This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Political spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been wondering if the Post-left, New Left, New Right and alt-right, which are listed under the political spectrum tab in their respective parts, don't make much sense being there. I say this on the grounds that spectrum is generally used to indicate how much of the left or right ones beliefs are - centre-left to hard left to far left (and the inverse for the right). The post-left is a form of anarchism, which is generally grouped under the far-left. The alt-right is 'broad tent' white supremacism, which is generally considered far-right. The New Left and New Right simply seem to be reconsiderations of left-wing and right-wing thought, respectively, in new contexts (the former being a move towards more social issues, while the latter is just right-wing parties that sprung up in the post communist era and/or right-wing groups that moved towards more laissez-faire economics). Both of these could just be placed under the usual "centre-hard-far" spectrum in my view. Hence I think they are unnecessary in that section. So should they be removed or are there reasons for them being there?
Any one have any thoughts on this? Sdio7 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Autocorrect errors
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
two of this article's images - Mitchell's 8 ways and Mitchell's Eight Political Americans both show autocorrect warnings on them. Ideally the image would look better without them. Hoping there's a way this can be corrected? Please update the images if this is something you can do. thanks Rayman60 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Two-axis model with econonomic and social dimension
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I can't seem to find a model with the following two axes:
economically egalitarian vs. economically inegalitarian (left/right in a chart)
socially liberal vs. socially conservative (up/down in a chart)
I added a political spectrum chart that so happens to fulfill your desires, though more generically. Christian democracy would fit in the communitarian quadrant, while liberalism is in the individualism quadrant. ●Thane — 04:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Uh...
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
What happened to the 2D diagram of cultural and social variants of liberalism and conservatism (or was that in a different article?) Tcaud 2605:A000:1316:4436:A54B:96B9:D87C:7DF8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Forget it... jeez what happened to this article? Seems like this article was the only survivor of some kind of purge... no doubt waged by the same rigid right-leaning cultural traditionalists who've plagued this project since its inception.... Every political dichotomy that has proposed in a published work should be mentioned here. If necessary, make another article. What other source does the layperson have for obtaining knowledge of others' politics, the same being essential for democratic discourse as is noted in George Washington's farewell address.... No wonder we have the crises of the moment... people are confused and incapable of rectifying their confusion. Thanks, Wikipedia!!! Tcaud 2605:A000:1316:4436:A54B:96B9:D87C:7DF8 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Repeated statement of Inglehart's POV
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For whatever reason, Inglehart's POV on the political spectrum gets undue emphasis in this article, appearing once in summary form in the section § Later research, and again with more detail in the § Inglehart: traditionalist–secular and self expressionist–survivalist section. One of these — probably the earlier summary — needs to go. Deleting it would also help restructure the article more logically. yoyo (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Two-axis political spectrum chart with an economic axis and a socio-cultural axis, and ideologically representative colors
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Who's idea was it to add this image? It's thoroughly inaccurate and wouldn't be accepted in a first-year poli-sci course anywhere. (14.2.82.20 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC))
It appears to have been added last December. It was replaced with a slightly better one, but I agree that it's best to avoid privileging any particular chart in the lead, so I've removed it for now. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 4 years ago54 comments25 people in discussion
Andrew Heywood (16 February 2017) Political Ideologies: An Introduction (6th ed.), Macmillan International Higher Education, pp. 15-17 ISBN: 978-1-137-60604-4. . OCLC 988218349
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Argument for the image's removal from this article
I am the editor who nominated the file for deletion at Commons for reason of copyright. Currently, the !voting is running that it is not copyrightable becasue of a lack of originality. I disagree, arguing that the choice of what ideologies to put on the spectrum and where they are placed is a creative editorial decision, and thus subject to copyright.
Be that as it may, the image should not be used on En.wiki for other reasons. Note that the center of the spectrum is labelled "Liberalism". While of the liberal persuasion myself, this is simply inaccurate The center should be labelled "Centrists" or "Moderates", with "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" to its left and right respectively. As it stand now, the spectrum makes it look like Conservativism is the right's equivalent of Socialism, which is simply incorrect, and either indicative of a POV on the part of the image maker or a result of sloppiness in its creeation.
It would be extremely easy to make a new image which more accurately presents the various "-isms", and does not hew to a particular POV, or present the spectrum inaccurately. It's ridiculous to think that we must use this particular image, which is lifted directly from this source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Wetherly, Paul (2017). Political Ideologies. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 250. ISBN 9780198727859. OCLC 972801473Leach, Robert (1998). British Political Ideologies (Contemporary Political Studies ed.). London: Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 23. ISBN 9781349149094. OCLC 1084449643Love, Nancy Sue (2006). Understanding Dogmas and Dreams (Second ed.). Washington, District of Columbia: CQ Press. p. 13. ISBN 9781483371115. OCLC 893684473 You seem to have some rather serious problems understanding what Wikipedia is about. In short: It's not about what you (or any other editor including myself) think is correct, but about verifiability (cf. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). That's why I explicitly mentioned the attached references (i.e. three academic sources that identify this depiction as the conventional left-right political spectrum). So, ironically, the POV-editing you're complaining about, is done by yourself. --Tilon3 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
After 13 years and over 200,000 edits (compared to your 8 months and 180 edits), I think I have a pretty good grasp on "what Wikipedia is about". I suggest that you tack away from personal comments, and deal with the issues I've raised above.And, BTW, your attempt to open a case at WP:DR will fail, as talk page discussion is a necessary precursor to formal dispute resolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and please make something clear to me: the image is lifted directly from the Heywood source, which is your first ref. Are you claiming that the other two references specifically say that the Heywood diagram accurately represents the left/right spectrum, or do they simply talk about the left/rightr spectrum in general, or in relation to their own diagrams? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
All three identify the exact same sequence (from left to right: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism) as the traditional left-right political spectrum. This isn't about visual choices. --Tilon3 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. It seems to me that the image must have an original source, and the others lifted it directly. That's evidence that at least several puplishers don;t think it's a copyrightable image, but not really confirmation that the sequence is correct. It looks to me very much like a libera;-centric (literally) viewpoint, and I say that as a liberal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel like a broken record: Verifiability, not truth. None of your links is an academic source (cf. WP:SOURCE). --Tilon3 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me to accurately describe how the one dimensional left-right spectrum is portrayed and shows the major ideologies. I would note though that it omits Christian democracy, greens and Left parties, which could be added. Centrist and Moderate are not ideologies, and therefore should not be included.
One of your alternative examples are for a two dimensional spectrum. It's used in some sources but a one dimensional image better explains the one dimensional left-right spectrum. The French Revolution spectrum is confusing because the terms radical, liberal and conservative did not exist at that time and instead they used terms such as Montagnards, Jacobins, Girondins and Feuillants, which aren't used today.
Liberalism is generally seen as the center. In Europe, they are usually smaller parties that are seen as midway between conservative and Christian Democratic parties such as the center-right Conservatives in the UK and CDU in Germany and center-left socialist parties such as Labour in the UK and the SPD in Germany. In the U.S., both major parties are liberal.
