This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The reception section mostly only quotes from sources praising the book, with the one exception being a Swedish economist who is the only one stated to express anything at all critical of any of the arguments in the books. Now unless someone can show that there has no other negative reviews or critiques of the book or it's arguments (published in reliable sources) that have been written then the section has NPOV issues. Secondly, even if their is a lack of criticism of the book or it's arguments due to a lack of reviews of it by left wing critics, we still need to make it clear the political bent of the critics praising it. For those critics/commentators have spoken favorable about the book that have a verifiable political POV then that should be made clear. Looking over the positive critics I see that Tyler Cowen is is libertarian, Allister Heath (deputy editor of The Daily Telegraph) is a conservative (as is The Daily Telegraph), and Rich Lowry and Jeff Jacoby are also conservatives. Only IBT does not have a clear political stance so far as I can tell at first blush. As such, I would suggest that we make it clear that the praise of the book largely comes from conservative and libertarian circles. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
