This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Upon reading the single paragraph presently written on this book, I must object that it perpetuates a stereotype generalization about its content that is largely misleading. Herbert Spencer was attacked quite heavily for being a "Social Darwinist", but Social Statics is hardly a major example of that thinking. Indeed, it was for sometime an important and dominant Liberal tract advancing cogent arguments for many ideas such as Freedom of Speech and Universal Suffrage. As written the article deserves a non-NPOV warning. -- 24.180.28.15604:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you offer specific recommendations or critiques? I'm aware of those readings of Spencer to which you refer, but I don't see anything particularly misleading in this summary. The historical counterexamples you offer (freedom of speech, universal sufferage) seem to counter examples that aren't actually presented in the article (presumably laissez faire economic policies). Indeed, most of the article is a rather extended quote. Perhaps if you feel this quote is out of context you could supply another from the book which would remedy this? I've removed the NPOV until then, --129.174.109.21716:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
