Talk:World on Fire (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Poor Criticism Section[edit]

Chua did not attempt to make a statistical analysis. One such shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons [1]. This is related to the democratic peace theory which argues that more democracy causes a general decrease in systematic violence.

I have some serious reservations about this "Criticism" Section:

(1) Problems with how you interpreted the source

   Your source measures from 1946 to present...remember that the Cold War was not the 
   only thing going on during this period...The implications of the Cold War would have 
   been pretty miniscule if it weren't for the ongoing processes of European 
   De-Colonization in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia, South East 
   Asia, and East Asia--many of the conflicts during the Coldwar were motivated by 
   structural conditions that were in the works regardless of the coldwar context--the 
   coldwar only supplied militants of any and every stripe with arms suppliers (US / 

(2) Your "Statistical Analysis"

   Yes there was "an increase in the number of democratic states" after the fall of 
   the Cold War--many of which liberalized their markets and reduced the scope of 
   state activities and state institutions (consult "Washington Consensus" and Milton 
   Friedman "Liberalize, Liberalize, Liberalize").  The vast majority of these states 
   fell flat on their face, they reduced their capacity to effectively manage and 
   discharge necessary state functions in the name of open markets that left the vast 
   majority of the population impoverished and disenfranchised.  This is what Chua is 
   addressing---the transmission of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Overnight 
   I'm not sure what the fall of communism has to do with Chua's book, as she never 
   touches upon it--except to discuss that this was the impetus for the export of US 
   Democracy & Laissez Faire Capitalism  
   I think that you, perhaps, misunderstood her operationalized term "Democracy."  
   She never asserted that Democratzation in and of itself was bad policy--what she 
   argued, was that imposing Democracy in the form that we have it on a state with 
   little or no experience in Democracy is unrealistic--how can we export our 
   Democratic model successfully without exporting the 200 yrs in its making?   
   If you included that growing number of "Democracies" figure in rebuttal to 
   her "Backlash against Democracy" claim, then again, you were mistaken.  She 
   distinguishes between Demagoguery and Democracy, indicating the former as evidence 
   of a backlash against the latter insofar as the practices of Demagogues in 
   relation to MDMs has been one of confiscation, state racism, ethnic cleansing, 
   mass expulsions, and outright genocide.

(3) "total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of

   refugees and displaced persons"
   Yes, all very true.  But is this relevant to a criticism of World on 
   However you might think this is relevant to the probably isn't....recall 
   for just a moment (if you actually read the whole book) that Chua wasn't 
   addressing "WAR" and her study did not consider considered the Ethnic 
   tension and conflict within the confines of states...wherein the target populations 
   she was considering, usually made up between .5-2% of the population.  

(4) "Chua did not attempt to make a statistical analysis."

   Chua largely used economic indicators of MDM capital-exodus from Markets/Economies 
   as her measure...What Statistical analyses do you propose one could effectively, 
   with little margin of error and conflicting cultural distinctions affecting 
   measurement and variables, use?  

(5) "Democratic Peace Theory"

   My biased opinion: That is pure and utter nonsense...That theory is untestable, and 
   will remain so until the entire world is covered with Democratic regimes.
   My factual Problem: Its nice that you try to include a theoretical 
   consideration....however, do not forget the Realist, Neo-Realist, Liberal, Neo-
   Liberal, Cosmopolitan, Biopower (Michel Focault/Felix Deleuze), Constructivist, 
   Postmodern, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Walzian (Jus Ad Bellum), Internationalist, or 
   Huntingdon's Clash of Civilizations Theories...Because of all the theories you could 
   have addressed in relation to this book....Democratic Peace Theory was the worst…

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

From Democracy article[edit]

I have moved the following text from the Democracy article, in the process of streamlining its reference to Chua's World on Fire. It might be useful for the criticism section, although the original author's phrasing has WP:NPOV problems ("readily disputed"). - David Oberst 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nevertheless her thesis and her conclusions are readily disputed in many reviews of her book, including by George Leef [1] of the John Locke Foundation who proposes that many other factors may account for the violence, including the most simple motivation of pure racism [2]. Leef concludes his review, "All that World on Fire proves in the end is that governments cannot be depended upon to prevent violence against people who have been, for whatever reason, demonized by others. That’s nothing new."

I request that you keep your talk directed at ideas, and away from people; makes it easier for me (and other people) to do the same. Most importantly, the citation of NPOV requires justification. Justify this NPOV assertion and note exactly and specifically what doesn't seem neutral about it. Personally, I see NO NPOV issues at all, unless you are having problems with the book review of George Leef .. is that the case? As a sports box commentator, by self-description, editors aren't allowed to hold bias either for or against respectable sources like Leef, so I am adding this section to the article, as should have been done originally. --Landen99 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor's issues with sources[edit]

I see NO issues with sources in this article. Everything appears well-sourced to me. --Landen99 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the following?
"In her own native country of the Philippines, she explains that the ethnic-Chinese minority has far greater wealth than the indigenous majority."
"This is a hotbed for envy and bitterness directed at the minority."
"Chua does not think that this wealth is due to biologic superiority."
"There are different reasons for the market dominance of different groups."
"Some groups achieve market dominance because of colonial oppression or apartheid."
"In other cases it may due to the culture and family networks of these groups."
The single links at the end of each paragraph often do cover all of the material in the entire paragraph, only the final sentence. Much of this is pure inference (and often bad writing) from whoever created the article. I suggest that the person either find the specific page numbers or remove the material entirely. --WassermannNYC 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please give a specific example of something not sourced.Ultramarine 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Summary is mainly just bad book review prose and could be upgraded by someone with some free time and a copy of the book (I have neither). However, in the Criticism section, is there any source on the whole "democratic peace theory" paragraph? I don't remember any of the reviews I ran across bringing up anything like this, and I assume it was introduced by an editor instead of reflecting an existing response to the book? - David Oberst 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Research showing that more democratic states have less internal violence is related to this subject.Ultramarine 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be okay for a "See Also" link. But the paragraph begins with what could be considered a leading statement, postulates the link, and draws the conclusions, all without reference to any source which connects "World on Fire" with "democratic peace theory". For all I know it might be the kernal of a good argument (or simply magic pixie dust); the whole point of WP:A is to avoid forcing a reader (or editor) from having to evaluate these sorts of unattributed syntheses. Given that the book seems to drawn a certain amount of attention (judging from the range of reviews I've come across), is there not a source to point to which refers to Chua's work and the peace theory together? - David Oberst 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Added better source and another argument.Ultramarine 08:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I removed that paragraph[edit]

There were two big problems with that paragraph:

  1. It did not state a criticism of World on Fire by a third party, it asserted factual inaccuracy of its own. This is original research: even if something isn't true, wikipedia cannot link to sources which contradict it and draw the conclusion that it is untrue, it must state that said sources have drawn the conclusion that it is untrue. Please see the synthesis section of No original research.
  1. This source did not draw the conclusion that World on Fire was untrue, mostly because it does not even mention the book or its author. As such, it cannot be used to criticize the book because doing so would be drawing conclusions the source does not.

For these reasons I have removed this paragraph. As true as it might be, it isn't verified. Atropos 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Worldsfah.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Worldsfah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. A slightly smarter bot would have only tagged book cover images which are being used on more than one article, or book cover images which are used on articles not in some subcategory of Category:Books, or book cover images which are too high resolution ... cab (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)