Talk:Thomas Friedman/Archives/2013
 | This page 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. |
T-Shirt
also, the t-shirt story is rediculous. Friedman didn't get it wrong, the professor did. It seems really, really trivial to have in the entry of a guy who won the pulitzer prize, three times!
just personally, as an observer, this page is a mess. I came here to learn about Thomas friedman, but it reads like a lot of people disagreeing with him. The controversy isn't as much controversy, as the other point of view. Now the other point of view may be correct, but I don't think it has a place here. I mean, white supremacists view points and their refutations of race relations have no place on martin luther king's page. If i want the debate on iraq, or globalism, it should link to the iraq page.
It just doesn't seem to me how an encyclopedia would read.
"The World Is Flat
I really liked his book "The World Is Flat" but didn't like the way he has mis understood that Indians's didn't want "more territory" but peace during Kargil war. To correct him, India was fighting against intrusion and not for "more territoey". You can refer page 428 where he has written : "I want a better fuure, not more territory".
-- Arpana.
Rewritten
I've completely rewritten the article; I hope the new version is acceptable to you. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:24, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The new version is both more informative and vastly improved in its balance. I would no longer slap "POV" label on this version. But if I may address your questions and say something about improving it further:
My "either-or" comment about his career history referred mainly to your edit summary for the article, where you said "he's a columnist, not a journalist". The current description is fine.
While this new version is much more even-handed in its tone, most of the space is still devoted to discussing globalization. The way you address this topic is okay, but I note that it doesn't really capture Friedman's career. What he is really famous for is coverage of the invasion of Lebanon and the intifada in which he tried to maintain basic human sympathy for both Arabs and Jews. That is what impressed me when I read "From Beirut to Jerusalem" and it is also what impressed the Pulitzer committee, especially for his second Pulitzer. His critics on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict say that he utterly failed in that effort, if they even acknowledge that he tried. To be sure, just because you annoy both sides, that doesn't mean that you are right or even unbiased; and the Pulitzer committee can also be wrong about these things. Still, the Middle East is about three chapters out of five in Friedman's career, while globalization and the White House are about one chapter each.
I haven't read the Lexus and the Olive Tree even the first time, but I did read the relevant pages by doing an Amazon book search.
I mostly agree with you about quotes sections in biographies. But it may make sense to link to a Wikiquote page for Friedman.
- Greg Kuperberg 24.59.196.30 03:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Very nice work! I greatly appreciate the way you cleaned my writing; the article's much improved now. Thanks very much. I'll see about the Wikiquote link. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:56, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Name Problem
Is there a reason this isn't at Thomas Friedman, following the practice of naming articles according to how people are most often referred? (I believe his byline doesn't include the middle initial) RadicalSubversiv E 09:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the 2 most hackish and poorly written of the many criticisms contained in the external links section. If you want to add more balance (I think the article is already nicely balanced), put something real in the article; don't gum up the links with attacks from journalists whose talent pales in contrast to Mr. Friedman's. Also, there should be a description of his position on the political spectrum, so I'll add it presently, in agreement with Greg Kuperberg's characterization (above). Fluent aphasia 13:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Three certain lines
These three lines " After covering the White House until 1994, he covered the intersection of foreign policy and economics. He then moved to the op-ed page of the Times as a foreign affairs columnist in 1995.
As a columnist, Friedman initially focused on his previous beat, looking at the intersection of global politics and finance."
need to be changed because it is just bad writing to repeat the same sentence with just with different synonouns. "intersection of foreign policy and economics." and "intersection of global politics and finance."
perhaps try to rephrasing the sentence.
I think he is too optimistic with outsourcing increasing export potential. Someone who earns $20,000 a year cannot be expected to spend $50,000 on a Cadillac DTS. EthanolRules 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Geo-Green & Glocalization
Friedman loves to come up with terms like those in the hopes that they might catch on (and sometimes do) and I'm wondering if a list of some of the most important ones could be included in the article. In fact, some of those (like Geo-Green) should probably have their own articles.
Glocalization is not a Friedmanism. See Wikipedia's article on the term. --SohanDsouza 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Expert on Globalism
Yet, his degree is in middle eastern studies??? I have to ask what makes him an expert. I also like the way he is for using the US military, yet, born in 1952, it does not show him serving in the military himself.
Good job on the article, as I think you exposed Friedman for what he is and isn't!
Books
I think there should be a seperate section for his books. I was looking for them and had to read the whole article to find out about his books. Mahanchian 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Middle name?
Does Friedman have a full middle name, or just a letter?
Trivia Section
The paltry trivia section should be removed, as no "serious" article has one. --Liface 06:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is Globalization section correct?
Is the section on globalization correct? I'm no expert, but I've read the book and heard him give a speech, and I don't remember hearing or reading anything like what's in this section. Can it be documented? Smallbones 19:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
t-f wife
today i read that the wife of t-f dosnt want that america will stay in irak-he wrote it at nyt. now-is wiki is the place where one can find more info about this woman?
One Friedman = Six Months
Hi, Added a reference to the term "Friedman" meaning 6 months. See more here:
Friedman after 9/11
Is that section supposed to be some kind of joke? I would caution its author against any future use of words like "subsequent" and "preclude" without at least a dictionary at hand to elucidate their meanings.
The business of talking down a pulitzer winner ("reality check?" -- really now) is not well suited to the illiterate. And no, I have no intention of fixing the section myself.
external links
The external links section is shameful and in dire need of cleanup-most of the sites are anti-Friedman, often to the point of character assasination. Really-there should be sites critical of him so as to represent all views, but as it stands now, the external links are blatantly pov. Sometimes, all too often really, it seems moderates don't get a fair hearing on wikipedia-I hope this changes.152.163.101.8 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Moderates don't get a fair hearing - what's that got to do with Friedman?
Be brave and sign your posts, also you think him an extremist?-I think we all know who the real extremist is. 132.235.120.117 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The "Opinion and Stances" section is a bizarre collection of excerpts that don't seem to really reflect Friedman's substance and contributions. I've been watching Friedman for years. His quick intellect, originality, witty comparisons, and evolving views make him a valuable author and political commentator--whether or not his views fit your politics. The excerpts in wikipedia seem inconsistent and nonrepresentative. Brief summaries of his books would be better than a series of "one-liners" taken out of context. [[[User:Mindy0|Mindy0]] (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)]
Friedman's Documentaries are on DVD
I know there's no way to not make it sound like an advertisement, but the fact that Friedman's Discovery Channel documentaries are available on DVD should be noted. (It was but somebody removed it.) Surely the fact that they can be viewed anytime by anyone willing to buy them is relevent (and helpful) information, right? Trust me, I wasn't putting in a cheap plug for the Discovery Channel when I wrote that, but thought the existence of DVD releases was important information to be included in the article.
Sabra and Shatila stories on NYTimes.com
We're in luck. Friedman's Pulitzer-winning story on the Sabra and Shatila massacre is free on the New York Times web site. I added a link. Nbauman 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Copy edit of 1st line
The 1 st line currently reads:
Thomas Loren Friedman, OBE (born 1953-07-20) is an American journalist and author, as well as a three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.
I would change it to:
Thomas Loren Friedman, OBE (born 1953-07-20) is an American journalist, author, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.
How would that work?? I'll check back. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks! --Tom 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I like your version slightly better. GregorB 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Criticism
Is there no criticism of this concept: "Friedman argues that by exporting low-skill and low-wage jobs to foreign countries, more advanced and higher-skilled jobs will be freed up and made available for those displaced by the outsourcing. He theorizes that as long as those whose jobs are outsourced continue to further their education and specialize in their field, they will find better-paying and higher-skilled jobs."
I find the concept to be based in absurdity, and yet it is mantra to pro-globilization forces. Any job that doesn't require a person's physical presence can be outsourced or offshored, and no amount of additional education is going to help a person, more than temporarily. It's ideas like this that make me question either the intelligence or the honesty (or both) of folks like Friedman and Alan Greenspan. I can't be the only person to refute this concept, which is the core of the pro-globilization crowd's claim that American dominance will continue, so why not include a specific criticism of such a claim? 66.57.225.77 04:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- His point is not which jobs can or cannot be outsourced. The idea is to adapt and evolve as jobs get outsourced and new ones get created. If you have low skill and low education, then you would not be competitive against outsourcing. Education is not a way to prevent outsourcing. It is the way people can adapt and prosper. Anyway this article is on Thomas Friedman, so you'll probably find more arguements for and against globalization in the Globalization article.KeL 06:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section seems sloppily edited, at least as far as sources are included with the quotes. I believe a cleanup tag is in order. 130.74.241.216 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. For now, I've at least taken some of the anti-Friedman POV language out of the section. It's mostly quotes, which is a bit lazy. If I can find the time, I could possibly summarize and wikify them. If I can put together something neutral, I'll add it in. Graymornings 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Weasel Words
Okay, I tried to fix one or two of the problems, but some of the statements are factually true and simply need sources and particular people. I don't know any, but someone, please look that up and fix it. Clevomon 21:05 EST, 4 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
T-shirt story
Has anyone dealt with the T-shirt story? That was Friedman's most clear-cut mistakes. One of his columns quoted an Indian economist who gave him a story that turned out to be bogus:
"I just read about a guy in America who lost his job to India and he made a T-shirt that said, `I lost my job to India and all I got was this [lousy] T-shirt.' And he made all kinds of money." Only in America, she said, shaking her head, would someone figure out how to profit from his own unemployment. And that, she insisted, was the reason America need not fear outsourcing to India: America is so much more innovative a place than any other country.
The cartoonist Tom Tomorrow tracked it down. The story is here [2]
Tom Tomorrow and others complained to the NYT Public Editor, who refused to address it or run a correction.
It's important because it shows how Friedman gets his facts wrong, which is a serious flaw for a journalist.
I'm bringing this up first on Talk because I see that people have been deleting criticisms of Friedman. I wonder what the attitude is here towards criticisms. Nbauman 14:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I meant to keep that and remove Zmag which got undue weight.--Urthogie 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
T-shirt story removed
And it stays out until it's properly sourced, per WP:BLP. In addition, including a negative story does not make an article NPOV. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "ax-grinding"? What are the specific Wikipedia rules that this section violates? Nbauman 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. It is properly sourced, as per WP:V#SELF, because Tom Tomorrow is a regularly published author of commercially successful political cartoons, newspaper colums and several books.
- So apparently you did realize what was wrong with that section (or least the biggest thing wrong with it). I'm not sure what game you were playing earlier. Unfortunately, that source clearly fails WP:V - it's just a blog by a cartoonist, and a strongly partisan one at that. Find a better source for this content and perhaps it can go back in, but the personal blog by some cartoonist is not sufficient. (Incidentally, I find no evidence that he's a newspaper columnist, or that he has written any books other than cartoons.) | Mr. Darcy talk 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Darcy is as pompous as Friedman, and a perfect example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. He breaks the stated rules but gets away with it because he is an administrator. Wikipedia is not run on the basis of truth but on the basis of your position in the hierarchy. The english language version is effectively the averaged prejudices of the US. Worse than useless IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.42.125.16 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Echo
This is my first time trying to edit Wikipedia, so bear with me...
I attend St. Louis Park High School, of which Tom Friedman is probably our most famous alumnus (along with Al Franken). Anyway, just wanted to let you guys know that the link to the school's newspaper, the Echo, is now obsolete. The new address is <http://slpecho.com/>.
Thanks, and keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.165.241 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Reverted.
Blatant vandalism all over the place.
Just had to delete some punks bit of self aggrandizement, making a claim to having hit Mr Friedman in the face with a pie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.80.194 (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2008/04/23/CampusNews/Times.Columnist.Pied.In.Face.By.Activist-3343498.shtml 138.16.2.126 (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Pie
So who is going to add in the 'Thomas got pied' incident? Lots42 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Political views
Thomas Friedman is a liberal writer and his writings prove it. He is always critical of Republicans, conservatives, and the GOP. Why no criticism page?? Writers like George Will, David Brooks, are considered conservative wirters but authors like Firedman, Cynthia Tucker, Maureen Dowd are never listed as Liberal or Progrerssive? This clearly shows Wikipedia's bias towards anything conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.112.222 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Zionist
Once again, in his 17 May 2011 op-ed [[3]], he provides proof he’s an anti-Zionist, anti-Israel. He resembles more and more the Judenrat of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Speaking of which, when the St. Louis ship arrived to America, loaded with hundreds of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, the New York Times wrote an editorial opinion column in which it supported sending them back to where they came from. This was in 1939. In 2010 and 2011, T. Friedman sounds exactly like his predecessor at the NYT. Then too, it was a Jew by name only who was eager to see the Jews “give in”, “make concession” etc. Hey Tommy Boy - we in Israel don’t care what you have to say, just as Chomski and his ilk have no standing with the Israeli public. Thankfully, the NYT is no longer influential as it used to be. This means that Tommy's writings are not counted by millions of others too… [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.116.37 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Reverted edit
I reverted because this quote is rather long and seems undue weight to the point of soapboxing, at least here in Friedman's article. The long version seems more appropriate for another article, but I think some of it would be reasonable to include some of the key bits perhaps, so here you go. Here's what some malicious redlinked-username vandal, only kidding, tried to add:
- Edward Said criticized Friedman's reporting on Israel and Palestine:
...that pseudo-pundit -- the insufferably conceited Thomas Friedman -- still has the gall to say that "Arab TV" shows one-sided pictures, as if "Arab TV" should be showing things from Israel's point-of-view the way CNN does, with "Mid-East violence" the catch-all word for the ethnic cleansing that Israel is wreaking on the Palestinians in their ghettoes and camps... Can he not see that he and his writings are part of the problem, that in their maundering self-justifications and the dishonesty in which he shows no sign of the self-criticism he keeps hectoringly expecting of others, he actually aggravates the ignorance and the misperceptions rather than reducing them? Poor journalist and educator, he." ref[5] /ref
ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Wife's family's business
This section is getting rather long. Please consolidate. This article is about Friedman. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
net worth?
Is his net worth relevant? He isn't known for his wealth and hasn't been listed on any magazines like "wealthiest journalists." There are many similar people who are much wealthier that don't have their net worth listed.
What is the rationale behind the inclusion in the template box? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- As the subject is an untiring defender of the capitalist order, I would think that it was. See for example his editorial in todays NYT which is representative of a virtually unending stream of same. Lycurgus (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, could you name a member of this "many"? I'm sure there are plenty of feuilletonists at his level as capital, but "much wealthier" is a linguistic value that implies a net worth of at least 1 greater order of magnitude, say hundreds of millions or billions. Official Capitalists like Buffet or Soros who editorialize on occasion don't count. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Remember Capitalism 2.0? Now from the same author we have: Capitalism 2012. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Fixed Bad Link
Removed This Link That Returned 404
- Friedman's 2002 Pulitzer Prize-winning works
- http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/commentary/works/
Replaced With This Corrected Link
- Friedman's 2002 Pulitzer Prize-winning works
- http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2002-Commentary/
DCStrain 09:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCStrain (talk • contribs)
Pronunciation
Is it pronounced "freed man" or "fried man" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Opinions and stances
I don't know who wrote this section, but it greatly deviates from best practice. This is essentially a cherry picked selection of opinions rather than a description of the books Friedman published. It needs to focus directly on his important publications and less on what editors think is important. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Too Much Friedman, Not Enough Chomsky
I barely saw any of Noam Chomsky's views while reading this. Just because the article has Friedman's name in the title doesn't mean he needs to be in every graf. Let's try to be a little more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.88.1 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is a biography, and as such it has little to nothing to do with Chomsky. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Doe's he damaging Israel?
--46.116.113.209 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Use of the word "liberal"
With respect to whether or not to label Friedman a "liberal": to most of the world, a liberal is an advocate of free trade, not a leftist. The terms were conflated in this country when FDR countered the protectionist rightists who had helped bring on the great depression. The fact that the term applies to free-thinking on social / religious issues, further confused matters. Bush has further confused matters by setting records for deficit spending while calling himself a conservative. At this point, I say to all those opinion makers who dwell on these terms: "define your terms!" The fact that a person or policy is called liberal or conservative in this country at this time seems almost irrelevent. What's important is whose interests they serve. Friedman, by this measure, is a "neoliberal" corporatist of the moderate variety. His increasingly hawkish views on Middle East are consistant with that agenda (although not all neoliberals are hawks).
At this point (2013), we could hardly say Bush Jr set any deficit spending records because Obama has racked up more debt than all prior presidents. America is now 17 trillion in the hole and the debacle of Obamacare is just starting up to add more. Another reason we know Friedman to be a typical liberal is that he is employed and praised by the NY Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion isn't supported and plays into the now discredited and archaic "left-right dynamic" that seems to be fading as the days go by. Nobody is completely liberal or conservative, left or right. These are artificial distinctions invented by partisan players to push one POV over another. Reality does not have a liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
From a European standpoint Friedman is a "classic liberal", which is supposed to be the moderate to extreme right wing of the political spectre. In fact in Germany and Austria liberals are seated to the right of the respective conservative parties in parliament and known to promote thrift, low taxation and free markets, in fact the liberal party in Germany is the only party with that agenda in that (my) country, all others including the Christian Conservatives leaning to the far left from an American point of view, i.e. promoting labor market regulation, high taxes and Keynesian type investing sprees. Hirsch.im.wald 06:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Counterpunch has a good article on Friedman. From what I have seen of him on TV and reviews of his books - sure ruins the luster of Pulitzer prizes. Can you buy those things? His website seems to only push his book "The World is Flat". A sorry piece of analysis by a globalist - you sell out your country then whine that your country is losing its edge, they give prizes/sell books for this junk. His latest anti-Arab diatribe has those ungrates not able to grasp that we are the good guys - only the NYT would keep this guy round.