Talk:Robert D. Kaplan

message: What is known about this mysterious Greenway-Winship Award? No page has been created, as of this writing (26 April 2011) and Googling it seems to only brings up mention of Kaplan's prize in particular, except for Seymour Topping's (who has a very interesting career, similar to Kaplan's).
There is, however, a google blurb from AllAfrica about a journalist in Zimbabwe. But the actual post has been wiped, and Google, for whatever reason, didn't cache it. But here's the indexed pull:
:allAfrica.com: African Journalist Honoured for Bravery
:Oct 21, 2001 ... "This award should serve as a reminder that if the government of ... received the second annual Greenway-Winship Award for excellence in ...
allafrica.com/stories/200110220573.html
clicking through produces the following:
:Zimbabwe's Geoffrey Nyarota, editor in chief of the country's The Daily News, has honored with a Knight Award for bravey [sic] alongside three other international journalists.
:He faces continuing threats to his life and personal freedom by reporting on the country's corruption and violence. Despite the bombing and destruction of its presses, Nyarota's paper has never missed an edition and continues to report daily on the state that Zimbabwe has become under President Robert Mugabe.
Who sponsors this Greenway-Winship Award, how many are handed out (on an annual basis?) and to whom? Does anyone know?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiosacoup (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenway-Winship Award

message: Wouldn't it be better to name it for example after the book he published? Or should it be an individual passage at all?Mackan 11:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the passage really be titled "The Coming Anarchy"?

message: I'd like to add to or remove the line below:
:At one point he observes a Filipino and says that: "His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism."
This line is pejorative and taken out of context as the Filipino "observed" by Kaplan is asking why the Americans pulled out when that Filipino still thinks they are need there. You still have to read the entire chapter to get the proper feel for it, but basically Kaplan says in that chapter that the Filipinos still see the Yanks as liberators and saviours from the brutality of the Japanese in WWII. Also, that since Marcos was toppled, corruption and weak government with no almost services or presence outside Manila is the norm there. He says that a often heard Filipino complaint is "At least under Marcos you knew who to bribe."
Add to that background and attitude the fact that the Yanks went in again with 'Enduring Freedom-Philippines' and kicked Abu Sayyaf off Basilan in 2003. 
The passage below follows close to the end of the chapter, and places the colonialism comment in closer context. As I say, you still need to read the whole chapter to get the straight gen on what Kaplan is saying.
:In Maluso, a predominantly Muslim area on Basilan’s southwestern tip, I met a water engineer, Salie Franscisco. He jumped on the Humvee with us and took us deep into the jungle to follow the trail of a pipeline constructed by Kellogg, Brown & Root. It led to a new dam, water filtration plant, and school, built under the auspices of the Unites States Agency for International Development (USAID). The area used to be a lair of Abu Sayyaf. The terrorists were gone. But as Francisco told me, there was no tourism, no jobs, no communications facilities, and yet lots of expectations raised by the Americans.
:I saw poor and remote villages of the kind I had seen all over the world, liberated from fear, but with a new class of Westernized activists beginning to trickle in. “The Philippine military is less and less doing its job here,” Francisco said. “We are afraid that Abu Sayyaf will return. No one trusts the government to finish building the roads that the Americans started.” He went on: “The Americans were sincere. They did nothing wrong. We will always be grateful to their soldiers. But why did they leave? Please tell me. We are very disappointed that they did so.” His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism.
IMO, this Filipino wants the Yanks back in to continue what they started because the local government is so corrupt and useless it cannot get its crap together and do this itself for its own citizens. Basically, Salie wants an American garrison - which is colonialism in Western sensibilities. The "naive" comment seems to be to be meaning politically naive, not understanding why the Yanks can't just stay as he wants them to. By including only this comment, it makes Kaplan look like he is belittling Salie and playing politics, when the guy is just stating his own opinion.
So, I put it to you that this line in the Wiki should either be removed, or the quote from Salie put in. 
Comments?  --Scottish Andy 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With no comments either way, I'm going to pull it. ANyone seeking an explanation can read this. -Scottish Andy (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "After 9/11" section 

message: The author has three criticisms where he just rants.  Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why that is in there. He is not actually 'criticising' Kaplan's work, he is personally insulting Kaplan himself. Scottish Andy (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bissel Criticism

message: The part at the end of the introduction naming the book he has just written and the publishing house looks like somebody from the publisher's office has added that. I do not believe that is part of the enciclopedia. The book is named below in the list of his works. I move to delete that bit.
Anyone disagrees?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.30.158 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  His most recent book 

message: I've added some templates, for:
1. it is supposed to be praise and criticism, but it's mostly praise, which isn't really balanced, nor NPOV
2. almost all of them citations aren't backed up by sources
3. three out of seven are about just his latest book
4. it all reads as soundbites, as reviews, but not as a cohesive paragraph.
Enough reasons to add the clean-up templates, and hopefully someone is willing to rewrite it (and adding it with sources). Robster1983 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise and criticism of Kaplan

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Robert D. Kaplan. 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/20110315080012/http://www.cnas.org/node/71 to http://www.cnas.org/node/71
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,50
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yjia.org/node/78/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113225530/http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/20070911.kaplan.html to http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/20070911.kaplan.html
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) 04:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography