Talk:Milton Friedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milton Friedman article.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.
Wikipedia CD Selection Milton Friedman is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Hi everyone, i've uploaded some video of Milton that I own the copyright to, it is http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6711886648853095886&hl=en - it is an hour long video of a talk he gave to a conference. Could someone please post a link in the article to this? David

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Could the petty little person who keeps vandalizing the section about the cause of Friedman's death to read "not having enough heart" instead of "heart disease" perhaps stop doing it? The man is dead, how about giving him a break out of respect for his family if nothing else. We're not vandalizing the entry for Karl Marx. Why don't you leave Friedman alone?

Graball 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

There's a discrepancy in the dates of birth. The article lists his birthdate as being in 1912, but describes him as the last of four children, while his sisters were born in the 1920s. Unless there's an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine, something is amiss. The U of Chicago lists his date of birth as 1912 - could the date of the sisters be incorrect? Thaddeus Ryan 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

Is it fair/right/beneficial to add that Friedman has had a significant impact on the world today by being a key influence on Reganism and Thatcherism? - --81.178.249.234 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed an error, that the book "Free to Choose" preceded the television series. On the other hand, the television series preceded the book.

I removed this passage:

"Friedman's visited Chile in 1975, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Despite the Pinochet regime's policies of torture and murder of political opponents, in 1982 Friedman praised the dictatorship for having put into practice his economic ideas."

I believe this is mostly a myth. See this page for Friedman's account.

More specific URL on the site [here]

Here is a counterargument to what you call a "myth": http://www.counterpunch.org/grandin11172006.html


I believe something should be said about Friedman's classical liberalism and his connection to small government. For instance, he put forward the idea that it would be more efficient to support the poor by just giving them money, rather than setting up bureaucracies for things such as food stamps (the NIT proposal; see

http://www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/2000/Jun/msg00007.html

)

[edit] South Africa

I removed this paragraph:

He however also visited Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in March - April of 1976, two months before the Soweto uprising which was viciously suppressed by the National Party government. On 2nd May 1976 he wrote an article for the Sunday Times in South Africa in which he supported the racist minority government of Ian Smith. Whilst in South Africa he met the State President, Dr N. Diederichs and many of Apartheid's cabinet ministers. Friedman missed the opportunity to criticise the disenfranchisement of the majority of the people of South Africa and Zimbabwe and suggest a simple non-racist one person one vote system enjoyed by the citizens of the West. Instead he chose to suggest amending the elementary schooling system to get whites to pay the same amount that significantly poorer black pupils were forced to pay.

I don't know the details of Friedman's visit to South Africa. That he would have written an article in support of Ian Smith's government seems to me very unlikely. (Can anyone provide the actual text of the article?) That he would have met with members of the government of South Africa seems to me unremarkable. The implication that Friedman is or was a racist is completely unsubstantiated. -- Eb.hoop 11:00, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] South African visit

Please accept my apologises for not referencing properly. I have only just discovered Wikipedia and I am still not quite sure where to put what. Milton Friedman visited South Africa from 20 March 1976 until 6 April 1976. He then visited Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) from 6-9 April 1976. He wrote an article “Suicide of the West – Some impressions of South Africa and Rhodesia” which appeared in South Africa’s biggest Sunday newspaper the Sunday Times on 2nd May 1976. This and Friedman’s addresses to various groups of people during his stay in South Africa were published in a book:

Friedman, Milton. 1976. Milton Friedman in South Africa Cape Town: Creda ISBN 0 7992 0205 3

The comments on the schooling system are to be found on pages 48-49. Nowhere in the 60 pager book does he advocate a one person one vote system, this at a time and in countries that ran minority “democracies” for their white citizens.

I have a copy of the book and would be prepared to fax it to you. Regards Maynardophile 1 January 2005

You're going to fax a book?--Jerryseinfeld 15:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You claim in the disputed paragraph that Friedman wrote in support of Ian Smith's government. I find this very hard to belief. Perhaps you could post the relevant passage here. Furthermore, you imply that Friedman is or was a racist based on the fact that a 60 page booklet published by the University of Cape Town's School of Business after his visit does not contain a denunciation of the Apartheid electoral laws. This does not seem to me appropriate for the body of the article on Friedman. -- Eb.hoop 17:30, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems that Friedman's visit to South Africa at a time in South Africa’s history similar to the timing of his visit to Chile is now not being debated and that we are now just dealing with his article on "Rhodesia". I do not think that I can "post" this article as the book is copyrighted (to Milton Friedman and the Graduate School of Business, UCT). In the interim I belief I have referenced it well enough (replete with ISBN number) to justify an entry similar to the Chilean entry. Furthermore it was publish in a major newspaper where referencing is available. My offer to fax the article "Suicide of the West - some impressions of South Africa and Rhodesia " written by Milton Friedman, stands. In the interests of brevity and compromise I am dropping the last two sentences of my original edit. --Maynardophile 23:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair use laws allow you to quote from copyrighted material. (Otherwise book reviewing, for instance, would be impossible.) Can you just provide us here with a quote from Friedman's article to justify the claim that he wrote in support of Ian Smith's government? -- Eb.hoop 5:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herewith then a summary of Milton Friedman’s article “Suicide of the West” which appeared in South Africa’s largest Weekly newspaper the Sunday Times on May 2, 1976.

He begins the article with “Of the 49 countries in Africa, 15 are under direct military rule and 29 have one-party civilian governments. Only five have multi-party-political systems. I have just returned from two of these five – the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia (the other three are Botswana, Gambia and Mauritius).”

He goes on to concede that “Neither country is an ideal democracy – just as America is not. Both have serious racial problems – just as America has. Both can be justly criticized for not moving faster to eliminate discrimination – just as America can; but both provide a larger measure of freedom and affluence for all their residents – black and White – than most other countries of Africa”.

Friedman thus glosses over the injustices that where inherent in both South Africa and Rhodesia at that time, injustices that were at there root caused by the disenfranchisement of about 90% of the South African population and 95% of the Rhodesia population. To compare this to the injustices suffered by 10% of the American population, not all of whom were disenfranchised, is disingenuous.

He goes on to boast of Rhodesia that “The education of the Blacks has been proceeding by leaps and bounds. Today, half or more of the students at the University of Rhodesia are Black. Guerrilla warfare from outside the country has produced a reaction by the Government that can properly be described as repressive – but the provocation has clearly been great, and it is important to maintain a sense of proportion. More than half the defence forces patrolling the borders are black. I was told that more Blacks volunteer for the defence forces than can be accepted …. It is very difficult to reconcile that visual impression with any widespread impression of feelings of oppression by the Blacks. If that existed, Rhodesia could not easily maintain such internal harmony or so prosperous an economy.”

Thus Friedman dismisses that 95% of the population have “feelings of oppression” despite their disenfranchisement and a myriad racially oppressive laws against them.

He ends with: “Rhodesia has a freer Press, a more democratic form of government, a greater sympathy with Western ideals than most if not all the states of Black Africa. Yet we play straight into the hands of our communist enemies by imposing sanctions on it. The Minister of Justice of Rhodesia cannot get a visa to visit the US – yet we welcome the Ministers of the Gulag Archipelago with open arms. James Burnham had the right phrase for it: suicide of the West.”

If that is not an endorsement for the racial oppression of the white 5% of the population of the then Rhodesia over the black 95%, then I don’t know what is. I have now provided enough proof of source and my offer to get anyone a copy, one way or the other stands. I am reinstating my edit to Friedman’s biography as I believe that it provides a more complete picture of the political positions that Friedman has taken in his life. --Maynardophile 00:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, which is quite interesting. It seems clear to me, however, that Friedman was simply arguing against the trade and diplomatic embargoes. This was a controversial position (the same position, for instance, held by Ronald Reagan), but what troubles me is the inference that it is equivalent to racism. Friedman seems to have been saying that there were much worse and more repressive governments in Africa and elsewhere which were not being punished in the same way. Also, that the embargoes were playing into the hands of communist, anti-Western insurgencies whereas gradual progress towards freedom and equality could be made by a policy of engagement with the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa. In fact I think that history partially bears out this last judgment. Instead of progressing towards racial equality via normal, democratic processes (like South Africa) Zimbabwe ended up under the much worse government of Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe.
The whole issue still seems to me a bit inappropriate for an encyclopedia article on Friedman. The controversy of Chile clearly deserves to be covered, because it plays a very important role in the public perception of Friedman's career. But I had never before heard anyone comment on Friedman's stance towards South Africa and Rhodesia. It is not our place in Wikipedia to mould perceptions of public figures or make original claims. Your coverage of this issue also seems to me to be at least partly motivated by a desire to associate Friedman (who is Jewish and a libertarian) with the racist strains of conservative politics in the West, which would be highly misleading to someone not familiar with Friedman's work.
I'll think more about the issue, but I suspect I'd at least want to rewrite your paragraph a little bit. -- User:Eb.hoop 2:25 22 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Dear Eb, Thank you for your comments. I am open to how the information on Friedman's visit to South Africa is presented and also happy that you give some thought to its presentation, but his visit to South Africa & Rhodesia in 1976 is the matter of historial fact, recounted in his own words in a book in which he shares the copyright with the Graduate School of Business of the University of Cape Town, who was his host. I am happy that the entry should reflect his reasons for the positions that he took on Aparthied South Africa and Rhodesia but his support for Rhodesia is an important compontent of Friedman's political make up and therefore, I believe, deserves a mention. I am not re-editing the article now, because I would like you to consider a how this information can be presented in a way that reflects a neutral point of point and shows a whole person reflecting his complexicity. Afterall we are all complex beings. See you in a few days time, regards--Maynardophile 19:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saying "X is not as bad as Y" does not mean that one supports X. Kurt Weber 13:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added that "he supported ending the embargoes against Cuba and Apartheid South Africa."

[edit] what the?

The 'bio' section reads as follows:

"Born in Jamaica to a working-class family of African AmericanHungarian immigrants from Italy (Berehove, today Ukraine), Friedman was educated at Rutgers University (B.A., 1932) and at the University of Chicago (M.A., 1933). After working for the a brothel and for Columbia University..."

this sounds somewhat...confused. Paul 07:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to a previous version, undoing the work of the very clever and humorous (sic) person who put in the above paragraph. Paul 13:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

I was looking up Friedman for a paper both here and in Brittanica, and I wanted to say that you guys have by far the better article. Congratulations on fine work.


[edit] Libertarian template

I put the Libertarianism template on this page because I thought that anyone interested in Friedman would be interested in a quick way of finding information on:

  1. people who support his policies
  2. similar theorists and authors
  3. libertarian-style economics

These are all provided by the libertarianism template. I don't think anyone will disagree that he's one of the most influential libertarian thinkers of the 20th century (vouchers, monetary policy, etc.) and that his positions on just about everything can be described accurately as "libertarian."

User:ExplorerCDT says that "he isn't just a libertarian" and so he should not have the template. I decided to put it to a vote:

  • Friedman wasn't only a libertarian, and while the article states that he held "various" libertarian positions, it does not say he is simply or exclusively a libertarian. He is also a monetarist, a die-hard capitalist, among other things...do we require more templates to link him in with other isms and ists? I don't feel it is appropriate, given the circumstances. The template, in my opinion, does not deserve a position of prominence in that it completely takes up the entire left column (resulting in the moving of his picture) and is rather unsightly. If you want to include a template, design a better one, and put it at the bottom of the article...like other templates. Given he wasn't exclusively libertarian, this I would consider appropriate. It's silly to vote on this bullshit. —ExplorerCDT 23:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for sharing your opinion. Libertarian positions on capitalism subsume his own, and if you can find me a libertarian that doesn't oppose inflation, then you may have an argument about monetarism. Better yet, come up with anything he's ever said that would indicate that he is not a libertarian. Furthermore, monetarism doesn't have or need a template, so there's no reason not to put it up. Personally, I'm not happy with the length of the template, either, but it's useful. Please make a pretense of being civil. Dave 23:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't oppose inflation (it's a useful tool if managed properly), and I have been considered to possess few strongly "libertarian" views. Does that make me a libertarian? Probably not. But my views on social welfare and government job-creation programs don't make me a socialist either. Likewise, Friedman had a few libertarian views, he had a few socialist views. That doesn't necessarily make him a libertarian as if it were his only label. You can't label a man exclusively based on a few positions, and not the whole. Likewise, one cannot call him a "racist" because of his work in South Africa and his inability to condemn Apartheid. I've talked to the man, he and I have corresponded often since the days when I was in college (we share an alma mater), and libertarian isn't the first thing that springs to mind in talking with him. If there was a monetarism template, do you think it would deserve as much prominence? I'd think it would deserve more, in considering him more a monetarist than a libertarian. Laissez-faire Capitalism is not necessarily an extension of libertarianism, despite it bearing libertarianesque attributes. Redesign the template and put it at the bottom where most people put templates, and I'll support it's placement. I would agree it is useful. As the template is currently, I, and a few other editors I know, will continue reverting attempts at placing it in the article. Only a template on economists would be appropriate in a position of that much prominence. —ExplorerCDT 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • P.S. Given that you (as shown by your contributions here) are obviously strongly seeking to push libertarians and libertarianism, I would admonish you not to use Wikipedia to push an ideological agenda, it's disruptive to Wikipedia only for the purpose of proving a point and there are rules against that sort of thing. Right now, you are precariously close. —ExplorerCDT 23:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Please don't threaten me. I haven't disrupted anything. All this is on a talk page. Furthermore, you have no idea what my "agenda" is. I wrote the vast majority of the "criticism of libertarianism" in the "libertarianism" article (about ten kilobytes), and some of it is pretty damning. I'm not an expert on Chile, but it looks to me like what the Chicago school did there sucked, for the most part. I'm writing about this issue because I want libertarianism to be a featured article, not because I support it. I'm not going to argue with you anymore, but if you're interested in learning what Milton Friedman thinks about libertarianism, I encourage you to look at Talk:Milton Friedman/libertarianism. If you feel you owe me an apology, I'll accept it whenever you're ready. Dave 00:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
          • If you think that is a threat, you must really have a thin skin and a guilty conscience. You'll never get an apology, because you're just plain wrong...so don't hold your breath waiting. You're the one that wants to paint broadstrokes on a man that is more a Kandinsky canvas than a fencepost...and for such oversimplification, you should be ashamed. —ExplorerCDT 02:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Knowing nothing about this guy I had a little look around. I think he can definately be described as a libertarian and could be tied in with other libertarians, but he is not an integral and essential part of the "series". That is partly informed by the fact that he is not included on the template and, as a general rule, templates are only included on articles they link to directly. In this case the liberterians category is the best method and I've added the box there. Considering there are two different POVs it's definately best to take this to a vote and I think Dave went about this the best way (avoiding a revert war). violet/riga (t) 08:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Friedman is a prominent member of the libertarian movement. He's a moderate, comparatively, but he is a libertarian. Philwelch 00:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support the template:

  1. Dave 22:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Philwelch 00:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Eb.hoop 1:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose the template:

  1. ExplorerCDT 23:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. PtonJew06 02:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) XCDT is right, and you should listen to him Harry/Dave rather than badmouthing him around on user talk pages. You're the real ass.
  3. Explained above. violet/riga (t) 08:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. The template is superfluous; the "See also" section contains the information. Mirror Vax 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PtonJew06 and ExplorerCDT should learn how to behave civilly. Disgraceful behaviour in this discussion. CSMR 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Health of Milton Friedman

Does anyone have information on the health of 92-year-old Friedman? Perhaps the article could include some information pertaining to the aging economist's health.

He's almost 94 now and gave a Weekend Edition WSJ interview a few months ago with his wife joining in with spirit. Is it fair that some people just don't seem to age? Thomasmeeks 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've recently exchanged a few e-mails with him and his son, David, because of a project I'm working on, and he's actually in pretty good health right now. He doesn't travel much, just because it's tiring, but he's in pretty good shape for his years and will be with us quite a bit longer. The WSJ interview with Milton and Rose Friedman was about 3 weeks ago. —ExplorerCDT 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Template

I don't have any problem with classifying Friedman as a libertarian - he describes himself that way - but the template needs to be redesigned. It's way too big and obtrusive, and should be at the bottom of the article. The way it is now, it resembles annoying advertising. Mirror Vax 01:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After considering it a bit more, I concluded that the design of the template probably isn't going to change, so it should be removed. The "See also" section should include whatever bits from the template are appropriate, so the template is superfluous. Mirror Vax 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References lacking

It seems to me that there are some references lacking from this page. The first paragraph has a quote in it, but no reference. Vitamin D 03:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This may put the cat among the pigeons, but... Who would not prefer Ian Smith's Rhodesia to Robert (The Butcher) Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

[edit] picture

Here's a picture of Friedman on the cover of October Reason Magazine if anyone wants to copy it to the article. [1] Magazine covers are "fair use." RJII 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, WP:FU identifies this very situation ("An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover") as a "counterexample" of fair use (i.e., "almost certainly not acceptable as fair use"). Well, it doesn't appear that anyone used the image in question anyway. Mlibby 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Prize

A Google search shows that "Milton Friedman" and "Nobel Prize" come up 108,000 times, while "Milton Friedman" and "Bank of Sweden" come up 730 times. Are there people out there who still say he did not win the Nobel Prize? Wiki policy is pretty clear: "The prize is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics or, more correctly, as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics." Rjensen 16:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"The prize is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics or, more correctly, as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics." (emphasis added) Please do not misslead people into thinking he won a Nobel prize when he won the Band of Sweden prize. As there is no Nobel prize in Economics he could not possible have won it. // Liftarn
There certainly is a Nobel Prize in Economics. Every newspaper, & news magazine reports it that way. The fact that old man Nobel did not fund it is not the relevant issue: it is chosen in similar fashion, and awarded by the King of Sweden in the same ceremony. Everybody knows that.Rjensen 22:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a highly relevant issue. That newspapers and magazines reports it incorrectly is irrelevant. Thruth is not something that is judged by a poll and by the way it's handed over by the king, not awarded by him. It's awarded by Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. // Liftarn
Nevertheless it's highly misleading to refer to it using a different name from that by which it's known by the vast majority of readers. The correct title of the award should be mentioned in the article for the award itself, but in external references it's far more helpful and informative to use the more common name. That's the way it's done on every other article on this site; the article is named in the most useful way, and the correct name is given at the beginning of the text proper. To do anything else is to sacrifice knowledge to pedantry.


Quite the opposite. To call it a Nobel prize when it isn't is clearly misleading. // Liftarn

At the moment it looks to most observers as though he received an award other than the one they know as the "Nobel Prize in Economics". That's not true, but it's the impression the article currently gives. Disputes over the accuracy of the name should be kept to the article on the prize itself.
I have edited to reflect this. // Liftarn

Given that the corresponding wikipedia page is Nobel Prize in Economics, I think that is the term we should use for clarity and consistency. In any case, that article gives (or should give) the relevant details about the prize in question. --Lost Goblin 01:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism and Freedom

