Talk:Progressivism/Archive 2

Progress Report?

I've moved the previous comments to Archive 1 so that we can concentrate on determining how much of the To-do list above has or has not been done. --Loremaster 16:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

We should follow the Wikipedia:External links guidelines as much as possible. --Loremaster 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I cleared the section out a bit, placing the slightly less relevant links and blogs in the List of progressive organizations article.--Jackbirdsong 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Progressive groups

I am renaming this category "Progressive parties" for specificity, as there is already an article dedicated to a List of progressive organizations.--Jackbirdsong 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Left wing bias

This page overwhelmingly paints progressivism as a left-wing philosophy. Outside the US, progressivism is a collection of ideologies from the centre-right to the centre-left, not a "movement" as such. Liberalisation of markets and neoliberalism has been argued to be part of the progressive standpoint in countries in Eastern Europe. This article lists RESPECT as a progressive party when they are out and out radical socialist! Even in the US, where "progressive" is seen as "left wing" it still only refers to what would be centre or centre-right in global terms. In fact many Democrats in the US describe themselves as "progressive", because its considered to be less radical than the term "liberal". 144.32.196.4 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Often when there are arguements regarding philosophy, economics, religion, or politics, too often one of those arguers are remiss the vocabulary of the topic. The writer of the previous paragraph doesn't seem to know the difference of the definitions of socialism with a small s from Socialism with a capital S. The dictionary definition of "socialism" is completely honorable. To suggest otherwise reveals being under informed. Andrew Homer 09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the tenets of progressivism are mostly, not always, adhered to by the left in the U.S., and it also states that not every liberal is progressive. It also goes on to explain, in the Progressivism Worldwide section, that the term differs from one region of the world to another, and that many center-right organizations and individuals are considered progressive as well. Lastly, the RESPECT party has many progressive principles, which are laid out in detail, and moderate socialism is one school of progressive economic thought which arose from the original progressive movement. This is also explained thoroughly in both the Progressivism in Relation to Other Political Ideologies and Tenets of Early Progressivism categories.--Jackbirdsong 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The affiliation to a "Progressive" political unit is synonymous with being left of center. There are no right of center groups that consider themselves as "progressive" by their political nature. They may be progressive in their own political direction but not as part of a political party in of itself. Jtpaladin 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For decades, the only major conservative party in Canada was the "Progressive Conservative" Party. Labels can be misleading. --Orange Mike 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"In India, progressivism refers to the United Progressive Alliance, which comprises government parties and external support from four main leftist parties; Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Revolutionary Socialist Party and All India Forward Bloc." This is an example of clear "leftist"/communist bias in the article. A huge problem in growing economies is the one sidedness of pertinent social and economic commentary which communism overbearingly sways by its side as a 'one size fits all" social and economic commentary. Requesting Neutral authors/editors to see to this grave problem, so destructive in its ignorance.

Canada

I added the Liberal Party of Canada as a progressive political party and it was removed. In my view, this is almost beyond debate. Who is objecting and why?

Jason Cherniak 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I had removed the Liberal Party of Canada from the list for the same reasons that the Democratic Party and the Labour Party are not listed. These parties, while certainly embracing some select progressive policies, are more liberal, and at times neoliberal, than they are strictly "progressive". For example, the LPC has both cut spending on social programs and increased spending on military, both decidedly un-progressive moves. The definition of "Liberal" vs. "Progressive" is a somewhat complex one, but these parties belong under the former category more so than the latter, especially when compared to the other parties already on the list. However, I will wait a bit to edit the list again in case anybody else wants to chime in on this.--Jackbirdsong 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get sources for including any party on the list, rather than using editors' own personal opinions. --Delirium 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources and reasons for the inclusion of any party in the "List of progressive parties" section are clearly specified in the "Progressivism Worldwide" section. Most all of the parties that are on the list can be found in the "worldwide" section under their respective countries, where their progressive policies are laid out in detail and referenced. The tenets of both historical and contemporary progressivism ultimately determine a given parties inclusion anywhere in the article, rather than opinion.--Jackbirdsong 22:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I see it's gone again. I don't think anybody in Canada other than NDP members would exclude the Liberal Party from a list of "Progressive" political parties. As one example, the Canadian list of "Progressive Bloggers" is dominated by Liberals. When I read the comparitive section to Liberalism, I see some aspects that fit perfectly but others that do not. The only real distinction is the claim that progressives support "third parties". However, that is only an historical reality because progressive parties have not generally been successful. With its new leader and constant focus on the envirionment, I don't see how the Liberal Party can be excluded. Jason Cherniak 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I had removed the Liberal Party of Canada from the list for the same reasons that the Democratic Party and the Labour Party are not listed. These parties, while certainly embracing some select progressive policies, are more liberal, and at times neoliberal, than they are strictly "progressive". For example, the Liberal Party has both 1) cut spending on social programs and 2) increased spending on military, both decidedly un-progressive moves. The definition of "Liberal" vs. "Progressive" is a somewhat complex one, but these parties belong under the former category more so than the latter, especially when compared to the other parties already on the list.--Jackbirdsong 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are the two concepts mutually exclusive? Jason Cherniak 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that you are referring to Liberalism and Progressivism, they aren't mutually exclusive, but they are different in certain specific ways (see the article for more on this). The problem here is, we can't just include every liberal party in this list because they selectively embrace some progressive policies. The point I've been trying to make is that every party that is on the list now is all-around progressive - not sorta progressive and sorta liberal, or neoliberal, or whatever else. The list should stay specific to solidly progressive parties - something the LPC is not. This really isn't a big deal, and I really don't want to argue about something so minor, so unless this is a huge issue for you, and what I'm saying here makes no sense to you whatsoever, let's just agree to disagree on this one. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 09:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but is there a reason why one of our opinions would win over the other's? I am somewhat new to active involvement in Wikipedia article writing. When I read the list of progressive policies, I see both the LPC and NDP fitting into almost all of them. While LPC is missing on some examples of democratic reform, I am not aware of the NDP ever advocating for referenda on major political issues either. This is important to me because I believe that you cannot understand the current Canadian political climate without recognizing that both the NDP and Liberal Paryt represent progressive values. How do we resolve it? Jason Cherniak 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I understand your argument here, and I do respect your point of view. However, this is not about anybody's "opinion winning", it is about the tenets of progressivism. As I have previously stated, some of the LPC's policies are not considered progressive, not just by my opinion but objectively - to cut spending on social programs and increase spending on military are conservative moves, and essentially antithetical to some of the most significant aspects of contemporary progressivism. If the LPC did not have these conservative (or non-progressive) policies, then there would be no problem with adding them to the list. Since they do have these policies, one cannot reconcile their inclusion onto a list of strictly progressive parties who do not have any non-progressive or conservative policies. You may see the NDP and LPC in a similar light, and I would agree that they are certainly not on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but based purely upon policy, the NDP is all-around progressive and the LPC is a mixture of mostly center-left, or liberal policies. You have written "This is important to me because I believe that you cannot understand the current Canadian political climate without recognizing that both the NDP and Liberal Party represent progressive values." That is why the progressive portion of the LPC policies, along with the non-progressive, are listed in detail in the "Progressivism worldwide" section, along with the entire history of Canadian progressivism, up through today. Both parties are mentioned in the article, so its not like the LPC has been excluded from mention. But again, I cannot reconcile the inclusion of the LPC onto a list of strictly progressive parties who do not have any non-progressive or conservative policies.--Jackbirdsong 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem - it is not Liberal policy to cut spending on social programs and increase military spending. You can point to cuts in the 1990s to fight the deficit, but that was a short-term blip in Canadian history. The Liberal Party is the party that has created the social welfare state in Canada and now opposes the cuts of the Conservative government. Again, I have to ask how we go about resolving this disagreement. Jason Cherniak 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're above argument is, but let's not conflate liberal and progressive- they are different, as described in this article. Also, I would recommend checking out the Liberal Party of Canada page for more info on their recent policy.--Jackbirdsong 05:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The party is described in the following terms on its main page:

