Really?? A stub? Is this all there is in Wikipedia about the huge history of economic progressivism? I'm frankly rather disappointed. We can do better than this. 152.3.34.82 ( talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay kids, I've rewritten the article to be purely definitional rather than argumentative. Now it's time to stop fighting and start finding references to back it all up. TBSchemer ( talk) 02:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Brink Lindsey views "progressive" movement's economic preferences, such as subsidies, protective tariffs, and central planning, labor laws, fair trade, or complicated income taxes, to actually be regressive or conservative in nature. He, along with Milton Friedman, argue that these progressive policies actually cause serious harm to the poorest members of society but lead to reductions in innovation and effecenciy that lead economic and technological progress.
This should stay, even if the article is small and crappy. Leftists have no reason deleting refrenced material just because. End of story. Now stop the censorship. (
Gibby
14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
Nati, you are making up crap again bitch . You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of.
1. Criticism exists it must be present. 2. Arguing that the article is not good enough for criticism section implies only facts supporting the articles title are acceptable thus giving pov to everything but criticism. YOU CANT DO THIS!
3. The criticism is about how progressives are not actually progressive because their economic and political prefrences are either conservative (protecting the status quo) or regressive aka turning the clock back on progress itself. ( Gibby 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV. (
Gibby
03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
Yes but you can't slap it anywhere you want. ( Gibby 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
HERE IS WHERE YOU PUT IT! There is no UNDUE WEIGHT! Undue weight is about too much information for the body of the text for a minority view point. 1. There is not too much, it is a very small paragraph. 2. its not a minority view point just a counter-progressive view point (Which there are alot of people) 3. add more to the page and stop being lazy by deleting the criticism. 4. NPOV requires criticism to improve the page. 5. The article reports Lindseys view (which also happesn to be the view of Hayek and Friedman, i thought I'd give you a break from them though) and as such is featured in NPOV fashion.
6. Stop abusing wiki rules.
( Gibby 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Then increase the size!!!! Don't delete the criticism or even reduce its size. The purpose of wiki is to report facts not argue the points. Again, stop abusing wiki rules to get rid of things you don't like. THIS IS ALL YOU DO! ( Gibby 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
so then you'd have no problem with me following you around, making up a reason for placing a tag, giving tenous grounds for its existance relating it in someway to wiki rules and telling you i'll get around to making corrections sometime later? (
Gibby
01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
I'm not calling you a vandal, i'm calling you a left wing censor. (
Gibby
01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Hmm, well perhaps deleting cited credible npov presented material is vandalism of a sort. And I have very little faith in you. You have proven yourself time and time again to be a delete now discuss later editor. (
Gibby
01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Really?? A stub? Is this all there is in Wikipedia about the huge history of economic progressivism? I'm frankly rather disappointed. We can do better than this. 152.3.34.82 ( talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay kids, I've rewritten the article to be purely definitional rather than argumentative. Now it's time to stop fighting and start finding references to back it all up. TBSchemer ( talk) 02:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Brink Lindsey views "progressive" movement's economic preferences, such as subsidies, protective tariffs, and central planning, labor laws, fair trade, or complicated income taxes, to actually be regressive or conservative in nature. He, along with Milton Friedman, argue that these progressive policies actually cause serious harm to the poorest members of society but lead to reductions in innovation and effecenciy that lead economic and technological progress.
This should stay, even if the article is small and crappy. Leftists have no reason deleting refrenced material just because. End of story. Now stop the censorship. (
Gibby
14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
Nati, you are making up crap again bitch . You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of.
1. Criticism exists it must be present. 2. Arguing that the article is not good enough for criticism section implies only facts supporting the articles title are acceptable thus giving pov to everything but criticism. YOU CANT DO THIS!
3. The criticism is about how progressives are not actually progressive because their economic and political prefrences are either conservative (protecting the status quo) or regressive aka turning the clock back on progress itself. ( Gibby 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV. (
Gibby
03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
Yes but you can't slap it anywhere you want. ( Gibby 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
HERE IS WHERE YOU PUT IT! There is no UNDUE WEIGHT! Undue weight is about too much information for the body of the text for a minority view point. 1. There is not too much, it is a very small paragraph. 2. its not a minority view point just a counter-progressive view point (Which there are alot of people) 3. add more to the page and stop being lazy by deleting the criticism. 4. NPOV requires criticism to improve the page. 5. The article reports Lindseys view (which also happesn to be the view of Hayek and Friedman, i thought I'd give you a break from them though) and as such is featured in NPOV fashion.
6. Stop abusing wiki rules.
( Gibby 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Then increase the size!!!! Don't delete the criticism or even reduce its size. The purpose of wiki is to report facts not argue the points. Again, stop abusing wiki rules to get rid of things you don't like. THIS IS ALL YOU DO! ( Gibby 01:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
so then you'd have no problem with me following you around, making up a reason for placing a tag, giving tenous grounds for its existance relating it in someway to wiki rules and telling you i'll get around to making corrections sometime later? (
Gibby
01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
I'm not calling you a vandal, i'm calling you a left wing censor. (
Gibby
01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Hmm, well perhaps deleting cited credible npov presented material is vandalism of a sort. And I have very little faith in you. You have proven yourself time and time again to be a delete now discuss later editor. (
Gibby
01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC))