belief the first drug epidemic started in the 19th century, not the 20th century). This all culminated in the Prohibition Era.
- Eliminating gambling. In the U.S. most gambling (even lotteries) was eliminated across the U.S. by WWII, leading to the rise of Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc.
- Eliminating the scope and influence of big business. The anti-trust laws were the most obvious example of this.
- Eliminating exploitive employment practices. The pro-union environment of the early 1900s being the most obvious example.
- Elimination of exploitive lending practices. Anti-usury laws were strengthened and more thoroughly enforced.
- Restoring cultural/racial norms. This led to the very strict segregation and rise of the new KKK in the early 1900s.
These were all things that were to varying degrees common during much of the Middle Ages and during the Protestant Reformation (e.g. we forget that the Catholic Church used to oppose money lending).
This movement was not a liberal vs. conservative thing in the U.S. (and in Europe). There were parts of that which laster formed the core of the modern liberal philosophy and parts that formed part of the modern conservative philosophy. But at the time these were all seen as part of one big push to make the world a better place (not that every Progressive was in total agreement, of course).
Thoughts?
- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a linked definition to how progressivism is defined. See the "" below, there is no link for "progressivism": Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
Joesadlon (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
More coverage of opposition of progressives and recent setbacks of progressives
From the article, I don't get a sense of who is the bigger opponent of progressivism in US and European politics.
Is it the alt-right or is conservatives? Does the alt-right has the greater degree of intensity against progressives, but do conservatives have the greater numbers of people against progressives?
Who is offering the greater degree of opposition to progressives?
Which group is currently is expected to have more influence in the Democratic politics in 2018? The centrists or the progressives?
Could some of these issues be incorporated into the article by someone more familiar with progressive politics?Knox490 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- That's a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL better suited to anything other than an Encyclopedia. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- As far as the exact strength of the major segments of the right-wing political spectrum that would be speculating. Also, I would not want to project into the future given that politics has been more volatile in recent times.
- But currently the article lacks context as it does not adequately address the various right-wing factions who oppose progressives. It also doesn't address the issue of the left-wing politics suffering some setbacks as of late.
- It would not be hard to incorporate this material into the article.
- For example, below are reliable sources relating to this matter:
- "It was Fortuyn who blazed the trail for the new generation of far-right leaders across Europe. He may not have intended to be a pioneer, but his brand of plain-spoken political incorrectness and his depiction of Islamic culture as a “backwards” and reactionary threat to the hard-won progressive values of western Europe would provide a potent template for a modernised far right." - The Guardian, 2016
- Rise of the nationalists: a guide to Europe’s far-right parties, New Statesman, 2017Knox490 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Since this article is more about how the term progressive has been applied then about any specific ideological group, that level of information would be out of place. The answer to your question would depend on whether "progressive" means the left of the Democratic Party, the whole Democratic Party or the Democratic Party and Republicans who are not right-wing or left-wing extremists. The Guardian quoted above for example refers to "the hard-won progressive values of western Europe," which basically incorporates the ground between communism and fascism. TFD (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- The liberalism article is longer than the progressivism article. Why not expand the scope of the progressivism article so it is a more useful article. Progressives still exist just as liberals still exist. So naturally many people will want a more informative progressivism article.
- The liberalism article has a section entitled "Criticism and support". Why not do the same for the progressivism article? Knox490 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the same thing. Progressive is a term that can mean different things, which are better covered in their own articles, per disambiguation. Liberalism for example can be called a progressive ideology. And criticism sections are discouraged. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Source reliability
Two of the sources in the article seem to come from known opinionated outlets and the content in the article seeks to describe Progressivism in a non-neutral fashion. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gregg, Samuel (2017-02-10). "Dark Side of Progressivism Exposed: From Eugenics to 'Race Science'". CNSNews.com. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
- Sammin, Kyle (2017-04-25). "Refusing To Believe Early Progressives Loved Eugenics Will Not Erase The Horrible Truth". The Federalist. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Neutrality
This oepns with Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform. This describes a vast number of movements that are not at all Progressivism. The reforms must be those reforms supported by Progressivism to qualify, and to avoid circularity, they need to be specified more clearly than that. 32.208.220.30 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Should this be merged to progress?
