Talk:The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

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)

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)