Why isn't this book mentioned at all except at the end? I'd venture to say it's his most popular writing. I'm going to put it in the beginning. Uhgreen 14:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] date of death

i just wanted to mention, that afaik, he died on Nov 16th. in the first line of the text - and in the table on the right as well, the date is 15th, which is, according to my knowledge, incorrect --Stardust.sk 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salvador Allende

A reference to Salvador Allende's "democratically elected government" was removed on account of the fact that the Senate appointed him as president. I would say Allende was democratically elected, since his party received the largest share of the vote in the 1970 election in Chile. He had to be appointed by the senate because his share of the vote was less than 50%, but he still won a democratic election, and I suspect this edit is a bit of politicking by someone of a US Republican persuasion. Unless of course it's being suggested that any vote of less than 50% is invalid... in which case George W. Bush wasn't democratically elected in 2000, and Tony Blair has never been! MFlet1 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Anti?"-Communists

I had edited this paragraph (see below), removing "Anti-Communists" and placing "Communists" instead. I think I just misunderstood the intention. It should probably be changed back. The paragraph is at the end of the article.

"Friedman also traveled to Hong Kong to give lectures, meet with government leaders and encourage them to adopt free trade and implement free-market policies, which led to criticism from Communists. He also advocated ending trade embargos against Cuba and Apartheid South Africa."

199.8.16.1 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Adam

I reverted your change, he was invited and welcomed by communist China to give a series of lectures there, which pissed off anti-communists in the US. --Lost Goblin 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is this right?

The article states "In addition, he headed the Reagan administration committee that researched the possibility of a move towards a paid/volunteer armed force, and played a role in the abolition of the draft that took place in the 1970s in the U.S." This does not sound right - might they mean the Nixon administration?

Good catch, I fixed it --Lost Goblin 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo: abondoning -> abandoning

There is a typo in the following sentence (in bold):

"...he wrote the article Hong Kong Wrong - What would Cowperthwaite say? on Wall Street Journal, critizing Donald Tsang, Chief Exective of Hong Kong, for abondoning "positive noninterventionism" in his 2006 Policy Address."

Please change to 'abandoning'.

[edit] Janet Friedman?

My local newspaper mentions a Janet Friedman, supposedly a daughter, also surviving him. I've only ever heard of David and Rose. Any ideas?

Yes, I can confirm it. --Lost Goblin 11:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
ditto to Lost Goblin. —ExplorerCDT 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

He couldn´t have been the fourth and last child of his parents when his sisters were younger than him...

85.207.50.182 13:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Ed


[edit] Should Friedman's death be noted on Main Page?

Please comment at Template_talk:In_the_news#Please_add_Friedman.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I think we should include comments by pro-free-market writers. If there are comments by anti-free-market writers or other Friedman critics, include those too.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

  • Mr. Friedman was the great economist of our time, who more than anyone saved the economics profession from dogma. [2]

I put in a similar quote the other day, but I think it was deleted. --Uncle Ed 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that quote because it seemed to me that it is better to put sentence "he is known as one of the most influential economists of the 20th century" instead and source it to the newspapers like "The Washington Post" and "The Economist", rather than to have a random quote from "The Washington Times". -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy shouldn't just be a series of quotes by pundits but a serious encyclopedic treatment of the subject. —ExplorerCDT 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you: those are useful explanations. --Uncle Ed 19:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I put the Good Article nomination on hold

I put the GA nomination on hold for the following reasons: The article, while is starting to be better written, has many improvements still remaining to be done. It needs better structure. It doesn't cover the issue of Milton Friedman well or as intensely as a good biography should. I suggest looking at the Rutgers Magazine article (here) recently published for biographical details that are missing and correcting some that are incorrect. A lot of things aren't done within Wikipedia's Manual of Style. We need references to make this article pass the verifiability test. Article isn't really that broad in its coverage, in fact, much of the substance of a discussion about the corpus of his work is noticeably absent. The article regrettably hasn't been stable since his death, because some insecure, anonymous, and disrespectful people have sunk to vandalising it. Article needs better images, especially if we get into a discussion of some of his economic theories (a MUST). Now, I really like Milton Friedman, and would echo the call for a GA marker...just like I'm arguing for Rutgers (which both Friedman and I went to for undergraduate work) to name a building after him, and to get a statue erected of him (my project for the last few months). I knew Dr. Friedman personally, exchanging correspondence and discussing things with him for almost 8 years right up through the last few weeks. I would, more than most any of you, like to see this as a GA or even Featured Article...but...it's not ready yet. Perhaps we can correct these things within the next seven days that I've placed the GA nomination on hold. —ExplorerCDT 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

it's curious that no one has ever done a serious biography of Friedman. His autobiography helps a lot of course, but it's not critical in the sense of tracing the influences. Rjensen 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is a puzzling question. But then again, there hasn't been a biography of many 20th century figures (Robert Frost and Robert Lowell immediately come to mind) until after their passing...and a bad ones at that.) —
  • What this article still needs: (1) More in-depth discussion of Friedman's contribution to economics and finance. (2) Discussion of Friedman's contributions to popular issues (draft, marijuana, school vouchers, anti-communism). (3) Discussion/interpretation of his writings. (4) Better biography (I'll probably have to transfer some of the information from the Rutgers Magazine article cited above, I bet no one has even looked at that link yet). Just a few things (there are more, but these are prime). —ExplorerCDT 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
By now, this article should be taken off hold, and passed or failed. Twinxor t 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I mentioned a source (Rutgers Magazine article on him) that has details this article is lacking (an in some places contradicts)...bet no one's even read the article. Once those are corrected, and I feel other issues mentioned above adequately taken care of, then I'll say "sure" Right now, it should be failed. It doesn't deserve a pass at this time until the above issues are taken care of. —ExplorerCDT 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to jump on the "do something" bandwagon now myself, as I was curious about this on the GA list, it's been on hold well over a week. Homestarmy 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be bold at this point and just delist it. It's been on hold for quite a while, and once this improves more, the regular editors can decide to relist it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedman and Eastern Europe: important after 1989

Some historians of the fall of Communism in E Europe give Friedman modest credit for influencing economists before 1989-- for example Shock Waves: Eastern Europe after the Revolutions. by John Feffer 1992. Page 128. But no one proclaims his influence to be major in causing the overthrow of Communism. Indeed Friedman gets no mention at all in major histories such as Dissolution (1999) by Charles S. Maier; no mention in Exit-Voice Dynamics and the Collapse of East Germany: The Crisis of Leninism and the Revolution of 1989 by Steven Pfaff. There is no mention of Friedman in The Political Economy of State-Society Relations in Hungary and Poland: From Communism to the European Union by Anna Seleny. Scholars do say he was influential AFTER 1989 (for example Surge to Freedom: The End of Communist Rule in Eastern Europe by J. F. Brown p. 97)Rjensen 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I will be reverting tomorrow with sources. Try to remove it then, dumbass. —ExplorerCDT 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which image to use?

A couple of editors have removed the free (but small) image, and replaced it with a non-free (but higher quality) image. Unfortunately, this is not allowed. Our fair use policy says "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. . . If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible." I know that professional, non-free images may look better, but we have to follow our policy on the matter. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • However, there is a fair use policy that permits us to use a copyrighted image when there's no economic loss to the copyright holder, when no decent alternative can be had. While nice, I don't think the "free" image is a decent alternative. —ExplorerCDT 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement for image quality -- only that the image provides the same information. It doesn't have to be as pretty. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Since we have the free one, is there any reason to even have the unfree one? Shouldn't the unfree one be replaced everywhere and deleted? -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're right. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The only objection I have to the current image is that Friedman is portrayed very old and barely recognizable. A more canonical image would be something like this.[3] Beit Or 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, you're right. I wish we had a free image that shows him in his prime. Perhaps someone could e-mail the copyright holder to a better image, asking them if they would be willing to release the image under a free license. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilton_Friedman_7998.html"