Talk:Progressive Era/Archive 1

Archive 1

Overlap with Fourth Party System

The Fourth Party System article begans: "The Fourth Party System or Progressive Era..." Isn't a merge something to consider? Tazmaniacs 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I have also come to propose a merge with Fourth Party System; at the moment we have two articles on the history of the Progressive Era, this one incomplete, the other written by a Republican partisan. The merger need not be complete; a stub on the (disputed) idea of the Fourth Party System is not a bad idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Tazmaniacs 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

do not merge political scientists have a different literature and approach and use the 4th party system terminology all the time, for example in AP US Government courses taht 100,000 people a year take in USA. Historians take a different methodological approach (pol sci uses statistics and roll call studies, historians do not, for example) and use different theoretical models. Rjensen 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yhere are, in fact, very few papers on this subject; one of them is by Richard Jensen. There are enough that we should have an article on the subject; the metastasis of the idea through Wikipedia, however, seems to be the work of Rjensen, who inserted the paper into article text here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson should not be alarmed that there is a real live expert at work here in Wikipedia. If a topic appears in numerous college textbooks over a period of years, as this one has, it seems legitimate enough.Rjensen 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Rjensen's expertise that I'm concerned about, it's his lack of scholarly accuracy, his PoV-pushing, his vanity edits, and his inconsistency. But more on this in another place Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PManderson likes to fight with experts--its his OR that is illegal. Rjensen 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen usually fails to report what his sources actually say; see WP:RfC/Rjensen and its talk page for more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Merge Keep Separate I normally wouldn't have taken a side on this issue, but unfortunately this both articles have proven quite useful for research. The Fourth Party System is described in The American Pageant: A History of the Republic AP Edition.

Quote from the text:

"The long reign of Republican political dominance that it (McKinley victory in 1896) ushered in was accompanied by diminishing voter participation in elections, the weakening of party organizations, and the fading away of issues like the money question and civil-service reform, which came to be replaced by concern for industrial regulation and the welfare of labor. Scholars have dubbed this new political era the period of the "fourth party system".

I do believe that some pressing this issue for merger might be viewing this issue with an endocentric (or is it exocentric?) point of view. This article was not in fact written by a "Republican partisan", but is instead established modern historical thought on US history. Please, do not associate the current actions of the US Republican Party today with the events that happened during the turn of the 20th century.

As a side note, I do agree that both articles need to be cleaned up and expanded greatly.

Just my thoughts --Sharkface217 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to see what you make of them. I would support having the history here at Progressive Era, and an analysps of the politics (voting blocs, correlations, and so forth) at Fourth Party System. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Home Rule

Odd that Municipal Home Rule gets no mention; the doctrine had some traction at the time and several US State constitutions were amended to provide it. Alas, I'm not qualified to write such a paragraph. Jim.henderson 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No Merger of Articles, Please

Don't merge these articles. If they need to be edited to make them better that would be fine, but they should be kept separate, and both should stay. Progressive Era is a label relevant punjabs to the topic of History, while Fourth Party System is relevant to Political Science. Both should explore different specifics of the era. Ultimately this means they don't really mean the exact same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.167.236 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Political realignment is not the same as a party system. And party system as historians understand it is different than how political scientists understand it (apparently, if political scientists believe that there have been more than three). In US history there have been three party systems and many political realignments (e.g., 1896, 1936, 1976). --RedJ 17 20:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with the writer above. Please don't merge these articles. The merger of these articles would undermine the discussion concerning the evolution of the American Party System. The concepts share similarities, but are referring to different contexts. Both are relevant in their respective fields and for their different purposes.

Hamilton

I think Alice Hamilton is an important person of the "progressiv era" and she should be coated in the article. --Sweet buttuery tart crust (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you want to add Alice Hamilton to the "Progressive Era#Notable Progressive intellectuals, writers, advocates" section. Since the Alice Hamilton article already exists and you believe that she should be included, go ahead and make the addition. -- Tcncv (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

criticism section is odd

It seems like basically a bullet-pointed list of links to some critical essays. Some of these may be notable, but they aren't explained. It also picks weird issues to focus on; for example, changes in birthing practice are not exactly the highest-profile controversy regarding the Progressive Era. More relevant would be the mixed legacy of Prohibition, which isn't mentioned at all. --Delirium (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

God only knows why they chose "Progressive Era", but this article has been hit with a lot of stupid vandalism in the past couple weeks. Might be a necessary candidate for semi-protection until those responsible get distracted by a shiny object and move on. Sloverlord 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's likely because this is about the time U.S. history classes hit the progressive era. That's why I'm here. Dunno why people are such asses though - probably because they are anonymous (not to mention young). I agree on the semi-protect Mgsloan 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm here for the same reason as above. I can't say whether I agree or not though, I'm inexperienced. Exposay 8 January 2007

I've just come now for same reason :D looks like my schools a bit ahead of you all. We're hitting it in September. Anyway, yeah, judging by the quality of this article, it looks like its definitely being hit on a regular basis as people come by for school. Its unfortunate, because this is why so many teachers hate wikipedia, and people are only coming across it for school. My entire school's network is banned from editing wikipedia, which strikes me as funny. I tried to do a little to fix it up, but still have homework and can't do everything. If each student that came by just did something positive for the article (as is the basic idea behind wikipedia) instead of negative vandalism, these commonly visited articles would be the ones that were featured, instead of the less-visited ones that vandalizers don't hit. Another sad instance is when a well-wishing student adds a correct fact, but it isn't written in the correct wikipedia format, or isn't cited. Then, all these correct additions build up incorrectly, and some wikipedia veteran comes by, sees the horrible organization, and declares that is too messed up to be fixed, and nominates it for deletion, when all it needs is for someone to find a few sources to back up the information and to put it all together nicely. Well, sorry for the rant... i dont even remember what my point was :D just wanted to get that off my chest Cactus Guru (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

brevity

Entry seems kinda short. Each kind of reform could have its own section if somebody ambitious is interested in re-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.217.55 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

African Americans and Native Americans

Thee ought to be relevant information explaining many of the common criticisms against policies that were unfavourable towards African Americans and Native Americans. Other issues such as the practive of imperialism and the attitudes towards prohibition should be included as well. ADM (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Progressives?

I see a certain editor is edit-warring to make Morgan and the Rockefellers progressives. This is news to me; it would be news, and severely offensive, to them.

If this article had a list of notable persons of the 1890's, there is no doubt that the Rockefellers, and Morgan, would be on it; but that list is elsewhere, and does not belong here.

Who's next, Mark Hanna? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We also require a source for Frederick Jackson Turner. Being a historian is not, in itself, a form of progressivism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And an International section?

This article, being domestic US, is somewhat out of my normal editing realm, but it seems to me there should be a section on the influence of the Progressive Era on international relations, since it coincides with the US's appearance on the stage of world 'heavies'. Wilson's Fourteen Points, played a part in the end of WWI, it was juxtaposed to Old World colonial interests, and significantly influenced the world with his League of Nations. At least, Mr.Pulitzer seemed to consider the situation's possibilities[1], heading into the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

== Is this vandalism? of politics was a main Progressive goal, with many Progressives trying to expose and undercut political machines and bosses, exclude illiterates, and blacks from the vote, and cutting back on immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe through devices like a literacy test."

It needs a rewrite, the components needs to be dealt with separately; I'd do it except that I don't know enough add the references you would need to back up claims such as this. So I'm just highlighting it hoping someone else will get to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.122.210 (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization on P(p)rogressive

The Capitalization on the articles about Progressivism and the Progressive Era don't have consistent capitalization on the word Progressive. I'm not sure if it's a proper noun or not, but I'm leaning towards that it is. Exposay 8 January 2007

well actually, "progressive" is an adjective. >_> ...to actually answer your question though, I'm pretty sure it's always capitalized when referring to the time period or groups associated with it, but not when it's being used to describe something normally. ("Many progressive actions took place during the Progressive Era.")67.222.201.194 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ME

I'm Writing an essay on the topic and this is kinda hard to understand, so it would be nice if someone could post a summary --205.209.14.58 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange

I, Windows7magic (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC), honestly don't see how this is progressive. Could someone point that out?

---

Windows7magic (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Systematic Racism and Eugenics

This period was one of the most hideous in American history in regards to the rights of racial minorities and those persecuted under Eugenics programs. Progressive laws saw the cementing of Jim Crow into law and the restriction of unwanted races from entering the United States. This needs its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.154.58 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to add eugenics to one of the topics. There is a significant need for it in this wiki as it was a large part ofthe progressive era. I will get to it later if nobody takes this on. Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era Journal of Economic Perspectives (2009), p, 37-51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueliberal (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics

We have one editor who seems to think that eugenics was the most important reform of the era, based on one article in an economics journal. The article in question covers only a dozen economists, and does not claim to represent the views of the mainstream of the economics profession, which in turn was not one of the dominant forces in the progressive Era. The immigration restriction movement began long before the eugenics movement. While there was indeed some influence in the 1920s, it was hardly dominant. for example, the major political force behind immigration restriction, especially Asian restriction, was the labor union movement, which did not need advanced biological ideas to try and stop the large-scale influx of low-wage unskilled workers. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Vandalism", my (BLEEP)

It's generally considered good form to actually do a google search to get your facts straight before crying vandalism. 10 seconds worth of effort would have shown the correct title of the book in question. Seriously, who's clueless enough to think it's more believable that a publisher in 1968 would release a book with the word "Nigger" in the title, than that some racist troll would maliciously edit a wikipedia entry? http://www.worldcat.org/title/malignant-heritage-yankee-progressives-and-the-negro-question-1901-1914/oclc/328456

76.255.29.99 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gambling

The article seems to completely overlook the subject of gambling. Gambling, alcohol, and narcotics were all seen as related vices to be eliminated. It was the prohibitions against these that led to the rise of the mafia and similar large-scale crime empires during this period.

On that note, the rise of major crime syndicates is another facet of the Progressive Era that this article does not cover.

--192.88.158.211 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Text needs editing

The change to the first sentence appears to be incomplete. It used to read and ought to continue to read: The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.173.207 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

I've added a dubious tag to the name of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who I've never before seen labeled a Progressive. He's primarily a businessman and philanthropist who headed one of the largest trusts, Standard Oil. Progressives fought trusts hard, which made Rockefeller a natural target of Progressives, rather than an obvious ally. I understand that he also gave lots of money away but that makes him a philanthropist, not a Progressive. Lots of ideologies embrace philanthropy (as do, indeed, most of the world's major religions), but being a philanthropist does not make someone an adherent to those ideologies (or those religions).

A Google search for "John D. Rockefeller, Jr." progressive returns little relevant material and certainly no overwhelming evidence that suggests leadership. It compares markedly to a Google search for many of the other names listed (try "Gifford Pinchot" progressive or "Herbert Croly" progressive, to name two selected at random). I'd be interested to see the evidence for labeling Rockefeller a Progressive. --Lincolnite (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the 1) American National Biography (2000) articles we find Rockefeller senior retired from business about 1897 and focused on philanthropy -- higher education (he built U of Chicago and Rockefeller U), medicine, foundations, aid to blacks etc etc (and also support for prohibition). These are core Progressive roles. Rockefeller Jr retired from business in 1910 & spent practically all his career in philanthropy & conservation. What you have is an interesting twist of historiography. Back in the 1930s-1940s, for historians "progressive" = good and Rockefeller = trust = evil and the two could not overlap. But since the 1960s Progressive Movement is seen as much more conservative, and basically oriented to efficiency/ science/ elitism. That makes for a better Rockefeller fit. (2) see Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America that aligns both JDRs with Progressivism, as on p 49, 126). (3) "Like the family's other philanthropies, the Rockefeller Foundation was attuned to the optimistic, rational spirit of the Progressive era and drew on its new class of technocrats." [Chernow, Titan: the life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr (2004)]; (4) "Rockefeller not only talked the talk of labor reform following the Ludlow Massacre, he lived the life of a Christian liberal. Under his direction the Rockefeller family gave millions of dollars to progressive ecumenical groups." [Rees Representation and rebellion: 2010]; (5) "This branch had a Progressive Era sanitary agenda anchored in pedagogy and civic institutions." [Palmer, Launching Global Health...the Rockefeller Foundation (2010)]; (6) "The Progressive-era roots of Rockefeller and other philanthropies are fundamental to understanding their sense of historic mission. Progressivism was characterized by elite attempts to come to grips with and to manage massive social, economic and cultural transformations" [Guilhot, The invention of international relations theory (2011)]; (7) "Like any good progressive, Rockefeller was sure the truth would clear the matter." [Schenmel, The rich man and the kingdom 1995)]; (8) "The years 1901 to 1909 ushered in a remarkable era of progressive and reform government [in Cleveland] under Mayor Tom L. Johnson. There is little doubt that John D. Rockefeller's (Sr) commitment to charitable giving and philanthropy was established in Cleveland. What is striking (is how involved he was in the social movements of the time)." [Gregor, Rockefeller's Cleveland (2010)]; (9) on foundations: "these private organizations championed a Progressive-era drive for national organization and rationalization." [Brison, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Canada 2005]; (10) "In the Progressive Era's activist climate, reform agendas were frequently articulated in terms of control." (& specifies Rock. Fdn) [Kay, The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation,... (1996)]; (11) "He (junior) emerged a most ardent religious progressive and advocate of the Inter-Church Movement." [Winkler, John D. RockeFeller p 207]; (12) "Scientific philanthropy and professionalization [were] characteristic themes of the Progressive Era in the US." [Yrjälä, Public health and Rockefeller wealth (2005)]. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a footnote to the above, I just watched (several times) a new 2-hour documentary on JDR, and according to the piece, it appears that he did, indeed, consider himself a progressive in many ways. His ideas on efficiency, low prices for the masses, funding of colleges and teaching and research hospitals, preservation, sobriety, racial equality, women's rights ... all match those of the progressive movement. Of course, there were exceptions—and, therefore obvious contradictions—but given the enormity of his support, it's hard to count him out. I would say, for a more in depth study, read, "Titan," or view the PBS documentary. Pookerella (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Connection of the Constitutional Amendments

First, let me say the article is excellent. I was very impressed with how much was covered in great detail.

One point I feel was not mentioned is the deep connection between the 4 Constitutional Amendments. All the Amendments supported the passage of each of the others, but mostly, they were all designed to support Prohibition.

1. 16. Creation of the IRS - to cover excise taxes lost from the sale of liquor.
2. 17. State residents choose their US Senators - remove the opposition of the lobbyists' control over that portion of Congress.
3. 18. Prohibition - Since the Suffrage Movement supported temperance, the Temperance movement supported the women's movement.
4. 19. Women's Suffrage - Since most women supported temperance, they would vote for representatives who would ensure it would continue to be enforced.

Pookerella (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Henry George and Earth Sharing

I'm trying to find a proper place to write a paragraph or two about the influential Progressive Era Author and Social Reformer Henry George and I think perhaps another section could be added such as "Land Monopoly Reform" or perhaps even "Leisure" as well to make mention to the creation of the widely popular Landlord Monopoly game that demonstrated Henry George's ideas about land monopoly.

Here is some background information:

Henry George a household name in the late 1800s and about as well known as Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and Thomas Edison. He became internationally known as he traveled the world speaking and managed to spawn a school of economics of lasting impact based on his prolific writing and speaking as well as his dedicated pursuit of economic justice and political change. He ran for mayor of New York City twice and his loses are believed due to Tammany Hall corruption and vote rigging. His funeral is said to have been the biggest ever accorded a private American citizen, surpassed only by those of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy. Similar to Founding Father Thomas Paine, Economic Philosopher Adam Smith, and Human Rights Activist Martin Luther King, George’s published ideas about economic equality and Earth sharing challenged the prevailing policy of the time and still do to this day. Many people who remain famous were heavily influenced by him, such as George Bernard Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, Sun Yat Sen, and David Lloyd George, among others. Also, a follower of George, Lizzie Magie, created the board game Monopoly in 1904 to demonstrate his theories.

Henry George inspired the economic philosophy known as Georgism, whose main tenet is that people should own what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly the value of land, belongs equally to all humanity. George’s ideas have been called a response to natural abundance instead of a response to artificial poverty. His most famous work, Progress and Poverty (1879), is a treatise on inequality, the cyclic nature of industrialized economies, and the use of the land value tax as a remedy. In opposition to land monopoly as well as social injustice, he stated that people have equal right to the use of land as they have equal right to breathe the air. Georgists also advocate for a form of Universal Basic Income along the lines of what Thomas Paine proposed, also called a Citizen’s Dividend, to be established with the revenue raised by the state through leasing or taxing land and natural resources for private use, similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Lbuntu (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that something sensible could be added in a section on influences. In municipal politics in particular there was a a lot of Georgist influence during the Progressive Era. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

progressive reforms goals

what were they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.91.120.119 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Progressive Era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160211180917/http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i%26r.htm to http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i%26r.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000707012840/http://www.historyebook.org/ to http://www.historyebook.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

horrible grammer

Can someone please change that horrible run on sentence. Excuse me, though it goes on forever with those "whethers" and what not, it still is not a sentence. I don't mind poor grammer once in a while, but this is painful to read.

To the poster above: GrammAr. That is all.

Critisism removed from the Lede

"At the time, it was called the "Progressive Era," but historians have debated whether it was truly progressive." Was the guilded age really guilded?

To this poster:

         That's gilded, Gomer.

Muckrakers?

I might be missing something here but what relevance does the muckrakers sentence have with the rest of the article? If the sentence is relevant to Progressivism, could the author link it in with the rest of the text?

muckrakers was a name commonly given to journalists who exposed government corruption, so it is indeed relevant. They were the people that essentially provided progressivists with issues to fix in government. Cactus Guru (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only GVT corruption, also things like the meat packing industry were exposed by these people. (triggered the pure food and drug act) 71.125.47.229 (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "The Jungle" belongs in the muckraking section, as it's a work of fiction, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the magazines mentioned earlier in the section. Pwag42 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Historians include Upton Sinclair and other fiction writers--their books were exposes that had a great impact. See Judson A. Grenier, "Muckraking the muckrakers: Upton Sinclair and his peers." in David R Colburn and Sandra Pozzetta, eds., Reform and Reformers in the Progressive Era (1983) pp: 71-92. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Idodeclare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

dropped Red Scare

I dropped a short sections on "First Red Scare", --it does not mention progressivism or relate to the topic of this article. For readers interested in those topics I linked to : "First Red Scare," "Seattle General Strike," and "Palmer Raids". Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)