Talk:Francis Fukuyama

message: This sentence is POV: "Politically, Fukuyama has in the past been considered neoconservative." What did he do to break ranks with the other neoconservatives? How do we know he no longer is (or is no longer considered) a neoconservative?
It's not easily citable, but he gave a lecture series last year in which he explained that his own beliefs hadn't changed; rather that the popular understanding of "neoconservative" had changed around them, so that it applied to men like Wolfowitz who focus (in his view) far too much on hard-power unilateralism.  (Of course, the popular understanding of the term "neoconservative" is very fuzzy anyway, which is another part of the problem.)
:Our article has a direct quotation from him about his break with neoconservatism: "Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."  That's from his New York Times Magazine essay.  The essaye says it's adapted from his book America at the Crossroads, which according to Amazon hasn't been released yet, but I assume it will be out soon.  When it is we can cite the quotation to the book. JamesMLane t c 00:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent article in the NY Times also mentions Fukuyama's departure from the neoconservative movement, citing Fukuyama's opposition to the Iraq invasion of 2003 and his call for Rumsfeld to resign as examples.  The link:  ( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/books/review/26berman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 ).--24.16.234.149 08:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fukuyama's views on neoconservatism 

message: reads: Fukuyama is best known as the author of the silly, adolescent, ignorant nonsense generally known as The End of History and the Last Man
This seems blatantly biased yet it hasn't been addressed by anyone here, am I missing something?
:It was vandalism from an anon, quickly reverted.  Next time you see stuff like that, be bold and delete it. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Line 

message: Why does he come off sounding just like another Chicken Hawk who enjoys sending younger men to their deaths? - Sparky 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because he is - his family cowardice is documented 
From this comment one can understand the appeal comic books hav for you. Too bad you can't
think beyond comic book reality. ~ Spiker_22  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization, the guiding principle of Wikipedia is to present objective information in the manner of a print encyclopedia, not political opinion or editorial analysis. By the same token, discussion pages for Wikipedia articles are not forums for discussing what you may personally think of a public figure but rather what can be done to improve articles to meet a high standard of objectivity. Inoculatedcities 05:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Someone or someone(s) today added a section for "Influence outside U.S."  At first I thought it was an interesting addition, but needed some citation, and I meant to flag it so. However, looking through the series of edits that created the section, it was clearly created by someone with a clear anti-Fukuyama axe to grind; as such my doubt was such that I simply deleted the section. I would not be surprised if he was controversial outside the U.S., and I would like to see someone add some information. Certainly it would not be too hard to provide a few links to the article if he is actually talked about. But editors adding phrases like "In short, Fukuyama is not taken seriously" are themselves not going to be taken seriously. 171.159.64.10 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your impulse to get rid of that section.  I do think it is in fact accurate to say that he is not taken seriously as a scholar or philosopher by many reputable intellectuals (especially, for example, those familiar with Hegel and Kojeve, many of whom cringe at the description of FF's End of History and the Last Man as "Hegelian").  But we shouldn't put such claims here without them being sourced, and we certainly should not word them in the way the passage you deleted was worded.--csloat 02:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence outside U.S. 

message: :I'm not sure, but it seems like it would be pronounced "FOO-ki-yahmuh". And linking alcoholism with Irish ancestry doesn't seem to remotely resemble an NPOV standard, to me. I do hope you are joking. Aaрон Кинни (t) 02:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: Since Hegel is frequently mentioned in Fukuyama's writings, it is fair to ask if he accepts the teaching of Absolute Idealism. Is Fukuyama just dropping a name to appear intellectually cultivated? Does he endorse Hegel's writing style, with its compulsive obscurity and use of neologisms? Does Fichte's triadic process of dialectic make sense to him? Does he believe in the divine Absolute?Lestrade 18:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Fukuyama follows Hegel in that he assumes that there is a directional movement or purpose to history. Hegel claimed that the Absolute Spirit (The God Reason) ordained an end toward which history develops. Fukuyama appears to agree.Lestrade (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hegel

message: Why does the quote that states "[W]ar is the wrong metaphor..." have the "w" in brackets?  Don't the brackets denote a logical alteration to the quote by the person quoting the source?  If the "w" was not there, then what took its place?  I am not saying that whoever added that quote is wrong because a search on google turned up many results fashioned the same way.  I am just curious.  Thanks a lot. Wikipediarules2221 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This commonly is used when the original sentence was something like "I argue that war is the wrong metaphor"; in the original the "W" was lower-case.--csloat 05:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay; I got it now.  Thanks a lot for your response.  Happy editing!  Wikipediarules2221 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question out of curiosity 