In popular speech it more commonly refers to left liberalism in the U.S. where right liberalism is called conservatism and in France to right-liberalism where left-liberalism is called radicalism. But standard textbooks in both countries use the term liberal in its broadest sense to refer to the ideology that promotes freedom and equality under capitalism and constitutional government. And there's a pretty strong liberal element to conservatives and socialists in all developed countries, which places them near the center as well. TFD (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It did occur to me that the chart might be using "liberalism" in the sense of "classic liberalism", in which case it would be somewhat more correct (but still inaccurate) to have "liberalism" near the center of the chart.And Tilon3, verifiability is a necessary criteria, but not a sufficient one. Many things can be verified, but not all of them are fit to go into a wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It does not refer to classical liberalism but to liberalism which includes classical liberalism, social liberalism, Whiggery, Girondism, jacobinism, radicalism, neoliberalism, Reaganomics and the New Deal. An argument could be made that Thatcherism and Blairism are also forms of liberalism, although their parties' origins were different. TFD (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, any definition of "liberalism" which includes all that is so incredible inclusive that it's next to useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@TFD Before we stray too far: Your judgement regarding the initial question (removing vs. keeping the image)? As I see it, the image should be kept in the article as it's both properly sourced and relevant in the specific section. --Tilon3 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hold that thought! I think the question is important enough that I'm opening an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be in this article since there are already a number of multi-dimensional charts although people don't actually say "upper left-wing" or "lower right-wing." I don't think a discussion here can determine what goes into another article. TFD (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Since I placed neutral pointers on the talk pages of those articles, pointing to this discussion this serves as a centralized discussion, or, rather, the RfC does now that I've started it ( did suggest that you wait!) -- so, yes a discussion here can indeed determine what goes in those articles. In fact, cenralized discussions such as this are encouraged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for scholars, it's an encyclopedia for regular people, and we prefer commmon, everyday definitions rather tham specific academic definitions. So it's really not relevant for a chart of this type what definition of "liberalism political scientists use, per WP:Common name, what's important is what understand by most people by the word. (Of course, the differences between popular understanding and academic argot can be discussed in the article.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Common name is about article titles. The article on Liberalism uses the standard definition - do you want to change its name? And what pray is the common name you want to use to rename the Liberalism article? TFD (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Although I think it's a bit off-topic to argue about the validity of the chart (that's not really our call; we should list charts that are considered noteworthy among the sources), I do have to point out the absurdity of putting "centerism" at the center of any political chart. Wouldn't that be utterly useless? It says nothing beyond "this is the center" - yes, it is axiomatically correct, but it says nothing. The entire point of this chart is that it advances argument of The End of History and the Last Man that Western-style liberal democracy is now universally-accepted as the center of politics. I think that that argument is a bit silly and reductive (certainly recent events have cast it into doubt), but it's clearly a notable argument and therefore ought to be included. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Should the article include a specific representation of the "traditional left-right spectrum"
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no. This is a typology that represents the political sympathy-antipathy continuum well enough. But as for political economy (public versus private ownership) —where fascism would be somewhere in the middle, and, indeed, reform and classical liberalism would be separate— it does so poorly. Likewise, as one commentator mentioned, it also fails the nuances of an authoritarianism-libertarianism typology. The no side, therefore, quite convincingly acknowledges facets that this model fails to capture, both as a generalized abstraction, as well as with specific examples in mind. The yes argument, on the other hand focused on the well-sourced nature of the diagram — that it reveals a certain truth well enough. But it nonetheless failed to respond to arguments regarding oversimplification and even outright inaccuracies. Some efforts to better qualify it in a more well-defined manner, perhaps alongside other diagrams, were argued for, by both sides. So I will end by leaving it open for a cogent proposal that addresses that, rather than bemoan a missed opportunity. El_C 02:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Heywood, Andrew (2017). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (6th edition). Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 15. ISBN 9781137606044. OCLC 988218349.
Wetherly, Paul (2017). Political Ideologies. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 250. ISBN 9780198727859. OCLC 972801473.
Leach, Robert (1998). British Political Ideologies (Contemporary Political Studies ed.). London: Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 23. ISBN 9781349149094. OCLC 108444964.
Love, Nancy Sue (2006). Understanding Dogmas and Dreams (Second edition). Washington, District of Columbia: CQ Press. p. 13. ISBN 9781483371115. OCLC 893684473.
No - for a number of reasons, but primarily because it presents a distorted view of the actual light/right spectrum. This chart shows "liberalism" in the center, whereas the center of any l/r spectrum should show "centrism" or "moderates" or the equivalent, with "liberalism" and "conservatism" equally far from the center on the left and right. The current chart shows "conservatism:" as being as far to the right as "socialism" is to the left, a very distorted view of where these ideologies actually sit. The editor who added this chart counters that the image has been "verified", and indeed it has been. It's been lifted straight out of one source, and similar or exact duplicates are used by other sources, but the mere verification of the existence of the chart does not verify the information on the chart, most importantly the relative placement of the various ideologies on it. Numerous other sources can (and have been - see above) provided to show a more accurate representation of the spectrum. At the very least, the chart is fairly useless without an explanation of what it means when it refers to "liberalism" or "conservatism", which can and do mean very different things in different countries and cultures. A textual discussion can deal with these complexities -- as indeed the article(s) does(do) -- but a chart which distills the complexities down to single words without an explanation as to what, precisely, the terms mean is not only inaccurate, it s deceptive and a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes - In short, it's sourced in literature and relevant in the article and specific section. The above-mentioned objections mostly boil down to personal preference (understandable on a personal level, but irrelevant in an encyclopedia). Potential misunderstandings can be avoided with a proper image description. --Tilon3 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes - Since we already have several diagrams of various political spectrums in this article, it is helpful to show the most common one, the one-dimensional left-right axis. Left-right politics already has a diagram showing the relative position of parties in the European Parliament. Probably not too helpful for the other articles. There's no need by comparison to have a map of North and South America in an article about North America. The terms on the chart and their relative positions reflect reliable sources. I would note that centrism and moderatism are not ideologies and do not belong on the chart. TFD (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No - Interesting. I'm not sure what brought me here, but until today I had never seen this biased poor chart. I had always seen centrists in between conservatives and liberals, and usually see Libertarians or Tea Party, then Monarchy, then Facism. This chart with liberals in the middle is kinda wacky. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the Wikiprojects associated with the articles under disccussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No - Presenting liberalism as being the center of the spectrum is Eurocentric and not NPOV. Every other diagram in the article either has the center unlabelled or labelled as centrist/populist. If the image is included, it would need to be captioned something like "modern European political spectrum" rather than "traditional" or "conventional", because as the article points out, the spectrum varies significantly depending on country and time period. Surachit (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes Like other widespread faulty oversimplifications / ideas, it should be covered. But don't elevate it with terms like "traditional" . North8000 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No Member of WP:LIBERTY which was notified of this RFC That image is misleading for a number of reasons. It completely downplays the nuances within a political ideology and oversimplifies everything worse than the Horseshoe diagram does. The differences between authoritarianism vs libertarianism go unmarked there as well. If we use such an image, the center should be unmarked and footnotes should be added to clearly label how discredited it has become. It'll probably confused readers more than anything tbh. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 15:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No: appears to be an over-simplifaction which lacks nuance and context. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
No with caveat I don't think that this should be presented as a neutral description or overview of the political spectrum due to the various concerns raised by other editors that highlight that it is not a particularly neutral or universal description of political ideologies. However, I think that there is likely room to cover one-dimensional left-right spectrums as a subtopic of this article, and this or a similar image may be useful in that regard. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would actually agree that a subtopic section could be used. If it's true that this chart is seen in many reliable sources, then there is no reason to ban it entirely. Just make sure it's in the proper context of notable biased charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I concur with this suggestion. The article logically needs a new subsection headed Single-axis models, which should fall before the sections detailing [other] double-axis models and three-axis models. And while we're at it, could we please use a consistent form of description? (Namely, eitherone-, two- and three-axis modelsorsingle-, double- and triple-axis models.) Some reorganisation of material is also necessary: note, for instance, that § Three-axis models has, for its first and longer paragraph, a description of a single-axis model! yoyo (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No: per comments from Beyond My Ken, MJL and Rosguill mostly. Additionally: --1--Liberalism is not Centrism and has not been Centrism historically,not even in most European countries or the US. --2-- the sources listed as backing the image are rather fringe: a Google Scholar search of the authors & their presented works reveals between zero and few-citations from other scholars which indicates they are not really relevant as subject matter experts. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Heywood's books do have more citations, i got tricked by the published date -2017- of the item listed in the survey's references -ie.: "Heywood, Andrew (2017). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (6th edition). Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education" -which, itself, has few citations, but the previous 5 editions do get cited. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No: As others have stated, it is an oversimplification that misrepresents the current "center" in western politics. Galestar (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No; not unless it's one of many: per comments from Rosguill, which summarise the comments of other editors, and also represent my chief objections to having this non-NPOV diagram as the article's sole representative of every left-right spectrum. However, if this were just one of several representations of alternative single-axis spectra, each used to illustrate (rather than define) the description of one such spectrum; and if there were enough discussion of criticism (particularly, the strengths and weaknesses) of each such model, the article as a whole could remain neutral. yoyo (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No It is an oversimplification. There are too many layers of "right" and "left." Just one example. Communist China is very repressive regarding social issues related to sex, for example. Isn't that "to the right" of what most American and European socialists and liberals support? ---Saranoon (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No, not by itself, not as an example of a traditional or typical single-axis spectrum, for the reasons explained by BMK and other "no" !voters. However, it would be interesting as one of several single-axis spectrums in a section discussing the difference in and changes to the single-axis spectrums. The labels change over time, and this is an example of it. – Levivich 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes in this article (in its own section as proposed by others especially Fyunck(click)) but not necessarily in the other articles mentioned in the opening question. Jschnur (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes with caveats. This spectrum accurately reflects one particular way politics are or were described on a spectrum by a notable subset of academics (especially during and around the cold war); however, it is important to make it clear whose views are represented here and what the spectrum means in the text. In particular I suspect many people will be confused by the presence of "liberalism" in the center (as some comments in this discussion are); it's clearly meant in the sense of "liberal democracy"; Americans are sometimes confused by this use of the term because, in America, no mainstream party or political movement overtly opposes liberal democracy, so the term "liberal" has taken on a different meaning. But within this topic the term is used like this by political scientists, so we can't just ignore it. (Also, to many of the "no" !votes again - remember, the purpose of this article is to document political spectrums that have significant weight among the sources, not to advocate for one or another or to present the One True Accurate Spectrum; saying that you think this one is wrong or misleading or uses incorrect terminology isn't relevant, at least for the broad include / exclude question - we can take that into account when describing and clarifying it. But what matters for the include / exclude question is whether it's significant enough among the sources that we should mention it to the reader. Plenty of spectrums already in the article are considered pretty laughable outside of the people who advocate them, after all.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No: For all sorts of reasons, especially "Liberalism", which can be left or right, and the ambiguity with Fascism or Communism, which can be considered both left and right or Third Position/syncretic. SUM1 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
No - Summoned by bot. Since when is Liberalism considered center? There are far too many layers and variables to oversimplify into one chart. Meatsgains(talk) 02:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No - this diagram isn't a great one for here and just isn't appropriate for those other articles. The article is showing more about 2-dimension and 3-dimesnional mappings of specific characteristics ... this just lumps any ideology onto a left/right dualism. That does happen, but then it seems just whimsical which labels get shown and what gets put where. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spectrum image in the lead
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The lead of the article shouldn't have a political spectrum or compass in it; putting one there inevitably gives the reader the initial impression that that's the "true" political compass, which is definitely not supported by the sources. Popular or significant compasses should be covered further down in their appropriate sections, but none are appropriate for the lead. For a brief history, the lead had no compass in it until last December, when a somewhat unusual one was added; earlier that month that was replaced by a more common one, but I feel the basic problem remains. Yes, a great deal of sources were attached to it, but in the context of this article that can only show that this was a political spectrum that some people find useful, not that it is the one, true, political spectrum, which is the inevitable implication of putting it in the lead. I have no objection to restoring that particular model further down the article in the appropriate place, but it appears we already have comparable spectrums where it would be placed, so it would have to replace them. I definitely don't think it can go in the lead, though - the more vague idea of "a spectrum related to politics" isn't something that needs illustrating, while the danger of "this is the one true political spectrum" ought to be avoided. (In fact, if we must have a lead image, I would argue that the more unorthodox spectrum that was recently replaced was better, since it is unlikely that anyone could mistake it for the political spectrum. But given that political spectrums are inherently controversial and no one really deserves to be at the top, having no image in the lead seems preferable. Spectrum images should be confined to the body, where they can be discussed individually with a focus on their nuances, intended purpose, advantages and disadvantages, supporters and detractors, and so on.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Which is probably why, for year after year after year, there wasn't one of those spectrums in the lead. Suddenly in late Dec 2018 editor @Thane: added one to the lead... and here we are today. It's morphed into a different version, but its placement is still a poor choice for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Two-axis political spectrum chart with an economic axis and a socio-cultural axis, and ideologically representative colorsActually, it has been off and on. For many years there has been a graphic on top. Much more than not. BTW, I actually made my graphic to be intentionally NPOV. Most notably, it avoids the libertarian bias of the Nolan chart and other liberty oriented charts. Mine just says "focus on ___". It also doesn't use contested and nebulous words like "liberal" and "conservative". See the image at right. While I am biased in the sense that I produced said graphic for this purpose, but using a neutral lead graphic like the one I made is totally legit. ●Thane — 05:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That use would be very very wrong per Policy. Something you made and worded yourself? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Especially given that there are different graphs/charts/spectrum utilized.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears to me that there is a consensus to remove the political spectrum image from the lead?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick trigger, cow poke. Let it breathe. ●Thane — 05:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
8values
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The website 8values measures political views on four axes: Economic, Diplomatic, Civil and Societal. (The eight values rest at the extremes of the four dimensions.) It might be worth mentioning in the article, but I'm not sure where it could go.[1]128.106.120.9 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Per No original research, you would need to show that political scientists use it. TFD (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
urban vs. rural US - statement still true?
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This sentence is in the article: "The urban vs. rural axis was equally prominent in the United States' political past, but its importance is debatable at present."
I checked back and saw it was present at least in 2012, not sure how early it was added.
Do we think this lien is still justified? Without doing any real research, it seems to me there is a pretty big split, at least since 2015/2016?
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The historical origin section, which lays out the common use of left and right, conflicts with the other sections, and placing fascism on the right of the spectrum in the lead is going to receive a lot of controversy. In the historical origin section, the right was the establishment and traditional source of authority, with merchant class to left of it, then communists, etc to left of that. The section explains as merchant class replaced aristocracy, merchant class became the established source of order. Certainly fascists would be seated very close to communists in this format, as they were extreme departures from anything the rule of law was based on historically and traditionally, both there and almost anywhere else. Both fascism and communism are authoritarian and totalitarian, neither entertaining pluralism or any ideas that challenge the collective, including religion. Although Hitler almost completely extricated Christianity from a deeply Catholic country in less than a decade (banning all denominations, replacing them with reich church which was another party propaganda ministy, removing crosses from schools, etc) and only thing preventing him from completing the job was losing WWII, some still argue he was Christian (did not believe or practice his entire life and was avowed occultist surrounded by atheists, parents never practiced or believed). Fascism and communism are totalitarian regimes, controlling the totality of each person, mind and body, consumed with the collective. One could argue fascism generally features a charismatic central figure, and party control of the corporate in fascism differs slightly from direct party control of the means and fascism often has overtones of race tied to national identity, but these distinctions are historically fluid between communist and fascist regimes (china for example). There is very little actually separating communism from fascism in theory or practice. The main motivation for placing them on opposite sides of the spectrum is because they have been historically violent sibling rivals fighting over the ashes of civil society. If you follow the linear thought in the Historial origin section, the most common use of left and right in the world, fascism and communism are both by definition in the same direction and extreme left in any country without roots in totalitarianism, like the United States. If a country is currently communist or fascist, the status quo could theoretically be considered centrist. A Maoist in china could be considered reactionary or hard right, but certainly not according to the historical origin in France or in the United States. There is no real world distinction between fascism and communism that would place them on opposite sides of the political spectrum by any definition as those distinctions are all very minor and fluid in practice, and in the United States or Britain or most places fascism and communism are both extreme left, completely divorced from anything these societies are founded upon and requiring a radical departure from all traditions, values, and founding principles in the same direction to achieve either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B049:6C0A:4D7D:1858:677B:A0B2 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are required to follow sources, not what contributors conclude, per no original research. A number of your premises incidentally are incorrect. The crucifix decrees for example took place mostly in Protestant areas and were aimed at Catholics. There is no evidence that the Nazi leadership approved of these decrees and in fact intervened to stop them. In any case, secularization was a key aspect of conservative ideology in Germany beginning with the Kulturkampf in the 1870s. TFD (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