This reads like another fork of progress... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. The term progressivism is only used in American politics and is described in Progressivism in the United States, although the term progressive is used as an antithesis of reactionary. TFD (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
NPOV concerns
The term should be simply described as a term for several political ideologies that were described that way to sound nice in the first paragraph. No idea how to make this statement sophisticated tn, but the current definition is horrible, jumping from one meaning to the other without any form of disclaimer for the reader, making it a mangled mess only existing to support the current usage of the term. There should be more emphasis on the term history than it's meaning considering it's usage. --RohenTahir (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, the lead is incoherent. See my edits of lead. I believe this is more consistent with the body of the article and addresses part of your concern.sbelknap (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Woodrow Wilson as progressive, but promoter of Jim Crow laws
I find the broad use of "progressive" to be so broad and imprecise that it is unhelpful. Be that as it may, Woodrow Wilson is listed as an example of a progressive. Should his racist actions be mentioned? Cancel culturists may want him removed from this, but we are all complex.Pete unseth (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- As the article points out, the term was used to refer to four distinct movements. While each was created by members of the previous one, it was not one movement. It's only in the third version that racial equality became a key issue. Before that, there was a range of views on race. TFD (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- The progressive standard 100 years ago cannot be the same as the current progressive standard. He would certainly be a far-right ultra-conservative in his current character, but he was progressive in many other social issues in his time. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Progressivism; ¿The final revisionist of the politic culture?
Perhaps on XXI , we know it 2800:430:1200:B062:9D55:CD26:D49A:4918 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Lead issues
@Rhosnes: Hello. The body of the article doesn't specifically mention either cultural norms nor social norms. Likewise, it doesn't mention dismantling those norms. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we cannot introduce new unsourced information into the very first sentence of an article in this way. Please discuss here before restoring. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess we'll just leave a verifiably false lead, then (since e.g. the Nazis also introduced a lot of political reforms, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they are progressive).Rhosnes (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- To be verifiably false it would have to be verifiable, but even with sources, that conflates two separate issues.
- If you have reliable sources which describe progressivism as attempting to dismantle cultural norms, and these sources indicate that this is the single most important aspect of progressivism so that it belongs in the first sentence, let's see them. From that, we can modify the body of the article to explain this.
- This would have nothing to do with the reforms the Nazis purportedly introduced. By the logic of your proposed lead sentence, the Nazis would still be labeled as progressive, so your proposal doesn't solve the underlying problem. The Nazis violently attempted to reform or dismantle social and cultural norms in human society based on their selective application of who counted as human. For topics as complicated as these, readers will need to read past the very first sentence to get a clear understanding of the topic.
- Unfortunately a lot of people do argue that they were progressive. We have Talk:Nazism/FAQ because of this kind of thing. That's just one reason we need to avoid WP:OR to the first sentence of these articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't have enough time to scour paper after paper just to convince you to correct an obvious falsehood, but Encyclopedia Britannica mentions social reform as a defining quality of progressivism.
- "The Nazis violently attempted to reform or dismantle social and cultural norms in human society based on their selective application of who counted as human"
- They didn't reform or dismantle any norms that already existed in *German* society. Those whom the Nazis targeted were either culturally distinct from Germans (Jews, Roma) or violated/challenged existing social norms (socialists, LGBT). You could certainly argue that the Nazis violated many ethical norms (although even that is questionable given the atrocious precedent that the communists had set), but Hitler clearly explains that these unethical decisions were a means to end; it's highly doubtful that the Nazis viewed unethical norms as inherently and universally improving human societies.
- "For topics as complicated as these, readers will need to read past the very first sentence to get a clear understanding of the topic."
- Frankly, it isn't that complicated. Fundamentally, there isn't much more to progressivism than a belief that the abandonment of certain social norms in exchange for increased social liberty or equality can be beneficial for society. But this ─ unlike my proposed change ─ is indeed WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant. More relevant is that readers will NOT get a clear understanding of the topic by reading this article. Nowhere in the article are the core tenets of progressivism actually outlined or even hinted at (except in the egregiously misrepresentative lead); instead, the article just lists what people identifying as progressives happened to support throughout history. That obviously isn't sufficient to form a "clear" understanding of the topic, much less when progressives have supported positions as disparate as pro-eugenics and anti-social Darwinism. Rhosnes (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages articles that use Oxford spelling
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English