Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 20 November 2013

Okay kids, I've rewritten the article to be purely definitional rather than argumentative. Now it's time to stop fighting and start finding references to back it all up. TBSchemer (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Brink Lindsey views "progressive" movement's economic preferences, such as subsidies, protective tariffs, and central planning, labor laws, fair trade, or complicated income taxes, to actually be regressive or conservative in nature. He, along with Milton Friedman, argue that these progressive policies actually cause serious harm to the poorest members of society but lead to reductions in innovation and effecenciy that lead economic and technological progress.

This should stay, even if the article is small and crappy. Leftists have no reason deleting refrenced material just because. End of story. Now stop the censorship. (Gibby 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

You are only posting generalised criticism. If the reader wants to know why people have the free market in the first place, they can read up on the article. The concept itself is a reaction towards selected free market cultural concepts — firstly, if you cite where the economists in questions specifically attack progressivism, then yes, it will be way more meritable. At now you are on the verge of posting weasel words. Add a sentence, if you like, referring back.Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats with all the hub-bub? Lots of articles have criticism sections that outweigh the content portion. Ten Dead Chickens 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they are actually unique criticisms pertaining to the article, not a knee-jerk "this is an alternative to a free market. I will now post Hayek and Friedman's blanket criticisms against all alternatives in the article". Consider there are a lot of people who condemn Islam, for its treatment of women. It doesn't mean one can go to a random page dealing with an Islamic reformer, and put in criticisms against Islam on his article saying "but he's still Muslim, so his reforms are still useless anyway!" kind of thing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nati, you are making up crap again bitch . You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of.

1. Criticism exists it must be present. 2. Arguing that the article is not good enough for criticism section implies only facts supporting the articles title are acceptable thus giving pov to everything but criticism. YOU CANT DO THIS!

No, it implies the article is too short. The criticism must be adjusted appropriately, otherwise the neutrality of having criticism before the concept even presents its case is overwhelming. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

3. The criticism is about how progressives are not actually progressive because their economic and political prefrences are either conservative (protecting the status quo) or regressive aka turning the clock back on progress itself. (Gibby 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV. (Gibby 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

The NPOV tag is to be placed at the top on any article whose NPOV is disputed. The NPOV of this article is disputed. You draw the conclusion. -- Nikodemos 05:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you can't slap it anywhere you want. (Gibby 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

HERE IS WHERE YOU PUT IT! There is no UNDUE WEIGHT! Undue weight is about too much information for the body of the text for a minority view point. 1. There is not too much, it is a very small paragraph. 2. its not a minority view point just a counter-progressive view point (Which there are alot of people) 3. add more to the page and stop being lazy by deleting the criticism. 4. NPOV requires criticism to improve the page. 5. The article reports Lindseys view (which also happesn to be the view of Hayek and Friedman, i thought I'd give you a break from them though) and as such is featured in NPOV fashion.

6. Stop abusing wiki rules.

(Gibby 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I am not "abusing wiki rules", neither am I wikilawyering. It is not too much compared with the current content of the article. The article is a stub. Therefore, the paragraph is already larger than what the stub description originally was. It is not a "minority viewpoint" indeed, but the criticism section should of course be significant, but a paragraph of criticism makes it undue weight depending on the length of existing material. NPOV requires criticism, but I say shorten it to a stub. You also do not link to who Lindsey is. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Then increase the size!!!! Don't delete the criticism or even reduce its size. The purpose of wiki is to report facts not argue the points. Again, stop abusing wiki rules to get rid of things you don't like. THIS IS ALL YOU DO! (Gibby 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

It's not that I get rid of things I don't like — on high-activity days, I edit around 500 articles a day, and I would fix the page if I had time. Till then, that is why I placed the NPOV page, or commented it out for it to be fixed later. I used to be rather immediatist, but guess what the good thing about meeting you Gibby is that I have turned slighty eventualistic. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

so then you'd have no problem with me following you around, making up a reason for placing a tag, giving tenous grounds for its existance relating it in someway to wiki rules and telling you i'll get around to making corrections sometime later? (Gibby 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I watch all those pages you visited; it contains 1,400 pages. Tenuous grounds? Yes, it will be done sometime later. Eventualism; it is not procrastination. Most disputes arise when people are too immediatist. I am not relating it to "wiki rules", I am not just pulling rules out of thin air if that is what you mean. "Undue weight" is a frequently invoked concept, I did not search for rules to call you out on. There is a problem with neutrality; the principle has been agreed upon by consensus, by past arbitration decisions, etc. You might want to take a look at meta:immediatism and meta:eventualism.

You really need to view more meta pages, that is the problem. There are tons of material that Misplaced Pages has frequently seen. Your allegations are not new; if you wanted, you could head down to wikipediareview.com and start ranting against us, and I invite you to, or why don't you check meta:Misplaced Pages vandalism? — "It's arguable that most (indentified) vandalism has consisted of really quite obvious cases. Hence, Misplaced Pages doesn't need to define an "official" policy on what constitutes vandalism at all. We can use the rule of thumb, "When a reasonable person might be in doubt as to whether something is vandalism, it would be polite not to call it vandalism." There. Do you still want to call my edits vandalism now? Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a vandal, i'm calling you a left wing censor. (Gibby 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

You called my edits vandalism. Do you want to take that back? I have all the diffs. Calling me a censor also means that you think I am a bad faith contributor, polemia is also frowned upon. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well perhaps deleting cited credible npov presented material is vandalism of a sort. And I have very little faith in you. You have proven yourself time and time again to be a delete now discuss later editor. (Gibby 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I did not delete the edits on this page. I commented out, intending for them to be restored at a later date. Deleting "cited credible npov presented material" is not vandalism, because it s neutrality was genuinely disputed. See the meta page again. Mine is not "delete now, discuss later", and it used to be "delete now, wait for discussion to conclude", but now I'll just stick a boilerplate on it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)