Talk:The World Is Flat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Cleanup, round 2 3 Layout of revised article 3.1 Summary 3.2 History 3.3 Major Themes 3.4 Criticisms 3.5 New Edition 3.6 References 4 New article needed. 5 Flawed Premise 5.1 How Flat? 6 Editions 7 Future Criticisms 8 Further Criticism 9 Deletion of Acknowledgements 10 Deletion of Page Numbers 11 What About the Nature of Man? 12 Reference to Wikipedia? 13 Free Trade in one Direction 14 Needs fuller treatment 15 Advertisement masquerading as review

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Summary

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

[edit] History

The story behind the making of the book.

[edit] Major Themes

Add the major themes here in subheadings.

[edit] Criticisms

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

[edit] New Edition

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

[edit] References

Self explanitory

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Future Criticisms

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

[edit] Further Criticism

I agree. I'm going to delete the whole further criticism section. Any objections?--Etherialemperor 02:50, 16 June 2006

Go right ahead --Bungopolis 07:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The worst offending sentence is that which claims: "Critics have suggested that...in addition to the fact that the overall quality of life has dropped for the vast majority of affected peoples." How is it a fact? I would argue the exact opposite, but this does not matter. They need to cite sources on these claims of 'fact'.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Reference to Wikipedia?

• I've heard that this book contains 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)