I agree with your assertion that definitions matter, and further, that it is important we not only know what we mean by the words we use, but understand how our use of language will be received by our intended audiences. As I’ve gathered from reading a great many of your articles and posts by way of Facebook, you’re not the monolithic embodiment of wrongness I initially expected (the hazard of my own earlier biases). I’ve also discovered that, if I’m to take you at face value, to lose my own cynicism and assume that you make claims in good faith, I have to make a core assumption that in order to use words as you define them, you might be drawing on resources unfamiliar to me.
Now, I realize that wikipedia is a poor substitute for deep scholarship, but, like any encyclopedic resource, it can be a good starting point. I can ignore assertions there marked with  as unsubstantiated until such time as I research those assertions more thoroughly myself. As to the rest, there’s a goldmine of references to be had.
So let’s look at progressivism as a political movement, in particular, the contemporary conception of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8S0_DppB14.
Typical of so many wiki articles, it runs off the rails in places, but there’s much of value there. Belief in government as a means to social change is certainly mentioned there, but it’s not core the the idea as presented. Taken in the context of your own article, that approach appears to have more of the means about it than the ends, the very point which you yourself suggest we can all agree to disagree on. However, your position appears to paint progressivism itself is the ideology to be purged. That’s where our apples and oranges are getting mixed up. The ideology, as described at the link, shows many of those points of commonality you initially addressed. From 19th century to the present, the underlying premises are the core of progressivism, our points of agreement.
Is is that the sources of your understanding of progressivism differ from the list of resources in the article? Are their particular resources listed there that you have sound reason to believe are poorly vetted? What sources on progressivism would you recommend that are missing in the wikipedia list? How did you vet those? On what basis are the experts you choose to be considered superior to the experts whose opinions inform a contrary understanding of progressivism?