message: Hello. I have a query. In the past, I have posted a link to an exclusive video interview with Professor Francis Fukuyama and it has now been removed because, according to the person who removed it, it was considered spam. In fact, the link was posted to enrich and enhance the quality of the article as a whole by providing new and relevant information. Never was my posting of this link done with the intention to create spam or any other malignant activity. It is a pity that readers of wikipedia can no longer take advantage of this video interview, which, I think (and you may judge for yourself by clicking here: http://www.thetalent.org/Video/frm-main.php?show=19&quality=stop) is an important source of knowledge for those interested in his work. Would the readers of this talkpage and whoever who has the authority to remove links please let me know whether they agree to add this link or whether they consider it of no interest to the article in question? Taleinfo 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at other links, there is for example 3 hour C-Span interview, I doubt your extremely short interview can really add anything.--Pethr 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Video Interview with Francis Fukuyama 

message: Can anybody provide evidence that Fukuyama opposed the Iraq war prior to its apparent failure?  Ivangeotsky
:::Is Wikipedia joining other media in making it seem apparent that the war has failed? This united strategy worked 35 years ago and handed victory to the Viet Cong. Can it work today and hand victory to al-Qaeda?72.73.195.87 02:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War 

message: Why is there no criticism of this idiot? He's a neocon for fucks sakes, a bunch of small minded parasites who've killed a lot of people so Cheney can get rich. His "ideas" are a result of parochial american simplifications and have been shown to be rubbish. He's as visionary as the guy who wanted to close the patent office in the 1800s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.161.187 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be more criticism but somehow I doubt you should be the one to do it. --Jayson Virissimo 05:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  o h so it should be wiki editors who do not like truth?
Criticism usually comes from someone who knows what they are talking about. 83.70.161.187
knows how to be vitriolic but can't raise his head above ad hominem. One can certainly disagree with a neoconservative, but that entails knowing  what their ideas are in the first place. Typical liberal confuses differences of opinion with questions of character. Definitely the hallmark of the fanatic who pays lipservice to things like tolerance and
diversity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but isn't your use of "typical liberal" also ad hominem? There's nothing "typically liberal" about it. It is an illiberal attitude unfortunately found among ignorant fools (sorry my ad hom there) on all parts of the political spectrum. Personally I'd have thought it as common on the reactionary Right, but there you go. 89.243.149.180 (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, I guess I'm also a vitriolic fanatic ignorant fool who tries to pay more than lipservice to things like tolerance and diversity and yet sometimes resorts to ad hominem attacks, but anyway, I thought it might be important to point out that Fukuyama is also a bioconservative on bioethical issues, making him oddly enough a bedfellow with some Greens like Bill McKibben.  When questioned (in a debate with a transhumanist?) if he believed government should have the right to order people to die, Fukuyama said yes. Shanoman (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: He appears to have radically revised his views in this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/162401?from=rss
Perhaps an update is in order? 89.243.149.180 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to say – is this a radical revision: "Financial institutions need strong supervision, but it isn't clear that other sectors of the economy do. Free trade remains a powerful motor for economic growth, as well as an instrument of U.S. diplomacy."? I added a bit to the article. Just be bold and change the article yourself if you think a bigger update is in order. Thanks anyway for the link! --Cyfal (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent critical article on free-market economics

message: Is the info box standard? Does not seem to match that of other authors. I find it odd that it lists parents under family, but spouse and children are listed at the end of the actual entry. Should those be moved to the info box? Destroyer71 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: Via Slashdot, I see the Prof F has built a surveillance drone — that is, attached a camera to a radio-controlled model aircraft. Video here. Would this be worth mentioning in the article? CWC 12:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home-made surveillance drones 

message: Fukayama's biography here, on the whole, makes a common mistake. Often a scholar becomes notable because of a few works focusing on a particular issue. That scholar then becomes heavily associated with that issue. As a result, biographers and biographies tend to be highly focused on the scholar's writings that concern the fame-making issue while also being almost blind and deaf to other issues that the scholar has focused on, and that, importantly, provide a broader and more thorough, rounded out perspective on that scholar's thought. 
A major flaw in the current biography of Francis Fukayama (as of 5/25/12) is the lack of emphasis on the abundant research and policy work he has done regarding biotechnology. He has done so much research exploring and grappling with the future prospects of biotechnology, the potential for problems, the need for and the limits of informed regulation, that he has become one of the most cited scholars of the subject. (Note how this makes Fukayama a "thoughtful conservative" rather than a knee-jerk conservative who rejects nearly any and every form of regulation of free enterprise.) 
But in the current biography, he continues to be associated with one of his most controversial works (The End of History, and follow-ups), a work that doesn't accurately reflect the bulk of his research or his research emphases. Worse, it does not give him credit or kudos for his most thorough and scholarly works, the works for which he is most respected among scholars.
In sum, this biography needs to be updated so that Fukayama is not pidgeon-holed as primarily the author of The End of History. Much more emphasis needs to be placed on his other more sustained areas of focus and impact -- namely his work concerning the consequences of advanced biotechnology.
[References are available on request, but authors of the biography should know how to check the statements above, and further discussion should 
be focused on Fukayama's full corpus of writings, not the few for which he gained notoriety in the broader public. His corpus can easily be found by looking for his c.v.
174.16.177.68 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balanced Biography: Fukayama's interest outside of "The End of History" 

message: I thought that Fukuyama became well known to the general public by the idea of the end of history his 1989 article “The End of History?” in The National Interest. (Not that so many people actually read The National Interest, but it was largely publicized in the newspapers.) I am surprised that this 1989 article in not even mentioned, but only a later book of 1992. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Have you got a good source (or two or three)? bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original The End of History? 

message: The larger narrative of 'nature' versus 'nurture' is ignored if we take into consideration only the 'ideological' struggle.
The 'ideological' way of looking at development of models of human self governance has been devising methods of minimising or even eliminating 'inequality' through human agency.
Mankind devised two institutional paradigms for achieving this objective-
Religions-which promised equality in the other world and tried to minimise inequality in this world.
and
Political Parties- which set in motion an agenda of competitive visions geared towards delivering common and equal benefits to all in this world.
Practice has seen both of these to degenerate into sectarian movements and actively discriminating in an 'inclusive-exclusive' pattern.
At the other end of the spectrum was the acceptance of 'Nature' that 'we are all born unequal, live unequal lives and have unequal impact on the world'.
An institutionalised expression of this acceptance has been in Caste System of India.
The critical differentiator that Caste System had was of 'an idea of hierarchy' at its core.
The Caste System has been an extremely resilient and surprisingly a very adaptable system and has been the most 'stable' system having subsumed every other variety of governance systems in the growth and history of the Indian Society in the 'global village' called Indian Subcontinent.
Structure of the Indian Society as model:
The structure of Indian society, with its’ framework of rigid, ‘caste’ based, hierarchical society, counterbalanced by the religious
philosophy of an unchanging and inclusive “Sanatan Dharma (Hindu)” religion, provides the answer to the search for shape of
society in future.
These twin institutions helped Indian people stay together practically unchanged through thousands of years of multicultural coexistence.
Caste System is the ‘natural’ development model of a multicultural,pluralistic, economically multi layered social order.
‘Sanatan Dharma’, the permanent unchanging, all encompassing,ever tolerant, very understanding religion as the ‘International
Religion’ is an essential corollary to Caste System and its essential partner in such a society.
It is further submitted that:
As the world integrates into a ‘Global Village’ and a common worldwide ‘Global Village Society’, Caste System is the (probably) inevitable
structure of the society of future.
It shall allow every social grouping its demarcated place under the sun. In its own way it shall render many of the current dilemmas
meaningless.
Rigidity of caste is provided an effective counterbalance by eclectism of Sanatan Dharma. This uniquely balanced system is self sustaining
and stable. Any excess of one generates a counter response from the other. Balance is thus restored.
However, like any institution, the fatal flaw of getting hijacked by vested interests and getting ossified too shall be present; therefore
the warts of such an order shall also be there –in full strength.
So the End of History scenario would be remarkably different from  what is visualised by Fukuyama and others.
Atulatulchandra (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Liberal Democracy the end of struggle to find the final shape of 'global order' ? 

