This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I deleted the last paragraph of the content section because it was a description of the things the book left out and not its proper contents. The description of the MacKenzie paper was unnecessary and didn't add to the summary provided. Perhaps we could rename the section to critical reception? I've also added an example of the positive reviews described in the criticism section. The quote came from George Soros on the back jacket. Feel free to change it into something else if appropriate.-- Pengutron ( talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have edited this to contain more useful information, be less focused on criticism/ less POV and cite its sources. I wanted to include more criticism but I had difficulty finding critical reviews. I have taken out the following until such time as it can be attributed to specific notable critics as per WP:NOR. I think the criticism section ought to include more than one perspective, though I suspect that most criticism will be from a Libertarian perspective. Others are better placed to find such material than I, but I'm happy to finish the job if others point me in the direction of the sources. Mattley (Chattley) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
no the criticism did not come from a libertarian perspective it came from a factual perspective.
Is the title a reference to Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents? Mattley (Chattley) 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
..is such a large amount of criticism required? Slizor 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, the book was that big of a piece of *%$% (Gibby 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC))
And guess what, I have cited material from notable critics suggesting the same....and half of what I wrote on their vies is not present. If you want to fight on the size of the criticism page, I will increase it because I have more citable material available. I have even more criticism from the same people on various sections of the book that comepletly missed points, conflated issues, made up information, distorted other information, ignored certain facts.
If you want to bullshit anymore, I will put more information up that demonstrates how much of a piece of shit that book really is...and it will be from the mouth of notable critics not mine.
Deal with it. (Gibby 17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC))
All you have to do to realize this is read the criticism on the book. Then you'll understand. I'm only defending the criticism, which is cited, and notable. You and sleezy are attempting to eliminate some criticism on what you arbitrarily determine to be too much criticism...nice try, but it won't fly.
You're going to have to deal with criticism of things you don't like. (Gibby 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
You can't only cite ideological libertarians as criticism, at least not without explaining that they have an agenda while reviewing. Can you find a criticism that isn't so ideologically tinged?
Why reduce the amount of criticsm when we can just make it balanced instead? If, as Mattley says (and I tend to agree), the book was largely well-received, it ought to be possible to juxtapose some positive reviews with the negative ones that are already present. Perhaps I will attempt to do that in the next few weeks. Would that be agreeable? Jbelleisle 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Woah, this is pretty old, but I still agree with what Jbelleisle and Mattley. Why do we need to point out that libertarians disagree with Stiglitz? I mean, is the phrase "many libertarians have accused Stiglitz of 'bad economics' " really necessary? That's like me going on the Libertarian page and writing "Joseph Stalin was fundamentally opposed to libertarian policies." Well, no shit. Does it really need to go there?
For a book that has sold a great deal of copies, and gets strongly positive reviews on amazon.com, I find it strange that the criticisms outweigh the praise so dramatically here on wiki. Will anyone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.199.175 ( talk) 08:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money by Saskia Sassen ISBN 1565845188 Publisher: New Press (June 1, 1999) [1]
I also found that confusing. Could someone make a disambiguation page, maybe? I think that would be a good idea.
In his book Stiglitz claims that globalization has not brought the promised economic benefits to some of the poorest nations in the world. This can be easily evidenced by the fact that during the last decade of the twentieth century the number of people living in poverty increased by almost 100 million.
This comes down to the question whether poverty is increasing or decreasing. Taking absolute numbers of the poor does not make sense in this regard. A random example: Say there are 100 poor. A generation later, 60 of them have managed to pull out of poverty, but the 40 remaining had 5 children each who also live in poverty. Thus, while we had 100 poor in the first generation, in the second we have 200 even though poverty was reduced by 60%. To measure whether poverty is being reduced, one should use its relative size, not the absolute number of people living in it.
I suggest removing the sentence "This can easily be evidenced (...)". Treos 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 84.13.160.118 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
i think youre trying to suggest what is significant is the percentage of people living in poverty- in the 90's the world population increased by 800 million (see wikipedia page on world population), so as poverty accounts for more than 1/8 of the world population, did it proportionally decrease? 84.13.160.118 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Globalization-Stiglitz.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The section "summarizing" the contents of the book is a completely POV essay. It needs to be redone by someone familiar with the book and its contents. Passages like "Stiglitz should know" and "Little wonder that thousands of activists -- who agree on little else -- brave barricades, tear gas, and slanted media coverage..." are straight out of a sympathetic book review and are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Elrith ( talk) 12:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read this book, actually two times, and I was tempted to dive in and do a couple of fixes that you have suggested, but can not see how it will last. I do agree that the statement like Stiglitz should know, was improper, it should be something like Stiglitz had done research on asymmetric information. The activist part is actually not from reviewers, but its taken straight from the book. However, I have stopped getting involved in topics that may lead to fights, no need of adding to your life unnecessary stress. If possible, I prefer technical articles or typos that are unlikely to raise heat.
The most surprising thing is, we are still fighting to this day on whether his book (and other issues) is well thought out. Damn, I can not even resist having a smile. Consider even president Bush is inviting other world leaders for a meeting to discuss world economics and how to change the two organization in question here - world bank and IMF. I guess that mean despite the problems we have here at wikipedia, better thought out ideas will eventually bubble up to the top articles as the as more information become available. Time will tell
I just finished reading the book and wonder if there should even be a Contents section at all. It's a relatively short book intended more for a general public audience than academic and therefore, its contents can be well summarized in a few paragraphs.
I recommend that the Contents section be removed entirely and the introductory paragraph augmented as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Mohr1 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Globalization and Its Discontents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I deleted the last paragraph of the content section because it was a description of the things the book left out and not its proper contents. The description of the MacKenzie paper was unnecessary and didn't add to the summary provided. Perhaps we could rename the section to critical reception? I've also added an example of the positive reviews described in the criticism section. The quote came from George Soros on the back jacket. Feel free to change it into something else if appropriate.-- Pengutron ( talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have edited this to contain more useful information, be less focused on criticism/ less POV and cite its sources. I wanted to include more criticism but I had difficulty finding critical reviews. I have taken out the following until such time as it can be attributed to specific notable critics as per WP:NOR. I think the criticism section ought to include more than one perspective, though I suspect that most criticism will be from a Libertarian perspective. Others are better placed to find such material than I, but I'm happy to finish the job if others point me in the direction of the sources. Mattley (Chattley) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
no the criticism did not come from a libertarian perspective it came from a factual perspective.
Is the title a reference to Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents? Mattley (Chattley) 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
..is such a large amount of criticism required? Slizor 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, the book was that big of a piece of *%$% (Gibby 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC))
And guess what, I have cited material from notable critics suggesting the same....and half of what I wrote on their vies is not present. If you want to fight on the size of the criticism page, I will increase it because I have more citable material available. I have even more criticism from the same people on various sections of the book that comepletly missed points, conflated issues, made up information, distorted other information, ignored certain facts.
If you want to bullshit anymore, I will put more information up that demonstrates how much of a piece of shit that book really is...and it will be from the mouth of notable critics not mine.
Deal with it. (Gibby 17:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC))
All you have to do to realize this is read the criticism on the book. Then you'll understand. I'm only defending the criticism, which is cited, and notable. You and sleezy are attempting to eliminate some criticism on what you arbitrarily determine to be too much criticism...nice try, but it won't fly.
You're going to have to deal with criticism of things you don't like. (Gibby 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
You can't only cite ideological libertarians as criticism, at least not without explaining that they have an agenda while reviewing. Can you find a criticism that isn't so ideologically tinged?
Why reduce the amount of criticsm when we can just make it balanced instead? If, as Mattley says (and I tend to agree), the book was largely well-received, it ought to be possible to juxtapose some positive reviews with the negative ones that are already present. Perhaps I will attempt to do that in the next few weeks. Would that be agreeable? Jbelleisle 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Woah, this is pretty old, but I still agree with what Jbelleisle and Mattley. Why do we need to point out that libertarians disagree with Stiglitz? I mean, is the phrase "many libertarians have accused Stiglitz of 'bad economics' " really necessary? That's like me going on the Libertarian page and writing "Joseph Stalin was fundamentally opposed to libertarian policies." Well, no shit. Does it really need to go there?
For a book that has sold a great deal of copies, and gets strongly positive reviews on amazon.com, I find it strange that the criticisms outweigh the praise so dramatically here on wiki. Will anyone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.199.175 ( talk) 08:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money by Saskia Sassen ISBN 1565845188 Publisher: New Press (June 1, 1999) [1]
I also found that confusing. Could someone make a disambiguation page, maybe? I think that would be a good idea.
In his book Stiglitz claims that globalization has not brought the promised economic benefits to some of the poorest nations in the world. This can be easily evidenced by the fact that during the last decade of the twentieth century the number of people living in poverty increased by almost 100 million.
This comes down to the question whether poverty is increasing or decreasing. Taking absolute numbers of the poor does not make sense in this regard. A random example: Say there are 100 poor. A generation later, 60 of them have managed to pull out of poverty, but the 40 remaining had 5 children each who also live in poverty. Thus, while we had 100 poor in the first generation, in the second we have 200 even though poverty was reduced by 60%. To measure whether poverty is being reduced, one should use its relative size, not the absolute number of people living in it.
I suggest removing the sentence "This can easily be evidenced (...)". Treos 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 84.13.160.118 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
i think youre trying to suggest what is significant is the percentage of people living in poverty- in the 90's the world population increased by 800 million (see wikipedia page on world population), so as poverty accounts for more than 1/8 of the world population, did it proportionally decrease? 84.13.160.118 17:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Globalization-Stiglitz.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The section "summarizing" the contents of the book is a completely POV essay. It needs to be redone by someone familiar with the book and its contents. Passages like "Stiglitz should know" and "Little wonder that thousands of activists -- who agree on little else -- brave barricades, tear gas, and slanted media coverage..." are straight out of a sympathetic book review and are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Elrith ( talk) 12:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read this book, actually two times, and I was tempted to dive in and do a couple of fixes that you have suggested, but can not see how it will last. I do agree that the statement like Stiglitz should know, was improper, it should be something like Stiglitz had done research on asymmetric information. The activist part is actually not from reviewers, but its taken straight from the book. However, I have stopped getting involved in topics that may lead to fights, no need of adding to your life unnecessary stress. If possible, I prefer technical articles or typos that are unlikely to raise heat.
The most surprising thing is, we are still fighting to this day on whether his book (and other issues) is well thought out. Damn, I can not even resist having a smile. Consider even president Bush is inviting other world leaders for a meeting to discuss world economics and how to change the two organization in question here - world bank and IMF. I guess that mean despite the problems we have here at wikipedia, better thought out ideas will eventually bubble up to the top articles as the as more information become available. Time will tell
I just finished reading the book and wonder if there should even be a Contents section at all. It's a relatively short book intended more for a general public audience than academic and therefore, its contents can be well summarized in a few paragraphs.
I recommend that the Contents section be removed entirely and the introductory paragraph augmented as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Mohr1 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Globalization and Its Discontents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)