Talk:Progressive stack

Wiki-celebrity misplaced

Why is Sue Gardner's personal opinion of the progressive stack concept relevant? She is the Wikimedia Executive--that's all well and good. But what makes her opinion of this subject relevant enough to be included in this encyclopedia article?

I challenge this inclusion, because I don't consider it notable, but more to the point, it is a self-published source! (Self-published sources for citations are largely against Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources)

If it cannot be defended, I'm going to remove it. I mean no offense. 71.162.106.224 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So this

Is how the Occupy movement died, lumbering and wheezing under the weight of its own political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.12.140 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It died when the corporate/political money backing the OWS movement dried up because it had ceased being an effective political tool for leftist politicians. Ironlion45 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah. It did die when it was hijacked by identity politics. The base OWS movement had nothing to do with identity politics but was warped from the inside by infiltrators who didn't care about corruption in the banking sector but instead co-opted the movement to talk about completely unrelated issues and introduced tripe such as this "progressive stack" where speakers are ordered by oppression and other people's ideas go unheard because they happen to be straight white males. This led to dissatisfaction with this state of affairs and the lack of a precise, clear set of goals, which had as a result the implosion of the movement.

Same thing happened with atheism. Identity proponents tried to hijack the atheist movement by injecting identity politics into it, with what was called atheism+. Identity politics have absolutely zero zilch nada relevance to atheism, but some zealots saw fit to try and co-opt atheism to use its platforms and supporters for their own ends. What happened is that the atheism community completely split between "atheism+" and unadulterated atheism. If atheism had been a movement sparking by a singular event like OWS and not a general philosophy, I'm not sure it would have survived either.

This happens more often than you'd think. In every single movement, there's a more or less successful "subset" of IP zealots attempting to hijack it and use it as a tool to further identity politics. Curiously, and somewhat ironically, even Christianity is not immune to this. 74.58.15.135 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Mmm. I think it's worth linking this page to "genetic fallacy" or "circumstantial ad hominem", as they are both committed in some way here, and they're both integral to these peoples' debating style. 108.7.207.22 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There ought to be a criticism section, or this page ought to be deleted. 70.162.145.194 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Provide some sources of said criticism. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

How about any Ben Shapiro speech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.177.104.106 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional references on how the stack works

• Chris Hedges's Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt talking about how the stack was used during Occupy.
• Cultivate Coop, a wiki for people wanting to build their own cooperatives, while not Occupy, the exact same technique is explained here, showing that this technique is embraced by other organizational theories that believe in minimizing corruption.

68.170.73.158 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty with criticizing the "progressive stack."

Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on "anti-progressivism." But it would probably show that the people who would criticize this mostly haven't yet caught on to calling it "the progressive stack." --BenMcLean (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent edits are problematic. I've reverted enough, if the editor continues I will have no option but to start an RfC for a 30 day review.

1. Progressive stack is not a "belief" it is a technique.
2. Progressive stack is not about "influence" it's about giving groups an equal change to speak.
3. It is "used in far left" groups is unsupported and a broad stroke.

Every word in every sentence has to be supported by a reliable source. This isn't just your personal opinions or ideas of what Progressive stack means. We report on what other people say it means. -- GreenC 02:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

HI!

That's original research or false. The page as written closely matches reliable sources. The article as you want it is filled with POV (loaded words like "technique") and is unduly biased. Denarivs (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

First you say "The page as written closely matches reliable sources." Then you say it is "filled with POV" by changing only two partial sentence. LOL. Your complaints are all over the map and make no sense. List specific WORDS and PHRASES and SENTENCES and then give a detailed explanation, backed by reliable sources, explaining your position. If you don't do this there is no reason not to remove your inaccurate edits. -- GreenC 23:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Problematic phrases are the claim "Progressive stack theory counteracts..." because a theory can't by itself counteract anything, and "stepping stone to" which is unduly promotional. The article should use neutral and descriptive language to discuss the subject. Denarivs (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why a theory can't "counteract" something, but if you have a problem with it change it to "contrasts" or something similar. Your proposed solution of Progressive stack supporters think people from the .. makes little sense, the article (and sentence) is about the progressive technique as it is documented, not what people happen to think which is uncitable and not notable. As for "stepping stone" being "unduly promotional" is not self-evident so you will need to explain what the promotional aspect is. -- GreenC 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the word racist

According to Wikipedia's page Racism, racism is "discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis." The progressive stack undeniably gives preference to individuals based strictly on an ethnic and cultural basis. Another user has argued that it should be sourced, which would not be hard, but even this I disagree with as it is self-evident. The technique would call for the preferential treatment of one individual over another simply on ethnic or cultural grounds. Even if the basis for this technique is to ostensibly help marginalized people, the technique is inherently racist nonetheless and that is a fact. Therefore, the word 'racist' is completely justified on a factual basis - and therefore I don't think this needs further discussion. -- Wikimcquack (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Upon many attempts to explain to Tornado chaser why the word 'racist' is appropriate in regard to the inherent nature of the progressive stack, based on the simple fact that it openly discriminates based on ethnicity and culture, my contributions to the page were continuously removed by Tornado chaser because, according to them, it was a controversial claim. This claim was not controversial in the least, and based solely and entirely on fact. -- Wikimcquack (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

When I saw this article I thought really? people get away with this racism? you are making a good argument, but others would disagree, so the statment is controversial. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimcquack's argument is original research and the word racist is unsourced and highly biased/POV. -- GreenC 01:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

.. also a page protection was requested 3 hours ago. -- GreenC 01:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no 'original research' on my behalf nor is it highly biased/POV. Racism is, as defined by Wikipedia itself, discrimination based on ethnicity or culture. The progressive stack is a method in which preferential treatment is given based on ethnicity or culture. This is an inherent characteristic. Any denial of this is nothing but a reflection of the denier's inability to comprehend the English language--or a demonstration of the denier's own penchant for racism. Either way, it is undeniable that the progressive stack is racist and I believe the refusal to include such terminology in the definition is a cause for concern within the Wikipedia community. -- Wikimcquack (talk • contribs) 1:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, you cannot use the fact that 'some might disagree' as reason to not include this. Some would disagree that the Holocaust happened; however, despite their idiotic opinions, it is a matter of fact that it did happen. Similarly, it is a matter of fact that the progressive stack is racist, and the definition should reflect this fact. -- Wikimcquack (talk • contribs) 1:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser @GreenC

Per WP:OR even something that seems obvious must only be stated with a source, something like this needs more thorough sourcing than one fox news article. Tornado chaser (talk)

I'm brand new to this argument, but I don't believe it should be considered racist either. As far as I can tell, the concept in this article is very similar to the premise of Affirmative action, in that the minority is given a greater chance to achieve something. I think most people would agree that's not racist. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 01:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by it is not racism but might be reverse racism, if a car was driving in reverse gear would you say it is not moving but is moving in reverse? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I'm wrong. Removed. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 02:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Does/did Occupy use a stack or a queue?

The article currently reads:

The "stack" in the Occupy movement is the list of speakers who are commenting on proposals or asking questions in public meetings. Anyone can request to be added to the stack. In meetings that don't use the progressive stack, people speak in the order they were added to the queue.

A stack and a queue are two different ways of ordering items to be processed. While the distinction probably seems largely pedantic, the difference between them is how they determine which item is processed next and so is highly relevant to the Wikipedia article. The use of the words "stack" and "queue" interchangeably is confusing and vague. We should determine which was actually used by Occupy to clarify the issue. Stellaathena (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems clear they are not using Computer Science terminology. The “progressive stack” is more of a priority queue. Doubt anyone deliberately uses a stack for speaking order. Fourthark (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section

The progressive stack is so frequently lambasted in conservative circles that when I came to this article I figured it would be about conservative criticism/mischaracterization of intersectionality, rather than a real thing. As the article currently stands, it leaves out the conservative criticism of/controversy surrounding this subject, so could that be documented? 185.66.68.18 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional sections needed

An “Arguments in favor” section (to complement the “Criticism” section I just made) would be very beneficial to the article. It would also be a great to have a section on the history of the concept (assuming such reliable sources exist). ROADKILL (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)