Talk:Nolan Chart

message: Forget what I said earlier on the argument on what term should be used for the 4th quadrant; populism, communitarianism, or authoritarianism. I had said that authoritarianism was a radical form, at best, and that communitarianism should be used instead. I have come to a different conclusion. Communitarianism and authoritarianism both exist there- authoritarianism is sometimes no more radical sometimes in government action than communitarianism. There are differences, however, see Communitarianism versus authoritarianism. That it doesn't distinguish between them should, I believe, be listed as a criticism. Juan Ponderas 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Quadrant part II 

message: The criticism of Nolan's chart is excessive in this article!  It should probably be summarized with the bulk being moved to a separate article.  There is more criticism by volume than information on the chart itself.—Kbolino 02:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the criticism of political spectrums in general should be moved to Political spectrum. Juan Ponderas 03:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, there is by no means enough criticism to justify the creation of an entirely new article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism! 

message: I reverted the change in the chart utilized for two reasons. First, Nolan used the term "populist", and this is his chart we're talking about. Second, using "fascist" and "communist" as the terms is akin to using anarchism in the opposite region; you're giving an extremist form to compare against more moderate ones. Christian Democracy seems to fit that quadrant pretty well, and it is certainly not communist or fascist. Juan Ponderas 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which image? 

message: Suggested image: 
I would also add that in the "Government free" situation, individuals have no rights except those granted by law; in the "Individuals free" situation, individuals have all rights except those given to government in their mandate to it.
Cap j 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Image

message: The history of the Nolan Chart can be found at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq03
According to the article, the chart was designed in 1969 and was a square, not a diamond.  The familiar diamond chart was created by Marshall Fritz.  The article does not give a date.  Another author, Ferdinand V. Solara, in his book "Key Influences in the American Right" also used a diamond shaped political map in 1974.
The Nolan Chart itself is an historic piece of work.  Derivations on its work have been done and continue today, such as the Diamond Chart. Liberty4u 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Nolan Chart 

message: I propose that the link (in the links section) to the page "Two kinds of selfishness" be removed as it is an extreme right-wing opinion piece - or maybe at least it should be labelled as such. The neutrality of the other links may also be a concern? --Greenwoodtree 10:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased links

message: It seems that a lot of the article, not to mention this talk page, is just giving various political opinions, rather than analysing the chart, its methodolgy etc. Most of the comments on the talk page are not even really about the chart, let alone the article - they're debates about politics, freedom etc. The 'criticisms' section of the chart also seems to just be a collection of paragraphs, each listing a particular political angel and why they would oppose the chart, or assumptions behind the chart, rather than an examination of the chart from a sociological/ political science perspective. For instance, point out the various ideological assumtions behind the chart - like ranking on the basis of "freedom", a horribly inexact word, and what it means is something which itself is dependant on ones political view, and thus not something that can be use to categorize different political views - rather than giving alternative ideological assumtions, like a 'socialist view of freedom', and in essence arguing about whether a particular conception of freedom (like the US 'right-wing' Libertarian one) is wrong. - Matthew238 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polituical Opinions

message: Most people seem to see communism and totalitarianism (lower left) as further left than democratic socialism (upper left), dem soc as further left than conservatism (lower right) and conservatism as further left than libertarianism (upper right). So shouldn't the grey line run WSW-ENE? (Or, one could rotate the square 22.5 degrees clockwise and then the one-dimensional scale would be its projection onto the horizontal.) NeonMerlin 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey line runs in wrong direction 

message: Anarchist Review published a different version where the economic axis has a subtler meaning: degree of hierarchy in economic decision-making. 
Does anyone have more information or a reference for this chart? --75.15.116.106 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist Review chart? 

message: First published in Anarchist Age Monthly Review, Melbourne. I forget the date, sometime in the 1990s. It was based on research I did in the 1980s towards a linguistics degree, talking to inforamnts about their semantic map of politics, although I was aware of the Christie-Meltzer chart (not of the Nolan Chart). "Communism" means therefore what it means in ordianry speech, the system of Soviet Union etc. The words are treated as economic-political packages ("socialism", "democracy") because that's how my inormants treated them. The position of anarchism is my addition. Thought people might be interested.Jeremytrewindixon 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A better chart from Anarchist tradition (ie me)

message: urm wouldnt it be good if we had an image of the fucking chart???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.158.171 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An image 

message: This article requires immediate attention.  Look:
* The Nolan Chart is a political diagram
* should say
* The Nolan Chart is a libertarian propaganda device in the form of a political diagram.
I had not seen this Nolan Chart until today, and I am afraid of it.  It is so evil that WIKIPEDIA is under its spell.
Would someone with knowledge of political diagrams and propaganda fix this?  Or could it be flagged?  I don't know how to flag.  I'll find out though.  This is disgusting.
(i believe i'm being neutral -- the chart is not neutral.  the chart is fine.  whatever.  but it's a libertarian propaganda device meant to replace the connotation of the word "libertarian" with the connotation of the word "freedom" -- am i wrong?  if i'm wrong, tell me, because otherwise i'm taking action quickly.)
--Harlequence (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate Attention (A SUMMARY) 

message: Previously, the article said,
:David Nolan first published the current version of the chart in an article called "The Case for a Libertarian Political Party" in the August 1971 issue of The Individualist, the monthly magazine of the Society for Individual Liberty (SIL).
This was entirely wrong.  "The Case for a Libertarian Political Party," found here, does not mention the Nolan chart or a 2D political spectrum anywhere.
I have changed this sentence of the wiki article to read as follows:
:David Nolan first published the current version of the chart in an article called "Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" in the January 1971 issue of The Individualist, the monthly magazine of the Society for Individual Liberty (SIL).
Unfortunately, this latter article appears to be unavailable on the Internet.  But Nolan has himself confirmed that it was this latter article, not the former, that elucidated his views on spectrum.
allixpeeke (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Error Corrected 

message: In my perception, the scheme is pretty nonsensical:
* Whatever one thinks about the merits of left-wing politics, I would not associate them with freedom. It is a very ole socialist theme that an uncurtailed free market will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, so state intervention is required. Well, a Berlin wall in the name of social justice carries the issue too far, but state intervention inevitably reduces freedom.
* How about the dimension progressive <-> conservarive? While progressive is oftent associalted with "left", there are conservative socialists and progressive liberals.
* Populism is something totally different. IMHO it is a form of dishonest politics, promising infeasible solutions to often artificial problems.
Well, the merit of the article is that it argues that politicis are not left/right, not black and white, but multidimensional.
Anyway, perhaps the most important factor in modern politics is the personal appeal of the leaders. Insiders argue that Bush won because he fostered the image of a sympathetic man.
Politidical analysis are ever more suprised by "inconsistent" preferences of voters - but they ignore the personality factor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical 

message: In my opinion, the association of "right-wing conservatism" with high level of economic freedom in the Nolan chart is applicable only to American politics. Regarding European rightism which is essentially different from the American counterpart, the Nolan chart is practically unsuitable. Various European right-wing movements (Italian Fascism, cultural conservatism, New Right, etc.) would fit well into the 'Totalitarian' category because their politics is authoritarian in both scales.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.69.20 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These are problems with the prevailing terms, "right wing" and "conservative," not with the chart.  The essence of the chart is to combat the notion that politics is one dimensional, from left to right or liberal to conservative.  In reality, politics is multidimensional, but an important aspect of it is the degree of authoritarianism versus liberty, which is Nolan's contribution.  To the point, if you can suggest adding wording which adds more clarity, please consider doing so. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased towards American politics 

message: Link: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/leftright
They have placed the "Locke Chart" which is based not upon vague political leanings, but on principles of property and other recognizable historical standards.
Several Charts are shown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.25 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, just wow. That pacificwest.com chart is hilariously bogus. It also strangely leaves out the military which is close to the heart of every patriot. It also would put the Nazi party on the left-wing side of the chart. Neato! --173.13.177.205 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree: wow, just wow!! Presumption about the "Laws of God" just make me laugh. Trying to advocate values found in theocratic states, which traditionally have little respect for personal freedom, is kind of shooting oneself in the foot. They don't even know where the concept of "Left/Right" came from. They have just framed it with everything they are opposed to on the left. For political morons only.Flanker235 (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Patriot Party Views the Nolan Chart as a Fallacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nolan Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728092514/http://server.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=10&e=10 to http://server.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=10&e=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The diagram in the "Positions" segment is not "rotated 90° from the chart at the beginning of the article" as the description says, it is flipped upside down. I don't know what the English mathematical term for that is. To someone who does, Please change it. Moismyname (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of diagram in "Positions" 

message: So a guy from the US makes a chart which is intended to challenge the single axis concept of political classification.  The context for the meaning of the words he used words is US politics, where the words "libertarian", "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings compared to Europe and elsewhere.  In that US terminology context, libertarians (by the common US meaning of that term) have the "socially liberal" aspects of the US left, and the "fiscally conservative" aspects of the US right. Basically choosing the "minimized government"  planks from the two US sides.  It got popular and influential for the above reasons.  That's pretty much it.  Attempts to read more into it, or apply it where the meanings of those three terms are different or make something more out of it are generally going to run into dilemmas.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: We should understand what the Nolan Chart is and isn't

message: An individual added "but is not employed by mainstream political science." to the lead....and reverted, and they reverted me.  This addition very far reaching and extraordinary claim has numerous problems: 
Unsourced.   And an extraordinary claim like this would need to have very strong wp:reliable sourcing. 
Such a claim stated as fact and in the voice of Wikipedia.  It should be attributed and stated as an opinion. 
The lead should contain only a summary of what's in the body of the article. This is not in the body of the article.  
North8000 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have called me by my username instead of 'an individual', but thanks for leaving the rest of my editing in place. I object to your calling a statement of fact an opinion, but I don't object to its removal if sourcing is the problem. I believe Mitchell states as much as I wrote in the lead section, but I can't check right now. FNAS (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello FNAS. Sometimes an indirect reference seems more circumspect....sorry if it was not a good choice.  I do think that it has some degree of all 4 problems. To go in a little deeper on one of them,  it is worded as a far reaching absolute statement in the voice of Wikipedia = without attribution. IMO the best solution may be to put it in the body and attribute it to whoever said it.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic addition

message: Kewlkha says: the article in its current form is horrible. people inserting their opinions, giant paragraphs, etc. I tried to edit it, but someone got salty and reverted the edits. something needs to be done  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlkha (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but certainly not by you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with what's behind Beyond My Ken's post.  Your current approach in the article and on this talk page is not the way to evolve an article. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Horrible

message: The criticism section is gigantic and rambling.  
The Nolan chart is inevitably a (useful) oversimplification and so will inevitably have many exceptions and contrasts (in specialized areas) with the named proponent groups.   I think that some coverage of this aspect is a good idea.   But we have a massive amount of text which is basically large arguments based on noticing and detailing a large amount of these  excepts and contrasts. IMO this portion should be pared.  
The other is that we have a large section which really doesn't relate to the Nolan chart... It's basically a general argument about libertarianism coatracked into this article.  Namely an effort to brand freedom-from coercion as "negative liberty" and coercion to provide people with stuff "positive liberty".   IMO that effort / debate doesn't belong in this article and should be removed.  
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Looks like somebody just fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Pare criticism section?

message: In the criticism section, there is a statement about negative liberty not being generally accepted.  This is problematic for 2 reasons.  First, there is no citation about how wide the acceptance of negative liberties is.  Second, it is false.  If you read the article on positive vs negative rights.  Most proponents of positive rights accept negative rights as valid, but argue that it is incomplete.  So to claim that negative rights are not widely accepted is untrue.  The negative right to life(Thou shall not kill) is probably the oldest and highest priority negative right, and is extremely widely accepted.  Even from a positive rights perspective, the idea that you should avoid killing other people is considered valid.  A positive right to life would confer a duty to protect the lives of others, but that is in addition to the negative right to life not a replacement of it.  It is valid criticism to mention that the Nolan Chart relies on defining freedom solely from a negative liberty perspective, but to go beyond that brings up a whole different debate.  Also, linking to the Negative and positive right article might be better as it does a much better job of explaining why many do not accept the idea of only negative rights without being biased.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights 47.186.92.204 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I think that that whole line should be removed. It's not really relevant to the Nolan chart, it's just a coatrack to a general argument seeking to call freedom from coercion merely "negative liberty" and promoting the idea of coercion to make people give stuff to people as "positive liberty".  Whatever one's opinion on that, it's certainly an unrelated meaning of the term and an unaccepted re-namimg of the meaning here. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative vs Positive liberty

message: I noticed that various arguments are supported by citations but that are not about the Nolan chart itself.  —PaleoNeonate – 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nolan chart reduces the inherent over-simplification of the single-axis but is itself inherently a simplification.  I think that most writers recognize this and while they may point out things to further delineate / generalize even less, they likely would do this without specifically criticizing the Nolan Chart and I agree that such should be excluded.  Further, critiques from opponents that are built only on that (obvious situation) really don't add anything.   North8000 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research