Talk:Public sphere/Archive 1

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)

Quick point

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)

• Also, avoid wikilinking in subsection titles, as you do in Jürgen Habermas: Bourgeois Public Sphere. Cirt (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffehouse picture

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).

coffeehouse discussion

Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

After examining the picture, I found out that there is no smoking going on at the kuavahuse (coffeehouse)...the tools you see are a morter and pistle, and a long handled spoon used to roast the beans...each "elder" is actually waring different styles indicating a diverse group of people, and they are holding cups rather than smoking implements. thank you for the consernCoffeepusher (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick thought -- Wikipedia itself, an online encyclopedia where people participate according to processes -- is a wonderful example of the public sphere. Wikipedia is more oriented towards information but there is definitely a "public sphere" sensibility about it. -- but I don't know how to put this idea in this article or whether it merits a place. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)TomWSulcer

Rhetorical emphasis

This article refers to a lot of important work on the public sphere concept. However, it appears that a contributor, "coffeepusher" in May 2007 began privileging a rhetorical studies approach to the public sphere, such that now, in the introductory section of the entry, rhetorical and argumentation scholars dominate the citations (to say nothing of their large section in the entry). I do not mean that this work doesn't matter, but that its place and influence in the interdisciplinary scholarship is not half as large as this entry would suggest. NOne of the outpouring of recent disciplinary and interdisciplinary encyclopedias cite this rhetorical and argumentation scholarship in their entries on the public sphere (see for example the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, the Edinburgh Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc). Sweeping works such as Warner's Publics and Counterpublics (cited in the entry) and Mckee's The Public Sphere: An Introduction, came after these works like Asen and Hauser. Editors should ask why it is that these other surveys of the scholarship don't include people like Asen and Hauser? IN any case, if you look at the first citation in the second sentence, it's simply inserting synonyms for the original wording of Habermas. Why not just use Habermas? Considering these points, one wonders it these references are not simply publicity for a couple of authors or for the rhetorical studies perspective, the latter of which, for reasons that demand reflection, are not included in broad surveys of scholarship on the concept. At the very least, gratuitous quotes of that literature should be removed from the introduction. See also Marcinkowski, Frank. "Public Sphere." The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Donsbach, Wolfgang (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Debordelique (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

please check the archives please before you make the accusations of domination or deliberate vanity pressing. your accusations are hostile and unhelpful and suggests that you want to discredit my contributions through ad hominem claims rather than collectively work toward a solution. (oh, and Mckee has only been cited in 60 publications...which is one third of the citations from the least cited article that you are accusing me of vanity pressing).Coffeepusher (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ps. if you look at the first citation in the second sentence you will notice these marks "..." with a direct quote by Habermas inserted in between them (and cited, that is what the little blue one next to it is...a citation with a page number)... not, as you claim...and I quote "if you look at the first citation in the second sentence, it's simply inserting synonyms for the original wording of Habermas"...those aren't inserted synonyms, they are word for word what Habermas said and are between quotes which is the (mostly) international signal that "THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE"!Coffeepusher (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting response. I'm happy that you understand fallacies. So, you accuse me of ad hominems (rightly), but in doing so, you ignore the thrust of the criticism: did you do an actual literature review of the scholarship before you started citing the scholarship by a couple of rhetoricians? Regarding McKee, you miss the point entirely. I suggested him, among many other possibilities, because he takes you through the vast scholarship, which is much more heavily cited than your interesting selections. Debordelique (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)D

I didn't ignore them, it is just that your ad hominem overwhelms to the point of completely overwriting any collaborative intention on your behalf (this is a collaborative project, Wikipedia that is, and if you can't collaborate you should write elsewhere) you were trying to cut me out of the discussion by appealing to the other editors (ps, Ive been the only regular editor in the past 3 years) on this page that my intentions and additions were misguided and possibly corrupt. That alone makes me question your ability to work well with others in a collaborative project since it looks like your habit is to rise through the ranks through regicide. If you wish to continue to work with the Wikipedia project please learn about the principals and ideals of Wikipedia before you charge onto a page and start shooting. Yes I did a literature review, and Frasier, Hauser, and Asen address not only rhetorical but Frasier covers Feminism and counerpublics. Asen touches on the technological,cross cultural, problems with access not addressed by counterpublics, class and race. And Hauser takes an ethnographic approach which models public spheres very similarly to most post modern sociological approaches. So while I don't name drop many peoples pet theorists, this article is well rounded and gives a foundation that informs interdisciplinary.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone sensitive to ad hominems, you have a funny way of reasoning. I'll ignore your attacks on my "habit" and "ability," since you yourself seem to have developed a "habit" in two responses. I'm glad you endorse collaborative work, and I'm glad you get satisfaction out of editing. In the spirit of collaborative work, I might ask you what you mean by a literature review, since you say you've done one. I gave you a few random examples of general academic (the public sphere is first and foremost an academic concept) references from the increasingly popular encyclopedias and handbooks of disciplines. Habermas is first and foremost a philosopher and social theorist. He has influenced the younger and more conceptually and methodologically parasitic discipline (or "interdiscipline") of communication studies. But even there, when you consult the entry for the public sphere in the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory ("Public Sphere." Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Ed. Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference, 2009. 813-816), you find the following references (none of those you cite). "Further Readings Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Calhoun, C. (1992). Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Peters, J. D. (1995). Historical tensions in the concept of public opinion. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 3–32). New York: Guilford Press.

Warner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. New York: Zone Books."

I've already given you examples of generalist academic overviews in philosophy and sociological theory. I repeat, you overload the introduction with scholars who are obscure, from an interdisciplinary perspective. I repeat: it's not that they're unimportant, but they should be discussed in a section on contributions to p.s from rhetorical scholars. Otherwise, you unintentionally mislead general readers to think those contributions/sources are in fact authoritative from any perspective whatsoever. I hardly have any interest in "rising through [any] ranks" of Wiki editing. But I do find Wiki important as an introduction to many subjects, which is why I have chosen to comment here. I'm sorry that I don't have time to contribute more to it. But I wanted to point out the entry's weakness in hope that the introduction would revert to earlier versions, and have the aforementioned content moved to a section on rhetorical approaches. P.s. the scholar's name is "Fraser," not "Frasier." I only remark because you misused it twice, thus making me wonder if it wasn't a typo. Debordelique (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) D

I am not engaging in ad hominem reasoning, I'm engaging in Habermas's normative validity claim and backing it up using the proper "good reasons" or rather explaining why your behavior violates the norms of conduct. Imagine my position for a second. I made a call on this page to improve the content, I waited a couple of weeks with no response, and then I wrote the article with no support based on the rhetorical perspective because (shocker) I am a rhetorical theorist. as I stated while I didn't name drop every pet theorist out there I did review Calhoon, STOTPS, Kant, early Marx, McKeon, Arent, Merton, Peters, Lyotard, and Simonson's work with mass media. And since I don't believe in a single genealogical thread for the Public Sphere I gleaned several threads out of this lit review and structured them in the mostly current conversation which is surrounding Structural Transformation, to present the ideas is some form of coherent psuto narrative (as opposed to the A.D.D. method "and then so and so said this and then this was said and then there was this other guy and then this was observed and this rabbit ran through the hole and discovered this and then................."). So Marx, Kant, The Frankfurt School, and McKeon's (loosely) observations were covered with Habermas's ideas. Fraser's idea's (yah I know I frequently misspell that one, dyslexia is a bitch) covered Benhabib, Warner, Alexander, Harris-Lacewell (a shockingly good study "Barbershops, bibles, and BET" defiantly check it out if you haven't), Asen, one other Chicano scholar whose name escapes me at the moment, as well as providing the main thrust of the criticism for STOTPS (a criticism which has been duplicated by many theorists but I personally believe Fraser said it first and best with a possible exception to Rawles critique). And Hauser covers Howard, Ono and Sloop, Arent, Troup, Lyotard (kinda), Malinowski, Bateson's work in Bali, more McKeon, as well as covers and solves Schudson's arguments, Postone, and Peters. Merton and Simonson's main ideas are loosely covered through the article (with the exception of Simonson's new book which provides some really really good expansion on Peters ideas). What I didn't cover was Media Ecology, Systems approach of Luhmann and Parson's, Weber through neo-Marxism, Cultural Studies (although Fraser does touch on most of their arguments), and Levi-Strauss/Durkheim. Because I felt that these views were covered better in different articles on wikipedia, and while you can glean a Public Sphere thread in these schools of thought their main contributions and theoretical thrust move away from Public Sphere proper.

so I did a lit review, and going for the KISS method reduced it to a rhetorical vain (because that is what I can speak to best) which covered what I saw as the main observations made in the various literatures...and I waited.

I waited to find someone who would be able to collaborate on this article. unfortunately what I found were recent grad students trying to dump their dissertation lit reviews and argue that their advisor should be included, and Scholars who didn't have the time to actually improve the article but were happy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback and bitch about my work and the Wikipedia project as a whole (read Alcoholics Anonymous pp 60-62 starting with the last paragraph that states "the first requirement..."). Those scholars didn't understand the concept of a collaborative project or encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia is not a place for original research and as I found writing this article EVERYTHING has to be cited. THIS IS A FREAKING PAIN IN THE NECK because while I know the public sphere is a place where people collectively form their society in some fashion, I need to find a publication and page number that says just that before I can write it down on the page...and finding those page numbers can be a bitch because "it is in this book SOMEWHERE where the hell did I read that...was it in chapter 5???." there is no APA "no page numbers just publications" on this article, and no general elaboration without citation, and (what most scholars find absolutely infuriating) no synthesizing a sentence using two or more sources, just about every sentence is cited.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

clarification

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)

"the collapse" is the decline referenced in the second paragraph.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

