Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loremaster (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 27 February 2006 (→Criticism section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Progressivism received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Comment on the "Pending" List

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.

Comments on changes

The article said that progressive is a euphamism for liberalism. That's simply POV.

The article said the progressivism was the same thing as liberalism. If you believe that then make your modifications to the liberalism article.

No mention of campaign finance reform? This is the central tenet.

A lot of liberal agenda confused with progressives.

I traced progressivism through national elections starting from when the term began becoming more fashionable in the mid to early 90s.

I added a section to address the concern expressed by conservatives that progressivism is the same thing as liberalism so as to sort of isolate it from the topic at hand. Again, if it's the same thing then why have the article in the first place?

harburg 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems (fixed)

>>The word "liberal" has become essentially pejorative, through the consistent usage by critics<<

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.)

• 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.

• • 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. 130.126.76.27 07:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

>> The term progressive is thus used to avoid confusion between the politicized term liberal and genuine philosophical views focused on social change. <<

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.

>> Instead, the term reactionary is more frequently used to describe those who wish to return to previously established convention. <<

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.

>> 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. <<

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.

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.

-- Beland 07:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made some changes and added some content to restore the article's neutrality and expand it. Tell me what you think. Loremaster 17:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Though some factual information has been added, the article's bias is the same, if not worse. I will attempt to correct it. -- Beland 05:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you can see, I've made the promised changes. NPOV no longer disputed. -- Beland 04:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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. AdamRetchless 22:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US-centrism

The article, by sheer amount of content, is rather US-centric. This is beyond my ability to fix. -- Beland 05:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Explanations for certain major edits

>> New research and discussion is underway to define New Progressives as a political philosophy counter to Big Business and a combination of many social issues from around the political spectrum. Cultural Creatives is working on this, and has published a paper for open discussion. <<

Being relatively familiar with the contemporary Progressive Movement, I've never heard mention of "Cultural Creatives" nor Dr. Paul H. Ray before. Inclusion of this paragraph without describing bedrock Progressive ideas like feminism and participatory democracy makes this look out of proportion, almost to the point of advocacy. I've moved the external link to his book to the article Cultural Creatives, deleted this paragraph, and added a "See also" link to that article. I think that's sufficient mention for an article of this length on the Progressive Movement. -- Beland 07:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>> This term progressive 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. <<

OK, I figured this one out by looking at the article Liberalism. I wrote a new explanation that references that article instead, because the above version was opaque to me. -- Beland 07:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>>Although liberalism 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 Franklin Delano Roosevelt rallied progressives and liberals (who were conservative Democrats) together around the New Deal. This is when the term liberal really began to be used as a pejorative by Republican partisans.<<

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. -- Beland 07:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

>> The first real American progressives were the slavery abolitionists. The term progressive did not really come into vogue until after the American Civil War. During the Gilded Age, progressives in the Republican Party fought to create the Civil Service, and progressives outside the party fought for a number of issues, including "free silver" which meant an end to the gold standard. <<

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.

(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 issue of what is "progressive" and what is not is also complex, and selective inclusion can be somewhat inappropriate.

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.

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.

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.

For the first kind: the history of the Gilded Age is probably better described in that article or in the article Progressive Era, 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.

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.

For the third kind: Well, that just requires research or someone familiar with the recent history.

-- Beland 08:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Progressive is thus an example of loaded language

The article states parenthetically, "Progressive is thus an example of loaded language," then goes on to speak about how the term gives a clearer indication of its meaning than the presumably non-loaded "liberal." This effectively and accurately refutes the claim "loaded language." This contradiction should not stand; the sentence should be removed.

The entry on loaded language supports this conclusion.

--LegCircus 20:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with LegCircus. I have removed the sentence. Loremaster 02:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with LegCircus. User 203.62.10.22 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another Progressivism

In the to-do list it states that you want to find other uses of the term, so here is one: In the early 20th century (peaking in the 20's) the term is associated with John Dewey and others in progressive education reform. There was also a related movement in journalism where there was a move away from partisan papers to the still dominant non-partisan (at least on the surface) form we know today. Progressivism needs a disambiguation page as these are very distinct uses.

Although you are right, I think we should focus on simply improving this article for now before creating new ones. The Beliefs section, which sounds like a fluffy broadside for a Progressive party, needs some work. Furthermore, due to the new introduction, the article should focus on defining progressive movements rather than the term. Loremaster 23:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Organize

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.

Apology

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

Prohibition?

Why is there no talk of prohibition as an integral part of the historical Progressive Movement? The Progressive Movement page is essential empty with nothing more than a skeleton saying that it existed with wiki links. For NPOV it would be best to add talk of prohibition here. --66.229.137.83 07:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved

I moved this page to political progressivism, just as said in the pending part...--Humble Guy 14:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section "Liberal criticisms on progressivism". I replaced the word liberal with leftist as this is more accurate. Socialists/communists - the subject of the paragraph - are not liberals. They are in fact opposed to liberalism as an economic ideology. I get the feeling that a lot of the people making edits to this article are americans. It should be remembered that in most parts of the world liberalism is viewed as being on the right wing of the political spectrum. - Anonymous

I strongly agree. There are green progressives, liberal progressives, conservative progressives, socialist progressives, etc. This article does not represent progressives as whole. There is also an articele about if progresssvism exist? Sounds fishy...Alot has to be changed. What do you suggest that we do about it? --Humble Guy 10:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. It should be changed back to Progressivism. --Revolución (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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. --Noitall 23:06, Jun 20, 2005 (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.--Cberlet 23:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well Cberlet, 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.

--Noitall 23:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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.  :-) --Cberlet 23:57, 20 Jun 2005 (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 neoconservatives. 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.

--Noitall 01:41, Jun 21, 2005 (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." --Cberlet 02:15, 21 Jun 2005 (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." --Noitall 02:25, Jun 21, 2005 (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.--Cberlet 03:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about this page?

Most of what was just stamped in was moved to Progressivism_in_the_United_States. And most of it is neither accurate nor sufficient to discuss progressivism in the U.S.--Cberlet 02:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US Progressives no longer in the past

It looks like most of the language under the US section relates to the past. I'm willing to work on it to reflect the differences between the historical movement from the late 1800's / early 1900's and the current movement in the early 21st century. Comments or concerns? Chadlupkes 00:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In a way, Nazism was progressive too

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.

Using that definition, in a way, Nazism was progressive too. Progressivism is a non-ideological term.

Including arguments that neoliberalism is progressive

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.

I noticed you reverted my changes to the Progressivism 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'.

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 achieving progress and even social justice by more free-market methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth, as measured by changes in real gross domestic product."

130.126.76.27 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the Progressivism 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 Neoliberalism 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). --Loremaster 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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. 130.126.76.27 08:36, 22 January 2006 (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 --Loremaster 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC).

The fact is that progressivism, like conservatism 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. 130.126.76.27 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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 neoliberalism:

To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labour policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights.

As well as my claims that is counter-progressive:

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if you now started editing that article to fit your partisan view... --Loremaster 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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. 130.126.76.27 21:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that one can non-partisanly say that neoliberalism is counter-progressive and therefore should not be mentioned in the Progressivism article. --Loremaster 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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. 130.126.76.27 21:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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. --Loremaster 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Although I think it is intellectually healthy to have a criticism section all Misplaced Pages articles, I am concerned that the Criticism section in the Progressivism article 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. --Loremaster 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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. (Gibby 00:01, 20 February 2006 (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? -- Nikodemos 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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. --Loremaster 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Economist and Cato Institute Fellow, Brink Lindsey argues that progressivism is the belief in moving forward, as opposed to conservatism which favors the status quo. 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" liberals 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 libertarianism, which he describes as free market liberalism. Critics like Brink Lindsey argue that "progressive" policies such as minimum wages, income taxes, payroll taxes, trade barriers 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.

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 fair trade and other movements that argue for labor rights and social justice in international relations and economics.

Moving Criticism section here until the Progressivism article is improved. --Loremaster 02:23, 26 February 2006 (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". -- Nikodemos 02:29, 26 February 2006 (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. (Gibby 10:37, 26 February 2006 (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? --Loremaster 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Nikodemos 16:16, 26 February 2006 (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! (Gibby 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, the section has not been deleted. It has been moved to this discussion temporarily until the page is improved. Critism 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. --Loremaster 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists