| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
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! |
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. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) |
3. The criticism is about how progressives are not actually progressive because their economic and political prefrences are either conservative (protecting the status quo) or regressive aka turning the clock back on progress itself. ([[User:KDRGibby|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. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)) |
|||
Revision as of 03:32, 1 March 2006
Criticism
Brink Lindsey views "progressive" movement's economic preferences, such as subsidies, protective tariffs, and central planning, labor laws, fair trade, or complicated income taxes, to actually be regressive or conservative in nature. He, along with Milton Friedman, argue that these progressive policies actually cause serious harm to the poorest members of society but lead to reductions in innovation and effecenciy that lead economic and technological progress.
This should stay, even if the article is small and crappy. Leftists have no reason deleting refrenced material just because. End of story. Now stop the censorship. (Gibby 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
- You are only posting generalised criticism. If the reader wants to know why people have the free market in the first place, they can read up on the article. The concept itself is a reaction towards selected free market cultural concepts — firstly, if you cite where the economists in questions specifically attack progressivism, then yes, it will be way more meritable. At now you are on the verge of posting weasel words. Add a sentence, if you like, referring back.Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Whats with all the hub-bub? Lots of articles have criticism sections that outweigh the content portion. Ten Dead Chickens 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but they are actually unique criticisms pertaining to the article, not a knee-jerk "this is an alternative to a free market. I will now post Hayek and Friedman's blanket criticisms against all alternatives in the article". Consider there are a lot of people who condemn Islam, for its treatment of women. It doesn't mean one can go to a random page dealing with an Islamic reformer, and put in criticisms against Islam on his article saying "but he's still Muslim, so his reforms are still useless anyway!" kind of thing. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Nati, you are making up crap again. 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))