Talk:List of progressive organizations

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

I have a problem with this explanation of "progressive organizations": "organizations which promote progressive values while not having any regressive ideological ties".

What if my thoughts on what is 'progressive' or 'regressive' are different from how someone else sees the matter?

I think this explanation is too biased to be useful.

-- Norbert.


I agree that explanation is weak. Also, the list of organizations has some dubious entries, like the Democratic Party and the Communist Party. It may help to define the term "progressive". Termigator 00:49, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

I think the explanation could use a little work, and its obviously not neutral (in fact its rather hostile). User:SiberioS SiberioS


I would like to add some environmental organizations. One way I could do this is to just start expanding on the list. However, even just the environment part of the list is getting long (the "other" part of the list is even longer!). Do people have any good ideas on how to add structure to split things up? Does anyone think splitting some of the longer lists out on to pages of their own would be worthwhile? If so, I could create something like "List of progressive environmental organizations." I would begin by alphabetizing what is already there. Perhaps also splitting things up into international, national (by country), and local/regional.

Perhaps people aren't even interested in additions, and can point to more comprehensive lists elsewhere?

Howdy again. Since there has been no objection (and I recognize, no endorsement as well), I am going to split off the environmental organizations into their own list. User:brianhill Brian Hill 19:28, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Well, now that I have done this, I have discovered that there are two naming conventions for the lists. Under the more common one, this page would be called "Progressive organizations." This page uses the less common naming convention, and calls itself the "List of progressive organizations." I think this needs to be reconciled. User:brianhill Brian Hill 20:15, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hi Brian

today had got away from me. Generally our plan is to shift away from lists (that have to be manually updated) and towards greater use of categories (which are automatically compiled). In some instances it will still be useful to have lists as well. (See Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization article which covers the issues). So as far as possible I'd like to rationalise the lists section.

There is also the issue of how does one fairly define "progressive" and I've never like the unnecessarily perjorative "regressive" tag. For example, if a groups doesn't explicity describe itself as a progressive group and it definitely is not a conservative/libertarian/etc group how do we classify it? (And progressive is largely - but not exclusively - a US term). Which is where a slightly more neutral category such as non profit groups and with an environment subcategory might be better -- but if readers are looking for lists of groups by political/issue orientation it would be worth going further too.

Maybe some of the others have some inspired thoughts on how best to handle this. --Bob Burton 05:40, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)