This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American 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 supported by American politics task force. Socialism 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

Pinging editors who have changed the color of the sidebar at least once: @Wabbuh:, @Tpwissaa:, @RideTheLightning99: and myself. All of us except Wabbuh have made it pink, but Wabbuh argues it should be green because green has previously been used on Wikipedia articles to represent progressive parties in the US, particularly on election maps.

I would argue that the only reason why we use green on those maps is for color contrast and accessibility for colorblind readers, especially on maps where we use multiple shades of red (see map to the right), so representing progressivism as pink would make the map harder to read. But that doesn't mean that the color green is perceived as the progressive color here in the US or is customarily thought of as a "progressive color", Wikipedia generally uses pink for that, which unlike green does have a meaningful association with social democratic / democratic socialist parties (see Political colors), whereas green is explicitly associated with green politics, which is not the same thing as progressivism.

In other words, we use green on so many American articles simply because green is an easily distinguishable "third party color" in a 2-party country that uses red and blue, not because it has anything to do with progressivism.

TL;DR: I think we should change it to pink to be in line with Template:Progressivism sidebar. I think the fact that 3/4 of us four already tried to do this means there's already a rough consensus for that among people who've edited this template. I'll boldly change it back to pink after leaving this comment, but I invite everyone to use this talk page for all disagreements going forward because there's a lot of undoing when what we really need is discussion.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template fully back to pink. Also added a US-specific symbol for progressivism, the single purple flag is already on the international progressivism sidebar RideTheLightning99 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this move. The green flag was also confusing as it is so connected with green politics. I understand why the user wished to use green due to some historic connections, however the use of the green flag (a flag which to my knowledge has not been used by progressive political groups) seemed out of place. Tpwissaa (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with changing the color simply because so many United States Wikipedia articles about progressivism use the green color. It's simply a waste of time to change the color to pink. Also, nobody is going to confuse progressive politics with green politics. Changing the color from green to pink is like changing the Template:Conservatism US from red to blue just because conservatism is closer associated with blue worldwide. This template isn't about the world; It's about the United States, and from my knowledge green is simply more associated with progressive politics in the United States than pink. Zyxrq (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RideTheLightning99@Tpwissaa@Vanilla Wizard I highly suggest changing the template from pink back to green and I will say the same about the image. Zyxrq (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyxrq: You may want to read the comment I left on this thread explaining how green has never officially been associated with progressivism in the United States, it's only widely used to represent progressive third parties on various Wikipedia articles because green works as a "third color" with colorblind-friendly contrast to red and blue, especially on maps where multiple shades of red (including pinks) are used to show the relative strength of the Republicans by county, such as the map I showed in this thread.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did and the same can be said about pink not being an official color, many progressive political parties don't use pink, for example the Democratic party and Green Party of the United States. Also Green politics is widely considered progressive, I don't know why you think the opposite. Pink has basically little connection to progressivism within the united states, simply more progressive political parties that are operating today use green. Zyxrq (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that no one color has been consistently used to represent American progressivism in any official way, not green, not pink, not anything else, but at least pink is meaningfully connected to progressive politics more generally. Green politics is its own distinct thing. Even if green parties often support progressive positions, it wouldn't be accurate of us to suggest that green and progressive politics are synonymous by using the color scheme of Template:Green politics sidebar in this template instead of using the color scheme of Template:Progressivism sidebar. Those are two different templates for a reason.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green was used on the main Progressive sidebar before pink, 18:51, 25 October 2024 is when Green was originally added. Pink was added to the main sidebar on 21:08, 16 March 2025 by you @Vanilla Wizard. So the argument that Pink has any major significance to Progressivism is dubious at best. Green was used on the template for United States Progressivism on its creation and it seems Pink was originally added on 15:04, 29 October 2025 also by you Vanilla Wizard, if not can you correct me? Zyxrq (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RideTheLightning99 Why did you originally make the navbox Green when creating the template? Zyxrq (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure on what the color should be when I originally created it. Now there is a clear consensus that it should be pink and not green and my stance has changed to support that consensus. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re @Zyxrq:

