Talk:Naomi Klein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

feedback from Nike

What kind of *feedback* did she get from Nike?

• Nike's response to No Logo used to be at http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/labor/nologo_let.shtml but it was deleted ( intentional or not ) when Nike redesigned their site. When it was available I read it .. and the message was "we don't agree with what you say in the book" basically. -- pty 21:39 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• • The archive.org copy is linked from the discussion page at Talk:No_Logo. It's quite a fascinating read, actually, with interesting obfuscatory views of Klein's figures (without actually disputing them), and a lovely circular justification of why labour costs comprise so little of the retail value of their products. Almost masterful in its eviltude. :)

RE: An aunt of Klein's is married to architect Daniel Libeskind.

Actually, DL's wife is Nina Lewis-Libeskind (Stephen Lewis's sister and Avi Lewis's aunt). Nina is only Klein's aunt through marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is she Jewish?

Maybe we could add in if she is or not.

• Ummm... why? -- User:Ants

She says her first public speaking engagement was her bar mitzvah, where she addressed racism issues. But we could leave that out if it is controversial to identify one's religion or ethnicity.Bdell555 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"controversial" isn't quite the right word for identifying religion and "ethnicity" only when it isn't Christian or white. -- 71.102.136.107 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment is ancient history now, but it's bat mitzvah for a woman. Pinkville (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the mp3 link really work? Im not able to find it on the given page? --Aryah 02:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ON NAOMI KLEIN BEING JEWISH

In Chapter Four, Naomi Klein mentions a UN resolution which included group slaughter based on political affiliation its definition of genocide - that it can be genocide when a group is killed, not because of race, ethnicity or religion but because of ideological differences (pp. 119-120). Naomi Klein then goes on to point out the danger of any political or economic movement which “requires a monopoly of ideology” and perceives competing ideologies as “distortions”, “filth” or “disease” which need to be amputated - either from the person or from society. In passing, Naomi Klein mentions Residential Schools, a practice which many First Nations leaders describe as “cultural genocide” because its purpose was to strip Native children of their language and cultural identity ( http://afn.ca/article.asp?id=3324 ).

On page 135, Naomi Klein quotes “Fritz Klein,” a Nazi doctor who shares her last name (and her father’s profession) justifying the slaughter of those who, like Naomi Klein herself, were born Jewish. There were many in the Nazi regime who could have supplied Naomi Klein with a similar quote who did not share her last name, so this inclusion of a villain who shared her own surname seems deliberate. Similarily, in an interview on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, Naomi Klein states that her book is not about preaching her ideology and that she agrees with all criticisms of her work – presumably including criticisms levied by those who hate everything Naomi Klein stands for. This chapter seems to be about Naomi Klein facing the possibility that any ideology can become corrupted, in the fashion which she describes, when it perceives itself incapable of coexisting in a society with other ideologies.

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1667 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 07:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Reconstruction

Re: "Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia" - it would be useful to point out that Klein's theory in this article has been overtaken by events. That is, with the three elections in Iraq in 2005 and the formation of a government in 2006, the structure of the Iraqi goverment and its economy are determined by Iraqis, not by some Bush administration neocon plan, as imagined by Klein.

• • Um, what's that? You're completely wrong, my dear neo-con troll. Here are some LAWS in fact passed by Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority that totally contradict your utterly false and misleading claim: Soon after the occupation of Iraq, United State created the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). CPA was to act as a provisional government until such a time as Iraqis could hold an election and create a government. Mr. Paul Bremer was given the full power to do as he liked. "The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator."

Mr. Bremer was appointed the President, the parliament and the Supreme Court. He immediately started issuing orders that in effect were laws. There are a total of 100 orders. I can only list a few here to make my point. Some of his interesting orders are as follows:

• "Order No. 39:allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) up to100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" - which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations - Halliburton and Bechtel, for example - to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

•"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

•"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

•"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

•"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

•"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products - devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."

So nope: Iraq is pretty much a puppet neo-colonialist state in occupation and not independent and self directed. Just read those laws passed! Klein is correct in her observations and you are incorrect. The source of my information above is Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar of Norway, which is part of his article "US vs. Iran" ironically. His article is on the www.zmag.org website for anybody who wants to read it. Thanks for reading! (Quite shocking those laws as itemized above, isn't it?). And by the way personally I think Naomi Klein is a most excellent writer and commentator, among the very best in fact. Keep up the great writing Naomi! Zamboni driver 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe people haven't sabataged this enough to get it locked. I'm not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing. It means either people aren't reading her books, or people are reading her books and liking them.

"Irakees"? New Orleans "tsunami"??? Haha... At least get your basic facts / spelling / references right before doing your part to propagate a conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.89.161 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the US government plotted to turn over the country's oil fields to BP and Shell? Another simple fact-check would reveal that those are European companies, which the US govt / CPA virtually shut out of reconstruction contracts for several years following the invasion. If you wanted to believe in an oil conspiracy theory, can I suggest you use Exxon, an American oil company? That would actually make "sense". 67.186.89.161 05:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)s

the US Government wants to control the oil in the middle east not necessarily use it. the U.S. wants to control the world if you control the recourses you control the world oil is just a tool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.142.38 (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Becoming a Feminist

She credits her wake-up call to feminism as the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre of female engineering students.

If the psycho killer had credited Satan as his motivation instead, would she have considered Satanism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.182.210 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that your comment has nothing to do with improving the article, it doesn't make any sense. -- 71.102.136.107 00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an important question. Has she addressed it? Mwahcysl (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A source for Naomi Klein's education, crediting the Montreal Massacre for her latent feminism is her interview on The Hour. Seems that Klein did not finish her degree because of her writing - The Hour presents the information very quickly:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1667

I think that Naomi Klein blames her own embarrassment in school soon after her mother's film "Not a Love Story" came out for initially distancing herself from her parent's activism. Read somewhere that this was the case but forget where.

There should be a separate section for each of her two books and her movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Education?

Why is there nothing adequate about her education? What are her academic credentials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.80.33 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a section titled "Education" yet doesn't give any information about her education. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but her sister teaches anthropology, I believe, at the University of Oklahoma. A left of center professor of mine had to call Naoimi out, when she came to OU to speak about her then upcoming book, on her claim that Haiti became a failed state because of American capitalism, which is just not supported by the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein's interview on The Hour lists her education and how it was interrupted.

"American Capitalism" may have been a poor choice of words on Naomi Klein's part since what the book talks about are policies imposed on other countries which go way beyond what was ever implemented in the United States. The school of thought which these policies are based on came from the US and, in some cases, so did the pressure to implement them (though one can argue that Multinational Corporations don't strictly belong to any country).

Klein's husband's family are very adamantly anti-Marxist/anti-Communist and, it seems that a bit of that has rubbed off on Klein as well - in her book, she tends to see Communism and Conservatism as equally prone to Corporatism. Her husbands grandfather was the one who kept Marxist influences out of the NDP and her husband's great-grandfather left Poland because he was threatened by the Soviets over his union activism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is true, but we need to hear from someone who has discussed such issues with her. For example, what are her views on Trotsky? What does she think of Lenin? We need to have answers to these questions in order to form a proper article. Mwahcysl (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

misrepresenting sources

Robert Cole did not dismiss the book as a leftist rant. what he actually wrote was, "The Shock Doctrine is lucidly written and comprehensively researched, but leans heavily on partisan contributions from the cuttings library and the blogosphere. Ultimately it fails because it is too easy to dismiss as a leftist rant." please don't misrepresent the views in sources Marshmellowgoggles (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include reviews form Klein's website please find direct sources for them. Personal websites are not reliable sources for self-praise. -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008 article in Rolling Stone

Naomi's written a long article on Chinese security politics, the companies, both Chinese and American, that enable them, and how western countries are increasingly similar. Seems like something to add to the article, but I feel like I can't word it well enough. Meneth (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, she starts of the article calling prosperity and economic freedom "crack cocaine", and that both seems to be the only thing noteworthy in that article as well as a good summary on her political views. --Regebro (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Dropping

A massive liost of people who liked her work is without useful content. If Adam Smith or Milton Friedman were to get such treatment, it would fill the page. Larklight (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not easy to do something about that. The book *did* receive a lot of praise, and it is hard to make "substantial praise". It's easy to to substantial criticism, though. :) It would be nice if we somehow could reorganise this section (and in fact, move it to The Shock Doctrine where it belongs) in a way that more accurately reflects the reality of the criticism and praise while being NPOV. Suggestions welcome. --Regebro (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The section is not without merit- which is why I didn't delete it. However, a massive list of names *is* without merit, which is why I took that bit out. In way of suggestions, my first is to remove the useless list, and the second is to actually talk about the content of the book, rather than simply say it's amazing. If this isn't POV feasible, becuase it appears all the comments about content are negative, the non-contnent concerned ones can go after the content-concerned ones.

Thirdly, I think the line about endnotes should also go. I've got a copy of Free to Choose here (Friedman), and it's got 16 pages of endnotes, in on quite large pages. I don't think it's really notable, and it makes her look a lot more well-grounded than she is. Larklight (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find the fact that Subcommandande Marcos praise of the book is referenced on the Shock Doctrines homepage notable for one. If murderous terrorist supported what I wrote I would try to keep quite about that. ;) I agree about the end-notes. As Norberg hypothesizes, she may not ever have read most of the texts in her endnotes, but only been feed the quotes out of context by her twelve researchers. --Regebro (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:) Unfortunitly, I can't revert the anon anymore, I think I'm already over the 3RR limit. I think elucidating on the 20page report might be a good idea, I've just read it, and it seems far fairer to Friedman Larklight (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think not calling Cown an economist is fine, (to the anon) Larklight (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mixed reviews?

"The book has received mixed reviews from Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch,[25] Shashi Tharoor in the Washington Post,[26] and Tom Redburn in the New York Times.[27]"

What exactly is mixed with CounterPunch and New York times reviews? I can't see they say anything particularily positive? --Regebro (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want, we'll drop the counterpoint one? And I've reworded the NYT one. Larklight (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me. --Regebro (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

from counterpunch: "Klein's outrage is admirable. Her specific exposes across six decades of infamy are often excellent, but in her larger ambitions her metaphors betray her."

from ny times: "Friedman’s association with Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, was indeed the worst stain on his career. His defense that his economic advice to Pinochet was no different from what a doctor might give a government on how to deal with an outbreak of AIDS is not very persuasive.

Moreover, it is no secret that capitalism does not require a democratic political system to thrive: China is proof of that. Ms. Klein is not alone, either, in pointing out that many governments serve to protect the interests of the rich, and that as inequality grows, the threat rises that the establishment will turn to undemocratic means to thwart the will of the majority.

Ms. Klein exposes the hypocrisy behind those who promote free enterprise but accept autocratic regimes to carry it out, which makes her book a useful corrective to some of the uncritical celebrations of the spread of globalization since the collapse of the Soviet empire.

But her argument constantly overreaches, because her goal is not really to tame capitalism so much as to taunt it."

from washington post: "Despite its limitations, The Shock Doctrine is a valuable addition to the corpus of popular books that have attempted to rethink the big ideas of our post-Cold War age. Francis Fukuyama's notion of the "end of history" -- the idea that all societies would be governed by liberal democracy and free markets -- started the process of reflection; Samuel Huntington's concept of the "clash of civilizations" underpinned much of the anxiety that followed the realization that reports of history's demise were exaggerated. Thomas Friedman's celebration of the flatness of the globalized world is now countered by Klein's argument that when disasters flatten societies, capitalists see opportunities to profit and spread their influence. Each thesis has its flaws, but each contributes to the contest of ideas about the shape and direction of our current Age of Uncertainty. For this reason, and for the vigor and accessibility with which she marshals her argument, Naomi Klein is well worth reading."

what exactly of these do you feel is unbefitting the definition of "mixed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.95.76 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All of it? I don't think these one vaguely positive quote from Counterpunch makes it "mixed". Same thing goes for the NY times one. It admits that she exposes hypocracy of some people, but the rest of the review is negative. That is not "mixed" in any way. --Regebro (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shock doctrine reception - WP:COATRACK

This is a very short note about WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. The current use of the Reception subsection of the piece about the The Shock doctrine is becoming a "coatrack" for reviews and criticisms of the book. By doing so it will become a WP:BLP issue. Criticism (especially) needs to be very well sourced (see WP:HARM) and then given only due weight, otherwise the section become a POV fork. Violations of WP:BLP are taken very seriously, so please review the linked policies before adding to the section--Cailil ^talk 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the reception subsection is getting to be more about what's good and bad about the book. I have wanted to expand the book article instead and add a proper criticism section, but I don't have time. Maybe somebodye else can do it?

However, there is no way in all of lower heck that this could have anything to do with WP:BLP. It's not criticism of Klein, but of her book. --Regebro (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of the characterization of the Tyler Cowen and Stephen Holmes quotes in the section. The first part of each is about the author not the book. The second part of each and the following group seem to me to be fine but these use the reception sub-section to say "Tyler Cowen, who called Klein's rhetoric "ridiculous"" and "Holmes is critical of what he sees both as Klein's "naive celebration of ‘joyous’ populism, democracy and mass movements"". The Holmes is the lesser of the 2 evils since it probably just needs clarification and rephrasing to say he's talking about the book.

But unaddressed this will become a BLP issue becuase it becomes a coatrack for something other than reception of the book. Also I'd point out that criticism sections are generally a bad idea (especially in articles covered by BLP) have a look at WP:CRIT for further about my point. The good thing about the reception section is that it abides by NPOV by attempting to give balance to both positive and negative reviews--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cricisism sections are necessary when discussing fundamentally flawed. You add nothing new in this comment, and I repeat what I wrote above. This is in no danger of becoming a BLP issue. --Regebro (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Regebro I'm not arguing with you and I think we might be talking past one another. Also I don't understand what you mean by "Cricisism sections are necessary when discussing fundamentally flawed."

Briefly if there needs to be a criticism of Naomi Klein section fine but the section about reception of her book should stay a section about the book - otherwise it becomes a coatrack.

This should not be a big issue. Additions to BLP articles need to be given due weight and be well sourced - if I thought something was badly violating BLP now I would remove it and report it to WP:BLPN - my above comments are a reminder.

Also as mentioned above if anyone wants to add a criticism section please read WP:CRIT it is very helpful. Also reading Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure is a good idea. The basic point of these is that it is better to integrate critical sources about a subject into the article where appropriate (thus providing NPOV) rather than creating sections devoted to criticism or acclaim. And as stated by Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise how criticism is included in biographies of living persons is a WP:BLP issue.

Once again I'm not arguing with you I'm posting a reminder about policy--Cailil ^talk 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what exactly is "fundamentally flawed"? What are you referring to? J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz

I think the fact that a Nobel Prize winning economist supports her book is notable, and that fact should be included in the text - particularly when negative criticism from an economics prof such as Cowen is present. Pinkville (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Stiglitz's Nobel is not related to the Klein's review, so a serious encyclopedia would not mention it in the Klein article. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pinkville. Being a Nobel Laureate is a great and notable credential to have, no serious encyclopedia would try to hide this fact. Dr.K. (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is a notable credential, but it is not relevant for this article. See Appeal_to_authority. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because the cited critics of her book attack it in terms of economics. One element in evaluating the merits of the criticism vs. the support is in comparing the credentials of critics and supporters. It's pertinent that a Nobel laureate in economics supports her economic analysis. Stiglitz's word must be seen to hold more weight than that of, say, Johan Norberg, whose CV is a decidedly thin and predominantly devoted to advocacy rather than academic analysis, or Fred Kaplan, a journalist, or Stephen Holmes, whose field is Law. There is no proposal to remove the criticism cited because it can't stand up against a Nobel laureate, so your appeal to authority point isn't relevant. Pinkville (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. If the person is a Nobel laureate in economics surely his opinion on topics related to economics carries more weight than that of a talk show host or another not so notable economics professor in some obscure university. I for one would like to know the qualifications and detailed credentials of anyone professing an opinion on any topic. Of course, at the end of the day, I would have to make my own mind and my opinion could be different than another person's because we may value the opinions of the experts differently. But as a minimum I would like to be informed of the exact credentials of the guy who tries to influence my opinion. There is no appeal to authority being made here. Stating qualifications and credentials is not as coercive as appealing to authority. It just gives a measure of a person's standing in the field of economics. Informing the readers of the background of the people involved in this controversy is intellectually more honest than trying to hide it. Readers can simply choose to ignore the credentials if they so wish. But hiding them gives the false impression everyone involved in this is equal. This is simply not the case. Science has, unfortunately, never been a democracy. Dr.K. (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If people want to find out who he is, they can click the link. Someone having, or not having, a nobel prize does not make their analysis any more relivant; nobel prizes in economics (not even technically nobel prizes) are awarded for basically one piece of work. Not for being right at everything Larklight (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Again noone said he was right at everything. That's your interpretation. It is simply a means of differentiating between the various critics or supporters of the book. It is up to the reader to ascribe any value to these opinions based on the credentials of their holders. Having a Nobel prize in economics makes your opinion at least relevant because it shows you are a qualified person in the field. Nothing more nothing less. Also clicking every time you see a name is tiring for the reader. The reader might not click so we have the opinion of a political pundit, let's say, on an equal footing with that of a distinguished economist. This can mislead the reader who thinks everyone is on an equal footing. Dr.K. (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

hi guys im new to doing this but i would like to point out that if you want to use the arguement that we need to look at the opinions of experts vs lamen, then you also need to point out that the overwhelming majority of economists do not agree with this book, and that stiglitz is the exeption rather than the rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.189.120 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Socialist

In this interview with the Socialist Review, Klein identifies herself as a "democratic socialist." I believe this self-characterization ought to be included somewhere on the page, as I have yet to find any other source when Klein identifies her personal politics. Where should we put this? 24.143.239.119 (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The section titled "Education" seems to be about more than Klein's education. Maybe it should be retitled something like "Background". It already mentions (without a source) that she is a feminist, so that seem to me to be an appropriate place to discuss her other political beliefs. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain I've read that she identifies as a "Social Democrat", which is a different concept than Democratic Socialism. I believe it was near the beginning of "The Shock Doctrine." Jcrav2k6 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Review of "Shock Doctrine" in The New Republic

Maybe this review [1] in The New Republic should be added to the page. I believe it informs the discussion on Klein primarily because it is from a magazine that is "centre left, liberal" (cf Wikipedia) and is not entirely positive. Indeed, Jonathan Chait concludes that: "Naomi Klein's relentless lumping together of all her ideological adversaries in the service of a monocausal theory of the world ultimately renders her analysis perfect nonsense." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.160.181 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Characterising Stiglitz's review of The Shock Doctrine

"[G]enerally positive" seems like a perfectly accurate and concise characterisation of Stiglitz's review of Klein's book. But if someone wants to add further quotes, please do so in context; for example, this edit misrepresents what Stiglitz wrote: The connection with a rogue C.I.A. scientist is overdramatic and unconvincing, but for Klein the larger lessons are clear...; Stiglitz referring to one comparison, not parts of the book. But I hardly think anything needs to be added in reference to Stiglitz's rather short review... Pinkville (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought my double-quote was a good way to go. There's negative stuff and positive stuff throughout the review. It opens up with the implication that the book is full of conspiracy theories, "There are no accidents in the world as seen by Naomi Klein." I said he calls parts "overdramatic and unconvincing", while (as I understand, not having read the book) that part is a large part of the framing of her argument--parallels in "shock". And there's qualifications, "Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies."; "Klein isn’t an economist but a journalist"; "These chapters are the least exciting parts of the book, but they are also the most convincing." So, without clipping out a whole lot of positive and negative quotes, it seems that including those two quotes makes sense. Cretog8 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your suggested change and sympathise with the idea behind it, but what you wrote (and write here) does mischaracterise Stiglitz's review. To take up what you've written here: You force an equation between conspiracy theories and Stiglitz's assertion that [t]here are no accidents in the world as seen by Naomi Klein; he may intend the reader to view the list of events that he summarises as examples of Klein conspiracy theorising, but he isn't explicit and he doesn't use the term until the end of the article, when he says, Some readers may see Klein’s findings as evidence of a giant conspiracy, a conclusion she explicitly disavows. It’s not the conspiracies that wreck the world but the series of wrong turns, failed policies, and little and big unfairnesses that add up... a view he seems to implicitly support. The only part of the book that he calls overdramatic and unconvincing is Klein's comparison of radical capitalist economic policy to Ewen Cameron's CIA-funded psychiatric experiments. The comparison, as is clear from Stiglit'z text, does not frame her argument, but provides the metaphor that colours her argument. The qualifications don't strike me as criticisms on Stiglitz's part, but as reminders of how to view her book. I just don't see such a brief review as requiring more comment than "generally positive" (a description that clearly suggests that he finds some fault with her work), adding quotes seems to overblow the significance of his response. Pinkville (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You say I mischaracterize Stigltz's review. Obviously, I don't think I did (insert emoticon here to acknowledge that I know you meant no harm), although I am listing above just the negative stuff from the review because I'm responding to your "positive" comment; I would include positive stuff if someone was calling it a critical review. But I think whether to characterize the review as "positive" or "mixed" is a tough call, and so it's a call we shouldn't make. For myself, it was that review which made me decide to put a low priority on reading the book--mixed enough to lower my interest. Cretog8 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

web poll in the lead

I think an unscientific web well probably doesn't warrant mentioning, and if it does, it doesn't belong in the lead, which doesn't even mention her major works (which it should). --Rob (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A good source

The New Yorker published a 9-page bio. --Padraic 21:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Blogs as References

Hmm I see there are a few instances in the article where blogs are used as references. In the guidelines for biographies, using blogs is heavily frowned upon, but it seems to be to avoid the use of blogs for information about the person's life. Are they ok if the blogs are criticisms about people's ideas or writings, as they seem to be for the most part here? Even if they are, some of them (like this one and this one) seem questionable sources based on a lack of notability alone... TastyCakes (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogs cover a wide range. Are we talking about the official blog of, e.g. BBC Radio 4, or one man in his pyjamas? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I think the sketchiest on this article are the normblog and the marccooper blog above. TastyCakes (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. If she appeared somewhere like this, I would view it very (not not entirely) differently. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I think such a blog would fall under this description in the biography guidelines:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. TastyCakes (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the blogs are still used in the article. Should I remove them? TastyCakes (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of credentials

What are her academic credentials? Is she self-taught in the fields she writes about? Does she have a graduate degree in any field? What are her qualifications to expertise in any field? Why is this important part of her career skipped over so obviously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.228.16 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe she has an advanced degree, and the article says she dropped out of the U of T "to become an intern at the Globe and Mail" (which seems a little fishy, why would they have her stop going to university?). It would be nice to have what subject she was in while at U of T... TastyCakes (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tariq Ali

Could we find a source directly quoting Ali calling "for solidarity with the insurgency"? This is a serious accusation, and I haven't been able to find anything on this after a pretty exhaustive search - other than his calling for solidarity with the Iraqi people, or occasionally "resistance", which is hardly the same thing. The source we have now doesn't quote him directly and only mentions him in passing. I'm not trying to defend Ali or anything, but being peripherally familiar with his work, this just seems way uncharacteristic of him. The only articles I was able to find were this one and the Hitchens piece, which again, doesn't quote him directly or name a source that does. Evidence, please. Jibbideejibbish (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Israeli polices

So it's "Israel's polices" vs "Israeli polices". IMO one is as wrong as the other, not that Naomi Klein would not find something to say about either of them, but that is not what she is most critical about concerning Israel! --Ajnem (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism as soapbox

The long (and growing) criticism section is a pretty blatant WP:SOAPBOX, and an unambiguous violation of the good principles in WP:CRIT. None of the individual material seems awful, it is well enough cited to WP:RS, phrased fairly neutrally, and so on. But a dumping ground for "everyone who said something negative about the bio subject" is just really awful unencyclopedic form.

The right way to do this is to incorporate any useable material within the relevant sections of the article. If some critic WP:NOTEably responded to a particular book by Klein, let's put that in the relevant section. The goal here must be to eliminate the "Criticism" section itself, altogether, in order to create an encyclopedic article. LotLE×talk 21:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Following my own comment, I have refactored the article to put the criticisms in the various relevant sections. After that, I trimmed the obviously WP:OR or WP:FRINGE elements of the criticisms out, and improved some of the truly horrendous writing in them. I think the various specific criticisms, section-by-section, work pretty well, and add value to understanding the reactions to Klein's various writings. LotLE×talk 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

High school

There is a sentence that two editor have been warring over, for no apparent reason:

Klein attended St. George's High School of Montreal, then the most expensive private high school in Montreal.

This was recently added, then deleted, then added, then deleted. The second part could be read as some sort of commentary, or at least might need citation to be retained. But in general, it seems reasonable to include Klein's high school of attendance as part of "Early life". Assuming the claim is factually accurate, of course, about which I have no idea.

Can editors at the least give some explanation here of why they want to include or exclude this (or citation that the fact actually is true)? LotLE×talk 07:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my ability to tell (including searching online), it is an error, so I deleted it. My edit summary for the first revision (which was an undo) noted "rv unsourced". The 2nd revision used rollback. I also warned the editor (see their talk page). Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor continues to add unsourced or unreliably sourced materiel to the article, the latest clearly violating WP:BLP, without discussion here (despite being invited to do so), and despite being warned. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of TIFF stuff

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind reverting the criticism and counter-criticism of Klein's TIFF boycotting. I think it is quite demonstrative of her politics towards Israel, as well as why people criticise her politics towards Israel. The criticism and counter criticism are from notable, relevant sources in a reliable newspaper. Why exactly do you keep reverting this? (and by you I suppose I mean Lulu.) TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This material is dramatically WP:UNDUE weight for the article. Some persons, with no obviously prominent influence on Klein's reception, nor any likely effect on the bio subject herself, have made various tits and tats in opposition or support of a particular action by Klein. Other than the fact these editorials are particularly WP:RECENT, there does not seem to be anything special about them, and lots of people have made pro- or anti-Klein statements over the course of her writing and career. It just looks like some fairly silly WP:NEWS. If we were to include every such minor squabble that slightly touched on Klein, we would need hundreds--or probably thousands--of pages in this article. The general positions advanced by Klein (including even the Toronto festival) are well covered without the excessive minutiae from two rather accidentally chosen sources. LotLE×talk 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Dramatically undue?" Not even close. The material is sourced and relevant. There have been no policy-based arguments raised here as to why the material should not go in, little that can be responded to, really. The sources used are well within the parameters of WP:RS, and clearly relevant. Also, assuming the person who introduced the sources agrees with him or herself that they are relevant, I'm seeing 3 people who agree to their inclusion, and one against. Therefore, I am restoring the information. Lotle, if you wish to re-delete it, please get consensus before you do so. IronDuke 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Neuer's criticism or Rebic's reply are notable, and it seems very odd to have two paragraphs of commentary regarding an incident that gets one sentence of coverage.

In any event, I deleted a sentence about UN Watch's "report" on Klein because it was "sourced" to the report itself. If anybody can find independent third-party coverage of the "report", feel free to restore it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, you are saying the UN Watch "report" is not valid because it is referenced to the report itself? "Independent third party coverage" would seem, in this case, to be a source other than Klein or sources related to Klein (notably her blog). I do not see how the UN Watch article is invalid under those criteria.

I agree that the paragraph regarding the commentary was over the top, but I think how the article stands now (a sentence or two linking to the criticism) is appropriate... TastyCakes (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about this site, right? TastyCakes (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am under an Israel-Palestine topic ban, and have no intention of editing this article or participating in talk-page debate. But since this is a BLP, I'll just point out that the "UN Watch" quote in question – "Supporters of liberal democratic values may have a hard time understanding why anti-globalization activist Naomi Klein has recruited Jane Fonda and other stars to boycott the Toronto International Film Festival for the crime of showing films from Tel Aviv" – doesn't belong in this article at all because it's factually false in each and every particular. (Klein did not object to the showing of films from Tel Aviv, did not propose a boycott, and did not recruit for or otherwise participate in any proposed boycott.) WP:BLP's higher standard for sources exists for good reasons, chief among which is to keep erroneous and potentially defamatory information like this out of the encyclopedia.--G-Dett (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think that quote is in the article any more, is it? Or do you object to the article being referenced at all? TastyCakes (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment pertained only to the direct quote and only in the event that active edit warring over it should resume. As to whether an indirect reference to the UNW piece is appropriate, that's for current contributors to the article to decide. All best, --G-Dett (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have no problem with how the section in question is now. I think the quote you were saying was in the Financial Post, in an article by the guy from UNW. I would argue a reference to the article is valid, since although it does refer to it as a boycott, the nature of the "protest" wasn't (and, in my opinion, still isn't) entirely clear. I think saying they were "not partying with Israel this year" could be construed as a roundabout way of saying boycotting the Israeli films at the TIFF. And regardless, the rest of the criticism in the article seems valid. TastyCakes (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

College essay

There has been a recent back-and-forth edit over the inclusion of mention of an essay Klein wrote in college. I have restored the mention, given that it has been there fairly long, and there is obviously a difference of opinion about it's encyclopedic usefulness.

In general, I would be inclined to think that an essay written in college is not particularly important to understanding a writer who has published prominently subsequent to that. However, an edit comment in the recent kerfuffle mentioned the idea that the college essay demonstrates a continuity of Klein's attitude/criticism towards Israeli attitudes, since before her "professional" writing career. That fact is arguably relevant to understanding the person biographically. It would be a different story, for example, if Klein had been pro-Zionist earlier, but later changed her attitude (in fact, if the college essay had--counterfactually--been pro-Zionism, I think almost all editors would agree that it should be mentioned). I don't feel strongly, but I lean towards wanting the college essay to continue to be mentioned. Let's please discuss this rather than edit war. LotLE×talk 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a small addition. Other than that, I'm happy with the current configuration.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Discuss rather than edit war? Really? Well, I suppose you're right, and as you've refrained from reverting and taken it to t... hey... wait a sec! IronDuke 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are familiar with WP:BRD, yes? If a WP:BOLD edit (in this case, the deletion of a relatively longstanding paragraph) is disputed, then the next step is for the editor introducing the change to take it to the talk page. BRD is pretty clear that the status quo ante stays while the discussion is underway. I appreciate your thanks to me for starting this discussion thread on your behalf.

In any case, I have modified the paragraph (and Hyperionsteel modified it a bit more) to try to remove some weaknesses. In particular, I made it shorter, removed the excessive direct quote for a paraphrase, and tried to phrase it in such a way as to provide a general context for other discussion of "Klein on Israel". I'm not claiming the modified paragraph is the best of all possible; if you have improvements, either make them on the article or suggest them here. Thanks. LotLE×talk 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1) "I have restored the mention, given that it has been there fairly long" It was there less than 10 hours before it was reverted. Is that considered "fairly long" these days?

2) I fail to see the relevance of a college essay written nearly 20 years ago when Klein was 19 or 20. Has she continued the same line of argument (that Israeli society is based on racism and mysogyny) since 1990? There's a good reason why academics generally don't use juvenilia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:58, 27 September 2000 (UTC)

Looking more carefully over the edit history, I see that you are correct, Malik Shabazz, about the newness of the college essay mention. I had seen it deleted/restored/deleted/restored, and mistakenly thought the original deletion was of something older. I still see some merit in including a (shortened) blurb on it, since it appears Klein mentions the event in discussions of her biography, as something somehow iconic of her experiences. But I'd like more editors' input. So I was wrong, and the WP:BRD burden should be on those introducing the mention. LotLE×talk 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Malik's reversion would be consistent with your interpretation of BRD. The inclusion of the oversized graf with multiple, ancient quotes was bold, it was reverted, now we discuss. I still fail to see the utility of it. IronDuke 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still seeing no reason to include an old article in a college newspaper from a teenager. IronDuke 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to reconsider whether the college essay should be mentioned. (Not quoted at length, just mentioned.) Klein cites it and the reaction to it as a significant event in her life. "I've never felt anything like the silence in that room after [identifying herself as the author]. I was 19, and it made me tough." Sounds like something that belongs in her biography. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be neutral

As a newcomer to this article I'm shocked by the conduct of editors on this page. There seems to be a certain individuals actively "Defending" the subject of this article against inclusion of any mention of criticism. From reviewing the edit history I see that attempts to add mention any negative views often reverted within minutes despite being sourced and notable . Even more shockingly, this includes her controversial "college essay" which she herself notes as a notable event in her biography. Perhaps I'm naiive but I think that there is no place for such un neutral behavior at WP. Marokwitz (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I think some of the criticism was taken out with concern towards the BLP guidelines and erring on the side of caution on these matters, and I think that's the way it should be. That said, I agree entirely that the college essay article probably deserves mention. As you can see above, I questioned its removal in the first place and never got a response from Malik. TastyCakes (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific section Marokwitz seems to be referring to, pertaining to the Toronto film festival, was discussed in the preceding section of this Talk page. There's no good reason to give such prominence to criticism by Hillel Neuer because (a) Klein's role in the protest wasn't particularly notable and (b) Neuer and his criticism aren't particularly notable. Then, of course, there's the issue of one sentence about Klein's action and two sentences about the reaction. See WP:Undue weight.

With respect to the college essay, we've discussed that too. See #College essay. Marokwitz, what biography are you referring to in which "she herself notes [the essay] as a notable event". Can you provide a cite to it? If Klein considers the essay a big deal, I might reconsider what I wrote about it above. TastyCakes, I don't see your name in that section at all. What did you ask about it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In the guardian 2000 article she is quoted as saying this is an event which changed her life. http://www.commondreams.org/views/092300-103.htm " 'I'm Naomi Klein, I wrote Victim To Victimizer, and I'm as much a Jew as every single one of you.' I've never felt anything like the silence in that room after that. I was 19, and it made me tough." . She also reiterated this in the March 2003 interview to UTNE by Lauren Sandler . . Marokwitz (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I said: I'm not sure I understand, you are saying the UN Watch "report" is not valid because it is referenced to the report itself? "Independent third party coverage" would seem, in this case, to be a source other than Klein or sources related to Klein (notably her blog). I do not see how the UN Watch article is invalid under those criteria. As I understand it you had just removed that UNW thing saying it wasn't a valid independent source. Maybe I was confusing another link? TastyCakes (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Independent third party coverage" means coverage from somebody beside UN Watch itself. See WP:PSTS and WP:SPS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz understands the meaning of WP:RS on 3rd party sources correctly (and I think TastyCakes has misunderstood it). Nonetheless, if it were otherwise worth using, I think the UN Watch source would squeak by. 1st party opinion sources can be used as evidence of the opinion of that source itself, if the opinion of the source is somehow inherently notable to the topic. The restriction is that the opinion pieces cannot be used as sources for outside facts. In other words, Hillel Neuer's own opinion piece cannot be used to cite facts about Klein, but it would be OK as a source for the fact that Neuer believes something. The problem is that there's no reason to suppose that "Neuer believes such-and-such" is inherently notable to this article (mabye to his bio, if he has one). Neuer has no special relation to Klein, nor any obvious expertise about her; he's just some guy with an opinion about Klein... which amounts to a big "so what" from the perspective of this article. LotLE×talk 06:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I agree that the notability of the UNW criticism might be up in the air, and its removal based on "self published" concerns and the like make a lot more sense to me. But I must confess I still don't understand how the article isn't "independent third party coverage". The article is opining on the publications and actions of Klein, not the UNW or Neuer, correct? And the UNW is not affiliated with, and is hence independent from, Klein, correct? So how exactly is it not an "independent third party" when it critiques her? Am I missing something? Is it the inclusion of the actual college article written by Klein (which is at the beginning of the UNW criticism) that you oppose? TastyCakes (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think, TastyCakes, that you still sort of miss the WP:RS point about editorials. The problem with the Neuer editorial isn't that he has a WP:FRINGE option, nor where it was published as such. The problem is exactly that it is an editorial. If the news section of the same newspaper did a factual report on "The tiff over TIFF, between Klein and Neuer" or whatever, that would fine to use without the same restriction. For that matter, if Neuer himself were to byline a news article on "The debates over the TIFF", it would be fine as a source of facts. As to the college essay, I actually tried to include it a while back. In a trimmed down and more neutral description than it had originally been inserted as, but I saw some merit to its inclusion. Of course, my feeling that it was notable was a weak one, and I really don't care about it enough to push further for its inclusion. That seems like an unrelated editorial question though. LotLE×talk 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lulu, please reread what I was saying above. I never said the article qualified as a reliable source, I pointedly avoided the issue. What I did say was that Malik did not appear to be correct when he said the UNW article was invalid because it was "not an independent third party source". Have I made a mistake somewhere in my line of reasoning here? Regardless, apart from me being a little annoyed at being called wrong when I'm pretty sure I wasn't, perhaps the discussion should move on to whether the UNW article should be included for any reason, not just the ones Malik gave. I would probably lean towards inclusion, if for no other reason but to include the college essay, which as I understand it isn't available anywhere else, and has, I believe, been referred to by Klein herself as being an important part of her life and, as someone mentions above, demonstrates continuity of her opinions on Israel. I don't know if Neuer's comments would be considered reliable. Both he and UN Watch have articles, and UN Watch appears to be a fairly substantial organisation. Its opinion would seem a notable, if somewhat predictable, response to the TIFF protest. On the other hand, I agree that in an ideal article, the exact events and their effects would be spelled out, and the reader could make judgments on their own as to what they think of it. In such an article, I would absolutely agree that opinion pieces should be avoided in favour of fact based "news stories". On the other, other hand, however, I don't know if I'd classify this as an issue that plays well into that ideal. There is a long, somewhat complex story behind the criticism in Neuer's article, and it contains a lot of events that I don't think can be reasonably summarized in this article. Having an outside source take a deeper, more nuanced, look at the person and giving criticism based on that would seem exactly the time to include outside opinions, and not just allow the reader to "make up their own mind". TastyCakes (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what you are objecting to here, TastyCakes. "Invalid" is not a term-of-art on Wikipedia, WP:RS is. As several folks have explained in detail, the Neuer editorial does not meet WP:RS except as evidence of his own opinion. Inasmuch as you are still trying to invent some other issue unrelated to WP policy, you have misunderstood policy.

If the college essay really is only mentioned in one source, it absolutely doesn't belong in this article. Klein is quite notable, and nothing important to her biography is going to be confined to a single source. So perhaps I have overestimated its importance previously, if you are correct. The TIFF events probably merit a sentence in Klein's bio (i.e. the first sentence of what we have). The additional sentence, which amounts to (as you recognize), "the usual people had the usual, predictable reactions (and wrote editorials saying so)" really doesn't seem to add anything, and I would much rather remove it. LotLE×talk 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "objecting" to anything, I am 1) pointing out that you appear to have used a strawman argument to suggest I don't know the rules and 2) Pointing out reasons to include the UNW article as a ref in this article.

This second point seems to me to hinge not on whether the UNW article is invalid, but whether an opinion piece is appropriate here. As you are probably aware, WP:RS does not "invalidate" opinion pieces outright. If the opinion, recognized as opinion, as opposed to fact, is considered notable, relevant and so on (in other words: an important part of the story), it can be a defendable addition to the article.

Now I agree with you, on its own the UNW article isn't fantastic. (And to be clear, I'm talking about this article, not one that has anything to do with TIFF). It basically just makes a case that Klein inflated her claims regarding the publishing of this article, claims she has made fairly recently, apparently. But it also includes Klein's college article itself, which I believe improves its case for inclusion. And if the recent references to Klein's college essay that Neuer mentions (her saying "it made her tough" or whatever), I think that its case improves still further, since it demonstrates that Klein considers this essay important to the development of her views on Israel.

Regarding the TIFF issue, I am fine with how it is now. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that before: the issue at hand, to me, is whether this article should be included. TastyCakes (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And to try and clarify where this started, Malik said this: In any event, I deleted a sentence about UN Watch's "report" on Klein because it was "sourced" to the report itself. If anybody can find independent third-party coverage of the "report", feel free to restore it.

I believe that Malik deleted the article at hand because he felt it wasn't an independent third party source. That is what I am disagreeing with: whether it's a reliable source aside, it does seem to be an independent third party story. TastyCakes (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

According to [[WP::RS]] An opinion piece is considered reliable as to the opinion of its author, there is no need for an additional source. The controversy was widely reported by other sources as well such as http://www.alternet.org/world/142776/controversy_over_israel_waylays_toronto_film_festival?page=entire and additional sources can be easily googled. Marokwitz (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I deleted the sentence about the UN Watch "report" with the edit summary "per WP:BLP, rv unsourced and irrelevant" because there was no independent third-party coverage of the "report" and the "report" had nothing to do with the film festival (where it had been inserted). If the consensus concerning mention of the college essay changes (see #College essay, where I've tried to re-start the discussion), maybe we should include mention of Neuer's essay as well.

The sentence in question read "Subsequently, UN Watch, the organization which Hillel heads, published a report on its website entitled 'Naomi Klein Exposed: The Unauthorized Biography'." The "report" itself is not a WP:RS for that sentence. Independent third-party coverage of the "report" is required. On the other hand, had the sentence cited the report and said something about the film festival, that would have been a completely different story. A sentence such as "In a report issued by UN Watch, Neuer wrote that Klein opposed Israeli participation in the film festival because she was born on Mars" could have been sourced to the "report" itself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there some strange piece of logic here that I miss and everyone else gets? You now say the article is not a reliable source, that's fine, that continues to be argued over. But you're saying a third party source referring to Klein is invalid because another third party source doesn't refer to it? Come again? The National Post published an editorial on the TIFF protests, it is an independent third party. UNW publishes an editorial on Klein's career in general, it is also a third party, yet for some reason requires yet another third party to reference it? I'm sorry, what?

To me this UNW article has nothing to do with the film festival, but it does have something to do with Klein's opinions on Israel. If you're arguing for its removal based on it not being a reliable source, please just say so. But saying it's not an independent third party when it clearly is is just silly. TastyCakes (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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. [2] --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)

Whether or not the criticism is well-founded, which it's nobody's job here to determine, there is certainly a lot of criticism of Klein out there. She argues that Milton Friedman's policies culminated in the Iraq War, without mentioning once that he opposed the war from the beginning. There are a lot of a "terminological inexactitudes" in her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.14.75 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

She is an economic illiterate... does that count as a criticism? Oh and Stiglitz says that she is not a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 September 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 ([3] by Special:Contributions/Boarhill123456 (talk), and [4] 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)

New Climate Change Book?

Apparently according to Democracy Now! Klein is writing a new book on climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is Naomi Klein, journalist and author. Her latest book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. She’s writing a new book on climate change and the climate change deniers. Naomi, take it from there.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, I mean, the book is not about the deniers, but it does get into it, because I started trying to understand these dramatic drops in belief that climate change is real.

Should we add something about it in the article? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

New work

Capitalism vs. the Climate; What the right gets - and the left doesn't - about the revolutionary power of climate change. by Naomi Klein November 9, 2011. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation (pages 11-21). 141.218.36.56 (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

resource, The Progressive interview

A Progressive Interview with Naomi Klein by Christopher D. Cook, in the December 2011/January 2012 issue

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection

This article should be protected, because of the very sensitive content it includes.--afa86 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's silly. The article should be developed with proper citations as per Wikipedia's guidelines. It could use more links, and it seems that even with many critics, there is talk of a criticism section but nobody has even bothered to create one. This article is obviously not "hot" enough for any such moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)