"In the present times, as a centrist party, the Liberal party has favoured a variety of policies from both right and left of the political spectrum."

Thus they are more difficult to categorize, and are not obviously nor entirely progressive, as the other parties currently on the list would be considered.--Jackbirdsong 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot decide how to define the ideology of a political party by looking at a mission statement or label chosen 100 years ago. You are the one who deleted my addition, so I would think that it is your place to explain and not mine. Unless you have something more than an incorrect view that LPC cuts social programs and increases defence spending, you are wrong and I am putting it back. If you want to remove it, I think you had better take a more official route than you have thus far. Jason Cherniak 14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, we are here to discuss changes in a mature and constructive way, so don't be belligerent- I have done nothing but take an "official route" thus far, by talking to you and explaining my rationale as best I can with nothing but facts and research. I am not sure what you are referring to when you talk about "a mission statement or label chosen a hundred years ago". Do you mean the definition of progressivism? If you want to refute that, then that's an entirely different discussion. Other than that, the party is described in all of the aformentioned terms on its own page on this site, which is verifiably up-to-date. I suggest you read the LPC's Wiki page, as I previously recommended, and research the situation for yourself. It is not my view, nor is it incorrect, to state that the LPC has cut social programs and increased military spending- these are contemporary policies, and they are easy enough to research and verify. These policies would not be considered progressive by any contemporary definition. So, thus far you have not presented me with any explanation as to why a list dedicated to purely progressive parties should include a party (the LPC) that has non-progressive policies. The list should be for strictly progressive parties, and the LPC is not strictly progressive- it has a combination of policies, some of which are antithetical to progressivism. Period. So why do you want this particular party on the list so badly? It is mentioned in the main article, after all. Your own POV is not a sufficient reason- you may consider them purely progressive, and that's fine, but we need to base our decisions here on consistency and verifiability, and that is all I have been trying to do.--Jackbirdsong 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I removed two other parties from the list whose policies could be interpreted as other than strictly progressive. This is not about the LPC, but about keeping the list specific to its title. I hope you understand this point.--Jackbirdsong 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to determine what the Liberal Party of Canada stands for without any first-hand knowledge of Canadian politics. You cannot understand the true political cleavage by reading through a press release that is meant to win votes. The question needs to be whether LPC actually represents the policies listed on this page. The only exception is that LPC does not support Initiative, Direct primary, Referendum or Recall. However, the same can be said for the NDP. Either they both belong or neither belong. Jason Cherniak 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting old. You seem to selectively ignore the fact that none of the parties on the list have either espoused, or put into practice, conservative policies; the LPC has. This is about verifiability, not your particular POV as to what the "true political cleavage" is. If the LPC says it has these non-progressive policies, then that is a verifiable and referenced piece of information. Some visceral "feeling" that they are progressive, entirely based on your POV, doesn't warrant inclusion on this site. Given your user page, it is quite clear that you have a vested interest in the LPC. This would obviously make your POV more subjective in the matter. The fact that I do not directly participate in Canadian politics, despite the fact that I happen to know quite a bit about the subject, gives me more leverage here: I do not have any opinion one way or the other regarding the party, only regarding its politics insofar as this page is concerned. You need to come up with objective, credible references for your claims. I have. This is not debatable- it is how wikipedia works.--Jackbirdsong 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As well, how can you say that either the NDP and LPC both belong or neither belongs? Are you saying they have the same policies? These are two distinct and very different political parties with separate policies and agendas. I fail to see the logic in your desire to equate the two under one categorical banner. This would be the equivalent of saying that the Democratic party and the Independent party here in the US both belong under a single category. I would argue that there is little more than POV to back up that logic.--Jackbirdsong 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

questionable statement

This statement seems dubious to me:

The progressive movement in South America more commonly advocates moderate socialism or social-democracy as an economic reform option, and is currently experiencing an upswing in popularity, as recent elections in Venezuela, Mexico, Chile, Peru, and other parts of Latin America show.

It may be some usage I'm not aware of, but I've rarely if ever heard Hugo Chavez described as a "progressive", and indeed he doesn't use the term himself, preferring "socialist". In particular, talk of "Bolivarian revolution" and great upheavals is rather contrary to the moderate reform of progressivism. --Delirium 07:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Progressivism has historical ties with positing moderate socialism or social democracy as an economic reform option. To focus on actual policies, irrespective of political rhetoric, the brand of socialism Chavez has implemented in Venezuela thus far is a far cry from any sort of radical revolution. While Chavez has done a good job of redistributing oil revenue to the Venezuelan poor, via so-called misiones, there has been no nationalization of industry, relatively little interference with markets, and only small gestures toward land reform. The moves Chavez has made have been gradual, or "progressive", rather than sudden and "revolutionary". As well, his policies in regard to the poor and working-class are essentially tied to the original concept of "social justice", a fundamental tenet of progressivism. --Jackbirdsong 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Progressivism beliefs

Progressivism is a distinctly American term of origin, that was opposed to the ideas of both Karl Marx and the socialists as well as the ideas of Adam Smith and the Laissez Faire thinkers. Neither was accepted as legitimate among Progressive thinkers (owning private corporations in production as socialists desire or total lack of regulation of the economy as Laissez Faire thinkers and libertarians types prefer). To include them in the article without notation and citation is intellectually dishonest. Here is what I took out:

Socialism

Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest.

Laissez-Faire

Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators of all. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest.

The laissez-faire and socialist approaches were less popular among American progressives than the trust-busting and regulatory approaches. -Last sentence unnecessary and made to make previous look legitimate. Once one crosses the line into public ownership of the means of production one is talking of socialism and not progressivism - two very different economic and social philosophies. --Northmeister 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This information is well known amongst historians and those laypeople familiar with their history, and IS referenced TWICE, by both the ref link at the top of the section and the primary reference "Tindall, George and Shi, David E.. America: A Narrative History. W W Norton & Co Inc (Np); Full Sixth edition, 2003. ISBN 0-393-92426-2", so please look a bit closer before you accuse anybody of being "INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST". You may be new to wikipedia, but I would suggest checking ref links and not being accusatory or arrogant. These are good rules of thumb for all editors to live by.--Jackbirdsong 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not new nor do I lack understanding of history - quite the contrary. I accuse no one but the assumption of the post itself - referencing progressivism as socialism or for that matter laissez faire is intellectually dishonest. Further, I see nothing from the referenced material to directly indicate this assumption. When it is provided, I will gladly admit my mistake. Further, I am a historian myself and a writer as well. I am very well read and to ASSUME my 'newness' or my intelligence is not Assuming Good Faith towards myself. Again, the edit historically is not appropriate. PLEASE PROVIDE QUOTATIONS BELOW or I will remove the items again - as I see nothing to from the sources to indicate the Assumption laid by including especially Laisse Faire but also socialism as linked in any way to Progressivism as a movement - Progressives were fairly anti-socialist and anti-communist and adamantly by their very nature anti-laissez faire. Reference page from the book and direct quotes, that I do not see IN CONTEXT that you allude to please. --Northmeister 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) -Further I would suggest you try "The progressive assault on laissez faire: Robert Hale and the first law and economics movement." by Barbara Fried Publisher: Harvard University Press, 1998 ISBN-10: 0-674-00698-4; for a better understanding of how progressivism was opposed to laissez faire. Although progressives crossed over to socialism and vice-versa the entire ideal of progressivism was public improvement and regulation of corporations rather than control or ownership of the means of production - which of course did not mean owning utilities and such as they are not producers but suppliers of that which is used to produced and often necessitate public control or supervision due to their monopoly nature - as any good reading of progressive thought would indicate. The two leading progressive Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson were virulently to the "reds" or communism and its sister socialism because of this distinction. Progressivism modern or historical can't be understood without reference to its origins here in America and its intent as a philosophical school. I see much notation of Socialist parties for example listed that are NOT PROGRESSIVE in the context of philosophical schools of thought but rather socialist (moderate or otherwise). Although socialism and progressivism share some beliefs they are not the same. Please provide useful links outside of blogs to indicate the fallacy of what I say. I am open to your comments. --Northmeister 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, firstly, its clear we've gotten off on the wrong foot here, and as I have no desire to fight or edit war, why don't we just start again. While it was your tone - whether directed at the editor or the inanimate content itself - that seemed a bit belligerent and/or condescending to me, I'll assume good faith and put it in my rear-view mirror. That being said, the reference you want can be found here. It is a summary from the Georgetown University website based on and culled from "America: A Narrative History", a very well respected and widely read volume. The reference note is located at the end of the opening of the "Tenets of progressivism" section, as the referenced material pretty much applies to the entire section, and not just the economic principles.

Essentially, the argument comes down to how broad a brush one uses to paint the term "progressive". While there were certainly many Americans who called themselves progressive and argued against either socialism, laissez-faire economics, or both, there were many others who were undoubtedly progressive in their overall political outlook - both within and outside of the original American "progressive movement" - who advocated for moderate socialism or laissez-faire as methods of controlling major corporations and reducing corruption. Whether it makes sense by today's standards or not, these advocates existed and their share of the progressive movement's take on economic principles should be included in this article, if only to show how complex and difficult the problem of regulating corporate corruption can be, and how the complexity of the issue was one of the major contributing factors to the eventual disintegration of the original cohesive progressive movement of the early 20th cent.

I hope this puts the issue to rest, but in the future may I kindly suggest, one editor to another, that you not take other editors' referenced material and dismiss it outright as not just innocently incorrect but "intellectually dishonest". This tone is not going to win you any friends, and it certainly doesn't promote calm and civil discourse. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In terms of progressive thought elsewhere and the reference you state I do understand actually. I also understand your reasoning behind inclusion and thus defer to your judgement on the matter. It is true I came across too strong and forceful and no intention was meant to disparage discussion. I've encountered numerous attempts at Wikipedia to inundate articles with political bias from left and right and somewhere out there; thus my haste here having full knowledge of Progressivism as it was historically. Again, I will close this discussion on the positive note that you've answered my concerns respectfully and with decency. May we work together in the future on a better note. Regards. --Northmeister 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your openness to compromise on this, and I hope we do work together again in the future. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I think the entire section on non-US parties is original research without providing reference to external reliable sources. The Asian and European Greens and Social-Democratic parties are not progressive in the sense used in this article (which clearly concerns the US). Unless references for these categorizations can be provided, I will remove them. C mon 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are in fact references to the policies of every single party listed in the section, and as their policies are either 1)completely in alignment with the tenets of progressivism, or 2)self described as progressive. The Asian and European parties, Green or social-democratic, are progressive in the sense used in this article, as every listed tenet of progressivism applies to these parties, unquestionably. The references you want are there - the tenets of progressivism are referenced, and the policies of these parties, which are all in line with the tenets of progressivism, are referenced as well. Did you go tto the websites of these parties? They are self-described as progressive! I'm restoring the section, as your request for reference selectively ignores the perfectly acceptable references that are already included. Nobody is reinterpreting any party's alignment - if they have progressive policies (referenced), and call themselves or their policies progressive on their own official websites, then what more do you want?--Jackbirdsong 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is pathetic as far as references go. The liberal section and others have absolutely no references, and it seems like people are freely expressing their opinions/generating original research of what it means to be progressive. Wikipedia is not the place for opinions. JettaMann (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some sections on Europe, Asia and South America and liberal, green and socialist parties, which did little more than reinterpret the principles and policies of parties which do not claim to be progressive as progressive. These sections violated wikipedia:no original research because their classification as progressive was not based on any external references. C mon 10:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's go through them one by one:

• Americas: 1) Green Parties adhere to Green Politics which is evident by a) their names, b) them joining the Global Greens c) using the four pillars of Green Politics in their manifestos d) external classification as Green (see f.i. Alan Ware Political Parties and Party Systems). 2) socialist parties adhere to Socialism, which is evident for pretty much the same reasons.
• Canada: I can agree with inclusion of the Progressive Party of Canada and small reference to the Progressive Conservatives. The NDP is just out it is a) a member of the Socialist International and b) a self proclaimed social democratic party ("Canada's social democratic party led by Jack Layton.") as are the The Greens, because they are Greens!
• US: I can live with any reference to the Roosevelt's progressivism. References to parties which self identify as socialist or green don't make any sense
• Asia: an opening sentence which states that progressivism does not exist somewhere is not a strong point (consider: "French is party which is not spoken in Russia, China and Japan").
• China: An intense POV description of China's political system makes no sense either.
• India: including marxist-leninist parties in a list of progressive parties makes no sense, neither is discussing the United Progressive Alliance which is an alliance of parties none of which is expressedly progressive.
• Ireland: Independent of its name, the PD are generally classified as classical, rightwing or conservative liberal (Laver, Gallagher and Mair, Representative Democracy in Modern Europe) and not as progressive. A sentence like "it has policies which can be considered progressive" is just strange: by who? and can you reference that people consider it such.

United Kingdom: can you substantiate these claims about the progressive nature of labour, the LibDems, Respect the SGP and GPEW or is it just intuition.

Australia: This seems more fit to dictionary than an encyclopedia.

New Zealand: A description of the New Zealand cabinet situation is not necessary, neither is discussing the Green Party which is uhh... Green.

My basic claims would come down to this: socialist, green and social-democratic parties are socialist, green and social-democratic and not progressive. Unless you can provide me with external verifiable references for these claims. C mon 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would carefully direct your attention to this paragraph of NOR which shows that exactly what you are doing here is not in accordance with wikipedia policy. C mon 11:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything you have addressed as orig research and/or violation of wiki policy has to do with the specific parties listed in this one specific section. Yes, green parties adhere to green politics- does that mean that green politics could not possibly have been influenced by prior political thought? The section is there to display the influence progressive American thought had on the rest of the world. Progressivism as a branch of political thought has influenced other nations outside the US, which is perhaps self evident if these parties have the term "progressive" stuck right in their party names. Do you think that's just a phenomenal coincidence? You may be right about there being some orig research, but the fact that progressivism has influenced the politics of greens, social democrats, etc is surely something verifiable, and if one cared to be constructive and helpful one could aid the research that necessitates inclusion on this site. To address your concerns point-by-point:

• Americas - Fine, you don't think green parties should be listed in the section, then we won't list specific parties, aside from the fact that the Green's policies are heavily influenced by progressive thought and often self-described as progressive. But if you consider their inclusion orig research, then we can remove them.
• Canada - once again, remove the citation of specific parties.
• Asia - your argument here is mostly related to semantics. The point of the section is not to say progressivism doesn't exist there. If one reads the full section on China, the point is that there exist Chinese activists whom advocate for progressive advancements in Chinese society of precisely the same brand as those advocated in America in the early 20th cent., but these advocates are imprisoned and suppressed. There is not a SINGLE bit of POV in the section. It would help if you specifically listed any perceived POV, as opposed to just generally accusing. The info on China's government and the suppressed progressive advocates is entirely verifiable (the wiki article on the politics of China was the primary source for this section). So far as India goes, the alliance is called progressive, so it was included. If that's orig research, then we can get rid of that section.
• Ireland and UK - once again, we can remove the specific citation of parties, and maybe somebody who would like to be constructive and contribute to the article can do some more research on the history of progressive thought in these nations.
• Australia - your POV of what a dictionary is versus an encyclopedia does not warrant the deletion of a section. An encyclopedia may define something for reference at times. There is nothing wrong with that, and no wiki policy against it.
• New Zealand - a very brief description of the cabinet situatiuon as it pertains to progressivism and the progressive party is obviously warranted and is in no way in violation of wiki policy.

If you don't like the citation of specific parties, sidestepping the fact that progressivism has certainly influenced many of these ideologies, that may be orig research and we can delete those specific references. Everything else is your very strong POV, and doesn't pertain to wiki policy or warrant deletion.

And just as a side note, your tone feels rather condescending at times. Please just address what you see as unfit without all the "the green party is uhhh....green" sh#t and we'll get things done a lot quicker.--Jackbirdsong 00:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you repeatedly say that Green parties cannot be labeled progressive because they are green(!) (emphasis yours).If the problem is in regard to orig research, then fine - I understand the point. But to look at the policy platform of the Greens and compare it to the tenets of progressivism, is there any doubt of the deep influence progressivism bears on Green politics? My question is: Do you dislike the categorization of Greens as progressive due to wiki policy, or because you disagree with it and/or see it as incorrect?--Jackbirdsong 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a) incorrect (esp. the idea that American Progressivism influenced Green politics, similarity does not imply causality) b) against wikipolicy (WP:SYN). C mon 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you cleared that up. A political movement which was perhaps the first in the world to place government-funded environmentalism in such high priority (along with social-justice, universal suffrage, etc) and implement related policies bears no influence on the foundations of green politics, especially in the US. Similarity does not imply causality - so therefore it must be untrue? If this were the case there would be no such thing as scientific hypothesis. That being said, at this point it is original research to imply such (despite the fact that there are sources out there, I just need to go through old papers and dig them up), and I am currently researching for verifiability per wiki policy, so all references to green parties (as well as socialist) has/will be removed per policy.--Jackbirdsong 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger

Essentially except for some unverifiable Original Research and some blatant POV violations, this article concerns US progressivism. So why not merge the articles and make it clear that progressivism as a distinct separate ideology is an early 20th century American phenomenon? C mon 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cmon, what are these "blatant POV violations"? Maybe we can address your concerns specifically and be constructive. By the way, a major political movement such as early American progressivism can and certainly has had a lasting influence on countless other ideologies and political orientations worldwide, which seems the obvious point of this article. If some logical and perfectly reasonable info appears to be orig research, then why not help and do a little research, or in the least give others time to do so before you start tearing down other editor's hard work. In our past conversations at other articles, you have claimed to have never heard of progressivism. So why do you now feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to solely determine the article's content?--Jackbirdsong 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Except the other article should be merged over to Progressivism rather than the other way around. If we concur and if others don't object. I say you do it. Any opinions? --Northmeister 02:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the merger goes, the article would be pretty lengthy if we merged the entire history of progressivism in the US article into this one, but I would have no real problem with that if there is a general concensus to do so.--Jackbirdsong 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit after considering your argument above about length - it may be better to keep them seperate. I can also see the merits of a unified article as well. We must consider what can be achieved by unification of articles and what would be lost. Wikipedia reccomends article length should fall no higher than 100 with 30-70 being optimal. --Northmeister 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When talking about length one has to realize that most of this article needs to be deleted or rewritten under WP:SYN and WP:NOR. Note that since both articles are below 35 the merge would not be too long. C mon 09:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed what issues you have raised regarding orig research above, and the info which pertains has been removed. The remaining article is referenced and valid, so I completely disagree with your assessment that most of the article needs to be deleted or rewritten. If you want to merge the progressivism in the US article into this one, then fine. The fact of the matter is, American progressivism was a major force which permanently altered the political landscape of North America. The point of this article is to show 1)what progressivism is, and 2)how it has influenced politics worldwide. To deny that such an original and unique ideology which advocated many policies which are adhered to by contemporary political parties worldwide - many of which even use the self-descriptor "progressive" - would be to selectively ignore obvious and logical evidence. I am in the process of hunting down wiki-acceptable references which state as much, the problem is not much is available online - mostly in scholarly works and books which I have read but do not currently own (such as "Progressivism and the World of Reform NEW ZEALAND AND THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN WELFARE STATE" by Peter J. Coleman) , so any help would be much appreciated.--Jackbirdsong 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a review I found from the aformentioned book, which argues that New Zealand and Australia influenced american progressivism, and vice-versa "By placing progressivism within an international context, Coleman deepens our understanding of a phenomenon previously seen as distinctively American, thereby clarifying both the substance and process of change in this country. He also argues that in the Progressive era can be seen the origins of the regulations and mixed economy of the modern welfare state." I will track down more in the coming days.--Jackbirdsong 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the strictly historical info could be placed into a History of progressivism/History of Progressivism article. Fishal 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently much of the article is specifically about the historical Progressive movement in the US, and should go to that page or a history of progressiveism page. However, if it could be re-written to reflect a more global worldview, that would be good. I also looked at What links to the page[1] and noted that most of the links have nothing to do with the historical Progressive movement, but rather to some vague generally "progressive" politics, i.e. left/liberal (see e.g. the copious List of progressive organizations). Perhaps this page needs some introduction to what the term might mean today. BobFromBrockley 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the articles shouldn't be merged. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a section with Progressism in America, but not the other way around. Progressives exist all over the world, even if less documented (e.g. in Irland: Progressive Democrats). Peer-LAN 10:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes to verify "original research"

I am placing various references and scholarly works here to use as verifiabile evidence against the argument that progressivism applies solely to American political thought, or that it was born and died here without bearing any external influence. Firstly, there is the aformentioned :

• "Progressivism and the World of Reform NEW ZEALAND AND THE ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN WELFARE STATE" by Peter J. Coleman
• "Uncertain Victory : Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought" by James T. Kloppenberg, which discusses the connection between the two movements and how progressivism influenced social democracy, and vice versa.

There will be more to come as I have the time, but I would appreciate any help from those interested in doing so.--Jackbirdsong 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel what you've contributed is original research as another editor does. I do think that we must be careful to explain as the authors you have provide do; that Progressivism is a distinct American historic phenomenon that LEAD TO the development of the Liberal consensus of the NEW DEAL in America and which fed the already developing (in the same timeframe) social democratic ideas of Europe. That social democracy, although with roots in Socialism (unlike American progressivism) tended to agree in principle - in reformation of the conduct of the state per corporations and per workers - on enhancing the power of the people to reign in concentrations of control (like trusts here in America). Hence, a section outlining this is entirely appropriate in and of itself - shying away however from DIRECT linkage. As far as the Greens of today - I can say they are dinstinctly progressive in their ideas (conservation, government reform and power over corporations etc.) - although their lineage in distinctly European and socialist/social democratic. --Northmeister 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As well, there is the classification of the progressive movement in Great Britain prior to WW1 which was heavily influenced by the American movement. The broad British progressive movement, which encompassed many fields of thought, as has been expressed previously in the "Impact of Progressivism" category, is thoroughly discussed in the work:

• "The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals, and the Quest for Unity" by David Blaazar.--Jackbirdsong 03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I will help where I can. One example of what I am alluding to is the UK's Liberal Democrats. They hold some "Progressive" ideas but are not "Progressive". Why? They are in the American sense and worldwide sense Libertarians which on economic matters would put them at odds with the Progressive parties of America historically - rather the Labor Party (although rooted in socialism or social democracy) would actually be economically progressive - hence the confusion with modern party's I think. Social Democrats (and some Christian Democrats of the old school in Germany) would be more Progressive in their ideals and tone economically as well thus the German-model of economy is quite progressive as was/is the French system under Dirigisme. Beyond economics: Conservation-Democracy-Social Justice (especially workers rights)-Economic intervention (through regulation of corporations/promotion/control of resources etc.)-Government Reform (in the way of increasing efficiency and democracy like Proportional Rep.) are Progressive ideas. I don't think one can understand Progressive ideals without understanding America's Declaration of Independence (Equality, Opportunity, Dignity of Life, Liberty and free choice, Pursuit of Happiness-national unity through common purpose and community spirit) and Constitution (the preamble: "to promote the general welfare", "a more perfect Union", "preserve Liberty", "establish Justice" etc.) and the Bill of Rights (Free to speak, to publish, to assemble, to privacy, to worship etc.). I say this, because it is the prime reason for its formation here in America (a Zeal to live up to the promises of American Life as Progressive Herbert Croly outlined in his book of the same name - one worth reading for Progressive roots and ideals). The New Nationalism of Roosevelt and New Freedom of Wilson also give some clue to this - both progressive and containing a zeal to Reform society to live up to the ideals of the nation. Improvement of society and positive view of government (Lincoln's of by for the people) is essential (libertarians and modern conservatives have a negative view of government in contrast). If a party of modernity adheres to liberal economic policy (ie. free markets and all this means) they are not progressive - if they hold the ideals of historic Progressivism as outlined above and in the Tenets on the page and as Croly's clearly outlines them in that era - then they can be listed as Progressive. --Northmeister 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - I'm not as familiar with Croly's book, if you see room for any more specific info to add to the "tenets" then please do so.

To sum up my position on the article in general, there are scholarly works cited above which discuss the worldwide impact of progressivism in detail and which can be used as primary references. So, if any international political party adheres to the tenets of progressivism, and especially if they call themselves progressive and/or are named "The Progressive Party", it is not original research or POV to include them in an article on progressivism any more than it would be to include "The Liberal Party" in an article on Liberalism. If a Green or social-democratic party is either 1)described by another source as progressive, or 2)self-described as such, then their inclusion in this article, given their following the tenets of progressivism, is entirely merited.--Jackbirdsong 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Add what you find is necessary, with your sources...then we can work on the format and wording overall. --Northmeister 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say that I am impressed by your commitment and the number of sources you provided. Sadly they do not sustain your case:

1. Progressivism and the World of Reform claims New Zealand politics influenced US progressive politics. This does not prove that NZ politics is progressive. (Consider: Plato influenced Aristotle, does that proof that Plato was an Aristotlean?)
2. The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals, and the Quest for Unity This book claims that there is some shared (but highly contested) progressive ground between the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. This has nothing to do with US progressivism but merely shows that this article needs a section on non-US progressivism, which does not claim that this is some how tied with US progressivism.

I have been unable to get Uncertain Victory : Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought I will review it tomorrow.

Some issues remain unadressed:

1. None of the books concern the presumed link between progressivism and green politics
2. None of the books address the sections on Asia or non-US America (it just concerns US, Europe and NZ/Australia)

I also disagree with your conclusions

Your first strategy "tenets of progressivism, and especially if they call themselves progressive and/or are named "The Progressive Party"" is exactly original research in the way WP:SYN refers to it. I can agree with your second strategy, which relies on external resources.

In the end I think this article needs some serious clearing out and merging. C mon 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In regard to New Zealand, they have a movement and political parties which are called "progressive" and have in policy most, if not all, of the tenets of progressivism as listed in this article. Whether Austalia/New Zealand have a prominent progressive movement wasn't even something I was debating - there are plenty of sources to back this up, many of which are in the article. The point of the book was to show how the progressives both gained influence from others, and then in turn influenced others themselves. In The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals, and the Quest for Unity The discussion of the British progressive movement prior to WW1, which is tied to the American one of the same era, evokes the tents of progressivism as listed here. That being said, there is surely more to be added to this section. As far as the link between Greens and the progressive movement, this is something I have been unable to "officially" find wiki-suitable refs for, pehaps because its taken as a given in the US (whether it is assumed elsewhere is another matter), so as I said before we can just exclude references to Greens in the article for now. I'll be working as time allows.--Jackbirdsong 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether NZ currently has a progressive movement, but whether it had one at the beginning of this century, when NZ politics influenced US progressivism.

