Talk:Naomi Klein

Criticism

Various criticisms have been posted previously concerning Klein's views and theories. Why have these been purposefully edited out? These were documented accounts, i.e. The Rebel Sell and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetternity (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

for example her central premise is that market economies are incompatible with democracy. even though so far every centrally planned economy has been a dictatorship, and nearly all market economies are democratically run, the only real exception to the rule is china which has growing market components to its economy but is still a dictatorship. clearly free market reforms can be problematic. but the notion that markets can never take place in anything but a dictatorship is a ridiculous arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.189.120 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

no market economies have been democratically run, but most have elections, which doesn't mean shit. also, centrally planned economies are not something she advocates, and most, not all have been dictators. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I think you'll find that having free and fair elections does suggest a country is "democratically run", for better or worse. But please, read wp:soap. TastyCakes (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And the fact is that there is a significant correlation between how democratic a country is and how free the economy is. [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

she has also been criticised for making Juan Peron look like a social democrat in her film "the take". http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7824 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.168.114 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens finds a way to criticize anyone who opposes the Iraq war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

She believe that the State should be everywhere.She worry so much about corporations and see so much good things on the left that can´t even see how wring she is. Juan Peron, that she say that was a democratic person, was a dictator. He killed a lot of persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.32.89 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-insert criticism please 87.63.69.127 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

C-Span interview centering on her Wikipedia article.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290173-1

Brian Lamb read her her Wikipedia article in a Q&A on Nov. 20. It might have relevant details for this article although it will be more difficult to cite and less reliable than written work. gren グレン 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The C-SPAN transcript is posted on their website, I have added a link to it (in Media). --Mdukas (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Lulu, can you please self-revert and say specifically, regarding your last four reverts, what you like and don't like and why? Thanks, IronDuke 04:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is vastly WP:UNDUE weight to directly quote (at more length than is relevant) two different editorials, each making the exact same claim that "Klein disses Friedman". Either one of them, by itself, ventures too close to hagiography of St. Milton, and is of little actual relevance to the reception or topic of Klein's Shock Doctrine. Two of them turn the section into a big WP:SOAPBOX. Actually, the use of direct quotes by the critics is sloppy style to start with, in an encyclopedia it is almost always better style to provide an accurate and concise paraphrase (certainly of political disputes, an article on poetry and poets might have a different relevance). Excessive direct quoting of critics emphasizes the soapbox angle.

Moreover, a brief version of Klein's comments in response to these critics seems germane. Specifically, her claim that these specific free-market critics attack a straw man and confuse research with opinion. Given that this is a bio of Klein rather than of someone else, her response is inherently much more notable than an infinite tit-for-tat of every reply-to-a-reply-to-a-reply that might follow later (by someone different). That said, Klein's own comments here should be indicated as concisely as possible, and in paraphrase not in direct quote. LotLE×talk 09:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that they don't confuse research with opinion, and the straw man Klein refers to doesn't exist. If we allow Kleins response, we must, in the interest of objectivity, allow the responses to her response. I don't think any of them should be there, because in all essence it's just Klein responding to accurate criticism with "It's strawmen" and not actually answering most of the criticism, and then Johan Norberg saying "She calls all criticism 'attacks' instead of answering them". The whole exchange is rather childish, and adds nothing to this article nor to the understanding of the book or the topic or the criticism. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the current edit avoids this problem. But it is absolutely dead wrong to suppose that "balance" means that if we use Klein's response, we must include Norberg's counter-response. And it's still worse for us to judge that Norberg must be right, and Klein must be wrong in a fancy of WP:OR. The supposition that we are trying to find the WP:TRUTH about free-market policies in this article is antithetical to an encyclopedia. Moreover, this is an article about Klein, and what she writes or does is inherently and overwhelmingly more germane than what some other guy who disagrees with her might do or write. Over at Norberg's article, of course, the symmetrical position would apply. That article is about him, and therefore not everyone who might eventually say everything critical of him is as relevant as he is himself. But this is the Klein article. LotLE×talk 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Norberg from his short article instead of the later and deeper report he did doesn't make sense, so I changed that. Since Redburns part about Friedman was removed in favor of Norbergs I added it back as a result, although I'm not sure it's actually very useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a contextualizing sentence that (predictably) conservatives condemned the book and liberals praised it. It is misleading to dig up every conservative review and present it as if that were the total reaction. I'm fine leaving out the quibbles where Klein criticizes her critics. Putting in a response-to-her-response is absolute WP:SOAPBOX, but Klein's own comments are not essential if we make a basic observation that she had positive reviews to start with. I found two examples of fairly predictable praise, from The Guardian and New York Times, and gave short blurbs on those. That makes for a much better flow into the various conservatives giving their own rather predictable condemnation. LotLE×talk 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Norberg is liberal. Besides, it breaking WP:NOR or otherwise opinionating. I removed the sentence. I also do think that "flawed" is not enough "paraphrasing" for something that in fact is "hopelessly flawed at virtually every level". "Flawed" means that there are errors. We can cut out "Hopelessly", I guess. I'll do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... no, Norberg is not liberal. He writes for the far-right Cato Institute (and for Reason magazine), which is about as far away from the meaning of modern Liberalism as one can get (yes, I have read Ricardo and Smith, and know the history and nuance of the term). But the addition of "flawed at virtually every level" is fine. It still looks like a fit of hyperbole, but the text shows it is Norberg's hyperbole not Wikipedia's, so no harm no foul.

On the context sentence: it really is important framing. I modified it to add the quibble that, sure, some lefties also didn't like the book. But it's pretty relevant for reader that reactions to the book pretty much split along exactly the political lines that you'd expect. The way the article had read, it tried to suggest there was a surprising uproar of condemnation from unexpected quarters... which just isn't the case. The folks condemned by Klein's book didn't like the book, and the folks who had been saying pretty much the same thing, did like it. LotLE×talk 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Um....yes, Norberg is liberal. Ask him. I think the main problem here is that you think that liberals are freedom-hating quasi-socialists, just because that's how the word is used amongst conservatives in the US. Liberal and left does not mean the same thing. The sentence is still both wrong, opinionated and unreferenced. I removed it again, and will continue to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a comment on her writing from the Economist in there at one point? What happened to that? Personally, I don't think Klein's assertion that her critics are using strawman arguments is very accurate, or only applies to some of their criticism, and thought it was best to remove it because of that. TastyCakes (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think Klein is probably more-or-less right, but her defense is relatively vacuous about the specifics. Adding a couple of the more positive reviews (as I did, very concisely) is much more germane than is getting into the tit-for-tat. As long as we show that the book had mixed reception, that's fine. LotLE×talk 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree about not getting into the tit-for-tat. Maybe you could convince "annoynmous" about this in The Shock Doctrine article too? He won't listen to me, as I don't have his political positions. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited (or even really read) the article on the book itself. I won't have a chance to for about a week, because I am traveling. However, I would appreciate if you would find a good neutral version of the framing sentence that I added and that you repeatedly reverted. Something very much like what I wrote would make the section flow far better (e.g. conservatives generally panned the book, lefties generally praised it... with whatever combination of hedge words about some/most/all/whatever along the way). It's not horrible without that sentence, but it reads much better with what I put in.LotLE×talk 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think I can. The whole idea of left vs right is misguided and damaging. It's sectarian stupidity to be blunt. Looking at the world like that is blinding and making it impossible to see the facts. Possibly we could say that Klein fans liked it an Klein-cricists panned it, but that's really pretty pointless and obvious. The great separation when it comes to this book is between those who subscribe to a fact based world-view and those who do not, and that's impossible to frame in any way that is NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This would be more convincing if there had been one single magazine or journal usually called "conservative" that had written a positive review of Shock Doctrine or one single one usually called "left" or "liberal" that had condemned it. In the real world, rather than some imagined better one where folks are not "blinded", the conservative negative reviews were univocal and uniform. The left is a bit more open to considering facts and analysis, and some indeed criticized Klein on minor points, but uniformly within a general tone of praising the book. When something has a 100% perfect correlation, it's a bit sophistical to condemn it as a bad categorization. It is funny that every single idea promoted by so-called "liberal" Norberg, and every single one promoted by editor OpenFuture, is exactly the standard, doctrinaire conservative party line. LotLE×talk 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the people most critical of Klein are libertarians or supporters of free market economics in general, not "conservatives". Norberg is a classical liberal, what in the US would be called a fiscal conservative, not a conservative in the general sense. Blurring the line between the two is a common mistake, and part of the reason I agree with OpenFuture - left vs right in the sense you are portraying it isn't particularly useful here. I think it is entirely unfair to say that "the left is a bit more open to considering facts and analysis" on the issues in the Shock Doctrine - indeed, part of the criticism of the book and Klein's views in general are that they focus on examples chosen to prove her points, ignoring the cases that don't. I personally do not view such data selection as being more "considerate of facts and analysis". TastyCakes (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

LotLEx: I neither need to nor can convince you. The problem in your answer is that you persist in splitting the world into "left" and "conservative". That's wrong, but as long as you persist in doing so you will never be able to understand that it's wrong. You'll continue to block out everything that doesn't suit you, and invent straw men, like that me and Norberg would be conservative and promote conservative ideas, something that is a complete and utter fantasy. I have not got a conservative molecule in my whole body.

But, that said, this is not a debating forum. If you want to debate the issues, send me your email. I doubt I will be able to enlighten you, but I'm sure I would enjoy trying, I usually do, even when I fail. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that conservative v. liberal is not a useful dichotomy here. IronDuke 23:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is edging towards a set of arguments that aren't particularly productive for the article. I don't think this should be an unusually difficult article to balance - there are notable sources of both praise and criticism of Klein's works and views. Presenting them all would seem straightforward enough... Filling in the praise should be simple, and already appears done. It seems to me that the criticisms can, and should, be grouped together, starting with a sentence along the lines of "Free market advocates fiercely criticized Klein's views in both Fences and Windows and the Shock Doctrine" and then fill out the more notable whos and whys. TastyCakes (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That is probably the best way. IronDuke 23:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Education

There have been two recent edits ([2] by Special:Contributions/Boarhill123456 (talk), and [3] by 206.130.174.42 (talk)) to change this:

In 1995, she returned to the University of Toronto to finish her degree.

to this:

Although she never completed her degree at the Uiversity of Toronto, she holds an honourary Doctor of Civil Laws degree from the University of King’s College, Nova Scotia.

or, equivallently, to add:

but never graduated.She holds an honouraray Doctor of Laws degree from the UNiversity of Kings College Halifax.

I have some concerns:

1. The change is unsourced
2. Leaving in "{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}}" doesn't mitigate the lack of WP:CITE for the change. Is it WP:V?
3. There's misspellings in both changes
4. Per WP:IDENTICAL, is there a bit of WP:IPSOCK WP:EWS going on?

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as it being unsourced, I agree but it seems the old one wasn't either. Did she finish her degree when she went back in 1995? As far as the wording, I think the new way is probably a little less biased, the article shouldn't play down her lack of graduation by mentioning an honourary degree, both should be mentioned as the separate facts they are. TastyCakes (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, if true, statement of the fact that Klein did not graduate, and received an honorary degree, are notable and better than the current version. I am not happy either with the lack of citation in the prior version. The best thing is for someone to find a citation for the actual facts (whatever they are), and put in a (correctly spelled and grammatical) sentence that states something verifiable. LotLE×talk 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

She did not graduate. She said so herself on the C-SPAN (Q&A program) interview on TV recently (I watched it myself). I have cited the link to the C-SPAN page with the transcript and the program. (Very interesting interview). There is not any doubt, she said very clearly that she never finished her degree (just a few credits short in her words, but she got a journalism job, during an exciting election campaign, and one thing led to another). --Mdukas (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Journalist?

The lead says that Klein is a journalist, and yet there is very little here to indicate an actual journalism career, aside from some early post college stuff. Indeed, the section on her journalism career covers her work as an author, and makes no mention of journalism. Is there any reason why we call her a journalist at all, surely she is known for her books, not for her brief stint as a magazine editor? Bonewah (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is strange that under "Career in journalism" it just lists books she's written, but I think her work at the Globe and Mail and "This Magazine" might qualify her as a journalist, but it's not really clear what she did at the Globe and Mail. Is being an editor the same as being a journalist? I'm not sure of the exact definition. At the very least I think the article should name her a journalist after "author" and "activist" since she is clearly better known as those two, not "journalist, author and activist" as it is now. TastyCakes (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why say she is a journalist at all, if the most we can say is that she might have done some journalism work early on? Look at it this way, if she had a waitress job while in college we wouldnt say "Author, journalist, waitress" would we? I think we should only identify her for what she is known for, not some incidental stuff that (may or may not have) happened early on. Bonewah (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Klein's journalism, if indeed there is any. She is an occasional columnist for magazines such as The Nation, and perhaps that is what an editor meant by journalist. Unless somebody can say for certain that her journalism was significant, I agree with Bonewah that it should be removed from the lede. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the word "journalist" from the lead. "Author" is a better description that we should retain. LotLE×talk 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar leftist background

The article said that Naomi Klein's husband came from "a similar leftist background" - which is quite inaccurate since the Lewis family has always been staunchly anti-communist while that was not the case for Klein's family. I think that this is an important distinction to make between the two families and because it shows the influence of the Lewis's on Klein's thinking. There is a difference between being a communist and being of the anti-communist left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.84.175 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, it might be similar if you are far right, but it's not similar if you are left. :) Changed it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)