Talk:Nolan Chart

Horrible

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)

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

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)

Pare criticism section?

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)

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)

Negative vs Positive liberty

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)

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)

Original research

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)

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)