Talk:Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think

How does this article resemble an "advertisement"? Which sources are "inappropriate"? Which sources are "promotional"?
Someone put a message on the article which says:

"This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links."

The links which they removed are the Christian Science Monitor, Slate, and CNN. How can any of those be considered "inappropriate"?

The remaining sources are the New York Times, Time magazine, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Wall St. Journal. How can any of those be considered "advertisements"?

How can any of those sources, from either list, be considered "promotional"?

Onceangle574 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What makes it seem like an ad is the fact that a disproportionate amount of the article space is composed of review quotes. That is fine for s website that is selling the book.  As a matter of fact, that is an excellent way TO sell the book.  This is an encyclopedia article, however, and it looks more like an Amazon page.  The tag is to inform others that it needs to have more prose and less "praise".   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I understand. Thanks for explaining. I won't put those quotes back in. Right now, reliable sources that mention the book tend to consist of reviews, so that's what the article reflects. Thanks for responding to me. Onceangle574 (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem at all, I'm always happy to explain my rationale, and make a corrections if I make a mistake. Right now, I think the key would be to increase the prose about the book if possible, then adding more links might be ok.  They key is having balance.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Translations
Hi, is there a list of all language versions available for Abundance? Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it significantly about automation?
Does this book feature significant parts about automation / computerization / technological unemployment?

--Fixuture (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)