Talk:Public sphere/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sections?

The long and unbroken article makes for difficult reading. Can someone please break it up into appropriate sections? 202.71.141.12 07:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Another View

The 'another view' section here seems out of place. It has the tone of being an essay expounding a personal view, and indeed uses the first person pronoun. Surely this belongs on the contributor's blog or webpage, with a link from the Wikipedia entry, and not as part of the entry itself? alarichall 11.07, 2006 July 20th

I concur with the above assessment.Papilion78 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Rlitwin 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradiciton

The statement that "The concept of Public Sphere was first introduced by Jürgen Habermas" from the article is wrong and contradicts later mention of earlier theorists who discuss the concept. Following the tradition of Arendt, the public sphere can probably be dated to the Polis in Greek political thought. 134.173.91.46 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then let's say it was made popular by Habermas, instead of being introduced by him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the remark about Heidegger

Heidegger talked about authenticity, but it seems to me that the remark that existence in the public sphere is (by definition) inauthentic is simply not there in Heidegger's thinking. He said that a person is inauthentic when he/she is being "possessed" (taken over) by the they-self (Das Man), i.e. the customary, self-understood and unreflected ways of thinking, speaking and taking action. But, if someone is reflective (i.e. he/she thinks everything personally before taking action or speaking as the customary ways would indicate one to do), then one can be authentic both inside and outside of the public sphere. Besides, Dasein means a human being, or: a human existence, if you wish. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritual?

in the introduction it makes a reference to all public interation is viewed as a ritual model? (or somthing like that). this may be one offshoot of the public sphere model, however traditonal reserch (Hauser, Fraiser, Benhabib, Goodnight, Habermas, Calhoun) still is furmly grounded in the rhetorical and critical traditions. I think this should be deleted or put into a different section since the current placement makes traditional reserch seem passe.Coffeepusher 18:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

REFERENCES

These citations have no references. Garnham who? Thompson who? Also Negt and Kluge. Also Hoynes. Also Habermas 1989. These ellipses detract from an otherwise good article. I think we need to get these references up and running and then remove the call for references which tops the article. Need help here, please. --Dylanfly 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the work of Habermas, and never heard of a book called Civil Society and the Political Public Sphere. Where did you get this title from? A search in the British Library catalogue came up empty on that title. Please review your sources and provide proper references. If this is an article it should not be in italics. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.193.90.201 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took away the Habermas 1989 and replaced it with quotes from Asen and Fraser (that pritty much said the same thing), I have also been adding references, so I am going to remove the tag up top...since we have some pritty good sources now.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

rework

I am planing on embarking on an extensive rewrite of this article. although I wouldn't consider myself an expert in the public sphere, I will be citing sources other than the "sparks notes." I am posting this because (currently) I don't have time right now, and It will give anyone who is interested in discussing the rework a chance to let me know what they believe should go into this article, if no one responds I will be working it as I understand the public sphere. In other words, I want to know who is interested in joining me in this quest. currently I believe this article is compleatly off base.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am rewriting the article currently (as time permits). if it seems choppy that is probably why. so far it seems that the only people interested in editing this article are cleaning up grammor and spelling (for which I am greatfull) so I will continue to extensively rewrite unless someone posts here with some ideasCoffeepusher (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to delete the contemperary developments section of this article, because it isn't cited well and looks like a personal essay. the deletion will be well noted in my edit summary for this Jan 14, 2008 around the same time as my signature if anyone wants to look it up (I am currently doing the extensive edit, so please please please don't undo the edit, it will really screw up my work, just cut and paste if you think it belongs). Coffeepusher (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Ok, now I am at a place where I think this is a good article. it still has some work to be done.

Media and the public sphere is going to be the next section. I feel that after that it will be a fairly comprehensive article.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)