Pink was added to the main sidebar on 21:08, 16 March 2025 by you @Vanilla Wizard Not exactly, the edit I made to the main progressivism sidebar was an attempt at fixing another editor's edit for them; Wabbuh said "The other political ideology sidebar templates like this have borders" but accidentally made the entire thing a dark purple color rather than adding borders, so I added borders but made them more of a magenta color to match the flag icon that was already there for a very long time and hundreds of edits before either my edit or Wabbuh's edit. And before that, there was a series of very short-lived colors and icons, including (as you mentioned) a short-lived green border, the progress pride flag, a rose symbol, and before that, no colors or symbols at all. It's been stabilized at the current design for a good number of edits from a good number of editors by this point, it never used green for a long period of time.

Green was used on the template for United States Progressivism on its creation and it seems Pink was originally added on 15:04, 29 October 2025 also by you Vanilla Wizard, if not can you correct me? That is very incorrect, I am neither the first nor the second editor to make it pink. The first editor who made it pink was RideTheLightning with this edit, the second was Twipsaaa with this edit.

So the argument that Pink has any major significance to Progressivism is dubious at best. While I disagree for the reasons why I explained (see political color, or most editors' opinions here or at the other template where pink has been used without objection through quite a few revisions by now), even if we agreed there is a dubious case for pink, there is a much weaker case for green.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! @Vanilla Wizard Zyxrq (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale for wanting the color to be green. I don't object to it even being used as the color for the box. However, the crossed green and US flag does not fit. The green flag (thereby representing green as a political color) is not connected to the progressive movement. Green politics is itself a different set of beliefs and the green flag would make more sense used in that context. Red is currently used by and associated with conservatism through the Republican Party. If one were to use a crossed red flag and US flag in the infobox that would obviously be absurd due to the red flag's association with left wing politics. Due to the ambiguity of the use of green (even with its use by some third parties) it seems the best bet, and least confusing, is to stick with the color scheme from the main Progressivism template in general. Tpwissaa (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpwissaa, Vanilla Wizard, Zyxrq, and Aunger67: The fully saturated magenta (  #C0C) we're currently using can cause significant visual fatigue. We should probably use a softer shade to address this issue, such as   #B366B3; see Special:Diff/1338815640. –Vipz (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the current color is causing anyone any visual strain, then I fully support changing it. I didn't mind that it was set to #C0C as that was an improvement from the admittedly way-too-intense magenta I set it to before, but if #C0C is still too harsh, then we'll have to find a better color. Maybe this is just me, but I think #B366B3 might be a just a little too soft for a template that's mostly white (though I'm not sure how it looks for readers who use dark mode). It's not hard to read or anything, but I think it would benefit from just a little more contrast. How does   #C04AB4 look? Something like that might be a good middleground between too saturated and too soft, and it's similar enough to the color used on the main progressivism template (at least on my monitor) that the two templates will remain visually related. For other editors' convenience, I'll make a gallery below that anyone can add to if they have other suggestions.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing us with a gallery below for easy comparison. I think #C04AB4 is a good middle ground. –Vipz (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:RideTheLightning99 reverted the change to the Greater Coat of Arms of the United States (the inner part of the Great Seal) which is found in Template:Liberalism US, Template:Centrism US, and Template:Conservatism US with the following edit reason:

Back to moose. The Great Seal is used for more establishment ideologies (Liberalism, Conservatism, Centrism). Progressivism isn't usually considered a part of establishment politics.

At first I was going to revert this because who is vs isn't a part of "the establishment" isn't something Wikipedia dabbles in, but after looking at more US ideology templates, namely Template:Libertarianism US and Template:Socialism US, I think there's a version of that argument that I would agree with: for more specific ideologies, we tend to use flags instead of the greater coat of arms.

But this makes the Bull Moose symbol more of an issue. If every other template uses either the arms or a color flag, and no other ideology template uses a party symbol, then this template is too inconsistent with the rest.

I think what we should do is create one of those crossed flags icons like all the others. No such image exists yet, but it should be easy to make.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made one real quickly & added it to the template  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the color of the flag ought to be purple as opposed to pink. If one clicks through to the Progressivism political color, the color associated is Purple and not the hot pink used in the image. I don't know how to adjust the color scheme however this change should be made in order to keep in line with the overall theme and political color that is the root of this conversation. Tpwissaa (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might instead be better to make a pinker flag image for Template:Progressivism that matches the hex color used in its borders rather than making this one more purple since both progressivism-related templates are intentionally pink. That template uses the purple flag file over the pink flag file because the purple one still more closely matches the pink color used in the border (since the only existing pink WikiFlag is a very light pink). Per the article on political colors, pink is a better fit than purple. Purple in the United States is more often seen as the color of centrism, as it's the average of the two major party colors (see also: purple state & the color choice at Template:Centrism US), whereas pink is associated with social democracy (which in America is synonymous with the term democratic socialism) as well as progressive social/cultural political positions such as support for LGBT rights.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy The reason the National Progressives of America (NPA) which founded in 1938, should be included in the navbox is because it contributed significantly to the History of Progressivism within the United States. It was founded as an attempt to take the Wisconsin Progressive Party (WPP) -(Which was the "De facto" successor to the 1924, Progressive Party)- successes to the national level. The WPP was very successful and at one point held more power than the Republican party and Democratic party within the state -(This was during a significant portion of the 1930s and 1940s. The WPP also elected multiple governors, senators and congressmen.)- The NPA's significance comes from the history of the WPP. -(Note: This paragraph also gives a reason why we should add the Wisconsin progressive party to the navbox.)- As I think they should be included together. We also could just add the WPP because it was more successful than the 1948, Progressive party when it comes to winning elections. Zyxrq (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested in my edsum, the discussion should be at the article talk page and not here, as you will need to add the SIDEBAR template to the page before it can be included. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which also states:

If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders).

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which talk pages? This one? Talk:Progressivism in the United States. Also will I be allowed to add the sidebar to the corresponding Wikipedia articles I'm talking about? Zyxrq (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:National Progressives of America. Adding the sidebar is what I'm suggesting you discuss. The sidebar must be added to a page to allow the page to be added to the template. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved the discussion to Talk:National Progressives of America. Zyxrq (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear what the criteria for inclusion for this template are. For example Sherrod Brown is listed here despite having more moderate positions on some issues like transgender athletes. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The exact list of people who are included and excluded changes frequently, and different editors seem to have different ideas of what the criteria should be.

I personally think we should be listing people who are WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (this template or its navbar variant are on the page), but that also raises the question of who should be bidirectional / what the criteria should be for adding it to their page. An obvious criteria is that they need to be described as progressive in their article, and that description needs to be backed up with sources. A Ctrl+F search for "progressive" should yield some results.

Sherrod Brown is a bit of an edge case. There's an argument for including him, but it's not as strong as I'd like it to be. We do not have a sentence that says "Sherrod Brown is regarded as a progressive." There is, however, a sentence saying Brown is a staunch critic of free trade and has taken progressive stances on financial issues., citing this article in The Hill which justifies that sentence. His article also mentions he authored a book titled Desk 88: Eight Progressive Senators Who Changed America, but that doesn't necessarily mean he himself is progressive.

Sources are out there which could be added to his article to strengthen the claim of him being a progressive [1][2][3], but for now I'll consider him a "maybe."

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're discussing who should and shouldn't be included, I should probably invite User:3Kingdoms to weigh in since we've been going back and forth. Their most recent edit summary states Eisenhower never called himself a progressive but that isn't entirely accurate.

His Wikipedia page notes that He described himself as a "progressive conservative" and goes on to say He then articulated his position as a moderate, progressive Republican: "I have just one purpose ... and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it ... before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore." This template also appears on his article at the bottom in its navbox form, so he is bidirectional.

At first I agreed with his removal because I had assumed he'd be out of place here, but after looking into it, I can understand why he was included in the past and support readding him. We do list progressive conservatism under the "ideologies" tab and he does seem to be a good example of it.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies regarding the quote. I knew Eisenhower was the choice of the liberal Republicans, but did not see that quote. Personally I’m not really sure about keeping him cause Eisenhower could now be in theory put in both conservative and progressive boxes, which in someways is true. Adding in some more liberal/progressive Republicans like Dewey and others could balance this out. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The color for the template is highly controversial and not based on any Reliable Source reasoning. There are also issues with which topics have been included without discussion and seem arbitrary. A very small number of editors have decided based on "I like it" to change the color which was originally "green" to "pink". The editor who originally used green clearly explained why they were using that color. Green is the color of the United State's progressive parties (Wisconsin Progressive Party, California Progressive Party, Progressive Party (United States, 1924–1927), Progressive Party (United States, 1948–1955), Oregon Progressive Party). Basing the progressive party's color scheme on the progress pride flag is extremely odd, since that flag is not pink and LGBT rights is only one aspect of progressivism. Progressivism is an intersection of liberalism and socialism. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus certainly does not use pink as their color. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guest2625: please consider self-reverting. There is already a longstanding consensus on the color and this topic has been discussed extensively already by a good number of editors, it would not be a good use of editor time to re-litigate this and make it into a dispute that requires more uninvolved editors to resolve. In your edit summary you noted that a handful of current or former progressive political organizations in the US use or have used green, but this is not true of the most major progressive parties that have existed in US history. The Progressive Party, arguably the most major progressive party in US history, used red, not green. Likewise, the Vermont Progressive Party, arguably the most relevant currently extant progressive third party, also uses red, not green. Current consensus is that the color should instead match the color used by Template:Progressivism, and that using green is problematic because it's more strongly associated with green politics which is meaningfully distinct from progressive politics. I am not sure where you got the idea this template's color is based on the progress pride flag.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It should also be said that you have linked to the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, but you have not cited any reliable sources, and there likely are no good sources out there on this topic. American progressivism is too specific an ideology to have a particular color associated with it, hence we default to using the same color as the other template. There's no major progressive parties or movements in the US, past or present, that use a distinct color to represent progressivism, and thus no sources about the color of American progressivism.

  There are plenty of sources that could be cited on the topic of how red came to be associated with Republicans or blue with Democrats, and the association between the color green & green politics is self explanatory, but no one color is consistently associated with US progressivism. We've mentioned parties that have used red and green, meanwhile the Working Families Party for example uses purple and orange. The Congressional Progressive Caucus does not use any color, they are a congressional caucus of the Democratic party, not a party in their own right. None of the House Democratic or Republican caucuses have an official color (except for the conservative Blue Dog Coalition which officially uses blue, the same color as the national party).

   Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  At the moment, I will allow other editors to contribute to this discussion and listen to their input on what the two of us have had to say. The current color green is the original version of this highly concerning political template, so it should stay that neutral color until a general consensus among the editors who work on the articles it affects can be reached. The color pink (as the purple appears to the reader) is politically charged and non-neutral. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @RideTheLightning99: created this template and they are a WP:SOCKPUPPET, so everything about this template concerns me and the motivation behind its creation. It should be noted per WP:BANREVERT:

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason; such reverts are also exempt from being counted under the three-revert rule."

So, if there is something that people want to discuss about this suspect template, they are free to do that and, they are free to remove this template. I at the moment want to discuss the color scheme, and the explanation of why green of the Progressive Party (United States, 1948–1955), which gave rise to later parties, should not be used. Also, I would like to understand why a random color (pink/purple) was chosen for the general progressive template. In the United States, purple is extensively used in the media to symbolize crossover/moderate/purple states, so something between a blue state and a red state, which would be more associated with Centrism. The progressive template could also be just a generic grey default template like Template:Party politics, and that would eliminate the whole political issue. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

they are free to remove this template - That's not really how that works, this template was already nominated for deletion a few months ago after the sockpuppet was caught & the result of the deletion discussion was that there is no consensus to delete. Anyone is free to undo edits made in violation of a block or a ban, but that does not extend to deleting any pages or templates that were initially started by socks but later improved or curated through the collaboration of legitimate editors.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that you cited the Progressive Party (United States, 1924–1927) and Progressive Party (United States, 1948–1955) as evidence of the color green being used for progressivism, but these parties did not actually use green, Wikipedia just uses green for them (but does not claim that green was their official or customary color). See the very top of this talk page for more info on that. The association between political parties & a particular color is a fairly recent thing in American political history, even red & blue for republicans and democrats has only been around for a matter of decades, so it is highly unlikely that parties which existed long before then used any particular color. There's also no sources or evidence for the defunct Wisconsin or California progressive parties using it, and while Wikipedia claims without a source that the extant Oregon Progressive Party uses it, the color is nowhere to be found on their website or in their logo. TL;DR there is not really any evidence that green has ever been an official color for any of the parties we've mentioned, past or present  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanilla Wizard If there are no real colors associated with progressivism the template should either use no color at all or default to Green because that's the primary color used to represent progressive political parties in United States associated Wikipedia articles. Though there is also an argument to be made for red as modern progressivism in the united states is more associated with social democrats and or social democracy. Zyxrq (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guest2625 @Vanilla Wizard As there is no main color associated with progressivism my main conclusion is to default to no color and or use Green. As Vanilla Wizard correctly states, Green is not the official color of these political party's, however for consistency within the Wikipedia articles, I am inclined to say we continue to use green as that's the main color used for progressive political parties within Wikipedia articles associated with the United States. As there is no official color this should not be a problem. I am also not against the removal of all colors from the template. As a Note: Removal of all colors from the template is probably the best option. Zyxrq (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Zyxrq:

  My personal preference is to have this template match the main progressivism template, though the color of that template is also fair to debate. Though this wouldn't be the right place to discuss how the other template should look, Template:Progressivism using pink makes intuitive sense to me; as you note that modern progressivism has a known association with social democratic politics, the political color article mentions that pink is used to symbolize social democratic politics because it is a "softer, less aggressive version of red", and can be useful as a distinct color when red is already being used by other major parties. The article goes on to note that, particularly in the US and some European countries, the color pink has a strong association with support for queer rights, while purple has an association with feminism, both of which are culturally progressive political stances. This at least helps to explain why a sort of reddish pinkish purplish color like this would make sense for the main template, though if it is decided that the main template should also be colorless, then I'd also support having this template continue to match them by ditching the color.

  As for green, since you noted that many political party articles have long used green in their infoboxes, but also agree this is kind of just a Wikipedia invention with no source, my preference is to fix the error and put an end to the myth by removing the color from those articles' infoboxes (especially when articles explicitly claim green to be an official or customary color with no source, doubly especially when these parties are so old that they're from before a time when parties even had official colors) rather than having this template double down on something that qualifies as misinformation.

  TL;DR I'm more comfortable having Template:Progressivism use a pink/magenta flag for progressivism broadly than I am having Wikipedia articles or templates use green for US progressivism because the statement "there's an association between progressive politics and pink or purple or red" is at least defensible and demonstrable, but the statement "there's an association between American progressivism and green" is fully made up by us and that's a problem.

   Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Zyxrq:

  My preference for the progressivism template is green. The campaign material of the last major national Progressive Party (United States, 1948–1955) utilized a green theme. Also, it is not clear why all of a sudden Wikipedia should be changing from the green theme color that has been used for the US progressive parties. I'm concerned about what it says on the political color article which User Talk:Vanilla Wizard is using for their reasoning for making the color of the border pink/magneta. On the political color article it says:

  In some European nations and the United States, pink is associated with homosexuality and the pink flag is used as a symbol in support of civil rights for LGBT people;[73] it is commonly used to represent queer anarchism. This use originates in Nazi German policy of appending pink triangles to the clothing of homosexual prisoners.

Progressivism is more than just LGBT rights, as its article makes clear. It should also be noted from the previous discussion on the color theme that the original color of the general progressivism template was green and was then later changed Special:Diff/1255810119 in a series of politically charged edits, which were of WP:UNDUE weight, by the WP:SOCKPUPPET: User:ChopinAficionado. It is concerning the number of sockpuppets which are operating in this template series. This template appears to require a lot more editors watching it. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say based on a single donation booklet that the Progressive Party of 1948 to 1955 officially used green, much less that it's the color of American progressivism. The rest of the papers that came with the same set of campaign material you're referring to were not green [4].

That'd be like concluding the color of the Democratic party / the color of liberalism in the United States must be red based on this one JFK campaign poster. Again, parties in the US didn't even have colors until very recently, see Political colour#United States.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Purple was also used by the U.S. suffragettes--another touchstone of the progressive movement.Aunger67 (talk) Aunger67 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanilla Wizard @Guest2625 The reason many of these political parties use the color Green in their respective Wikipedia articles is because of their links with Agrarianism: an ideology associated with the color Green. Here is a list of some progressive agrarian political parties and organizations: Progressive Party (United States, 1924–1927), Wisconsin Progressive Party, National Progressives of America, Farmer–Labor Party, Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party, Iowa Farmer-Labor Party, Idaho Progressive Party, Farmer-Labor Progressive Federation. Many of these political party's and organizations were very interconnected and many people from these organizations went on to be apart of and influence Henry Wallace's Progressive Party (United States, 1948–1955) Note: some of these articles are still being expanded or need creation. These organizations never needed to officially use Green to be associated with the color due to their associations with Agrarianism.

Not only that, modern organizations like The Progressive and The Capital Times use the color Green. Many progressive socialists also support a Green New Deal for the United States. Such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one notable example of this. Even some of these modern progressive political parties such as: Washington Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party support the Green New Deal, the Vermont Progressives also pushed and or are pushing for health care reform referred to as Green Mountain Care. The The Green Party of the United States is itself a progressive socialist organization and is the largest progressive socialist political third party in the United States. The Working Families Party also has an association with Green Politics. No matter where you go and look you can locate connections to Progressivism and the color Green. Zyxrq (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But again, none of the parties you mentioned except the Green Party of the United States (hardly the face of American progressivism) have ever used green. The National Progressives of America didn't use green, they used a darkly colored and vaguely confederate-looking flag for some reason. Progressivism and agrarianism are distinct ideologies with different templates, agrarianism is not associated with present-day progressivism, the Green New Deal is only one of many policies supported by progressives, and it's one that explicitly has more to do with green politics which is distinct from progressivism and has its own ideology templates.

The source that "the working families party is associated with green politics" is simply an article about Jamaal Bowman giving a speech in favor of the green new deal. Believing in the existence of climate change and supporting bold action to do something about it != the broader ideology of progressivism, particularly in the USA, must be more associated with green than anything else. This is a sister template of Template:Progressivism, not Template:Green politics or Template:Agrarianism sidebar.

Likewise, the existence of one or two newspapers under the Media tab of the template having green in their logo is not evidence of much; there's dozens and dozens of listings under the Media tab, and the ones that don't use green are all the ones you didn't mention. The various newspapers and media outlets under the media tab of this template use such a wide variety of colors in their logos that you could make a whole rainbow out of them if you were to arrange them in order. Is the color of progressivism actually orange because The American Prospect uses it, and so does the Working Families Party? No, that's not really how it works.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also, if this discussion had a word count imposed, I'd already be way past it by now, so I won't comment further here. who would've thought there could possibly be so much to say about something as trivial as political color?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanilla Wizard However would you clarify something for me, I know your opinion is that the Template:Progressivism US should match the main Template:Progressivism sidebar, however if the main sidebar is changed to have no colors are you necessarily against that? Zyxrq (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also This is kind of irrelevant to the discussion but this is what the symbolism represents on the Flag of the National Progressives of America. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-escanaba-daily-press-national-progre/171098874/ Zyxrq (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last comment to respond to the ping - re However if the main sidebar is changed to have no colors are you necessarily against that? While I support the longstanding design of Template:Progressivism, if editors agree that the main template should be colorless, then this template being colorful wouldn't make as much sense and I'd support making this one colorless to match. I see Guest2625 has already boldly implemented that change at the main template, but I'd like to see it determined through either a discussion with a clear consensus or through it going unchallenged long enough for it to be a de facto agreed upon version. Also, thank you for the info about the flag, that was an interesting read and the design makes a lot more sense now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ha--agreed.Aunger67 (talk) Aunger67 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]