This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Proposal to fix visual alignment
I am not sure exactly how to do this with CSS, but I propose we fix the alignment of the text in this template. As it's currently built, the text is centered within the container which is pushed over by the "show" buttons. If we could put the "show" button within a full-width container, perhaps we could assign the text to be center-aligned to the container div.
Visual alignment of Progressivism Template
Fist and Roses
@Aunger67: I see you added the Fist and Rose symbol as the symbol for Progressivism. While there certainly are progressive parties that use it (due to overlapping ideological/political ideas), isn't the symbol more typically used for social-democratic/democratic socialist parties? DM5Pedia18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Removed philosophy link by accident--am certainly fine with that going back up. Regarding Fist and Rose--it has a strong connection to social democratic parties (somewhat to socialism as well, but a little less). Modern center-left parties that are broadly progressive rather than overtly socialist (such as the Labour Party) include the imagery of the rose. Labour Party is perhaps the closest cousin to the Democratic Party as well, and both of those traditions define a lot of the commentary and philosophy around 21st century progressivism. Aunger67 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Progressivism is a sub-social democracy movement adapted to American material conditions; hence, Chomsky and Zizek are socialists and communists, not progressivists. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the inclusion criteria even meant to be here?
As noted above, we used to have Chomsky and Zizek, but even with those removed, this seems to vaguely encompass everything from social liberals to the far-left. Progressivism is rather a vague descriptor that is defined differently in different places, but even so, we have entries such as Kier Starmer, who is widely noted for socially conservative/pseudo-nationalistic pandering, Jeremy Corbyn, which I'm noting because he represents the opposing (former) wing of the Labour Party, AMLO, a sort of left-populist/opportunist socdem, and Joe Biden, representing the establishment wing of the Democratic Party - my point being that this extremely scattershot. I'm also highlty doubtful that the most notable progressive "commentators" should include edgelord Twitch streamers such as Vaush and Destiny - who are themselves strongly ideologically opposed, by the way. And we still have some Marxists like Angela Davis, alongside people like Michelle Obama, and some really inexeplicable stuff like Sweet Baby Inc., which is only really notable because of online rightoids trying to force GamerGate 2.0 into existence over it. Iostn (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NAVBOX; I don't think a lot of these links meet these criteria, particulary #1 and #2. Certainly a lot of these don't directly mention "progressivism", and some of the justification for inclusion relies on degrees of separation. #2 of the criteria seems to suggest degrees of separation aren't ok. seefooddiet (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second that this navbox is so vague as to be pointless and it fails the criteria 1 and 2. If there is an ideology shared by Biden-Harris and "The Squad", and by Starmer and Corbyn, it's too broad to be defined. It's basically anyone who isn't a member of a conservative-leaning or far-left party. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on this area, but do academics for example class the early 20th-century progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party with modern movements called "progressive"? Are these separate movements with the same name? The causes of the first progressives such as eugenics and prohibition are anathema to modern ones. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previous discussions on this talk page attest to, Who or what a progressive is can and is quite contentious. Users find it difficult to identify even who the most prominent progressive politicians and thinkers are.
This issue seems infinitely larger when applied to whether commentators can be described as "Progressive." Not only does the Commentator section seem extremely shatter-shot, but it's also extremely American-centric. Almost every single name listed is American.
Rather than get into a tedious discussion about who should and should not qualify, I suggest scrapping the section entirely. While having Intellectuals, Politicians, and Activists sections is fine, there are so many issues with the commentator section that it'd be better to scrap it. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late message. There was an incomplete account merge and I couldn't log in.
I would suggest that someone simply overhaul the section. It's not perfect, but could surely be informative. Some commentators are easily as well-known as many politicians or intellectuals. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
