Talk:World Values Survey

message: "Secretariat in Sweden Stockholm" and Sweden is on the upper right corner of the map. Doesn't that say all? 	80.226.24.8 (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious bias

message: I've removed this section: there is a very large body of research using WVS data, and there is no particular reason to discuss Hofstede's instead of, say, Veenhoven's.  I'm not convinced a section like this is useful or possible.  But I'm happy to hear other views.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other view is that blanking content is almost never helpful and generally in service to pushing agendas. — LlywelynII 01:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Literature derived from the WVS" 

message: I removed the criticism section which didn't provide verifiable sources. 
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia does not publish the personal opinions of Wikipedians, only material from reliable, third-party sources. 
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
If the criticisms expressed toward Inglehart's research fall under the "significant views that have been published by reliable sources", then you may please revert this change.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.201.227 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: It's buggy. X-axis scale goes from -2 to -2, should of course be -2 to 2 ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.3.43.72 (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inglehart Map 

message: There are serious flaws in the map. Uruguay is in catholic Europe and Portugal is in Latin America!!--Knight1993 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what happens with these kinds of clustering and "labelling". The clusters are named after cultural geography, but the actual clustering analysis shows that Uruguay is closer to catholic European countries than anything else, wile Portugal closely resembles values of Argentia, Chile and Dominican Republic and is, in that regard, closer to Latin America than Europe. I.e. the map follows the results first, geographical labels patched on later, and those possibly slightly off. Arnoutf (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I see. Thanks for explaining that--Knight1993 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: As the WVS work expands with its current 5th wave, I think it would be useful to review the texts in the different sections throughout the page. At the moment, some sections are quite difficult to understand if you are not familiar with the WVS work. (For example, see confusion in a discussion from 2007-2008 about the global cultural map). It can therefore be beneficial to simplify and concretize adding new examples and work with more references. I will make some suggested changes and am happy to hear the community’s comments and views.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valuesresearch (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elaborate and simplify 

message: I think this topic has separate notability. It needs to be referenced and split off. I found the following good refs: , .  around p.100-103 seems highly useful, too, and there's probably more useful content in GBooks/Scholar. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't involve cutting out the visual for the survey data. It still goes here. — LlywelynII 01:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off [[Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map]] 

message: User:Chriswelzel has added much content here, see . It is possible that this might be the scholar Christian Welzel? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with your concern, and have tagged the article accordingly. The autobiographical articles Christian Welzel and Ronald Inglehart show similar issues. Unfortunately this complex topic will need a professional academic to look into the issue. I have trimmed some of the most blatant spam, but of course this and other related articles need a lot more work. A few topic-relevant standard works of those authors could be included in a short list of selected "Further reading" entries. GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately these COI-related problems still persist: neutrality and undue weight due to a completely unbalanced focus on the project's own views, and the overreliance on primary and closely related sources. I have therefore restored the valid COI-tag. GermanJoe (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[Christian Welzel]]? 

message: Re:  by User:GermanJoe. I am fine with removal of unreferenced content, but some of the findings from section "Catalogue of findings" were referenced, and while they should be rewritten from trivia-like bullet point format, I think they are nonetheless valuable and should be restored. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  for taking another look. While the entire section is referenced to works of the main researchers (detailed usage of "other" sources is in short supply in this article), the information itself is probably useful as summary. I have restored it as suggested along with the required references, and toned down a few more instances of self-praise for this survey. GermanJoe (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the recent removals 

message: The WVS website mentions methodology but one can not find such anywhere in the website. For this webpage to be objective, it is important to know the methodology/framework for their work (i.e. survey); otherwise we will be subject to interpretations. Such facilitation will enable the appropriate objectivity of this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:334C:4FF0:E1FE:D24B:B362:B317 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. — LlywelynII 01:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facilitation for objective discussion 

message: Now this chapter reads for example "The WVS has shown that from 1981 to 2007 happiness rose in 45 of the 52 countries for which long-term data are available." The WVSurvey is now in it's wave 7 = "mid-2017 and following a 1-year postponement due to the Covid-pandemic, was finally closed on December 31, 2021". Any new insights? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happiness and life satisfaction update from the latest report?

message: We have this banner. How would I go about fixing this? I guess by auditing thigns that this contributor added and contextualizing them? Talpedia 15:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Talpedia Yes. Sometimes it is not a problem, sometimes it is an indication of advertising/promotion of UNDUE viewpoints/etc. It's good to double check. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject 

message: :Much of the variation in human values between societies boils down to two broad dimensions: a first dimension of “traditional vs. secular-rational values” and a second dimension of “survival vs. self-expression values.”[9]
:On the first dimension, traditional values emphasize religiosity, national pride, respect for authority, obedience and marriage. Secular-rational values emphasize the opposite on each of these accounts.[9]
So... since this is patent nonsenseChina and Japan embody the nearly paradigmatic opposite of national pride, obedience, and respect for authority and marriage?what's actually going on here? Someone's thumb is heavily on the scale, so what is it? Just that religiosity is almost all of the mix and then they throw in other nonsense to push other unrelated points?
Similarly, this article not only badly needs its criticism section but the criticism sections (plural) have been repeatedly deleted by editors close to the subject? C'mooooon. — LlywelynII 01:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously?