This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

"The essential premise of the diagram is for many an oversimplified generalization; economic freedom and personal freedom are often inextricable, and both left-wing (Bakunin) and right-wing philosophers draw the same connection."

So if "economic freedom and personal freedom are often inextricable", doesn't that support what the Nolan Chart implies? So how does that support the side of the critics?

The article also looks a little awkward now, now that part of the information on criticism is at the beginning of the article, and part of the information on criticism is at the end of the article. Wiwaxia 06:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the way I view it, the chart DOES distinguish economic and personal freedom, which is precisely why I find fault in it. As a variety of Leftist, I view personal freedoms as being very much dependent upon economic freedoms. So the chart is inherently flawed from a non-libertarian POV.73.90.84.55 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think Mihnea's recent edit is generally good, but, Mihnea, in the second paragraph: "some critics have argued"? Unles you cite someone, this is just sneaky POV. -- Jmabel 18:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Mike Huben, for one, makes this argument on his rather extensive website, Critiques of Libertarianism ( http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html ). But I don't mind rephrasing the "some critics have argued" part if you wish.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Could you cite a particular Huben web page, since just citing his general site isn't much use? -- Jmabel 20:07, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'll go look for the specific page once I'm finished here. But in any case, you're always free to remove the phrase "some critics have argued" and replace it with something you deem to be more NPOV (although I don't really see how it's POV in the first place... can you explain your objections in more detail?).

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

---

In other news, I see one of the paragraphs I removed a few days ago has been put back by an anonymous user. The problem with that paragraph, in my opinion, is that it's hopelessly POV. I removed it without further ado because I could not think of any way to rephrase it and extract some useful information from it that hadn't already been mentioned earlier in the article. But maybe someone else can think of a way. Here's the paragraph (with my objections below):

Proponents, on the other hand, point out that if anything is pseudoscientific, oversimplified and demonstrably misleading, it is the ancient "left-right" political spectrum which has been around for centuries and is still in use almost everywhere today. The problem with that old linear spectrum, they say, is that it is used so often to put one type of authoritarianism, communism, on the left, and another type of authoritarianism, fascism, on the right, and imply that freedom is in the middle, as though it were some kind of compromise between, or combination of, the two allegedly "opposite" totalitarian extremes. This, they say, is absurd on its face and essentially leaves freedom and limited-government advocacy actually out of the picture and out of consideration. Thus the "left-right" spectrum is deeply flawed, woefully inadequate, and thereby useless, except to authoritarians and advocates of government-enforced altruism who advance their agendas by sowing confusion. So the Nolan chart was developed primarily to fix these problems.

1. "Proponents point out..." = POV; it should say "proponents argue".

2. "...if anything is pseudoscientific, oversimplified and demonstrably misleading..." = POV; maybe we could somehow squeeze in the first two adjectives as claims made by libertarians, but "demonstrably" misleading? That's not just POV, it's an ouright lie; the Left/Right scale may have its faults, but it is still a very good instrument for judging politics. The vast majority of political parties and ideologies do fit in the traditional Left or the traditional Right.

3. "...one type of authoritarianism, communism, on the left, and another type of authoritarianism, fascism, on the right..." = POV; I'd say the problem with libertarians is their absurd inability to distinguish between their enemies, and their insistence that the whole world should revolve around them (i.e. they define all ideologies based on their relationship with libertarianism, and scream that such a classification is the only correct one). "You're either with us or you're some sort of authoritarian-statist-collectivist-thingy, and all these authoritarian-statist-collectivist-thingies are the same." ... As a wise man once put it, throwing communism and fascism together into some hodgepodge "authoritarian" category is like throwing birds and bats together and calling them just "flying creatures". At any rate, my point is that the statement I quoted is highly POV.

4. "...and imply that freedom is in the middle..." - no one is implying any such thing.

5. "...as though it were some kind of..." - going off into a fully biased rant.

6. "...deeply flawed, woefully inadequate, and thereby useless, except to authoritarians and advocates of government-enforced altruism who advance their agendas by sowing confusion." - Is any comment really needed? The POV should be obvious, and so should the insanity of this statement. Every political idea invented and used in government over the past 200 years (except the ones with the libertarian stamp of approval) was part of an evil scheme by the "authoritarians" to advance their dark agenda... riiiiight...

I could go on, but you get the point. I don't see how anything could be made out of that paragraph, but you're welcome to try if you really want to.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

---

I have a bit of a problem with the following argument being attributed to Chomsky: "One such argument is that freedom from government intervention does not assure individual freedom within the private sector, and that government may preserve individual freedom against non-governmental powers."

It is true that Chomsky believe that freedom from government intervention in itself does not assure individual freedom, but I find this attribution problematic. First, he does not lay out this argument as it is stated here in either of the two articles cited, so there is a good deal of interpretation going on here. The first isn't by him, and only includes a brief quote in which he talks about the interests corporations have in reducing the ability of a democracy to obstruct them. But nothing is said about the ability of a government to preserve individual freedom. The second, again not one of his own articles (there is no reason to resort to interpretive accounts of his lectures when there is so much of his own writing available on the subject, not to mention direct transcripts), doesn't really touch on this argument at all. In fact the closest thing he says involving this particular subject appears to be, "Private power - the government lives off it and is controlled by it", which is (not surprisingly) a much better synopsis of his views that the argument in this article suggests. I don't believe it is appropriate to say that Chomsky is making the case that a state can preserve individual freedom, for while it may be true that he believes this in a small number of tactical issues, his broader scope has always been the rejection of government as yet another institution of hierarchy and oppression. Again, as he says in the second article, "There are always various forms of hierarchy and oppression, but they gradually get perceived and then overcome, and then new ones are perceived. But this is progress."

So my beef is that A) I don't think his argument is being properly represented (or perhaps that attributing him to this argument in particular is appropriate) and B) the two sources being cited are at best tangentially related to both the argument being presented and his own argument on the subject. Kev 11:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) Sorry that I accidentally deleted another change of yours, just a screwup, didn't mean to. 2) Those may not be the best citations on Chomsky's view on this. He's talked and written about it a lot. To be honest, I got lazy and did a quick web search for "private tyranny", which is the catchphrase he always uses when talking about it. I've several times heard him invoke this in talking about where he differs from libertarians and that he believes that between government power and corporate power, the latter is currently the greater danger, because it lacks even the modicum of accountability that government has. The primary criticism I've heard him make of the libertarians is their exclusive focus on decreasing government power, leaving in place even less accountable sources of power, namely those deriving from wealth. Obviously, in the ideal, Chomsky wishes to see both abolished, but for a self-declared anarchist, he's tended to be rather a pragmatist. 3) I guess it wouldn't hurt to remove this, but I think it would be better for someone who knows Chomsky's written work better than I to weigh in with a better citation (I'm pretty sure it's out there) or to let me know that I've got this wrong one way or another. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that you have this wrong, your take on his argument in 2) seems accurate, but the implication as it is currently written in the article is slightly different. It is very easy to take arguments by someone like Chomsky and unknowingly misrepresent them because it is so hard to create a one or two line synopsis of his views. What would be good is a nice citation and direct quote to avoid any misunderstandings. I will try to dig something up, or perhaps someone else will produce a good quote. You might want to check out Zmag if you are interested in looking. Kev 00:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean their web site... I'll try to get to that, but I have a lot else on my plate right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:06, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

This article seems hopelessly biased, probably due to whatever POV the various writer(s) adhere to. The amount of critism makes this especially obvious. Jeez...it's just a chart illustrating the political spectrum!! More importantly, it makes sense...especially the variations that have fine tuned it over time, which no one has bothered to include. The variation used by the Advocates for Self-Government should be included, especially, since they've probably educated more people using this chart than Nolan himself.

A situation needs to be resolved. The fourth quadrant, opposite of libertarianism, is referred to by a dozen names throughout wikipedia. Fascism/communism/authoritarianism are all used in this article, populism and communitarianism are used elsewhere. A discussion has been going on at the talk page for Political Spectrum. I will sum it up the arguments I made here; others can fill their side in:

Arguments Against Authoritarian

• As a preface, Nolan never used the term authoritarian. It's only historical usage has been among libertarian sites.
• Defined by Wikipedia as espousing "strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population". This could apply to leftists or conservatives as well; why single out 4th quaadrant?
• Government labeled authoritarian are radical. On the other hand, the three other quadrants have moderate labels. This quadrant's label should only be as socially conservative ("low personal freedom") as conservatives, only as economic as liberals. I could see a compelling argument for the title authoritarian if the other quadrants were communism, anarchism, and theocracy . However, as it is now, it is unbalanced in libertarianism's favor.
• Not surprisingly, many who fall in that quadrant are not authoritarians by anyone's standards. Certainly not communist/fascists. Furthermore, that would make leftisst and conservatives each half authoritarian

Arguments Against Populist

• It has a commonly used, unrelated meaning. If populism was chosen here too, usage of the term would thus be weakened, as which type would have to be specified, which would not happen in the media. Confusion would ensue.
• Historical meanings also unrelated, notably the 19th century movement in America.
• Recent people cited as populists include Howard Dean and Arnold Swartzenegger, both who lean towards libertarianism. Should populist be used to describe people at both ends of the spectrum?

Arguments for Communitarian

• Neutral, moderate name.
• Name only shared with an obscure philosophy. Anyone who would have heard of it is not likely to be confused. Thus, it has a distinct meaning.
• Focuses on how we, and in their areas leftists and conservtaives, see it, as community, rather than as the libertarians see it, about government oppression.

-- (that was Juan, unsigned)

In most contexts, I would favor "Communitarian" but here the obvious question is: what, if anything did Nolan call it? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, jmabel, I keep forgetting to sign. Nolan called it populist. However, the idea is expressed in articles that don't mention the Nolan Chart at all. For example, Conservatism states refers to this quadrant as "statist movements [such] as fascism, communism, and socialism." Populist should be mentioned here, of course. However, a more correct term should be used elsewhere. To be consistent with both aims, I would propose having both here. For example, the chart could say 'populist" with 'communitarian' below it in parenthesis. The article could explain the difference in terms, from populist, authoritarian, and communitarian. This should be done anyway; it mentions criticism that the term authoritarian is meant to cast libertarianism in a good light, but doesn't mention that Nolan had no part in this, labeling it populist, and why the term communitarian has begun to be used. I could do this myself, but the chart has to be changed first, and I'd like to give the original author the opportunity before replacing it. Juan Ponderas 15:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It must be populist, since thats what Nolan called it! We can't very well go around changing peoples theories to suit ourselves. If thats going to be the policy, I'd like to make a few changes over at the marxism article, since he seems to have been in error on some particulars ;) Seriously tho, Communitarianism and poulism are not identical, and the broadness of Populism makes it superior to either authoritarianism, or communitarianism (whic is outrageously obscure, btw). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It must be populist when referring to the chart, which he made. But if he was wrong, then it shouldn't be used in referring to the reality of the situation. And you don't need to cite me samples; I have enough that I would change ;-). I think you mean that populism's commonly held meaning is different from the communitarian philosophical movement. True, but if both are used to describe that quadrant, they are the same, in that regards. Communitarian is broad enough to include that quadrant; populism is broad enough, it seems, to encompass anything. Why don't we name some more movements populist? Or maybe it's not; it has a distinct, commonly used definition that has nothing to do with this. Juan Ponderas 07:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nolan was American, so he probably used "populist" with the United States Populist Party in mind, which was rather communitarian. Yes, this article must use "populist", but in political spectrum we need to talk about these issues and point out the variety of possibilities. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, then lets do it. All I'm saying is that A) Whatever we pick should be at least mentioned, or else confusion will abound. B) Primary usage on this page should be immediately changed from authoritarian to populist. Juan Ponderas 03:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right. I made the new chart and uploaded it. Now I'll go through the article and change references accordingly. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I've wondered, though, about the second paragraph. Nolan created the chart with the term populism, which is, by definition actually, not an unpopular ideology. Therefore, I don't believe he created this chart to popularize libertarianism as the opposite of populism. This could be true of later renditions using terms such as fascism, but Nolan was not responsible for that. Juan Ponderas 02:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I changed that, putting the comment after the mention of later renditions using the term auhtoritarianism. Juan Ponderas 02:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a good call, but keep in mind that Nolan himself used the terms "personal freedom" and "economic freedom" to label his axes, arguing that his own ideology "maximizes freedom". That gives the Nolan Chart a clearly propagandistic tinge. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Assuming one is pro-freedom. Many arn't. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, many are. And many of those find the views of the libertarians repulsive. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would appear to be false. I don't have any reason to believe that anyone who favors freedom finds the views of libertarians "repulsive". I would suggest that only those who oppose freedom to one extent or another could possibly be possessed of such vitrol in regards to classical liberalism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That, of course, depends on your views regarding "freedom", and whether or not freedom is compatible with private property. As the largest and best known example, anarchists (and libertarian socialists in particular) are defenders of freedom who find classical liberalism repulsive. As a non-anarchist example, look no further than the man talking to you right now. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarco-capitalists are essentially identical with libertarians. Many other "anarchists" are essentially Communists or revolutionaries. Your love for freedom is difficult to quantify. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarco-capitalist are essentially not anarchists in any reasonably historical sense of the term. Which is to say that they are "anarchists" only in the sense that Bismarck was a socialist: they share certain views in common, but come out of an entirely different tradition. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I find it difficult to believe that one who makes as many edits on political topics as you do fails to understand the basic notions of anarchism (I mean proper anarchism, in its anti-state and anti-property form). It is even more amazing that you consider anarchists to be "essentially Communists or revolutionaries", given the immense numbers of anarchists who criticized communism and communists who criticized anarchism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everybody criticizes communism, even you do that. I was speaking of the people who call themselves anarchists, which envision something very different from the normal conception of anarchy. "Anarcho-communism" or whatever they like to call it,its not anarchy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If one goes back to the 19th century, both anarchism and communism arose within the context of the workers' movement. Different blends of the two are possible and may still fall within the general ambit of left politics. Anarcho-capitalism is another matter entirely. Yes, it borrows some ideas from anarchism, but all ideologies are lending libraries of ideas. They do not have strong common histories. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Basically, Sam, "anarcho-communism" is anarchism. The fathers of anarchism were Mikhail Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (who is famous for his remark that "property is theft"). Read the anarchist FAQ and take a look over Infoshop.org.

No thanks, I'm not interested in mindbending propoganda. For me, anarchism either = anarchy, or communism. When its actually communism, its mislabeled, this chart illustrates that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This chart is a polemical statement of a libertarian point of view. It is not a definitive statement about the political spectrum. It is muddiest precisely where it gets farthest from Nolan's own libertarian politics. His main point was that libertarianism blended what he saw as the liberty-loving side of the two main the U.S. political movements of his time; that is, they advocated both the American Liberal tradition of concern for individual civil liberties and the American Conservative tradition of concern for free enterprise. The farther one gets away from that aspect of the chart, the murkier it gets. He was certainly not trying to disentangle the strands of the politics deriving in various ways from mid-19th-century socialism. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

We're not trying to convince you that you're wrong, ie. that anarchism and communism are compatible. We're just pointing out that a lot of people DO believe that they are compatible, and thus view the chart as biased toward a particular, in their opinion incorrect, conception of ownership and economic freedom. Steohawk (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie to Wiki, but doesn't the fact that "a lot of people DO believe..." make such views suspect w/r/t POV? It sounds like generalization to me. I'm not sure I view communism (as practiced v theoretical) is the same as anarchism. It seems to me that communism is a rather controlled and intentional system, not anarchical at all.73.90.84.55 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's talk page content not article space content. The post was to make a distinction between debating the validity of the chart vs. just covering the chart and it's place. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The roots of the philosophy are not the issue here, nor even separating anarchists from communists (easy enough, anarchists oppose the state and favor liberty, and state communists are totalitarians). Rather it is separating Libertarians from anarchists that seems to be in question. This harkens back to the old anarcho-capitalist vrs. anarcho-communist debate.

IMO the deciding factor is what happens when I shoot the people trying to steal my stuff. Do my neighbors cheer, or so they inform the secret police and have me sent to siberia? ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anarchists, even the communist kind, wouldn't condone some jerk trying to steal your stuff. Although they oppose property rights, they support use rights, under which you would be entitled to protect your personal possessions, but also workers would be allowed to seize the means of production. Now, the plausibility of such an idea is matter to be discussed elsewhere. I'm just pointing out that there are people who wouldn't agree with the philosophy implied by the Nolan Chart. Steohawk (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Property is theft" is an outrageously hypocritical and idiotic statement that can be embraced only by mental asylum inmates and hypocrites. If it were right, it could hold true for charity and "robbing the rich to help the poor" leftism; both are acts of theft with the "good intention" to help the poor by bringing them property, which is itself theft. And to be logically consistent, its believers must strip themselves naked and stop using all products of civilization. 141.84.69.20 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "property" refers to real property (i.e., land) rather than the sorts of personal amenities you refer to?

I used to think that too, but anarchists don't simply want to do away with property rights and leave it at that. They want to replace it with the concept of use rights, which they believe to be the true ethical justification for people being allowed to keep their own possessions, but it wouldn't allow individuals or small groups to own the means of production. This was given the IRL treatment during the Spanish Revolution, where workers seized their workplaces and ran them democratically, but everybody got to keep their personal possessions just like they always had. Now, I'm not trying to "convert" you to anarchism. I just wanted to clear up some of the confusion regarding what anarchists really believe when they say "property is theft", and why they would consider the Nolan Chart to be biased. Steohawk (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make any sense of what Silverback is claiming in this recently added phrase. Are you saying that the position Nolan calls "right-wing" would be typically called in, say Europe, Asia, and Africa a "centrist position"? If that is what you mean, this doesn't strike me as true at all. If that is not what you mean -- and I suspect it is not -- then you have not expressed yourself clearly. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am saying that the Eurpean spectrum does not have a place for American conservatives, which is not to say leftists there would not engage in perjorative name calling, and use the term "right wing". However, an American conservative traveling to Europe would have to self-identify as a centrist, since otherwise he'd be calling himself a communist or fascist. Their spectrum is even less useful than the U.S. spectrum.--Silverback 05:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, you are not making sense. Are you saying that an American "conservative" would be closer to a European "centrist" than to a European "conservative"? Or that he/she would not be part of the "right" in European terms? Or something else?

Keep in mind that, in European terms, José Aznar is "center-right", Jacques Chirac either "right" or "center-right", Margaret Thatcher "right", Silvio Berlusconi "right". All of these people strike me as haveing politics that would fall well within what would usually be called "conservative" in the U.S. Certainly none of them would be terribly out of place in the U.S. Republican Party (except perhaps Chirac on Middle East policy, and the French policy there is probably more a matter of national interest than of principle: I suspect -- though of course this is completely unprovable -- that if Chirac were in the U.S. government he would have a very different view of the Middle East). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

It is the European spectrum that doesn't make sense. Isn't that what this page is about? The politicians you mention have to go someplace on the spectrum. If the European center is democratic/socialism, then they may be borrowing from the American spectrum when they position themselves a little to the right of center. There is a cross-fertilization between the two sides of the atlantic. Two dimensions, however much the oversimplification, is still better than one, rather like the Myers and Briggs 16 personality types still doesn't capture the diveristy of human personality. I think it is best to classify American conservatives as centrists, and let the europeans find out why they should expand to a two dimensional scale. They may want to call Bush a fascist, but they shouldn't get any help from us.--Silverback 06:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm only getting more confused as you try to explain yourself. Nolan is an American libertarian. This page is about the Nolan chart. The remark "in most other parts of the world, the Nolan Chart's "left-wing" would correspond to social democracy or socialism" is because he apparently said that (if I can trust this article -- I haven't read Nolan myself) "left-wing "liberalism" ... advocates only personal freedom". This use of "liberalism" to refer to left politics in general is almost incomprehensible outside of the U.S.: in much of Europe "liberalism" means support for free markets (less so these days in the UK, where the usage is becoming more like the U.S; and in France and Spain it mostly means anti-clericalism). U.S. "liberalism" is roughly equivalent to European "social democracy". I'm beginning to suspect that something that was in this paragraph before you got there was poorly worded in a way that confused you (and should be fixed), and that you compounded the confusion by editing in a context where you were confused. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Could be, I'm glad to hear the classical liberalism sense of liberalism is still alive in Europe, that is what American conservatives are. Where do Europeans put these liberals on their scale? There are many versions of the Nolan chart. The version here understates it, by having mere populism and socialism on the left. The full scale is two axis, social and economic, with the axes ranging from totalitarianism to anarchy. The extreme totalitarian on the economic scale would be more like communism, than like a socialism which has some private means of production and only a few industries nationalized, and even libertarians would fall short of the opposite extreme of anarchy on both scales, but just short of it. Bush would probably be about the middle both economically and socially at least according to libertarians, yes he is good on free trade, lower taxes, less regulation of business, but his social agenda spills over to the economic, he supports the FDA regulation of drugs and the war on the recreational drug trade, and federal funding and regulation of education, etc. Those are the areas that put him towards the center of the social agenda too, plus he favors the government licensing of marriage, oppresses polygamists, and hopes to ban gay marriage. Abortion is a more complicated issue, because of the way it is argued, that the fetus is a human with rights, so many libertarians are pro-life, and some even thing the government should be involved, since part of its residual function is the protection of individual life. I do think this article as I found it, got the liberal element wrong, I'd be interested in other suggestions for fixing it.--Silverback 08:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talking as a Euro (from UK specifically), for us left means high taxes/government, pro Union (generally), pro Nationalisation (historically), quite authoritarian and most specifically the Labour party and its policies (mostly before Tony Blair/New Labour which can be argued to be centre/centre right). Conversely right wing would be low tax, small government, anti Union, Privatisation, moderately authoritarian and specifically the Conservative party and its policies. Someone who is liberal would likely be advocating personal freedoms, also tolerance/multiculturism and this doesnt usually indicate a strong political party preference inherently, however taling about a Liberal generally relates to the Liberal Democratic party and its policies which are fairly centrist, reformist, fiscally somewhat left wing and generally quite liberal of course. Socialism/socialist would generally mean any policies/government that have high social security (unemployment benefits, disability payments, etc), and usually including some amount of nationalisation of things like health, rail, phone, mail etc. but it would not usually be considered to mean the Marxist/Leninist socialism where the state owns/runs the majority of business. 86.129.7.141 10:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to see if I can sort some of this out. It is very frustrating that the many people who worked on this seemed to be more interested in grinding their own axes than in answering questions like

• When did Nolan create and publish the chart?
• Where is a source for Nolan's original chart, as Nolan gave it, as against its many derivatives?
• Has Nolan endorsed any versions of the chart other than his own original version?

As a result of this shoddiness, I don't even know if the (uncited) use of "liberalism" attributed to Nolan in the first paragraph is actually Nolan's or someone's interpretation.

-- Jmabel | Talk 09:24, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Nolan's work isn't very original, or rather I should say, it is one of those obvious discoveries. I had invented it and been defending it myself, before I became aware of any of the various forms it takes. I assume others are also not derivitive of his work, but other original discoveries also. My interpretation of the use of liberal in the article was it was what someone's attempt, who was writing the article, to point out that European and American cenceptions of liberalism were different. The key is to understand the two axes concept and explain it. If I were to do the work, it would be in a separate article, because I'd never heard of his work before, I rather explain mine, I've got my own axe to grind, although, there doesn't appear to be much difference between his and mine, and the article is pretty good already.--Silverback 09:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know:

• When did Nolan create and publish the chart?
• Where is a source for Nolan's original chart, as Nolan gave it, as against its many derivatives?
• Has Nolan endorsed any versions of the chart other than his own original version?

-- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Upshot of the preceding:

• Someone else reverted Silverback's remark, which I think was the right thing to do.
• I have now filled in the information on where and when Nolan first published the chart. Does anyone have access to this original article? Our chart, and our claims about any use of the word "liberal", should reflect Nolan's original use.
• Also still unanswered: has Nolan endorsed any versions of the chart other than his own original version? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

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)

I edited out the following paragraph:

In addition to these ideological objections, the "How People Have Scored" section gives results that do not seem to be representative of most Americans' political beliefs. Currently, 34.76% of test takers have scored Libertarian, compared to 30.26% who have scored Centrist. This overrepresentation of Libertarians could be a reflection of the sample of people viewing the website, however there were also more test takers who scored Statist (8.67%) than Conservative (7.64%).

Because:

1. There is no evidence given for the notion that it is not representative of "most Americans' political beliefs." This may be true, but I don't find these percentages outside the realm of possibiliy. "Evidence, please" as my high school English teachers used to write.
2. Also, this is a criticism of this particular website, not of the chart itself. As the article notes, there are many online sites that offer slightly different versions of this quiz. They probably all have radically different response rates and all web polls are unscientific. This has nothing to do with any inherent flaws in the chart itself. --Polynova 05:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • Supposedly, these results are based on over 4 million submissions. I realize this wasn't administered systematically, but it seems like a sample that big would level off to a pretty close estimate of the results people get. This is just a guess, but I don't think there are more "Statists" taking this test than there are Conservatives. My guess for why there aren't more Conservatives is that the "Conservative" values are so extreme only a member of the John Birch Society would support them all ("Replace government welfare with private charity"). Compare this to the "Liberal" values that aren't even particularly Liberal. Since Libertarians probably have an easier time recruiting from the Right, it makes sense that they would do this. It isn't hard to tell why they changed the opposite pole from Populist to Statist/Authoritarian (the opposite of Populist is Elitist). This might sound cynical, but if an online IQ test says 90% of the test takers have IQ's above 100, would you think the test was biased or the sample? CPS 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main reason online polls are unscientific is selection bias. I.e., the number of people online is a biased population, the number of people who hear about his poll are even more biased, and the number of people who choose to take the poll is even more biased still. Don't expect any online poll result to conform to reality to any measurable degree.

Your other point gets to the labels used in the Nolan chart. Whatever labels are used will be inherently flawed because most political labels, like "conservative," "liberal," "statist," and esp. "populist" (perhaps the most meaningless political label out there), are extremely vague and mean different things to different people. Even "libertarian" can be pretty vague considering both Noam Chomsky and Margaret Thatcher have been called libertarian in different contexts. The article already notes this criticism about labels so I don't think any more is needed on this. Anyway, I think advocates of this chart would tell you that the whole point of the chart is to bring more precision to the political discourse by asking people how they think about specific political issues and then map them on a space. The labels you use to describe that space are secondary. --Polynova 07:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph needs to be removed. It appears to be more of an attack on the website that has the online poll that uses the Nolan chart as a template than NPOV information about the actual Nolan chart.Lokifer 07:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed a contemporary, or 'explanatory' version of the Nolan chart has been added. I understand 'populist' is a rather vague, but the terms 'communist' and 'fascist' do not apply to communitarians, who are in that quadrant too. I would propose instead having two terms, 'communitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', the latter of which includes fascist and communist regimes (unless they are totalitarian, but that is an extreme form, comparable to placing anarchy in the libertarian quadrant). On another note we should have a consistent look across both charts; the original and this were done by different authors, and the styling is slightly different, although close at thumb size. Juan Ponderas

Added a paragraph...

"A similar criticism of the chart is that the terms "authoritarianism" and "liberalism"...

I realise that these terms were not used by Nolan, but the criticism that I outline is one of the most important criticisms made against the chart in general. The terms used by Nolan do more or less match up with more modern usage of the terms "authoritarianism" and "liberalism" and as such I believe it is probably legit to criticise the chart on this basis. If it isn't, then the paragraph can be removed, but I would posit that something else needs to go in its place that makes a similar argument. Ross van der Linde

• I think that what you've said in that added paragraph is basically accurate, so I will leave it alone, but it seems to me to be at least perilously close to original research. Do you have any citations for what you are saying? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some discussion at Talk:Political spectrum occured as to whether political models should be capitalized, as if a title, or not, as if mentioning a chart by Nolan. The conventions seem with the former, and some models are strictly titles, such as the Vosem Chart (whereas Vosem was not the name of the creator). Therefore, this page should be Nolan Chart. Juan Ponderas

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)[reply]

Well, the criticism of political spectrums in general should be moved to Political spectrum. Juan Ponderas 03:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No but a lot of the criticism is just a general criticism of libertarianism as opposed to the chart itself, in the criticsm libertarian article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.191.74 (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, this is The Nolan Chart, not "The Left-Wing Wikipedians' Chart". Nolan did *not* draw the chart as shown in the figure, but as a square diamond, with the big-government corner on the bottom and the bound-government corner at the top. If the title of this article is deemed insufficient labelling, then concept that this is The Nolan Chart could be repeated next to the figure. Moreover he did *not* label the big-government corner "Populist", but rather "Authoritarian", which fits mob rule or dictatorship equally; tyranny of the majority in a democracy can be every bit as bad as an autocracy. If people are looking for a short phrase that gets the idea across, how about reporting Nolan's work correctly? Please support an accurate encyclopedia.

At this article by the founder of the World's Smallest Political Quiz. He says, "I've renamed the quadrant where Stalin, Hitler and Lyndon LaRouche would lie as "authoritarian." The word "populist" doesn't do justice to their policies". Originally, as discussed in the article, Nolan used populist. For the record, who exactly is a left-wing editor here? Juan Ponderas

I suggest "Government completely bound/total individual freedom" for the full individual economic and personal liberty corner and "Government completely unbound/zero individual freedom" for the opposite corner, as an objective criterion to which everybody can agree. When government is completely unbound and free and arbitrary, it doesn't matter whether the governing party is a monarch, dictator, an oligarchy, or mob rule: it can do whatever it likes. Contrariwise, when the government is completely bound, it is absolutely forbidden to, cannot or does not violate whatever mandate it has been given. Adding "total individual freedom" is a useful clarification. Calling the zero individual freedom corner "populism" ignores the other types of government which can have the same effect.

And calling that corner "Authoritarian" or "Fascist" ignores the other types of government there. While we're at it, calling the libertarian quadrant so ignores anarchism. Last time we debated terminology we decided to use Noaln's original terminology. This is the Nolan Chart. Juan Ponderas

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

I think it would be useful to show the chart in its original form, as past versions of the page had it, with "Communist and fascist" in the bottom left corner, and then to show its evolution, rotated to diamond configuration, with "Authoritarian" in the bottom corner (that is how the copies of the chart, from 1996, that I still have in my pocket, look), and then to show its form today, with "Statist/Big government" in the bottom corner. i.e. another two diagrams would help. As I wrote above, we could add some explanation to the text saying that "freedom" on the chart goes two ways: one way is increased *government* freedom (economic and personal); and the other way is increased individual freedom. One could mentally picture arrows going both ways on the two axes of the chart, so labelled (although that might not be Nolan's expressed concept, it certainly is one way to think of it). Cap j 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having people think about the concept of "government freedom" in our personal lives would be very useful. The pure truth is better than any propaganda.

Cap j 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, in his 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing" (campaigning for Barry Goldwater), Ronald Reagan may have anticipated the left-right-up=freedom-down=totalitarian-disaster layout of the Nolan Chart. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_for_Choosing and listen starting at 4:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael McClary (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McClary (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, proponents of strict gun control are generally social liberals, who see fewer guns on the streets as promoting individual safety and thus individual liberty. At the same time, opponents of gun control see restrictions on certain firearms as an infringement on their personal liberties. "

I believe whoever wrote this doesn't understand the issue very well. Anyone that favors gun control does so for authoritarian reasons, not for individual safety. When the right to bear arms is taken away from citizens, the intent is to promote the cause of government. Fewer guns = compliance with a more powerful government and its laws. It is true that an armed criminal population can present safety issues for individuals, but this is secondary to the threat guns pose to government, whether they are held by criminals or citizens offended by tyranny.

There are a fair number of social liberals that favor the right to bear arms. And there are a fair number of conservatives that don't (usually law enforcement types).

Confusion stems from trying to make this a left/right issue, because it is not purely an issue of personal freedom....economic freedom comes into play because gun control is also a form of economic regulation. It can deprive a segment of the population of their livelihood, i.e., gun manufacturers, gun shops, etc.. Conservatives also tend to favor the right to bear arms as a means to protect their life and property, thus securing their economic freedom.

IMO, gun control is more of an up/down issue vs left/right (using the Nolan chart developed by the Advocates for Self Government) --24.247.180.224 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am sure there are some people who want to ban guns in order to protect the government, I don't believe that is a common the reason. (Especially in most modern democratic societies) The reason is generally because they don't want to take the risk of getting shot by an angry neighbor/random stranger. Now, I think for the purposes of the Nolan chart, Gun Control is clearly less freedom. The argument that gun control is about protecting your life from shooters and therefore is a pro-freedom belief is in my opinion inoperative. For most libertarians, freedom means freedom from violence and the threat of violence. The mere presence of guns in and of itself does NOT create violence or a threat of violence. (Though it may facilitate such a threat) From a libertarian point of view (which was likely to be Nolan's) the gun is just a tool and until somebody decides to put that tool to use to threaten you or to attack you, your freedom is intact. So while I may sometimes be sympathetic to the calls for gun control, I think we should agree that the position for gun control is clearly towards "less personal freedom" on the Nolan chart. If you want a problematic issue, look at abortion. Positions on abortion are broadly divided between "fetuses are just a part of the mother's body" and "fetuses are human beings who just happen to be in the womb". The Nolan chart is of no help there. Both positions are effectively irrelevant because the question is: Is abortion surgery which should be allowed or is it murder which should obviously be banned. PrometheeFeu (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone that favors gun control does so for authoritarian reasons, not for individual safety."

Greens and other liberals who favor gun control want to save lives, not strengthen the government. As it is, the same people in America favoring gun control are the ones calling for "regime change". In any case, nobody other than libertarians believes that compliance to government rule in liberal democracies is affected by the guns present. Absent a total rebellion, guns neither scare the government nor prevent government arrests. Never have, never will. And somehow, I find myself more worried that my family will get shot then I do about my government falling. Individual safety is not a "secondary" concern; it is the only.

This is precisely one problem of the Nolan Chart; the libertarians may base their positions on the notion of liberty, but nobody else does, at least not those on the opposite side of issues. Leftist positions are taken generally for humanitarian reasons, conservatives for moral reasons, communitarians a bit of each, etc... At the very least, the 98% of Americans who are not libertarians do not look at policy referendums and think, "Which policy best oppresses the people?" I believe a better political spectrum would be one with axes representing the ideals one bases their positions on, as opposed to the relationship their issues have to libertarian ideals... Juan Ponderas 05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand by my argument that the people favoring gun control do so for authoritarian reasons. Whether or not they are currently in power is irrelevant. The thinking behind gun control is that those who would implement it would have greater power over others. Their stated reasons for wanting to exert such power may be for their personal safety or the safety of others, but in the end it remains an authoritarian issue. Jeez...gun control? The name itself suggests that its intent is authoritarian.

It is a very rash generalization to say that lefists take positions for humanitarian reasons, or that conservatives take positions for moral reasons. Are you actually suggesting that conservatives are inhumane or that leftists are immoral? Leftists and conservatives take positions for both reasons. In respect to any given issue, it is only in the form of regulation or deregulation that they tend to disagree....or put another way, one side will favor more government and the other less. In that respect, the Nolan chart reflects the diversity of opinions accurately.

The Nolan chart does not relate to libertarian ideals. It relates to 2 forms of freedom that are common to all political agendas. You might find that simplistic, but that doesn't make the chart inaccurate. You could pick any issue, and I believe the issue will have some relation to the 2 types of freedom plotted on the chart. You seem to be implying that just because the person that developed it is libertarian, it is somehow flawed. I don't think so.--24.247.180.224 12:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The thinking behind gun control is that those who would implement it would have greater power over others."

Not my thinking behind gun control, unless you mean to accuse me of lying. Why do you claim to know the thinking behind millions of people and claim that they are lying about it? I could claim with as much rationale that libertarians only oppose gun control because they want more deaths, so as to fight population growth.

Gun control demonstrates the two determining factors in any position. One is moral; what should the government seek to accomplish? According to libertarian philosophy, it should seek to maximize freedom. According to utilitarian philosophy, it should maximize human wellbeing. The other question is practical; how can the government accomplish its goal? Libertarians almost always believe freedom can be maximized through government deregulation of guns; utilitarians generally believe that human wellbeing can be maximized by a degree of firearm regulation. The opposite approach could be taken; many conservatives argue that gun control causes more deaths. And I have met libertarians who say they would allow gun control if they thought it prevented deaths. What conclusion can you draw from their position, other than that human life may provide motivation for taking a stance for gun control?

What makes something an x issue? Is gay marriage an authoritarian issue, a religious issue, a humanitarian issue, or an economic issue? If we are going by underlying ideals, it depends on who you ask. If we are going by consequences, it is all of them. What exactly do you mean by "authoritarian issue"?

"In respect to any given issue, it is only in the form of regulation or deregulation that they tend to disagree....or put another way, one side will favor more government and the other less"

Fascists and communists both maintain complete government control over the economy, whereas anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists both advocate none. On the Nolan Chart, they occupy identical positions, even though they propose radically different economies. Some issues have little or nothing to do with government authority, such as the death penalty and abortion.

Let me list some abberrations in the Nolan Chart:

• Conservatives, supposedly favoring economic freedom, are the biggest supporters of the War in Iraq.
• Socialist France, supposedly a nation of high personal freedom, banned students from wearing religious symbols in public schools.
• Leftists in America, again supposedly the side of personal freedom, are the ones proposing that we restrict hate speech, censor violence in video games, and place extra taxes on tobacco usage.
• Neolibertarians, libertarian-socialists, and radical centrists have no obvious place.

I believe an ideal political model follow the ideals people base their decisions on, which often does not include the level of personal or social freedom. Once upon a time, I proposed a model here, but while I believe it works better than the Nolan Chart, it is still an oversimplication.

Everyone has different ideas of morality, but they also have different ideas of freedom. I do not believe morality depends on religion, as I am a utilitarian. As for the self-interest bit, are you suggesting subconscious psychological egoism or merely falsification on a massive scale? And on what grounds? Juan Ponderas 05:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"According to libertarian philosophy, it should seek to maximize freedom."

Yes...but not at the expense of someone else's. If your freedom is at the expense of my life, liberty, or property; you should expect that I'd fight you. Guns are not moral or immoral...they just are. However, their USE may be moral or immoral. Which makes that the primary issue in respect to what should be controlled, not the mere possession of them. At best, controling possession just shifts the means by which you may be murdered or robbed to another form that is illegal or unregulated, i.e., guns are illegal, so the offender uses an illegal gun, a sword, or whatever.

If you control manufacture and possession, your economic freedom (i.e., your life and property) may be secured, but at the expense of your personal freedom and you'd be removing a means to defend your economic freedom. Given that people will possess firearms whether they are legal or not, I believe you'd be making a very dumb argument for controlling possession. What is gained from this?

If there is a flaw in the Nolan Chart, it is this...when faced with an issue that encompasses a mixture of freedoms, who's decision is supreme, the individual or government's? Charting a person's position in that manner, whether they are generally more in favor of economic freedoms or personal freedoms, the type of government they seek becomes much more obvious. On this issue, gun control advocates are in the lower half of the Nolan Chart (in rhomboid) and others are in the upper half.

The abberations you list aren't abberations at all...they are all issues where the party or individual is seeking authoritarian control of an issue despite consequences to their freedom...whther that freedom is personal or economic.

Pew just did a survey that made use of the Nolan Chart. In Search of Ideologues in America--24.247.180.224 11:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with our anonymous friend and disagree with you. Whether liberals want to admit it or not, gun control is authoritarian by its nature. Adding more laws and restrictions on what people do is authoritarian. Removing laws and restrictions is libertarian. The thing is, greens and liberals are typically willing to get in bed with authoritarian ideas (usually while steadily mouthing libertarian platitudes) in order to achieve certain goals. They put the goal of preventing firearm deaths over the goal of ensuring personal liberties. There's no basis for treating firearms as a "special" issue where you can call for more restrictive laws without being pro-authority. That's what gun laws are, after all. Gun laws are authoritarian by nature and by effect. They have the effect of reducing citizen power and increasing state power, which has an anti-democratic effect in the long run, since all power derives from force or the threat of force.

Your other mistake is in your statements on humanitarian and moral "reasons". Everyone has different opinions on what humanitarianism and morality are, and both liberals and conservatives care deeply about both. I'm guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong), that the current batch of American conservatives running the show, who happen to be in bed with would-be theocrats, have led you to believe that religion-based morality is the driving force behind American conservative voters. First off, the greatest lie religion has ever told is that it is the only source of morality. It is not. One can be non-religious while being highly moral and ethical. The only difference is in who determines the standards. Secondly, I believe that the true motivations of ALL voters in ALL parties is self-interest - it is merely cleverly masked behind various slogans, and wrapped in the trappings of pseudo-religious fervor or humanitarian spirit. Furthermore, what are called liberals and conservatives in America bear little or no resemblance to the groups using those names in other countries, so it's difficult to even know what you're talking about unless you stop using limiting vocabulary. A better description of a group would be the position their proposed policies occupy on the Nolan Chart. -Kasreyn 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Juan, I don't really speak for 24.247.180.224, but I feel I should point out that it's not really important what the motives of gun-control advocates are. The effects are what are important, and the effects are what are opposed by opponents of gun-control. Whatever the motive of gun-control advocates, whatever they think about their actions, the effect of their actions is to further state power at the expense of individual power, because that is the effect of gun-control. If that is not their goal, then they're failing to comprehend the consequences of their own actions. I'm not saying that someone who *wants* that is somehow bad or wrong. I've met many people who have a reasoned and whole-hearted belief that only the state should be entrusted with that power. (I happen to disagree, but I always respect a belief held without self-delusion.) What saddens me are people who politically oppose centralization of power in all its other forms, but do not see the centralization inherent in gun-control. Kasreyn 02:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world, conseqences are what is important. But with political spectrums, I believe something different is going on. The article says:

"The key assumption of such a spectrum is that people's view(s) on many issues correlate strongly, or that one essential issue subsumes or dominates all others"

If based on consequences, political spectrums will be nothing more than rough generalizations. Only by looking at underlying ideas can the most accurate spectrum be created. Maybe we must balance accuracy against utility, but I am not willing to go far in that direction. Still, I can see why others would... Juan Ponderas

I think Juan's point was that people who favour gun control don't normally do it in order to increase the states power. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. Gun control proponents (normally) favour using the state's power to achieve gun control, rather than using gun control to achieve power for the state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006.

Seems to me that at least somewhere in this article we should quote someone who questions the equation of "economic freedom" with the rights of private property. Isaiah Berlin's "freedom for the wolves is death to the lambs" is somewhat apropos, but not quite on the mark, and overly metaphorical (obviously, if my freedom causes your death, it does not enhance your freedom, but that is a bit roundabout). Does someone have something more to the point, probably either from a left-liberal, social democratic, or anarchist viewpoint? - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can nature be regulated in such a manner that wolves become lambs? I suspect not. The only way these two species can coexist is for lambs to recognize and accept the wolves' role in their lives. And if doing so is unacceptable to lambs, the alternatives are to cage all wolves or kill them. Even in nature, wolves benefit lambs by eating the weaker members of the flock.

Obviously, Berlin's statement is significant to the extent that lambs are presumably unwilling dinners for wolves. But who is the wolf and who is dinner? Is someone that succeeds in the economic sphere a wolf if he has complied with very basic moral expectations, i.e., the person has not made their gains by engaging in theft or fraud? Or might the less successful be considered wolves if they tax such a person for his success, or otherwise expect that person to provide for them?

Are you trying to find an excuse for using force? Are you suggesting that any freedom which allows some people to be more successful than others is somehow immoral? I'm a little puzzled by what you're after here.--24.247.180.224 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with attempts to do away with private property as a social construct is that the idea of ownership is too deeply ingrained into people. I suspect it's literally instinctual. Some governments have tried, and all that has happened was a consolidating of all property in the hands of a very few, typically corrupt "public servants". As Kurt Vonnegut said, "Should the nation’s wealth be redistributed? It has been, and continues to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful." ("Timequake")

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. We are attempting to live out behavior patterns which evolved for low-density hunter-gatherer troop life, only we've transplanted those behavior patterns to a high-density specialized-production hive existence. The mismatch is fundamental and irrepairable. In the social situation in which we originated, it wasn't *possible* for a "wolf" to own a great deal more than a "sheep", because you only owned what you could carry with you when the troop moved on to new hunting grounds. Today, CEO's make several hundred times what their lowest-paid employees make. The system of intangible, socially constructed value - money - has been fantastically good at increasing raw quantity of humans and food in the world, but has also allowed greed and corruption to spiral to unimaginable levels, often quite opaquely. The solution? I don't really think there is one. We'll either live long enough (several hundred thousand more years at least) to evolve behavior patterns more fitting to our planetary dominance, or we'll die off.

One way or another, the issue will become moot. Economics as we know it is a temporary coping-measure our species has deployed, a stopgap solution for distributing the world's goods until we have time to "grow into" our brand-new ecological niche and adapt new instinctual behaviors. When that happens, most of the areas of human activity that we think of as intellectualism and scholarly pursuits will be discarded without a backwards glance. Culture is a scab over the wound of our rapid evolution, and we're already picking at it. -Kasreyn 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'The system of intangible, socially constructed value - money'

Banning all forms of currency would definitely make for a more level playing field. I'm just not sure how well we'd live under that condition...or how long.--24.247.180.224 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not advocating that we do so. The problem is the desire to own, and that's not going to go away any time soon. Money is just a way of measuring who owns how much. Any society that "did away" with it would simply shift it to another form, which they would have to hypocritically pretend wasn't "money". I'm not proposing a course of action, just describing the situation as I see it: the coping mechanism of a species that has out-evolved its instinctive behaviors. Kasreyn 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I wasn't asking for people's individual opinions. I was merely remarking that there is a literature out there that is critical of the point of view that gives this definition of "economic freedom" and suggesting that this article might be improved by recognizing the existence of that literature and citing it. I'd do the search myself, but I'm swamped right now. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except most of the criticism in this article is nothing more than opinion. Yours is just one more. This article would be greatly improved by citing facts vs opinions.--24.247.180.224 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, any criticism (or support) of the Nolan Chart would classify as somebody's opinion. That said, it's a fact, not merely an opinion, that there are many who disagree with Nolan's conception of economic freedom. Are they right? It doesn't matter. All I'm interested in is whether such viewpoints are given their due recognition, as per Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. Steohawk (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable. If it is not clear from the paragraph that started this section of the discussion, I have no intention of putting my own uncited opinion into the article. I was specifically asking if someone had a good citation with reference to the point in question. For what it's worth, I would gladly remove the many uncited opinions from the article, but I suspect that all I'd accomplish by doing so unilaterally is to start an edit war. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to criticism, we should not remove uncited opinions against the chart while allowing uncited opinions for the chart. This whole topic is pretty obscure, but for NPOV we should not be selective in our standards. Of course, with the press coverage of the Nolan Chart this may not be an issue. Juan Ponderas

I recall the Anarchist FAQ made quite a few good points to distinguish economic freedom and personal ownership from the capitalist conception of property rights. In turn, it referenced books written by famous anarchists throughout history, like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. I'm not trying to push anarchism upon Wikipedia viewers, but if anybody's looking for quotes to support criticism of this aspect of the Nolan Chart, the Anarchist FAQ might be a good place to start looking. Steohawk (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this is the single most biased article I've come across in the Wikipedia. You spend easily twice as much time citing every single criticism that anyone ever came up with, from significant to petty, such that the criticism is double the size of the actual article. It's almost like you throw the thing up as a straw man just so you can criticise it. Other articles I've seen on far more controversial topics give far more balance. I am not a regular Wikipedia guy, I don't involve myself in your wars, just a "customer", if you will, writing in to complain about your product. --Rich Yampell, rich@yay.tim.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.246.200 (talk • contribs) 6 JAN 2006.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Until someone comes up with a citation for the Anarchist Review material I don't think its helpful, accordingly I've cut reference to it from the article. The article is after all about the Nolan Chart, it is not as if the uncited material is vital information. There is no claim or implication that the AR article may bear on the origins of the Nolan Chart. (I'm an anarchist myself, this isn't for ideological reasons, quite the contrary).Jeremy (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, it would, so I've restored previous image, previous to the one that has recently been deleted by Carlosguitar. So far as I can make out the one that was deleted by administrator Carlosgutar was deleted because of copyright issues. So I've put back the other one which although less detailed, for all I know less true to Nolan, at least gives a general idea. Nolan devotees who are dissatisfied with this chart should preferably solve the copyright issues but in the meantime qualify the presen diagram in whatever way they feel necessary....IMO. my understanding is that the ideas underlying the Nolan Chart cannot be copyrighted although their expression can, sometimes fine points of law being involved. But surely libertarians want their ideas to be disseminated?Jeremy (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are wrong. No action is needed. It's just a chart showing there is more than right and left. You can have varing degrees of freedom in both economicand political areas. Some countries have the government own all business and totally control the economy which is no economic freedom. Most countries stamp out free speech which would be a political freedom. 71.131.3.27 (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Populism is *not* the same thing as totalitarianism - this is nothing more than a smear. This is ideological, folks.70.90.204.42 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above appears to be the work of multiple editors, but more than anything, the apparent first editor simply appears confused, whereas the apparent second editor seems to understand the point. Hope that helped. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IMO, this chart is major bullshit. According to it, the Left Wing of politics is characterised by maximal personal freedom. As we all know, in reality the left wing is strongly against personal freedom, since they want to curtail free speech (hate speech laws), freedom of information and thought (through "politically correct" censorship and indoctrination of children), freedom of entrepreneurship (through massive bureaucratic red tape preventing people from starting businesses), and generally support large government intrusion into people's lives, such as giving the state the right to decide how to build your house, how to share household duties, mandatory state-run child care, et cetera, et cetera. All states run by the left wing have turned into police state monstrosities repressing citizens. Do KGB, Stasi, Securitate ring a bell? Similarly, the characterization of the right wing as having "zero personal freedom" and "maximal economic freedom" is blatant leftist propaganda, as in the myth of "evil capitalists oppressing people". As we know, that is not correct, since what the right wing is all about is giving power to the people instead of big government. Now I agree that not even right-wing parties can score maximally on any of the freedom scales, but this chart was clearly made in order to further leftist propaganda. Wikipedia prides itself on being a place for factual information and should not include such blatant ideological disinformation. Personally, I would place the right wing as scoring high (but not max) on both personal and economic freedom, and similarly the left wing as low (but not minimum) on both. But I don't expect an encyclopedia article to show a chart based only on my opinion.

John pietersen (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking bullshit, because Nolan chart is superior to the right-left spectrum, recognizing both "personal" and "economic" dimension. Communism would be in bottom left, together with fascism and islamism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.108.205 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the chart is biased. The whole point of it is to make Libertarianism sound good. People like "freedom" but they're too stupid to consider that Libertarian "freedom" is different than what they think of, Nolan knew that and built his chart accordingly. The chart can be adapted to an ideology by swapping out freedom for another vaguely understood but fiercely defended buzzword. Equality, safety, rights, and responsibility would be good starting points. 96.242.81.80 (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

96.242.81.80 hit the nail on the head. Nolan's chart only works if you restrict the idea of "personal freedom" to those things that Libertarians happen to call "personal freedom" and not what most people would agree that means. This is why you will rarely see Libertarians strongly siding with drug legalization and women's rights. Sure they'll agree in policy papers, but rarely put their money (which is also very important to them, possibly beyond their beliefs) behind it. --173.13.177.205 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, bias is everywhere, bc we all look through our own eyes, not others' unless one is blessed with great empathy. There is that realm inside me and that other realm of 'other' outside of me. If I were in control of my own dream world, I would have all 'other' pleasing and serving me. So would you, I'd bet. But, alas, there are others out there with their own dream worlds and their own ideas. Whenever we clash, either internally or externally, or both at the same time, we need principles that we submit to that come from somewhere, perhaps above us all. Else, it's just mine against yours. My-give-and-your-take need to be regulated by some principles for the benefit of everyone. Anyone could but perhaps no one should just take it always at the expense of others. The amazing thing is that children and even some lower animals instinctively act out the universal complaint, "That's not fair!" Similarly, some submit more readily to their socialistic leanings to want to give others a chance. Others must be made to or be persuaded to so by rules and justifications that are invented. Adults are often just big children who sometimes are made twice the children of hell they might not naturally be if they weren't corrupted by false teachings. Whatever the "correct" axes finally become by popular acceptance, PLEASE don't confine me to my selfish Republican heart VS my social outgoing Democratic outside. So far I have described a selfish VS social dimension. And I have described an external Principle Maker. But perhaps even two dimensions aren't enough. We might need 3! Trading seems universal, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.99.6 (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(@John pietersen) Dear, oh dear, oh dear. You are confusing "left wing" with "Totalitarian".

As we all know, in reality the left wing is strongly against personal freedom, since they want to curtail free speech (hate speech laws), freedom of information and thought (through "politically correct" censorship and indoctrination of children), freedom of entrepreneurship (through massive bureaucratic red tape preventing people from starting businesses), and generally support large government intrusion into people's lives, such as giving the state the right to decide how to build your house, how to share household duties, mandatory state-run child care, et cetera, et cetera. All states run by the left wing have turned into police state monstrosities repressing citizens.

"We all know" no such thing. You know what they say about assumption? Of course you do. There are many examples of left wing states and communities which have not followed your rather dogmatic approach. Northern European states like Sweden, whatever their foibles, are marked by high levels of personal freedom. You don't need me to tell you this. Look it up for yourself. They are certainly not police states, as you claim. Communist communities existed, in places like Aragon, during the Spanish Civil War which were not totalitarian. Look up Isaac Puente as an example. This is why Nolan, a noted Libertarian, put Communism where he did.

However, in line with the current US fashion to divide politics only into "Left" and "Right" and to define those two aspects solely by the size of government, it is not entirely surprising that you are slightly confused. Nolan's reasonably credible attempt to add an extra dimension to the spectrum seems to be difficult for a lot of people - especially those who identify as libertarian - to swallow. To assume that your political opponents are automatically opposed to any kind of personal freedom is not only spectacularly naive and intellectually dishonest, it shows that you don't even know your opponent's game. What is really silly is that very few people who criticise Nolan have bothered to read any of the appropriate documents. When you do, you will find that all of them have personal freedom as a primary objective. There are fundamental differences, yes, but they have a lot more in common than what conventional wisdom dictates. States like the former Soviet Union, the DDR and China have little in common with real Communism. They advocate it but they are, in fact, totalitarian because they were born of revolution and had to spend an inordinate amount of time suppressing counter-revolutionaries. Eventually, of course, the term "counter-revolutionary" came to mean anyone who spoke out against the government.

http://www.anarchyisorder.org/CD%234/Lay-outed%20texts/PDF-versions/Puente,%20Isaac%20-%20Libertarian%20Communism.pdf

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

The trouble is that communism as an ideal is just that. Like all the others, including anarchism and libertarianism (both kinds), it's meant to be utopian. It's also revolutionary so unless you have 100% support for it - as in "voluntaryism" - it cannot work. Furthermore, like any revolutionary utopian philosophy, it's likely to end in violence. No point in discussing Fascism here because it doesn't advocate any of those things. Unlike communism, it's a nationalist movement, rather than internationalist. It is a dictatorship rather than a popular administration.Flanker235 (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian can mean "let's move a few steps in that direction" and on prioritizing reducing government and increasing freedom in decision-making. And I think that what I described is the most common form. I think that such is very realistic, not utopian. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a shot at the O.P., not you. For my part, I'm not a subscriber to absolute values, so I generally agree with what you say. He was trying to discredit the Nolan Chart using the current assumption that the two sides are defined by the size of government...which is total nonsense. My argument is that Nolan knew more about it than the O.P. and although I have some argument with the layout of the chart, it represents a better alternative than a moronic "left/right" polemic.

The links I posted were not intended to illustrate political extremes but to give the reader some genuine datum points, rather than repeating the sort of baseless political dogma espoused by the likes of Jonah Goldberg. The link was that they are all libertarian, that's all. WP is not a place for comments like "everybody knows" or "as we all know" so if the O.P. wants to provide some evidence of his point of view, he would be more than welcome. I posted those links to illustrate the point that all of those apparently contradictory philosophies propose bottom-up government - or none at all - and run personal freedom very high up. If you use Goldberg's model, it is possible to conclude, as many do, that some of these philosophies cannot possibly exist. It might surprise many people to know that the original libertarians were basically left wing and the majority of libertarian movements have also been from the left. The Political Compass has me very much in the libertarian left corner. Apparently, that is impossible...according to most conservatives I'm a totalitarian communist.

WPs section on on Libertarianism is pretty comprehensive and well worth a read. It gives much better insight into the political spectrum than traditional or non-traditional Left-right politics.Flanker235 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the OP's main point is that in the US the left is very big on coercion / thought-policing. An so they are saying that the Nolan characterization of left/liberal is wrong. I think that the Nolan meaning of left/liberal is (in addition to being the unique US definition of "liberal") the idealization of left/liberal which does not have the coercion / thought-policing components that the US reality of it has. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the O.P. wants to say that then the onus is on him to prove it with some sort of credible referencing. Terms like "thought policing" are very subjective and "coercion" is even worse. I'm not going to get into a specific debate about who said what or when. I will say that you might consider the possibility that those measures are suggested to prevent harm to other people. A cornerstone of Libertarian thought is that you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt other people. I would also suggest that what you are saying is not necessarily universal for the US left - of which I know very little - and possibly a good illustration of the idea that a multi-dimensional chart is a better representation of the political environment than the old "left/right" polemic. The people you are talking about probably don't fit neatly into any political box but, sit somewhere in a spectrum.

In more specific terms, the O.P. might consider reading the reference material I posted earlier, in order to familiarise himself with the policies of what he clearly sees as his adversaries. He might eventually realise that those philosophies have more in common than what conventional wisdom suggests. Concepts of "bottom-up government" and personal freedoms are key to all of them. The people who push this current nonsense probably rely on their readership not knowing or not caring what the original material says. It's been said before that nothing is scarier to a government than a well-informed public. I would suggest starting at grass roots. According the the current US definition of what constitutes right and left, Libertarian Communism is impossible, yet communes existed in Spain in the 1930s.Flanker235 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Locke Chart is right on and Correctly establishes Right and Left. The hilarious thing is the two bogus replies. John Locke's "2nd Treatise on Civil Government" covering Common Law (The Foundation of "RIGHT" which all free republics are founded upon), fully covers Military and War and Tyranny; As well defining all points and limitations to Executive, Judicial and Legislative. The Constitution's Ratifying Conventions the APP has also derived the correct determination of Right and left, just as the founder's had recognized / as it was historically established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:29FF:3CF0:0:0:0:3A (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to 01:33, 1 September 2013) Agreed, the Locke Chart is in fact correct. The comments against the Locke Chart show ignorance of historical fact. Federalist #46 by James Madison illustrates that the "Militia" as James Madison defines it: "...citizens officered by men chosen among themselves (not military or government)" is the highest form of patriotism in the US; and in fact is to be an "opposing force" to the standing US military. "...to these (the standing United States federal military) will be opposed a (citizen) militia of half a million citizens with arms in their hands..." Read it:

Federalist #46: James Madison:

James Madison: "...The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both;

that THE "TRAITORS" should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment;

that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and " continue to supply the materials", "until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads", must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

"TO THESE" (The United States Military) WOULD BE "OPPOSED" A (CITIZEN) "MILITIA" amounting to near half a million of "CITIZENS" with "ARMS IN THEIR HANDS", OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM "AMONG THEMSELVES" (CHOSEN BY THE LOCAL CITIZEN'S - NOT MILITARY OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), fighting for their (THE CITIZEN'S) common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their (THE CITIZEN MILITIA'S) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a (CITIZEN) MILITIA "thus circumstanced" (25 to 1 ARMED POWER RATIO) could ever be conquered by such a (SMALL) proportion of "regular troops" (i.e. federal US ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES).

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Besides the advantage of (THE CITIZENS) being armed, which the Americans (CITIZENS) possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of "subordinate governments", to which the people are attached, and by which the (CITIZEN) MILITIA officers are appointed (officered by men chosen among themselves, not by governments or military), forms a barrier against the "enterprises of ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

But were the people to "possess" the additional advantages of "LOCAL" governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the (CIVILIAN) militia, by these (LOCAL) governments, and attached both to them and to the (CITIZEN) MILITIA, it may be "affirmed with the greatest assurance", that the throne of "every tyranny in Europe" would be "speedily overturned" in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in "ACTUAL POSSESSION", than the "debased subjects of arbitrary power" would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the "long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it"."

American Patriot Party .CC: This should alarm any US Citizen, as our present condition of Citizens NOT armed with a 25 to 1 Power Ratio superiority over our own standing army; and the fact that our "Citizen Militias" officered by men "chosen among themselves" do NOT exist in any number near this in military capability or armament, is CLEAR EVIDENCE that the "long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it" have "ALREADY OCCURRED". Posted by Richard Taylor - APP National Chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7900:1857:75C2:1F82:CEB7:A667 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abel has suggested this chart be used:

As this represents a significant change/departure from the previous version -- which is an image labeled as "The Nolan Chart" -- I think we should pin down whether Abel's version comports with what Nolan developed. --S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly the same chart. This new version uses the Wikimedia Commons prefered SVG format, is an annotated image with overlay text so the file can be used in any language, and is also more accessible. A Chinese and a Serbian version already exist even though I only created the code two days ago and I've requested translations in every language available. It is exactly the same chart, but better. --Abel (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am hardly a chartist, but what troubles me are the lack of the "Centerist" square and the north-south alignment of the existing charts. From what I see (Google Images, etc.), the Nolan Chart has a diamond alignment. Advocates for Self-Government, in their World's Smallest Political Quiz, uses the diamond configuration. Perhaps they have copyrighted it (which would be ironic). In any event, what did Nolan actually devise? Well, since ASG and the WSPQ use the diamond config, I figure a duplication of the Nolan Chart (if they are actually using his chart) should be presented to the reader.--S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I'm not happy with the other version (the one you replaced). Labeling the left and right as "left-wing" and "right-wing", which are not terms used in the WSPQ, have POV aspects. And then your chart (Abel), has a certain US centric bent. That is, the left leaning stuff is linked to articles focused on the US, but the right leaning stuff is a generic Conservatism. The Liberalism stuff is jargonistic in the use of the terms "Neoliberalism" and "modern liberalism". I'd much prefer the clear, simple set of term used in the Advocates for Self Government chart. Since Nolan published his original chart in The Individualist, we ought to stick to that version. (Although, I confess, I'm not clear on what that version actually has.)--S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the original is going to give you a non-free content problem. I think we can both agree that the version I changed it from lacks the "Centerist" square, north-south alignment of the existing charts, diamond alignment was not remotely as good a solution as the version I posted. The US bent is absolutely on purpose. The whole point of the annotated image with overlay text is that it allows anyone to easily edit the code to change the names from US oriented concepts in English to other country oriented concepts in other languages. You can't do any of that with a PNG file. A good example is the word liberal. In the US the label liberal means something radically different than the label liberal used in a European context. With an annotated image with overlay text that takes seconds to fix. This new version also addresses accessibility concerns.

How about we change it to the annotated image with overlay text version for now and if you can find a free version of the original then we can change it to that and move this version down into the article rather than in the not yet developed infobox position?--Abel (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say stick with the original. Plus anything that uses the word "liberal" is very problematic because in a respect that is very important here, the common meaning of "liberal" has directly opposite definitions on the two sides of the pond. In the US it means advocating larger government. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that the original is copyrighted by the The Advocates for Self-Government making every diamond version uploaded to any Wikimedia project a violation. I quickly found four versions. Two use the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license, one the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, and another uses the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under …" is kind of comical given that on the same page is an acknowledgement that the original is a copyrighted work of the The Advocates for Self-Government making these exact copies not legally valid. --Abel (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then our real problem is in naming any non-Advocates image as a "Nolan Chart". It's worser when we say "The Nolan Chart" and more worser when non-Nolan terms are used (even if they are synonyms of Nolan's terms). And most worsest of all is when non-Nolan/non-synonym terms are added. Each of these is a mis-labeling of the chart and it doesn't matter if we say "a Nolan Chart"; "a Nolan chart", "Nolan's chart", "The Nolan Chart", "the Nolan chart", etc. With each of these we providing WP:OR and/or WP:POV.--S. Rich (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. So the Nolan Chart is certainly the original published, like you said, in The Individualist and currently owned by the Advocates for Self-Government. So without specific permission, we will not be getting any version of the Advocate owned diamond shape into a Wikimedia project legally. However, Nolan's innovation goes beyond the diamond shape. Putting personal freedom on one axis and economic freedom on another can be called the Nolan Chart or the Nolan way of looking at political groups in relation to each other. I'm not sure anyone can copyright a "way of looking at political groups in relation to each other." Especially because using personal freedom on a Y axis and economic freedom on an X axis is a technique used by economists to depict relationships long before the Nolan chart. So while we will not be getting the diamond pattern without permission, which might be worth a shot, we can use the personal freedom on a Y axis and economic freedom on an X axis technique without any permission and still rightfully call it an innovation from Nolan.

We should change the current image to the annotated image with overlay text version for now and ask for permission to use the original version. If the original is eventually permitted, we can move the annotated version down into the article and place the original at the top. --Abel (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify exactly what diagram you are suggesting? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Abel (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really don't know the chart background details, but I think that there are many problems with this:

• This isn't the Nolan chart, which is the subject of the article
• Nolan is a simple "four corners plus a middle" chart. This embarks on a whole new approach
• Leaves off libertarianism, which I think was the whole point of the Nolan chart
• This goes pretty deep into OR, and in ways that are arguable or controversial
• Uses a term (liberal) which Nolan did not use and which is problematic because of how immensely it's meaning varies.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all that is true, then you need to delete the current image as the proposed change is an annotated version of the current image.--Abel (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with North on all points. Any editor created chart is not a Nolan Chart. His was unique, and we can't go posting our own variants. For those variants that exist, they must be verified.--S. Rich (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees then why is the first entry of the Nolan Chart article an image that everyone agrees is not a Nolan Chart?--Abel (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abel, I think we are trying to hash out exactly what chart would be appropriate. If (and when) we figure that out, we can make appropriate changes. I've thought about changing it already, but am letting this discussion work its' magic.--S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see much room for choice. If the Advocates decide to release the image under a usable license, then the original should certainly lead the article. Without that permission, what options are even available aside from no image?--Abel (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly we draw one which follows all and only key points of the original graphic? North8000 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how we can without it being a derivative work and therefore a copyright violation. Which is the problem with all the copies currently on the commons. Tracing or digitally recreating based on the original are still copyright violations. The uploaders claim that the copies are their work, but legally the copies are not the intellectual property of the uploaders. --Abel (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) I'm not sure that that is correct. This would be something to illustrate his concept. Certainly different than the common meaning of derivative work for images and graphical objects. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo I uploaded obviously is of relevance; evidently it is Advocates' pre "World's Smallest Political Quiz." I don't know what the earliest version of the chart is. I moved down the current one but agree it is just some editor's flawed personal version of the idea.

In text, I don't know what this means: "the current version of the chart" - an update by Nolan or someone else? After a quick read it is clear the article suffers from severe redundancy and a lack of references, for starters. Let's try to come up with a clearer image of the original chart. (Maybe I have one in my files; or we can find it in books google.) CarolMooreDC 03:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page seven of Eight Ways to Run the Country by BP Mitchell has what could be the original Nolan Chart. While you can certainly quote text from a book, can you quote a figure from a book? --Abel (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the word "quote" for a diagram is a bit unclear. My first guess is that either way (sketch a box showing the concept of the Nolan box or else fair use of the actual chart/image ) is probably OK but that's just my guess. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see copyright on Chart&f=false Eight Ways to Run the Country by BP Mitchell page 7, plus the book has a couple other mentions.Nor is there one on a graphic which is structured exactly the same way at Libertarianism Today Jacob H. Huebert Page 23. Both books have real content which should be used as WP:RS in this article to replace past editor's WP:OR. On my list unless someone wants to be bold and go for it. CarolMooreDC 02:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright logo does not equal copyright. As soon as an author writes something that author holds the copyright for whatever they wrote. Registering a copyright makes it easier to defend in court, but doesn't change the author's rights. --Abel (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most commonly used diamond-shaped chart (see http://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/117.html), which places the libertarian quadrant to the north and the totalitarian quadrant to the south, is the easiest to understand, and discourages the inaccurate placement of American libertarians to the right. I highly recommend it be immediately substituted for the current chart. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nolan Chart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article equates freedom and negative freedom. That is libertarian POV. --Universalamateur (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't trying to define "freedom". See next section below. It is covering the creation, author and contents of the Nolan chart, including the terms he used. Then there is a section covering opposing views on his use / definition of the word freedom. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Nolan chart, which is in turn about government, where freedom refers to freedom from restrictions by government. This is without even getting to what the common meaning of the term is, and assigning a specialized term to a common meaning in order to introduce or promote unusual alternative definitions, or basing a tag on that. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When citing Nolan or other Libertarians, sure, freedom refers to the unusual alternative definition that Libertarians use. In other places (for example in the introduction) using it is not neutral. The issue is that there isn't really a neutral definition of "freedom" so it's probably best to explicitly write something like "freedom from government".

The Criticism section (which is garbage) is not an excuse for the rest of the article violating NPOV. --Universalamateur (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used government to clarify the situation here because the context of the whole article is government and making the npov note moot. However, IMO the concept of re-branding the overwhelimingly used definition of freedom (e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+freedom+mean&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1) as "negative freedom" in order to introduce or promote Isaiah Berlin's highly unusual (IMO neologism) different definition of freedom (positive freedom) is just that. IMO failure to give equal billing to a somewhat fringe idea/definition or neologism is not a NPOV problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe so, but certainly not by you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, I came here to post about that same section (criticism). I was flabbergasted to read it, not because it is very long, but because it includes sentences like: "The more consistent both groups [Left and Right] get, the more libertarian they are", "This 'criticism,' therefore, doesn't really even deserve to be called a criticism", "Once America allowed the government to educate its citizenry, the government stopped properly-educating the citizenry", and... "The criticisms of the Nolan Chart are totally illegitimate and laughable."

Basically, a few criticisms are mentioned and then after each one there seems to be a rambling essay-like explanation of why that criticism is "totally illegitimate and laughable". I looked into the history of the page and I realized that all that rambling content was added on April 20th. Here's what I mean:

Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nolan_Chart&oldid=1001034392#Criticism

After: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nolan_Chart&oldid=1018827497#Criticism

I think the "before" version was much better. It briefly mentioned a few criticisms and then also briefly mentioned the response to those criticisms. The "after" version is almost incomprehensible and seems to be literally just the personal opinion of the person who added it.

I agree. Looks like somebody just fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]