Could you be clear on how the Popular Front Book book "evokes" the tenets of progressivism. Does it a) state the tenets of progressivism or b) directly state the tenets it is stating are progressive. (Difficult sentence let me explain: does it say a) the Lib/Lab alliance was committed to social justice, democracy, environmental conservation and regulation of the free market or b) the Lib/Lab alliance was committed to these four values, which it drew from the US progressive tradition.) Seeing the periodization of the book and the Lib/Lab coalition, the latter seems more logical. C mon 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Something has come up and I need to go on wiki break for awhile. Here is a link to a preview of The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals, and the Quest for Unity which has much of the info you request (I don't have time right now to go through and disseminate it). I will research as I can, and be back shortly to continue the conversation. Until then, I leave it in the capable hands of Northmeister and yourself.--Jackbirdsong 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How to proceed from here

So, at this point I think it would be good to hear everybody's take on what direction we should proceed in. Stepping back, I do see the problem with this article. Though it is used internationally, the term "progressive" is not used everywhere in the world, and many political parties (Green, social-democratic, liberal) use the term to describe their somewhat varied policies, while simultaneously many parties which fit the "progressive" criteria as specified in this article do not use the term at all. However, there is a wiki article on communitarianism, which states in part:

Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post, remarked of modern communitarians, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies."

This describes precisely the difficulty with pinning down progressivism, but if the communitarianism article passes wiki muster, surely this one has a fair chance. If I'm not mistaken, Cmon wants this article to specify itself as a strictly American political alignment? Personally, I believe that we might be able to clearly list all worldwide political movements which have either been identified as, or describe themselves as progressive. This would likely entail either rewriting or at least adding to the "Tenets" and overhauling the "Worldwide" section and adding detailed descriptions of regional progressive movements and the respective parties therein. I'm prepared to give this a shot - provided some help. Feedback?--Jackbirdsong 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution is to create a clear separation between the American progressive tradition and non-American movements which are progressive. Maybe two articles, maybe by creating a clear separation in one article. The claim would be then that there is American progressivism with a distinct program, and non-American progressive movements which are diverse and impossible to unite under one set of tenets. C mon 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a clear separation - either within the article, or in two seperate articles - is the solution. On the one hand, there is the Progressive movement, a very coherent, defined, historical movement that was predominantly American - this could be American progressivism/Progressivism in the United States or Progressivism (movement). On the other hand, there is something more vague, more vague even than communitarianism. This is what most of the articles that link to progressivism or indirectly via progressive, progressives or progressive politics are actually referring to. This should perhaps be Progressive politics or something like that. It is hard to define clearly, and that article should therefore reflect the fact that there are competing definitions (as with communitarianism). That article should also be global in its worldview, not US-centric. BobFromBrockley 09:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the second should be disambiguation, just like the radical left is, because it such a vague term (it can refer to US progressivism, movements which are left or liberal, and perhaps some progressive parties). C mon 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably sensible. BobFromBrockley 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All of these reccomendations make sense, and I think I have an idea that would be simple yet effective, if I can translate it. We take all of the specifically American progressive info (which would be the opening and "tenets" sections, and possibly the ideology comparisons as well)and splice them into Progressivism in the United States, which is in need of expansion anyways. We leave this article's title alone, and bypass the need to create any new articles by retooling this one to look something like this: in the opening we cite the varied definitions of the term and list the term's usage and meaning step by step, nation by nation. Then we rework the "worldwide" section to look something like the women's suffrage article, and to reflect the varied interpretations and policies of the respective national progressive movements worldwide. As we write each nation's section, if and when lengthiness becomes an issue we can alter a section to provide a brief summary of the nation's movement and a link to a broader article, like Progressivism in New Zealand, Australian progressivism, etc. That way we forgo having to create any new articles right now, and simply splice and move info as it accumulates. The broadness of the definition of the term should not necessarily be a deterrent from having one article on the subject.--Jackbirdsong 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what you are planning with Indian progressivism, United Kingdom progressivism and Irish progressivism. You have said here previously that you believe that these are genuine progressive movements. Do you intend to write an article on each of them, based on the information assembled here? C mon 09:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My idea is to add info on the Indian, UK, etc. progressive movements to this article, explaining the history of each nation's movement and the differences in their respective definitions of "progressive". Once there is enough info on each nation's prog movement, we can create specific article for them. For now, we should just work with this article and avoid creating new ones, I think.--Jackbirdsong 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just used my user space to post how I would want see it, so we have something concrete to talk about, see User:C_mon/Progressivism, see and edit there, comment here. C mon 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your idea is to create a disambiguation page, which makes sense. Why don't we accomplish the same goal by simply rewriting this article? We can alter this article to detail the varied worldwide prog movements, give a broad definition of progressivism while stating that it fluctuates from nation to nation, and provide those same links to national movements you have proposed once enough info has accumulated here to make individual nation-specific articles.--Jackbirdsong 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose to make a disambiguation, mainly because I don't believe "progressive" really has consistent meaning across time and place. The disambiguation best reflects that. C mon 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you are making progress. What I believe needs to be done is to have an article on Progressivism that explains broadly what being Progressive is (with reliable sources of course) which then has seperate headers within the article for each country and that country's variant (thus progressivism took this turn in the USA per history and that turn in say New Zealand per history) offering a brief description of what progressivism is in those situations or how it relates to the general meaning overall. Further - progressives were for social and economic progress - they favored a positive view of government to achieve social progress for all classes of society - but they were not revolutionary nor did they wish to overthrow capitalism but enchance it for all (thus they were not socialists) to participate fully. --Northmeister 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Northmeister's last post stands in fascinating contrast to the article which claims that socialism is a subform of progressivism and that "progressive" alliances (such as the United Progressive Alliance, which also includes the communist parties of India are progressive. I believe firmly that finding a definition of "progressivism" that is more than "in favour of social reforms" is unlikely. Furthermore seen that there is only one subarticle which could be integrated into this article in the women's suffrage-fashion, I think such a solution is untenable. C mon 09:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided at the moment between the two solutions, but a couple of comments: 1) Doesn't matter if there are subarticles or not at this stage. If the main article had a paragraph for each place, and then editors felt there was more to say they could create a subarticle then. 2) I think it is important for any article not to say "X is progressive", "Y is not progressive", but to say things like "In India the term progressive has been commonly understood to mean..." BobFromBrockley 11:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In all respects, I could not agree more. BfromB has summed up precisely what I have been trying to say: We sum up each nation's movement and worry about links to new articles later, and to address the fact that in India progressivism may incluse socialist and/or communist policies and elsewhere it may not, as there are verifiable links to info which cites the socialist advocates within the American progressive movement whom later branched out.--Jackbirdsong 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll second your statement above or third in the case of Bob. I tried to say the same thing above as well - with this caveat - in describing Progressive beliefs in the beginning it is important to point out that that progressivism is not a socialist movement nor did it take inspiration from socialism - but rather was a reform movement within the context of capitalism with its economic beliefs - so as to share more of the wealth of society derived therefrom with more of the people. It shares characteristics with socialism but has different roots and did not desire to overthrow capitalism as it was known then (distinct from what is called capitalism today by the way - but that is another point). I recommend going forward with your efforts if others agree. --Northmeister 03:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First I don't disagree with Bob, but I do feel we need to make a choice between a disambiguation and a summary page (like women's suffrage). When I read Northmeister's response, I get the feeling that he still thinks there is some continuity between the different progressivisms. I still have not seen proof for this. I would like to make the page a disambiguation page to reflect this. C mon 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not need proof that every worldwide progressive movement is inextricably tied together to have them all cited in one article. The continuity is in the fact that there are specific political movements throughout the world which all call themselves "progressive", and which share a common, if broad, set of mostly left-wing ideals.--Jackbirdsong 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you stated this, because this diametrically opposed to the current article and what you claimed and defended below. The main question now is, if these movements share a broad leftwing agenda, why bother with an article about progressivism, it is covered in left (politics) then isn't it?C mon 07:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of your logic here. Above, I simply said "We do not need proof that every worldwide progressive movement is inextricably tied together to have them all cited in one article. The continuity is in the fact that there are specific political movements throughout the world which all call themselves "progressive", and which share a common, if broad, set of mostly left-wing ideals". So where have I contradicted myself based on prior discussion? I said that we do not need to reference the bond between the worldwide prog movements to have them all under a single article because their common use of the term progressive in a political context is enough to warrant their inclusion. I didn't say there were no bonds, just that they can be weaved in later or as we find refs. So why are you so opposed to an article on progressivism? There are movements called "progressive". There are political parties called "progressive". These parties and movements are specific, and at the same time share a common mostly (not exclusively) left-wing bond. So what about the articles on socialism or liberalism? Admittedly these are more common terms, but liberalism is no more an objective term than progressivism, and may certainly vary from nation to nation. These ideologies are covered in the "left politics" article as well. Since you seem (I am assuming) to be the only editor opposed to BobFromBrockley's recommendation, perhaps we should tally a vote for majority concensus, since it seemed we were making great progress just a few days ago.--Jackbirdsong 01:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article format

