User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2014/January

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

spectrum

I took one long "political spectrum" test -- I can out within a millimeter of dead centre <g>, with a rating of 67% Libertarian, 65% Republican and 64% Democrat. Be sure to use a test which has a broad spectrum of options for each question -- some of them seem possible slanted a tad. Collect (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I took the Nolan chart test and scored 0,0, i.e., dead center. The problem with these tests is that they determine issues that divide left and right and assume that is what defines them. They probably provide a good guess. No child left behind was mostly supported by liberals so if you support it you are more likely to be a liberal. But similar policies in England and the Canadian province of Ontario were considered right-wing. So the further one gets from people living in the U.S. today, the less accurate the test will be. Still, the chart shows that U.S. Republicans and UK Conservatives are further to the right than their competitors, which shows they have some predictive ability. Incidentally being dead center places one to the left of all four of these parties on the Nolan chart. TFD (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunno the one you took -- but the one I took gave about 8 choices for each question for about a hundred questions -- pretty much the most detailed one I have seen. I also found a couple of tests with only ten question, three choices per question -- quizzes which seem pretty useless. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I took one from the Nolan Chart website, it was not as detailed. I would be interested to see what relation there is between scores and how people actually vote. Have you taken Altermeyer's test for right-wing authoritarianism? It's on p. 11 of his book.[1] The relative results for legislators on pp. 201, 208 seem very accurate. TFD (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The one thing I absolutely an mot is "right wing authoritarian" <g> Collect (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The test has a mean of 100 and very low scores are significant as well. It is similar to one of the two axes on the 2-dimensional spectrum. Altemeyer said that libertarians generally scored low but in the U.S. at least, there was also a correlation between RWA and economic attitudes. So someone could score low and vote right, and vice versa. TFD (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If a score has no predictive value about positions at all, is it really a particularly good value to look at? Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It has predictive value. In the Canadian example, all the left-wing caucuses scored below 100, while all the right-wing caucuses scored above. with a gap of more than 30. For the U.S. with a 2-party system the correlation was still striking. Of course the correlation is only 80%. TFD (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref for the "80% correlation" and its context -- like with what is the correlation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Altemeyer wrote, "If you look at just the New Democrats’ and the conservatives’ scores on the RWA scale, party affiliation correlated .82 on the average with authoritarianism...." (p. 207) For U.S. legislators, where there are only two parties, the correlation was 44%. Obviously this is not the only correlation, but it is one of them. TFD (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A "correlation of .44" is basically just above pure chance -- and .82 is not all that much better. When 20% or more of a sample falls outside what is predicted, the utility of that measurement is not all that great. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Over 70% is a strong correlation, 30-40% is weak to moderate, and 0% is no correlation.[2] Of course it is only one correlation. There are other factors that make one decide to run as a socialist rather than a Tory. TFD (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the study were solid numerical measurements -- the .44 is still not very good. See OpenU on "correlations" [http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/mathematics-and-statistics/statistics/the-joy-stats-meaningless-and-meaningful-correlations[ Where the stats are not based on determinable direct numerical values of variables (which is usually the case with valuing answers to questions), then the correlations needed move way up (and do not show causality at any point before .9 or so). Or are you suggesting the values Altemeyer used are akin to physical measurements (say -- voltages etc.)? Political correlation values are all too often subjective, requiring much higher values to be of any value. Else any researcher could simply choose to weigh each question with a different fudge factor thus pushing correlation levels higher. As I said, a "political questionnaire correlation" of .44 is basically wertlos. .8 is a strong correlation for empirically derived mathematical values but subjective "right/left" valuations are clearly different from society to society in the first place as we have agreed in the past. And the "Dummies" books are fun reads. Collect (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Ford

Thanks for the revert, but I have to say... 300,264 kb worth of 'crack' is pretty hilarious.

Cheers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fleet / MacMillan

Hello TFD. I didn't want to prolong the RSN thread unduly, because I believe that the content issue has been resolved there. However, I have tried to replicate your research indicating that Fleet Publishing Corporation was acquired by MacMillan, and I am unable to do so. I found a single volume, published by Fleet, in a third party bibliography with the "MacMillan" in parentheses. Is that the sole basis of your conclusion that Fleet was acquired by MacMillan? Fleet appears to have been a very small independent press and much of its output seems to have been reprints of out-of-copyright old material. There is nothing to suggest that such a company would be of interest to a global publisher such as MacMillan. Is there some further basis for your view, or could it be that you made an unwarranted conclusion in this case? Thanks for any clarification you can offer. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there was a second company set up by Doris Schiff, "Fleet Academic Editions", which is cited in 2,600 books in Google books. I don't hear any alarm bells in looking at the titles. TFD (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

East Germany

I'm just reminding participants that East Germany fall within the scope WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. Please see recent comments at talk:East Germany. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings TFD. I wonder whether the excitable participant 184.145.64.67 (London, Ontario) = 184.145.67.28 (London, Ontario) = indef block-evading sockpuppeteer R-41. Writegeist (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have set up an SPI here. TFD (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)