Talk:Public sphere/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sections? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I also agree. Rlitwin 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another View 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiciton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On the remark about Heidegger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ritual? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  REFERENCES 

message: 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)
thread_title:  rework 

message: One quick point I found is that you should split the "Notes and references" section into 2 section, per WP:LAYOUT.  Cirt (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick point 

message: Hi to everyone,
this is just a quick note to express my disappointment in portraying a "coffehouse discussion" image in the article that could associate the concept of "smoking" with "public discussion" and "elders" (there are people with a white bear in it).
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffehouse picture 

message: The section on Habermas says the following:
This collapse was due to the consumeristic drive that infiltrated society, so they became more concerned about consumption than political actions, and the capitalistic drive of the mass media. Suddenly the media became a tool of political forces, and a medium for advertisement rather than the medium from which the public got their information on political matters.
-- my question: which collapse?
I found looking back at a very old page that this paragraph was prefixed with the sentence: The second half of his work showed what he saw as the decline of the public sphere due to consumer culture and the influence of the mass media[4]. (with [4] being the following citation: ^ Habermas, Jurgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge 
-- should that sentence come back? 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.202.39 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "the collapse" is the decline referenced in the second paragraph.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification 

message: Coffeepusher deleted the entire new section "Internet, social media and the public sphere", commenting "Origional research, reads like the intro and conclusion of a original paper regarding the Habermas Twitter account". 
The Internet undoubtedly plays an important role for the public sphere. The public sphere article had thus far not taken notice of this circumstance. The Internet section tries to document what Habermas and other scholars say about the public sphere. The emergence of a Fake-Habermas account on Twitter is something that Habermas found concerning and on which he commented. All passages in the Twitter-paragraph are referenced. I agree that the part "The example shows that social media pose a lot of questions about the public sphere in terms of authenticity of the speaker, anonymity in cyberspace, if meaningful political conversations are possible in 140 characters, etc." is not referenced and can therefore sound like original research. I therefore deleted this sentence. But I think the other information about the Twitter account is crucial factual information and should therefore stay. Also the rest is a documentation of others' research, not original research. Coffeepusher, if you want to help, then please contribute to improving writing the Internet, social media and public sphere-section of the article by making suggestions and drafting and discussing paragraphs as well as revisions for paragraphs.
--Fuchschristian (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2014
:Thank you for the explanation Fuchschristian.  The format itself gives it away as a copy/paste from a research paper.  It starts with a quote from Habermas to establish the argument, moves on to a case study (Habermas twitter account), and ends with "future research" which is something that is only used in conclusions for academic papers.  As of now I am unable to find any articles which tie together net-public sphere, Habermas's twitter account, and the work by Dahlberg, which is what makes this section original research.  Even if we delete the intro and case study, Dahlberg's paper violates weight, meaning that this article is being unfairly represented based on its current influence alongside other more notable studies (when you take into account impact on the field and amount of space this section takes up).  Why did we choose to highlight this article, which was cited by 40 rather than Bohman with 223 (both published same year) or Fraser's article on internet public sphere who, while her article itself isn't as impact personally has a much larger impact in public sphere research. I see that you are a new user, I have given you a "welcome" template on your user talk page.  If you have any questions about wikipedia's policies and how to navigate the various subsections of wikipedia please feel free to contact me.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet, social media and the public sphere

message: "a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment."
Discursive on dictionary.com 
1. passing aimlessly from one subject to another; digressive; rambling.
2. proceeding by reasoning or argument rather than intuition.
Discoursive on dictionary.com 
1. Reasoning; characterized by reasoning; passing from premises to consequences; discursive. --Milton.
2. Containing dialogue or conversation; interlocutory.
:The epic is everywhere interlaced with dialogue or discoursive scenes. --Dryden.
3. Inclined to converse; conversable; communicative; as, a discoursive man.
The original source seems to use "discursive" at least in the pre-paywalled abstract.  It is really intended to invoke "aimless and rambling"?  — MaxEnt 08:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discursive vs. discoursive 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Public sphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070328063523/http://www.mtsu.edu:80/~dryfe/SyllabusMaterials/Classreadings/habermas.pdf to http://www.mtsu.edu/~dryfe/SyllabusMaterials/Classreadings/habermas.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~gerhards/gerhards/four_models_of_public_sphere.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  /wiae /tlk 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed