Talk:The World Is Flat/Archives/2013

Cleanup

This article is far too much of a chapter by chapter account rather than an encyclopedia article. IMO the chapter sections probably need to go, or at least be much more succinctly summarised. The general theme of what Friedman is trying to say can be outlined without structuring it by chapters (especially without summarising who his acknowledgements are!). Remy B 15:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted to chapter-by-chapter summary, as posted by me and revised by many subsequent users, who found this useful for several months, and which earned this encomium from one user: "Great job on The World Is Flat. I just bought this book, and you added a ton of information to the article, great job! Keep up the good work. MicahMN | Talk 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC) -- No doubt I'm prejudiced, but I can't see why one person's opinion merits eliminating all that information. Best to all for the common good... Mark K. Jensen 22:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we have all this information.

I changed "presumes" to "tries" in chapter 11. I think "presumes" puts too much of a negative connotation, something like "tries" shows that he may not be right but is more neutral Theuedimaster 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Freidman expressed in the Financial Times recently how he was hoping he could publish his book online in the form of a wiki. He claimed that the process of 'flattening' as he calls it, was unfolding so fast, that a wiki was the only way to keep track of it.

Cleanup, round 2

This article is too long, messy, and parts are riddled with POV. I am deleting the entire criticism section for POV. It needs rewriting, from scratch... I have not read the book so I will leave that for someone else, but it's clear that "The author has given more importance to the developments in India and China. What about the other developing and underdeveloped countries?" is neither NPOV or encyclopedic. The same is true of "...the book veers off track towards the end..." And I hope, I desparately hope, that the link to the NWO conspiracy-theory website was the work of a vandal rather than a contributor "critisizing" Friedman's defense/explanation of globalization, like Matt Taibbi in the NY Press.

In any case, this is the first time I've seen a book have a chapter-by-chapter running commentary on Wikipedia. It's got to go. Actually, I think I'll be bold and make it gone.--AK7 05:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion pages are for just that...discussion. Please do not unilaterally delete massive portions of an article and then say you do not like them. Inform others of your problems with the article and then work them out on the talk page over time. I agree with your problems with the criticism section. They were not replaced but can be as they are vetted. --Looper5920 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a cleanup of this article is needed. It's not so much an encyclopedia article as a "CliffsNotes" version of the book. It's a great book and I think a lot of things in it could and should be discussed, but this is a horrible format for it. – Mipadi 13:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and am currently reading the book. When I am finished I will try to rewrite some or all of this article. --Bungopolis 09:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well that this article is far too bloated to be considered a good wiki article. Wikipedia is not the same thing as CliffsNotes, try looking at Starship Troopers for a reference on how to properly go about writing a boook article.--Hypo 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've changed "the book cites" to "Friedman recounts" because he doesn't actually cite anything, he merely provides generalized accounts of what happened in his examples. Which is fine in the context of his book, but nowhere is anything cited.

Layout of revised article

Since many criticisms of this article have come of this article being too bloated, this section of the talk page is designed to form the outline (headers, subheaders) of a new revised article. Hopefully after this outline section is done, we can replace the new layout structure with the old one and cut out much of what makes the article so bloated (like the chapter summaries). Everyone is encouraged to add what they think should go in but remember to leave sig.--Hypo 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary

This part goes above the table of contents in the article and should be cut down (from current) to around one paragraph.

History

The story behind the making of the book.

Major Themes

Add the major themes here in subheadings.

Criticisms

Add major common criticisms of the book here in subheadings and list at least one critic to back up the statement

New Edition

In here should go the differences in updated versions of the book.

References

Self explanitory

New article needed.

There needs to be an article about the actual belief of old civiliazations that the world was flat. I came looking for that, and I can't be the only one.--Josh 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth --128.172.168.146 17:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article in its current state is horribly negative although the critisism is neutralised it is most of the article, it is a major best seller but there ia lmost nothing in this article making me want to read the book. I've already did though, the 2005 update and a lot of thecritiques are adressed in the latest version of the book. A lot of critisism is clearly from the leftwing anti liberalism movement while critiques could also be about the style, about the lack of wel thought trough general thesis, about the book mainly consiting af anecdotal material.... I can come up with loads of critique but i must say actualy I loved the book en this article is not doing the book right(UISGE)

Flawed Premise

This book's opening analogy, that Columbus discovered the spherical nature of the Earth, is false. Should be mentioned in the article.

The relevent passage from the 2nd edition of the book is: "When Columbus set sail, he apparently assumed the earth was round... He thought the earth was a smaller sphere than it is." It does not assert that Columbus "discovered" the spherical nature of the Earth. --Bungopolis 09:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Friedman however does have a flawed analogy when it comes to the round/flat idea because he uses the physical idea of "round/spherical" to describe columbus's idea's of the earth and compares it to the conceptual idea (globalized equal opportunity) of a "flat" earth.--Hypo 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very obvious the analogy he is making, it may be flawed but we all understand it. As for Columbus the fact that he sailed west to reach the east is proof enough he believed the world was round. Therefore using him as an example is not a bad idea considering he is more popular a figure than Magellan.

How Flat?

His title is good, but some stories used are not. To run to Columbus is erroneous. I thought he meant the Flat World as more akin to the advent of the Web, where all points on the globe is as reachable by individuals on even par as compared to institutional powers. Columbus trip was still a institutionally backed trip, not an individual effort. By saying that it's flat due to the rise of China and India is misleading because it's more of the impetus of US players into those countries and they still stands to gain, as the main manipulators of world markets. It is a hype seeking title, but he himself admit it when he also stated that in In Chapter 11, "The Unflat World".

Red1 D Oon 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Editions

I'm thinking about how to rewrite this article. I only have the 2006 2nd edition of the book however, and the current article makes an effort to differentiate between the material in the two. Is this neccessary, or can we take the 2nd edition as the definitive edition - combined with a section specifically about the two additions and perhaps listing any changes made in response to criticism from the 1st? --Bungopolis 06:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Future Criticisms

This whole section is full of personal opinion. It should be either removed or neutralized.--SohanDsouza 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also question the neutrality of the "Criticism" section. In particular such phrases as "Friedman does not to appear spend much time outside of golf courses, five star hotels or restaurants, and limousines. His view of the flat world consists citizens of elites he interviews on his journey." This is not only a POV but an attack on his character. I propose that this last section, starting with the lines mentioned here, be deleted. Tmchk | Talk 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Further Criticism

The following quote is one the authors cite from Friedman’s chapter, “The Unflat World”. In this chapter, Friedman attempts to prescribe a dubious cure for developing countries to catch on to this supposedly inevitable flattening of the world.

"Let’s stop here for a moment and imagine how beneficial it would be for the world, and for America, if rural China, India, and Africa were to grow into little Americas or European Unions in economic and opportunity terms. But the chances of their getting into such a virtuous [italics mine] cycle is tiny without a real humanitarian push by flat world businesses, philanthropies, and governments to devote more resources to their problems. The only way out is through new ways of collaboration between the flat and unflat parts of the world (87)."

My question is, what’s so wrong with having a shapely world? A world where there are crevices and contours. A world where culture is preserved and discovery is always possible. This book serves as one long advertisement for the globalization of capitalism, with Friedman as the spokesperson, offering very simplistic theories on how to fix all of the ways in which our flat world is “unflat”. Yet, his chapter "The Unlfat World, Friedman asserts that the world isn’t flat. So why does he compare himself to Christopher Columbus although he has not actually discovered that the world is flat? Perhaps he is Thomas the Train “thinking he can” somehow make the world flat because if he says it enough and if enough people accept it as authoritative knowledge, it will serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy. With this quote, Friedman gives us a false sense of tidiness to this whole process, although we know now devastating and bloody this new imperialism can be.

An example of this is in America's war with Iraq. In the latter years of the war, we were finally given the "truth" after a swarm of ideological outbursts in the media about “freedom”, “liberty”, etc. (all of which no American would argue should be protected). The "truth" now is that we are there to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. So why are we not at war with Saudi Arabia, whose culture is very stifling to individuals? I see our government doing exactly what Friedman is prescribing. In this new era, warfare has turned into a new form of imperialism where we are now trying to make “little Americas and European Unions”. With this, we should question whether these attempts are truly “philanthropic” or “humanitarian”? I would argue that they are not because the goals are primarily economic and so are the goals of Friedman with his book. As I asked earlier, why would we have to rid the world of culture and diversity? Certainly not for humanitarian purposes. Because our diverse cultures, symbols and interpretations of the world are what make us human.

Deletion of Acknowledgements

This section of the article has almost nothing to do with an encyclopedic description of the book "the world is flat". I propose deleting it. Reply if you are in favor or against.--Hypo 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree, delete it.--Etherialemperor 19:18, 22 June 2006

Deletion of Page Numbers

Page numbers are only needed for citations and surely are not needed in the quantity in which they are presented in this article. If you disagree talk here--Hypo 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What About the Nature of Man?

As I read through the book, I realized that it is an idealistic ploy to bring hope to a world society that is in desperate need of it. I believe that the nature of man is to be self interested and that it will ultimately doom the theories behind the book. If you check in most work places you will find an administrative team. On this team you have idealists and power hungry people. All that is needed is for one power hungry person to disrupt the balance which is essential for the world becoming flat.

I hope that we do come to a situation where this is possible. I a from the United States, but I am currently living in Poland and I see that the world is round here. Centuries old conflicts between Germans and the Polish have bread a sense of mistrust, and do not forget about the Russian influence. If this part of the world can work out these differences then I believe that it is possible.

The United States is still mired in backwards thinking, questions about evolution, homosexuality, race... all factor into its direction currently.

The conclusion to all of these statements can go back to my first statement that power corrupts people and that all it takes is for one or two people to undermine the situation for the world to become round again. The nature of man will not allow for the world to be flat.Stephen Taylor--217.99.108.179 18:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a rant using original research that frankly does not add constructively to the article in anyway.--Hypo 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for giving an opinion(rant), obviously there was no research done. Next time I will do more research and make this page more viable in your world. I thought that the article was more a book summary and I was just giving an opinion. Forgive me, my good sir, for your criticism is exactly the point of my opinion. I was stating something that I believed and you tore it up in a fit of arrogance. I meant no disrespect to you or the article. I do understand the point of this page. I just wanted to state an opinion and let it be. This is a discussion page right?

True, it is a discussion page, but generally it's used for discussion of the development of the article, not general discussion of the article. :) – Mipadi 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in having a discussion in the discussion section.Drewry 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia?

• I've heard that this book a small section on Wikipedia. Is this true? If so, I think it should be mentioned in the article.--Hraefen ^Talk 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is indeed true. I believe he mentions it in the Open Source section of the "Ten Forces that Flattened the World" chapter. While undeniably cool that Wikipedia was briefly mentioned (about a page and a half IIRC?), it wasn't anything that stands out from the rest of the book (for me, his talk with Bill Gates still stands out above everything else), and it wasn't really anything that Wikipedians wouldn't already know. So, while I loved seeing it in the book, I don't think the Wikipedia section should be mentioned in this article. Blue Crest 01:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the reference to wikipedia doesn't belong in the article. None the less... it was three pages, but not all flattering, he definitely points out how wikipedia can be bad as well, with false information. It was indeed in the 10 forces chapter, and it was actually in the uploading section, of which open-source software was also a part. It does seem interesting that the book says there are about x # of articles in wikipedia, and that number has grown a lot since the publication of the book. At any rate, this is an encyclopedia article, and that would not greatly improve the article, in fact if anything make it worse by making it seem like bragging. Tech Nerd 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Trade in one Direction

Friedman talks at great length about removing protectionist barriers by holding up China, one of the most most protectionist societies on the planet. They are for free trade as long as its free in one direction, money coming in not going out. Not to mention issues with lack of concern for working conditions and pollution.

Needs fuller treatment

Following the discussion here, I gather that the article has gone through several cycles. But what remains (including my own slight revise) is somewhat accurate, but incomplete. Friedman's arguments are way more complex than described here. It has been too long since I've read the book, but someone closer to the material would do well to summarize more completely Friedman's basic argument. The key is to describe it while resisting the urge to critique it. --Barte 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is really true, the "summery" section is not really a summery but just notes taken from the first 200 pages of the book. --cptcolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.192.195 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement masquerading as review

I think this "Video: What the critics are saying. selected critiques" is a streaming video advertisement, not a review. It advertises what appears to be a non-notable book by an extremely obscure publisher that is now also listed in the article: Ronald Aronica and Mtetwa Ramdoo. The World is Flat? A Critical Analysis of Thomas L. Friedman's New York Times Bestseller. ISBN 0-929652-44-4. Any thoughts?-Barte 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It does not have a place in Wikipedia and its content is of highly questionable academic value.. Tmchk | Talk 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

After I added a spam template, the perp removed the link to the video but kept a reference (but no link) to the book, which is from a tiny publisher. I can't figure out whether it's self-published, so it's hard to judge its notability.Barte 20:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

List of flatteners lifts quotes directly from the book, criticism directly from reviews: see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/15/RVGHLCL11V1.DTL&type=books

Too much to clean up?

The longer version would take a lot of work to clean up to Wikipedia standards. Some examples:

• "This symbolized the infinite world of the internet and world wide web to the public to access data from anywhere for cheap. "
• "In this witty yet scary quote Friedman make references to some major global events and innovations that built the “flat world” platform."
• "Flattener #6, offshoring, encourages the use of Chinese labor over the Chinese market. This flattener is so influential because it set the bar for outsourced labor."
• "The biggest flattener is the feeling of "humiliation and deprivation" than feeling of alienation or distance from power. Same altitude but different attitude " are the quotable quotes.

Any volunteers? Otherwise, I wonder if the shorter version, while briefer, is also clearer.Barte 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish to volunteer for this. This is one of the great books. Popularity of the book deserves better wiki article. --Indianstar 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some thinning--perhaps too thin--but it needs trimming to make it less like a magazine review and more like a neutral encyclopedia article. I do think it's quite wonderful that you are involved, Indiastar. Friedman would be pleased to know that the article has been expanded from someone from India. That very act encapsulates much of what he's written about.-Barte 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed cleanup tag

I've edited the article at least to my satisfaction. I hope others will correct and augment.--Barte 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrary Evidence--original research?

Seems to me the "Contrary Evidence" section is original research. Rather than citing critics of Friedman--and there are plenty--this section synthesizes published material to advance a position. The following is from WP:NOR:

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

   Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material:

   If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. -Barte 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With no arguments to the contrary, I've removed the section-Barte 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where Differences Still Matter

Pankaj Ghemawat has given a scholarly refutation of Friedmans thesis in the book with this §s title, in an article published in Foreign Policy, and elsewhere to which Friedman has responded. Lycurgus 17:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the article repeating too much of the book?

This version has ten sections under summary, which seems to me to repeat too much content from the book. I would expect a decent article on a non-fiction book to describe the thesis of the book and outline what the chapters contain in general, but not repeat content to this extent. Anyone else agree? If so, what to do? At the minimum, I would like to reduce the detail to "10 flatteners" and "triple convergence", and then say the book contains chapters on similar lists. Gimmetrow 06:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections from here. The article has become a morass of bulleted items. Barte 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. If you see the history, i have twice removed all that crap, because it is far too POV to have here, even if it is the books detail, as well as being overly excessive. By the way, the reason i reverted it again, was because the first time, my edit was undone by a vandal--Jac16888 15:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

re: "removed POV interpretations and replaced them with standard definition"

An article on a Thomas Friedman book will inevitably, and properly, reflect Friedman's POV. By contast, whose "standard definition" are you providing? Barte 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but due to the apparently controversialness of the book, it doesn't seem like a good idea to have such POV so clearly visible. The article should state what his POV is, not actually give it. And sorry, i meant to come on here and explain the edit. basically, i changed it so that, rather than having a list of the 10 things followed by friedmans interpretations, it is instead a list of the 10 things he discusses in his book. However, if you disagree, go ahead and revert--Jac16888 08:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much time has past since I've read the book for me to edit your edit, or to know whether the original was better. So I'd just say this: it's difficult, if not impossible, to state Friedman's POV without actually giving it. And it is equally difficult to provide a standard definition without drifting into OR. So I think you should error on the side of the former. The aim here is to summarize what Friedman wrote....POV and all. Barte 14:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never read the book, my knowledge of it is based purely on this article, and the article appears to have the same pov he has, whereas it should explain his POV while remaining neutral. for a, somewhat extreme example, check out Mein Kampf, the article doesn't actuallyy give hitlers viewpoint, but it explains what it is--Jac16888 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the difference and can see where the previous versions may have violated the principle. But whose definition of outsourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, et.al. have you now provided? Seems to me on the basis of NOR that they shouldn't be your definitions. They should be Friedman's--and it should be clear in the article that it is he, Friedman, who is defining them. Barte 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry for short reply, on my why out, reply give a longer one in a bit. I didn't use my defs, i copied them from the articles on those subjects, and friedman didn't actually define them, at least not in the article, instead it showed how he interpreted as being good/bad for the world etc--Jac16888 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your going out to Wikipedia and overlaying those definitions on the Friedman article is original research: WP:SYNTH and doesn't really work here. Given that you haven't read the book, I think you need to at least revert that section--and, if you like, make it clearer that the definition's are Friedman's. The article is about his book. His POV is relevant here. I do take your point that the article should make it clear that that viewpoint is the author's, not a universal truth. Barte 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the section, but reworded the intro to more clearly state that the list of flatteners is Friedman's list, his POV.Barte (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism Section

"Ninety percent of the world's phone calls, Web traffic, and investments are local, suggesting that Friedman has grossly exaggerated the significance of the trends he describes."

This is a very bad critique of the book and the authors true intentions, I belive this statement is intentionally misleading. Friedman's book and the ideas contained within do not apply to every communication on the planet, he was speaking solely of business connections and communications. Of course 90% of communications would be local, how could you outsource a call to granny, your city University, or your significant other? If the statement said "Ninety percent of the world's business phone calls, web traffic, and investments are local..." then it would be a valid point, as it is it's just misleading. Of course 90% of routine, day-to-day communication is going to be domestic, no one contests this, Friedman was addressing business related interchanges, not every type of communication there is. Hyperion395 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no positive reviews of this book on the page, even though it has won awards and is a bestseller. This shows an unhealthy lack of balance. Bodhiwriter (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Bodhiwriter

Repackaging Marshall McLuhan's Ideas

The ideas in this book are very similar to those developed by Marshall McLuhan over 40 years ago. Probably shouldn't consider this work original thought. 70.253.87.238 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The World is Fat

There should be a corresponding Wikipedia article called The World is Fat. The "Planet of the Apes" theory provides evidence that the world is not just flat, unfortunately, but also fat.

Friedman also believes there should be more inspiration for youth to be scientists, engineers, and mathematicians due to a decrease in the percentage of these professionals being American. Correspondingly, fat apes should have less inspiration, especially if they just stole it.

Among proposed remedies, there is no mention in the article of building a country exclusively for thieves and building a wall around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.140.29 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)