Talk:World on Fire (book)

message: Chua did not attempt to make a statistical analysis. One such shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons [1]. This is related to the democratic peace theory which argues that more democracy causes a general decrease in systematic violence.
I have some serious reservations about this "Criticism" Section:
(1) Problems with how you interpreted the source
    Your source measures from 1946 to present...remember that the Cold War was not the 
    only thing going on during this period...The implications of the Cold War would have 
    been pretty miniscule if it weren't for the ongoing processes of European 
    De-Colonization in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia, South East 
    Asia, and East Asia--many of the conflicts during the Coldwar were motivated by 
    structural conditions that were in the works regardless of the coldwar context--the 
    coldwar only supplied militants of any and every stripe with arms suppliers (US / 
    USSR).  
(2) Your "Statistical Analysis"
    Yes there was "an increase in the number of democratic states" after the fall of 
    the Cold War--many of which liberalized their markets and reduced the scope of 
    state activities and state institutions (consult "Washington Consensus" and Milton 
    Friedman "Liberalize, Liberalize, Liberalize").  The vast majority of these states 
    fell flat on their face, they reduced their capacity to effectively manage and 
    discharge necessary state functions in the name of open markets that left the vast 
    majority of the population impoverished and disenfranchised.  This is what Chua is 
    addressing---the transmission of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Overnight 
    Democracy.  
    I'm not sure what the fall of communism has to do with Chua's book, as she never 
    touches upon it--except to discuss that this was the impetus for the export of US 
    Democracy & Laissez Faire Capitalism  
    I think that you, perhaps, misunderstood her operationalized term "Democracy."  
    She never asserted that Democratzation in and of itself was bad policy--what she 
    argued, was that imposing Democracy in the form that we have it on a state with 
    little or no experience in Democracy is unrealistic--how can we export our 
    Democratic model successfully without exporting the 200 yrs in its making?   
    If you included that growing number of "Democracies" figure in rebuttal to 
    her "Backlash against Democracy" claim, then again, you were mistaken.  She 
    distinguishes between Demagoguery and Democracy, indicating the former as evidence 
    of a backlash against the latter insofar as the practices of Demagogues in 
    relation to MDMs has been one of confiscation, state racism, ethnic cleansing, 
    mass expulsions, and outright genocide.
(3) "total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of 
    refugees and displaced persons"
    Yes, all very true.  But again...how is this relevant to a criticism of World on 
    Fire?
    However you might think this is relevant to the book...it probably isn't....recall 
    for just a moment (if you actually read the whole book) that Chua wasn't 
    addressing "WAR" and her study did not consider war....it considered the Ethnic 
    tension and conflict within the confines of states...wherein the target populations 
    she was considering, usually made up between .5-2% of the population.  
(4) "Chua did not attempt to make a statistical analysis."
    Chua largely used economic indicators of MDM capital-exodus from Markets/Economies 
    as her measure...What Statistical analyses do you propose one could effectively, 
    with little margin of error and conflicting cultural distinctions affecting 
    measurement and variables, use?  
(5) "Democratic Peace Theory"
    My biased opinion: That is pure and utter nonsense...That theory is untestable, and 
    will remain so until the entire world is covered with Democratic regimes.
    My factual Problem: Its nice that you try to include a theoretical 
    consideration....however, do not forget the Realist, Neo-Realist, Liberal, Neo-
    Liberal, Cosmopolitan, Biopower (Michel Focault/Felix Deleuze), Constructivist, 
    Postmodern, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Walzian (Jus Ad Bellum), Internationalist, or 
    Huntingdon's Clash of Civilizations Theories...Because of all the theories you could 
    have addressed in relation to this book....Democratic Peace Theory was the worst…
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.50.182 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Criticism Section

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

message: There were two big problems with that paragraph:
#It did not state a criticism of World on Fire by a third party, it asserted factual inaccuracy of its own. This is original research: even if something isn't true, wikipedia cannot link to sources which contradict it and draw the conclusion that it is untrue, it must state that said sources have drawn the conclusion that it is untrue. Please see the synthesis section of No original research.
#This source did not draw the conclusion that World on Fire was untrue, mostly because it does not even mention the book or its author. As such, it cannot be used to criticize the book because doing so would be drawing conclusions the source does not.
For these reasons I have removed this paragraph. As true as it might be, it isn't verified. Atropos 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I removed that paragraph

message: :Image:Worldsfah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved. A slightly smarter bot would have only tagged book cover images which are being used on more than one article, or book cover images which are used on articles not in some subcategory of :Category:Books, or book cover images which are too high resolution ... cab (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Worldsfah.jpg