Talk:Francis Fukuyama

Untitled

Is this correct?

In the latter, he retracts his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since :biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow :humans to become fundamentally unequal, and thus spell the end of liberal democracy as a :workable system.

I have just read a newspaper article by Fukuyama himself, on world politics in the aftermath of 9/11, whose headline states

Radical Islam can't beat democracy and capitalism. We're still at the end of history

Check it out

And that is still sophomoric nonsense, as I said at the time.

Fukuyama has never retracted his 'End Of History' thesis. I altered the reference to state 'qualified'. (BScotland).

• • he has now however qualified his thesis that "modernization" was inevitable as opposed to democratization. see his recent nytimes article.

His 'thesis' has always been utter counterfactual nonsense, as any moderately intelligent and well-informed 16-year old could have told him at the time (and as I did say at the time).

Birthdate 1952 or 1955..which is it?

He recommended removal of Saddam Hussein to President G. W Bush also

"But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means."

Francis Fukuyama et al., September 20, 2001

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

This is ommitted in the original article that he recommended removal of Saddam Hussein to President G. W Bush also.

It seems notable to me, so I've added it, with the PNAC link cited by the above anon comment. JamesMLane t c 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

so he argued for the death of 75,00 iraqis to meet this specious goal and allwow iran to gain foothold. such idiocy

Fukuyama's views on neoconservatism

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)

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)

How do we know? The question this article struck in my mind is: how did this guy ever come to be mistaken for a neocon in the first place? The paraphrase of his politics reads like a neocon anathema: "realistic Wilsonianism"? "military intervention only as a last resort"? "stimulate political and economic development"? "gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries"??? "setting a good example"? "providing education and money"? "the US is good at the formation of international institutions"? Pardon my POV, but unless he had one whiplash jackknife of a conversion, the man described in that paragraph could never have been a neocon. Perhaps someone could amend the article to describe his earlier political bearings. As a liberal myself, I always liked to think of Fukuyama as a conservative I could admire. I'm almost sorry to find that he's one of us!CCJolliffe 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your understanding of the term Neoconservative needs some work. In either case neoconservative like any other name refers to a group where there may be substantial disagreements. And as far as whether he was a neocon, I am willing to take his claim to having been one as sufficient. Finally, the description of Fukuyama's politics you claim reads like a neocon anethema, shows that your understanding of the term definitely needs some work: The paraphrase of his politics reads like a neocon anathema: "realistic Wilsonianism"? "military intervention only as a last resort"? "stimulate political and economic development"? "gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries"??? "setting a good example"? "providing education and money"? "the US is good at the formation of international institutions"?

This is not substantially different from what can be found in Joshua Muravchik's Tome EXPORTING DEMOCRACY:FULFILLING AMERICA'S DESTINY.
 To be sure,  "realistic Wilsonianism" seems to belong to his "postneocon" ideas.  You cite "military intervention only as a 

last resort" as something laudabile, but can we concretely identify what that means: Can an incomming president simply pick up where his predecessor left off or must he start from scratch? Should every imaginable deal be struck first or Should we be able to realize at some point that no amount of deal making would bring us closer to our goals? In the case of Iraq, after 12 years, 16 U.N resolutions(enough resolutions to justify American action in Kosovo)and numerous side deals, What was left to try ( particularly, in view of the harrasment Blix cited and the STILL incomplete Full and Final disclosures- we were at the 7th or eighth installment of these-) At what point does the U.N's promise of "grave and serious consequences" become more than a punch line? Spiker 22 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've very disrespectfully renamed this topic "Fukuyama's views on neoconservatism" just to prevent a proliferation of debate topics & because this one seemed fit to discuss what I wanted to discuss(it was first named "POV: Still a neoconservative. No?"). This article on Newsweek came out on 10 april, here Fukuyama claims that in 2004 he really parted with neoconservatism http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/10/the-beginning-of-history.html . I think it's worth mentioning so I will try to elegantly knit this into the paragraph about neoconservatism.--Tomvasseur (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Ok I replaced "He said that he would vote against Bush in the 2004 election,[13] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:" with "In 2004, the year in which Fukuyama broke with the neoconservative movement[3], he said that he would vote against Bush,[4] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:"--Tomvasseur (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The page current says his views on neoconservatism and the Iraq war began to change in late-2003, but it cites two sources from mid-2004. That timeline is important, as the former implies he was an early(ish) opponent to the Iraq war, while in the latter case he would be altering his opinion at the same time as events on the ground began to go pear-shaped. I edited to reflect the difference.

Opening Line

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)

"The End of History" is one of the most stupid ideas of the 20th century. It's right up there with the Maginot line as really imbecilic ideas. I appreciate that this is POV but it's also true. SmokeyTheFatCat 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt smokey the fat cat hasn't bothered to learn exactly what Fukuyama meant by the phrase "The End of History"

~ Spiker_22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support of Libby

This statement attribution motivation to Fukuyama needs a source or citation: "FF has said he is on Mr. Libby's steering committee out of loyalty, not support for the policies of the Bush administration or Libby." Where, when, and to whom did Fukuyama say this? Has he said this in public? If not, it probably should not be included here. (E.g., he might have said it to you, or to a student of his, to get mollify them, even though it weren't true.)

Question

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)

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)

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)

Influence outside U.S.

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)

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)

Ethnicity

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)

Is this a political forum or an encyclopedia? --2606:A000:1228:4033:A9C8:232E:7E2B:261F (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hegel

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)Lestrade

Lestrade Are you serious or just trying to stir the pot. If you're trying to stir the pot, you lost the spoon awhile ago. Not sure why one would need to ask about absolute idealism, since Fukuyama does not mention it himself in his works. If he endorsed Hegel's writing style, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would write in this way?. Not sure what "Fichte's triadic process of dialectic" has to do with either Hegel or Fukuyama, but One wonders whether such assertions are designed to make the commentator appear intellectually cultivated. Just as naming oneself, Lestrade is supposed to suggest literary cultivation or at least a large ego(Arthur Conan Doyle rolls over in his grave). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering about the extent of Hegel's influence on Fukuyama, if any. Isn't that permissible? Nice try at psychologizing, though.Lestrade (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

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)Lestrade

Question out of curiosity

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)

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)

Oh, okay; I got it now. Thanks a lot for your response. Happy editing! Wikipediarules2221 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to Video Interview with Francis Fukuyama

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)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taleinfo (talk • contribs) 11:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

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)

Iraq War

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)Warren Rabbit

Holy bias, Batman! Leaving aside the question of whether victory is still possible, the question remains: Is there any indication that Fukuyama opposed the Iraq war prior to its apparent failure (i.e. the fact that the war was not the "cakewalk" that had been predicted by neo-cons)? Ivangeotsky

Criticism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Recent critical article on free-market economics

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)

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)

Info box

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)

Home-made surveillance drones

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)

Balanced Biography: Fukayama's interest outside of "The End of History"

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)

Original The End of History?

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)

OK. Have you got a good source (or two or three)? bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Liberal Democracy the end of struggle to find the final shape of 'global order' ?

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)

"Japanese ancestry"

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)

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)

Since the man's origins are Japanese, why not say so? Kennedy made a point of his Irish origins. Via his famous father you can find the family's exact origins. Nothing for Fukuyama.

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)

So were many Germans and Italians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.66.236 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagme (talk • contribs)

In the years since this was discussed the phrase has been re-added. I'm going to remove it, it's not relevant and could easily be seen as demeaning. JayBeckerNCL (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Japanese name in kanji in lede

I have no particular opinion about whether that name belongs there or not, but if it is to be included it needs a source. There are dozens of different ways to write the name Yoshihiro in Japanese, and I can't find any evidence on Google that Francis Fukuyama uses this particular one, and it isn't mentioned on Japanese Wikipedia either. I marked it as {{citation needed}} for now, but it should be removed if no sources are forthcoming. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm the same editor who made the above comment. It's been nearly two months and no source for those kanji has been provided, nor are any readily apparent from Google or Google Books. There's no reason to think the kanji given are actually correct (as opposed to any of the other dozens of ways to write the name seen at Yoshihiro). Finally, I fail to see why the kanji are relevant enough for the lede since, as the "Early life" section states, Fukuyama "had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese".

The arguments above by other editors for not mentioning in the lede that Fukuyama is Japanese American apply a fortiori to these unsourced kanji. The IP who added the kanji (50.35.84.247) is long gone, and User:Polmandc already removed the kanji once (diff). So I'm removing this name again. If anyone sees a good reason why the kanji should be included and you have an actual source for them, please discuss here. Regards, 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Francis Fukuyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

9-11 discrediting of thesis

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)

External links modified

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.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Views on Neoconservativism

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)

the photo caption: "Fukuyama in 2015" (Wrong)

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)