message: I removed this phrase. It's ridiculous to make reference to his ethnicity in the opening line of the entry. Would you expect to see the entry on JFK to begin: "35th President of the United States, of Irish Catholic ancestry" ? That's dumb, and I think to see it in Fukuyama's entry sort of smacks of a subconcious racist tendency in whoever wrote it. A thinker's ethnicity should seldom be so important as to demand reference in the opening line (unless it is specifically connected to his work)
Why is the source of the above comment unidentified? In any case, the comment is exactly correct. Furthermore, his Japanese ancestry can be seen immediately from his name --- just as Kennedy's can be seen from his. ---Dagme (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure why, but on the back of the Danish edition of the End of History, it says (translated & parahrased as I don't have it by me) "Francis Fukuyama is a (Japanese) economist." Mikkel 03:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure that between Fukuyama's name and photo at the top of the article his ethnicity is obvious to anyone who recognizes Japanese surnames, and nothing more need be said. The fact that he is American (and he very much is) is roughly 10,000 times more relevant to understanding his both his work and his influence. As for "origins that must make them insecure within US society", what, do you think all of us non-WASP Americans live in fear?
It's remarkable how many of the NeoCons have origins that must make them insecure within US society.  And that they never discuss it, or not that I've seen.
Significant numbers of Japanese Americans were locked up during World War Two.  A point to follow up, maybe.  --GwydionM 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So were many Germans and Italians!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.66.236 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better to say many Germans during the first World War. Anyway, I have started to remove ethnicity from every infobox I see and I have done it so far for a handful of people and I will also do it for Fukuyama. Please for more information see these two links:Bobby Jindal: Ethinicity and Infobox Question -- And Rew 05:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Japanese ancestry" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Francis Fukuyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ned.org/research/research-council/francis-fukuyama
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No mention of the impact of 9-11 here, although it was the resurgence of Islamic ideology more than any other factor which shot down Fukuyama's main thesis. This is, be it noted, discussed in the Wiki article on the essay itself. Orthotox (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 9-11 discrediting of thesis

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Francis Fukuyama. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610221956/http://arts.anu.edu.au/sss/pols3017/Recent%20Articles/The%20Neoconservative%20Moment%20Fukuyama.pdf to http://arts.anu.edu.au/sss/pols3017/Recent%20Articles/The%20Neoconservative%20Moment%20Fukuyama.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610221956/http://arts.anu.edu.au/sss/pols3017/Recent%20Articles/The%20Neoconservative%20Moment%20Fukuyama.pdf to http://arts.anu.edu.au/sss/pols3017/Recent%20Articles/The%20Neoconservative%20Moment%20Fukuyama.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227091634/http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=906 to http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=906
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This reads as a really strange article in that it manages to portray Fukuyama in a bad light whilst apparently avoiding drawing attention to this or including any criticism. It outlines in a nice list his reasons for distancing himself from Neoconservativism without acknowledging that earlier in the article he is depicted as advocating for the ideas he later condemned, most notably in his support for the Iraq invasion and defence of the US's unilateral approach. A less lenient interpretation would be that he changed his mind once his ideas turned out to be bad ones. He might have said as much himself for all I know, but there is no suggestion of this in the article, or any evidence of the criticism his views on the topic have attracted over the years. 80.3.80.47 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Neoconservativism 

message: Hi, 
By "Wrong" I don't mean that the picture wasn't taken in 2015. Sure it was. What is wrong, however, is that this date is "stamped" on this portrait.
I suggest, this is a "tabloid" approach. He looks great! Yeah, but look at the date! 
We should see a new pic, an up-to-date -- "updated" one... 
This is wrong.
It should be: "Francis Fukuyama", or not even that...
In "alt tag" of the image in the HTML code, sure, the person's name is due to appear. But in a Wikipedia Article's head it should be evident.
But either way, a portrait is universal. It depicts a person. A forensic pic is a different matter. Wikipedia should keep away from becoming a forensic pool.
The date of the picture should appear among the image's details.
That someone will not bother to even click on it, is their fault. Culture is not for everyone. Culture means people making effort to join it, not an amusement park for consumers.
But beyond general considerations, there's no contextual "need" to be informed in which year the portrait was taken. That part belongs to his privacy. Talking about how well or how badly people are aging should be left for stupid websites, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia should keep to culture.
Shouldn't it? :)
--peter.josvai (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the photo caption: "Fukuyama in 2015"  (Wrong)