Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Milton Friedman/1

Milton Friedman

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Keep listed as good article. Patrick (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a reassessment of the good article status due to the severe lack of neutrality. Similarly, I have also flagged the article itself to dispute its neutrality. This article reads as a hagiography and only mentions criticisms and failures of Friedman's ideas in passing. Paul Krugman's criticisms are dismissed as if he is a lone quack.

There definitely should be more information about the application of Friedman's free market principles, by his disciples (the Chicago boys), in South America (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia), and the catastrophic effects they had on the economies of that region. Friedman's tacic support of brutal dictators such as Pinocet to advance his theories should also recieve attention. Naomi Klein's recent book "The Shock Doctrine" provides ample specifics and references. Historical evidence that refutes Friedman's theories should also be added (eg deregulation debacles like Enron; environmental, legal, and labor abuses following privitization of national industries; historical failures of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth (low taxes preceded the great depression, and have often preceded drops in unemployment in the US); the association between freer market policies and greater income inequality in the US, etc... Jdstany (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would expect that the biography of a Nobel Prize-winner would be much more positive than negative. Thus, the relevance of neutrality should be judged in this context.  The depth of the article is more than sufficient for a WP:GA, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that a Nobel Prize should grant its winner limitless immunity from valid criticism; Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissenger, for example, are both Nobel Prize winners who are regularly and strongly critised in mainstream conversation. Milton Friedman is known for his ideas, and the consequences of his ideas are therefore part of his legacy.  Just as Marx has been rightfully demonized for the consequences of communism, Friedman should not get a pass on the consequences of his ideas simply because he won a prize or because he never fired a shot or implemented a policy.  Ultimately, the application of Friedman's principles has destroyed economies throughout the world (particularly South America); Friedman-inspired privitation and deregulation has nearly always resulted in total disaster; and here in the US, Friedman's ideas are directly responsible for rising government debt, rising income inequality, increased poverty, and weakened social support systems.  Saying that Friedman is all good because he won a Nobel Prize, or because Reagan and Bush like him, is an inadequate defense.  The depth of the article may be adequate, but the failure to legitimately address any criticsm or failure of Friedman and his ideas indicates that the breath of the article is far from aqequate. Jdstany (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked you twice on your userpage to make the proper notifications and denote it above. Please give some sort of response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that. I'm new to contributing and I wasn't aware of the protocol.  I'll send out the notifications ASAP.  Thanks for letting me know. Jdstany (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's worth repeating the process, but for things like this it's very helpful to include a link to this discussion in your message. C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you notified any of the projects yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article could certainly do a better job presenting critical views. For example, a short (1-2 sentence) encapsulation of criticism in the lead would enhance the article. However, it's hyperbole to say that the article suffers from a "severe lack of neutrality." Majoreditor (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article passes GA criteria, but I agree with Majoreditor that it needs some work. --Patrick (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've engaged in some of the POV-conflicts on the Friedman page, and I do still think it could use POV improvement. In spite of that, I do think it's a very good article. C RETOG 8(t/c) 05:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not a friend of criticism sections, neither on the Friedman nor the, say Chomsky entry. The article should stick to the facts, present the main ideas, and if the person was controversial, that should be mentioned, too, and in fact is, in the article. Of course one could add more criticism, but then, one could also add more praise, and ultimately that will open a Pandora's box as for some Milton Friedman is a saviour, and for some, see above, his ideas are responsible for almost everything bad in the world today. Also, I don't think that anything more than a passing mention of Naomi Klein is not appropriate. Just because she is popular today, does not make her criticism notable. Better to include criticism of contemporary figures, such as Orlando Letelier, which is much more relavant to the article. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid reason seems to have been presented to delist, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep listed Article needs POV improvements (and some aesthetic improvements) for FAC, but it is fine for a GA. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)