I think there is a general concensus on what this article should look like. I will lay out my impression as concisely as possible, and perhaps editors should give it a nod or a nay, explaining why they like or dislike the idea. So,

• We write the header of this article with the idea in mind that progressivism may mean slightly different things in different nations (this seems logical, and is how most political ideologies exist and how their articles are laid out in wiki, with subcategories representing the specific national takes on the ideology, i.e. "Liberalism in America", Liberalism in France", etc.)
• We move the list of "tenets" to the Progressivism in the United States article, as they may be too specific to the US (though broadly similar to most prog movements), and we create an individual list of "tenets" for each respective nation's movement.
• We alter the lists of "progressive parties" to exclusively include political parties which are either self-described or objectively described as progressive in a reference.

This should be a good jumping-off point. Feedback, please.--Jackbirdsong 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we make a disambiguation like this: it is simple. As there is only one progressivism in ... article doing it anyother way is nonsense. The way you propose it this article will be a replication of progressivism in the United States! C mon 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In reference to Jack's and Cmon's propsals - I feel strongly that Progressivism has a unified whole which includes much of what the Template itself lists under ideas and shares common belief with social democracy in Europe. Hence, any opening should reflect an overview of Progressive thought. I also feel that Cmon is right in his example disambiguation page with his initial definition. Thus - Progressivism should be defined as such - see his definition with the caveat of the ideals listed under the template as hallmarks of Progressivism. I propose this as a working start:

• Create a page Progressivism (disambiguation) exactly as Cmon has on his example making sure it reads "Progressivism (disambiguation)".
• Move the Tenets of American Progressivism to that respective article for now.
• Redo the opening paragraghs in summary style incorporating Cmon definition in combination with Jack's as a lead sentence or sentences followed by the inclusion of the ideas under the template in an appropriate way.
• Sections should look something like the article on Liberalism or Conservatism and be organized as such.
• Only those seperate sections relevant to major Progressive traditions in various countries that can be verified by reliable sources should exist. Thus a small section on Progress. in USA for example with a Further: to the actual article on this. That the motion for a seperate tenet list be included only where they differ from the main tenets of historic progressivism.
• That Jack do the honors of reformating the article first - that Cmon revise the article second after Jack's initial edits - and that any differences thereto be projected here afterward for the three-four or more of us to work out.

Thus Jack - if Cmon can agree to these proposals (which include yours and his) then I will make the disambiguation page - Your free to reformat first - letting Cmon know here when your done - then Cmon is free to alter things letting us know when he is done for the first go around - then we all work out any disagreements thence forward here together. Here is one YEA - two more from Jack and Cmon would be sufficient to move forward. --Northmeister 00:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All of your above input makes perfect sense, I suppose I'm just a little confused with one aspect: you propose creating a disambiguation page, but then in your bullet points above, bullets 3-6 discuss alterations to an "article". Are you referring to the "American Progressivism" article, or to this one, because as I'm sure you know to create a disambiguation page would mean we would be deleting this article and replacing it with such. I strongly feel that "progressivism" deserves an article, and it certainly achieves all of the necessary criteria from a wiki standpoint.

In response to Cmon above, I fail to see how the proposed reformatting I laid out above would make this article a "replication of the article on American Progressivism." To lay out my proposition again,

• We write the header of this article with the idea in mind that progressivism may mean slightly different things in different nations (this seems logical, and is how most political ideologies exist and how their articles are laid out in wiki, with subcategories representing the specific national takes on the ideology, i.e. "Liberalism in America", Liberalism in France", etc.)
• We move the list of "tenets" to the Progressivism in the United States article, as they may be too specific to the US (though broadly similar to most prog movements), and we create an individual list of "tenets" for each respective nation's movement.
• We alter the lists of "progressive parties" to exclusively include political parties which are either self-described or objectively described as progressive in a reference.

Please explain your contention with the above recommendations. Once again, I am very firm on keeping this article and reformatting it, as opposed to replacing it with a disambiguation page. Creating a disamb. page would mean we would have to immediately create individual pages for every nation's prog movement, as opposed to summarizing them here and having the time to create individual pages as we see fit and info accumulates. It seems ridiculous to go to all of the effort of creating a whole new disambiguation page, then creating several other brand new articles right now, as opposed to simply retooling this one. Up to this point I have been more than willing to compromise, to provide research, and to cede points when they are well made, but this is getting out of hand and the idea of rewriting most if not all of this article is more than reasonable.--Jackbirdsong 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we would keep this article (reformat it first yourself and then Cmon or whatever is agreed to - I proposed you first) - We would create a "Progressivism (disambiguation)" page like other disambiguation pages to direct persons who might be searching for other definitions - I incorporated both your suggestions. As it is now - we are a loggerheads(sic): My proposal above incorporating both your suggestions would 'I hoped' move this forward. I essentially agree with you about two seperate articles - I also agree with C'mon about a disambiguation page but not one replacing this one. I will create that page to show you what I am thinking of - but the choice is still the communities as how to proceed - namely at the moment yours and Cmon's. Your proposals have excellent merit and I endorse them within the context of my compromise endorsing C'mon's idea. --Northmeister 02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

- Added the Progressivism (disambiguation) page to this article at top where it is usually located. Also created such - I propose Jack reformat as he has suggested and then Cmon - but the rest is up to you two or to some other formula - but I essentially agree with Jack on keeping BOTH articles and Cmon on creating the page I just did. --Northmeister 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I must praise you Northmeister for having a very consensus-oriented way of editing. I can live with this compromise (disambiguation+progressivism+progressivism in the United States). I will closely follow the changes to this article, but will no longer push my position. C mon 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, let me second the praise for Northmeister's mediation and input here. It was my assumption that in creating a disambiguation page we would need to delete this article, but as it is the brokered compromise seems to be pretty ideal, and I can certainly live with it (contentedly at that) if everybody else can. I do appreciate the offer for first dibs on editing this article North, but I would feel uncomfortable wielding that kind of power to push my position and reformat this page solo, so I would appreciate any help from involved editors on any future edits. If we stick to the general guidelines (of the general consensus) on how this article should appear, I think there should be no problems. Perhaps at some point some of us should head to the communitarianism article and do some fixing-up there too, as it seems far more flawed than this article ever did, IMHO.--Jackbirdsong 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tenets

As per prior discussion, in the reformatting process I have moved the "tenets" to the Progressivism in the United States article, as they may be too specific to the US. While I believe the aformentioned tenets to display a very general outline of progressivism's criteria internationally, as this may (and usually does) vary slightly from nation to nation, I feel we should do one of two things:

• 1)Remove the "tenets" section altogether, and instead insert each nation's respective definition and/or tenets within each nation's respective subcategory in the "worldwide" section, or
• 2)reinserting the original tenets, and expanding on them and/or adding addendums (i.e. this may be the case in the US but different in Australia...) to cover the national variables.--Jackbirdsong 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The first section should deal with what progressivism is. I think this is the best way to handle it. A generic definition supported by reliable sources. Then within each country - there can be observation of any differences from the standard definition. --Northmeister 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So what do you propose - should we reinsert the previous tenets and expand on them or find new ones based on other sources?--Jackbirdsong 03:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the original tenets - represented what Progressivism was and therefore are good working ground for reformat. It then can be the source of contrast where there may be deviation from the essential progressivism. Maybe you should start there, expand on them while also leaving them over at the US article for now as they also fit there. I guess the basic question is when did Progressivism emerge - from everything I've read - in the U.S. as a movement then expanding elsewhere and incorporated a great deal in the New Deal liberalism. Take a shot at this and we can work from there. Essentially progressivism was about reformation in order to enchance society and make it more democratic in economics-social matters-politics etc. essentially in American terms living up to the nation's ideals more fully. Thus the direct election of Senators, the Income Tax (which could be itemized and made 'progressive') etc. --Northmeister 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created the page User:Jackbirdsong/tenets of progressivism and placed the original tenets there for editing. This should be a good place for anybody to add to the section before we repost it here. I'll be researching myself, but any help is always welcome, so feel free to edit at will.--Jackbirdsong 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Environmentalism

This section seems grossly out of place. Not only is it fundamentally different from a stylistic standpoint to the rest of the tenets list, but it also has an obvious US ethnocentric bias. --Perryar 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

I removed the sentence "This environmental record was unequaled until President Bill Clinton's term, 90 years later.". Even if it is true, and not too POV, the reference cited does not really bear this out and at any rate it is kind orf irrelevant. Eran of Arcadia 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how the reference, which does state the info you removed, would be considered POV - it is purely a fact, not an opinion or an implication. The only point you make that I can sympathize with is regarding relevance, which seems reasonable. I will go along with your edit if nobody else objects.--Jackbirdsong 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Social Change

While I can't claim to be an expert on libertarianism, I'm pretty certain this is incorrect:

Libertarians, on the other hand, advocate their own brand of social change, which is in many ways opposed to the kind of change advocated by progressives.

The phrase "social change" is almost meaningless in libertarianism. As Ludwig von Mises said, "To speak of a society's autonomous and independent existence, of its life, its soul, and its actions is a metaphor which can easily lead to crass errors." I suspect a libertarian would say that what he or she advocates is for people to be free to attempt to change society and to form associations toward that end, but that government has no valid role in the process.

I propose changing the above statement to the following:

Libertarians do not advocate social change, as such, but rather support a hands-off approach to government, counting on people forming voluntary associations with other, like-minded people to influence the direction of society.

--Tedd 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the above change reads better and better reflects what Libertarians may think. I support the move to change the sentence. --Northmeister 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

--R33f3rman (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Libertarianism is a conservative orientation of liberalism. Libertarians believe the government should not used to change things. Government, they say, is useful in conserving the rules for maintaining a free society of individuals. In contrast, liberal democrats (like Rawls,1971) adopt the progressive principle of helping those who are disadvantaged within institutional systems.

Conservatism and Libertarianism

Conservatism and libertarianism are very different political philosophies, diametrically opposed in many ways, and don't belong in the same section. (The confusion seems to be a relatively recent development, perhaps resulting from some U.S. Republicans espousing a philosophy of small government.) I propose splitting this section into two sections: "Conservatism" and "Libertarianism."

--Tedd 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tedd, your right. I think such a split is advised. --Northmeister 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have split the conservatism-libertarianism section into separate sections. In the process, I moved the paragraph on Gary Sauer-Thompson up to the Social Justice section, where it seemed to fit better.--Tedd 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

American-centric?

Why does this page initially start with the history of progressiveism in America rather than a general description of the principles of the political philosophy? Furthermore, why is there a section entitled "worldwide impact"? Surely it would make more sense to list the american origins and history of progressivism under a section entitled "Origins of Progressivism"? --54x 11:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Why isn't she listed among those who believe in Progressivism? She certainly said on national television that she preferred to be called a Progressive.Sessou (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

She's a controversial figure among American progressives, most of whom consider her a weak liberal with poor progressive credentials. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough that she calls herself a "progressive", Clinton would need to follow the criteria, as outlined in this article, for what constitutes a progressive politician.--67.99.231.82 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

radical and conservative?

These terms are relative. A communist would not consider him/herself as radical/liberal and would consider a republican liberal. It is all in your point of view.

Does this article fail to say what 'progressivism' actually is?

From reading this, I am still uneducated to what Progressivism actually stands for - it details the early days, and its relation to other ideologies, but doesn't really explain what are the tenets and central ideologies of progressivism.

Can somebody who actually understands progressivism update this article with a brief definition of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanEdmonds (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The tenets were listed here, but somebody moved them to "progressivism in the U.S.". Should they be replaced in this article to give a better definition?--67.99.231.82 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead states: "Progressivism is a term that has varying meanings in different countries." I don't think the term Progressivism is used except in reference to the American progressive movement circa 1900 and movements and ideas influenced by it. It would be more accurate to say: "The term progressive has varying meanings in different countries." The Four Deuces (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vitrenkoposter.jpeg

The image Image:Vitrenkoposter.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Goal

How would progressivism know when to stop? What's the ultimate goal? It seems it could go on forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)