Talk:The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology 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.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability and POV

I happened upon this article while looking for an old piece on political economy, and noticed it hadn't been updated in a while. In reading the article, I had difficulty discerning whether the bulk of the claims being made (e.g. "One way in which socialists dodge its failure is a commitment to “democratic control” of the means of production" or "Despite all this, Latin America has done well economically.") were meant to describe the book's perspective or to be taken as accurate characterizations of reality. Hopefully, the former is intended, as the two examples just quoted and numerous others would be (and in many cases are) hotly debated. I added the "Weighted" tag for this reason--i.e. the article should be revised to clarify what the author of the book is claiming vs. what should be a neutral POV by the author.

On a more general level, is this detailed and long an article commensurate with the book's notability, or is the book even noteworthy enough to merit an article? Note that even the article on Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom is a fraction of this article's length... If the book is noteworthy enough to stay, then I would recommend including sections on the book's impact on society and on its role in the development of political-economic theory (see the aforementioned article on Friedman's book for an example), and perhaps other cultural references to it.

Napzilla (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the summary is rather long and unclear, unlike the sort that are typically standard for Wikipedia. Quotes from the book seem to be overused, for one thing. And the tone-POV is unclear as well. Jetpunkwizard67 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]