This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Political Compass article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in political spectrum. |
Just curious about everyone's scores on politicalcompass.org, and wondering if we could start a list. I'm -4.5 on the social scale and -4.65 on the economic scale Karmafist 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Scary. I managed -3.95 (social) and -3.00 (economic), and I thought I was a fruitcake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.21.154 ( talk) 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As one interested in politics, my primary interest in this idea came from the political compass website; specifically, from its placement of historical figures. I found that it explained differences which, otherwise, were apparently anomalous using the old left-right divisions. So I did my best to put some of the uncontentious ones from the site into an "exampels" section, to demonstrate this (Friedman, for example, as an economic liberal with rather liberal social views, contrasts with others who are economically liberal but have authoritarian social views). This was removed wholesale by ElectricRay as being POV and original research (several of his few edits in the main space follow this I beg to differ - the comparisons are made elsewhere - but I'm assuming good faith. I still think the article would benefit from an examples section. So, who can we pick as well-documented and well-known historical figures, for the purposes of illustrating the model? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
FWIW (to save you going to History), this is what was removed:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Just zis Guy, you know? ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be something that has had a series of reversions and counter-reversions and it might be good to have a space where both sides can lay out their reasons for preferring the new design or the old design. 2A00:23C5:1489:7600:F549:318A:2E82:4ADB ( talk) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Politicalcompassmemes is a big reason this test is big in modern culture, a quick mention to the popularity of it and how it affected the test would be nice Things That Work ( talk) 00:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Situation
Hello all, a user named Grayfell as decided to remove some of the written and sourced worked I have done. I don't enjoy engaging in editing wars therefore, I shall leave it alone and post what I have for all to see. It is up to US to decide whether it's factual, relevant and well cited.
1. Removal of history of the company that owns The Political Compass.
I believe this removal is unjustifed as "Pace News Media" is indeed the copyright holder of The Political Compass tool. The website itself indicates it is the copyright holder and a creditable sources states so.
Refer to: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/political-science/political-compass https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
2. Removal of Pace News Media history.
According to Grayfell's reasoning to remove the history of the company is because "opencorporations" is not a valid tool.... I ask people to review the countless Wikipedia articles that use it as a citation, including the pages of Instagram, Apple, Meta, and BBC.
Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/?fulltext=1&search=opencorporates&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
3. Removal when domain was actually registered
I believe an important aspect of describing the history of the website. You ask for a reliable source and I believe "whois.domaintools.com" is indeed a valid source. It is used in multiple pages on Wikipedia, such as Dictionary.com, duckduckgo, and RedTube.
Refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=whois.domaintools.com&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
4. Deletion of an scholar giving a positive review of the site.
The reasoning behind Grayfell's removal is because it is a quote "obscure journal mention". He is refering to the Journal of Social Philosophy, which is a Peer-reviewed journal published since 1970, by Wiley. Which to a reasonable person is actually a good source.
5. I have received word back from the user saying I have violated Wikipedia rules.
Here is my case:
If you are such a stickler for the rules, I IMPLORE you to correct thousands of articles that use open corporations and domain tools as a sole citation including popular pages such as Instagram. (BTW gets thousands page views) Wikipedia has acknowledged that the rules are not firm and should follow the "spirit of the law". Refer to Five Pillers (Wikipedia has no firm rules) You are correct in the assessment that some of them don't follow the rules HOWEVER there is a reasonable argument to be made to bend such rules as there's very little sources about The Political Compass website, and therefore dictates unconventional methods. I also propose you to prove me wrong by conducting your own research, until then, I promise you will come to the same conclusion as I did. I believe my information is quite reasonable, accurate, and well articulated to make it not a bad faith edit. By leaving this information out we deliberately exclude information which is the SOLE goal of Wikipedia. I will be making my case in the talk page as well. Please reconsider your position.
Refer to:
Bottom-line:
The current formulation of the rule is: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. [emphasis in original]
My version
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Political_Compass&oldid=1215069357
History
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Political_Compass&action=history Gameking69 ( talk) 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Political Compass article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in political spectrum. |
Just curious about everyone's scores on politicalcompass.org, and wondering if we could start a list. I'm -4.5 on the social scale and -4.65 on the economic scale Karmafist 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Scary. I managed -3.95 (social) and -3.00 (economic), and I thought I was a fruitcake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.21.154 ( talk) 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As one interested in politics, my primary interest in this idea came from the political compass website; specifically, from its placement of historical figures. I found that it explained differences which, otherwise, were apparently anomalous using the old left-right divisions. So I did my best to put some of the uncontentious ones from the site into an "exampels" section, to demonstrate this (Friedman, for example, as an economic liberal with rather liberal social views, contrasts with others who are economically liberal but have authoritarian social views). This was removed wholesale by ElectricRay as being POV and original research (several of his few edits in the main space follow this I beg to differ - the comparisons are made elsewhere - but I'm assuming good faith. I still think the article would benefit from an examples section. So, who can we pick as well-documented and well-known historical figures, for the purposes of illustrating the model? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
FWIW (to save you going to History), this is what was removed:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Just zis Guy, you know? ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be something that has had a series of reversions and counter-reversions and it might be good to have a space where both sides can lay out their reasons for preferring the new design or the old design. 2A00:23C5:1489:7600:F549:318A:2E82:4ADB ( talk) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Politicalcompassmemes is a big reason this test is big in modern culture, a quick mention to the popularity of it and how it affected the test would be nice Things That Work ( talk) 00:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Situation
Hello all, a user named Grayfell as decided to remove some of the written and sourced worked I have done. I don't enjoy engaging in editing wars therefore, I shall leave it alone and post what I have for all to see. It is up to US to decide whether it's factual, relevant and well cited.
1. Removal of history of the company that owns The Political Compass.
I believe this removal is unjustifed as "Pace News Media" is indeed the copyright holder of The Political Compass tool. The website itself indicates it is the copyright holder and a creditable sources states so.
Refer to: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/political-science/political-compass https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
2. Removal of Pace News Media history.
According to Grayfell's reasoning to remove the history of the company is because "opencorporations" is not a valid tool.... I ask people to review the countless Wikipedia articles that use it as a citation, including the pages of Instagram, Apple, Meta, and BBC.
Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/?fulltext=1&search=opencorporates&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
3. Removal when domain was actually registered
I believe an important aspect of describing the history of the website. You ask for a reliable source and I believe "whois.domaintools.com" is indeed a valid source. It is used in multiple pages on Wikipedia, such as Dictionary.com, duckduckgo, and RedTube.
Refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=whois.domaintools.com&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1
4. Deletion of an scholar giving a positive review of the site.
The reasoning behind Grayfell's removal is because it is a quote "obscure journal mention". He is refering to the Journal of Social Philosophy, which is a Peer-reviewed journal published since 1970, by Wiley. Which to a reasonable person is actually a good source.
5. I have received word back from the user saying I have violated Wikipedia rules.
Here is my case:
If you are such a stickler for the rules, I IMPLORE you to correct thousands of articles that use open corporations and domain tools as a sole citation including popular pages such as Instagram. (BTW gets thousands page views) Wikipedia has acknowledged that the rules are not firm and should follow the "spirit of the law". Refer to Five Pillers (Wikipedia has no firm rules) You are correct in the assessment that some of them don't follow the rules HOWEVER there is a reasonable argument to be made to bend such rules as there's very little sources about The Political Compass website, and therefore dictates unconventional methods. I also propose you to prove me wrong by conducting your own research, until then, I promise you will come to the same conclusion as I did. I believe my information is quite reasonable, accurate, and well articulated to make it not a bad faith edit. By leaving this information out we deliberately exclude information which is the SOLE goal of Wikipedia. I will be making my case in the talk page as well. Please reconsider your position.
Refer to:
Bottom-line:
The current formulation of the rule is: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. [emphasis in original]
My version
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Political_Compass&oldid=1215069357
History
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Political_Compass&action=history Gameking69 ( talk) 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)