History

I would have thought it obvious that the public sphere refers to the same historical phenomenon that public opinion does. Let's break this down. Public sphere refers to the place (real or otherwise) in which people get together and discuss ideas - it is informal (not government) but public. Public opinion is the dominant opinion expressed by the public in such a sphere. An analogy is the history of cupboards and the history of cupboard usage - it is to be expected that the history of both is liable to be very similar as cupboards are made to be used - hence the history of cupboards is essentially the history of their use. The history of public opinion as an important force is obviously the same history as the emergence of the public sphere. I hope that I have now made this clear. There is also no OR as it is all sourced and no SYNTH either -each source speaks for itself.Noodleki (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't force your edits by WP:Edit warring until you have gained a consensus, I have reverted you, please don't add your edits again or I will have to report you for violation of WP:3RR. I know from your talk page that you know the drill.

Regarding your argument: "Public sphere refers to the place (real or otherwise) in which people get together and discuss ideas". No, that is not what the academic term "public sphere" refers to. The term "public sphere" is an abstract term referring to the changing views of what throughout history has been regarded as meant for public view as opposed to the private and intimate spheres. You seem to be equating it with political opinion, but it is exactly Habermas' point that such a construction is of modern origin. Your edits exclusively revolves around the term "public opinion" which is a related but separate term (hence the reason for two articles). As none of your examples explicitly uses the term "public sphere", the subject of this article, it is indeed WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR of you to interpret them as being the same. You will need secondary reliable sources that explicitly terms each of your examples as examples of the public sphere. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything Saddhiyama said, those are the exact reasons I also disagree with the inclusion of the public opinion section.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Habermas's 1964 essay on the public sphere: The Concept. By "the public sphere" we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed.

And further down: The public sphere as a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer or public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere -that principle of public information which once had to be fought for against the arcane policies of monarchies and which since that time has made possible the democratic control of state activities. It is no coincidence that these concepts of the public sphere and public opinion arose for the first time only in the eighteenth century. They acquire their specific meaning from a concrete historical situation.Noodleki (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Habermas lays out that public opinion is a result of the public sphere, but they are two separate concepts. Specifically in chapter 7 of Structural transformation of the public sphere outlines how people tried to salvage a "public opinion" in the face of a collapsing/corrupted public sphere (p.238).Coffeepusher (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't now if you're being dense on purpose, but this is getting rather tedious. Habermas says "these concepts of the public sphere and public opinion arose for the first time only in the eighteenth century." He clearly thinks they are historically the same phenomenon, but you don't for some reason. Is it not blindingly obvious to you that public opinion emerged when a public sphere did. This is like the history of cutlery and the history of cutlery usage - they are going to be the same - one just refers to what you do with cutlery, similarly public opinion is just what happens in a public sphere. A public sphere is a 17th century coffee-house or a pamphlet. Public opinion is simply the opinions expressed in those media!! So the history of the public sphere is going to be about the rise in importance of coffee-houses, clubs and pamphlets and the history of public opinion will be about the rise in importance of the opinions being expressed in coffee-houses and pamplets -it's the same history!!Noodleki (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would say "no personal attacks," but you have already been told that a few times. Are you going to continue combative editing and personal attacks when you are on wikipedia?Coffeepusher (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to address the point?Noodleki (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, it is very simple: Information in Wikipedia is largely based on secondary reliable sources. That means that information in articles needs citations from such sources. So when you add a history section it needs to be cited with sources which explicitly states that each historical example is an example of the public sphere. It doesn't matter which way you personally interpret Habermas (right or wrong), no Wikipedia editor is a reliable source on these matters. So you will need to find such sources before that section can be accepted in the article. I really think you should brush up on the policies of WP:Verifiability and the other links provided in my post, because after having browsed your contributions list it seems to be somewhat of a recurring problem with you when you add historical sections to articles that you add inadequate sources, unreliable sources, primary sources or no sources at all. If you follow this policy it will save you and the editors who cleans up after you, a lot of time and work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I am done here. Habermas lays out that the public sphere is the normitive space that makes an informed public opinion possible. Two separate concepts. Unless you have anything new to addCoffeepusher (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

on a different note, I'm not sure who taught you how to persuade a group of people to work with you on a project, but it is a unique style which seems to be working against you. You may want to look at your approach, and see what you are doing that causes people to be less inclined to your point of view.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very simple, I wouldn't dispute that. I can repeat the quotes from Habermas in which he explicitly equates the historical phenomenon of the public sphere with that of opinion - "these concepts of the public sphere and public opinion arose for the first time only in the eighteenth century." That is your source that the histories of the same. Can you really not see that the history of the public opinion that was expressed in, say, a pamphlet is equally the hitory of how the public sphere developed? Why are you being so resistant to this? Please don't say that I have no source - because a) I do as quoted above and b) it is completely obvious that the two concepts are the same. I return to my comparison of cutlery and cutlery usage. Do you need an expert to tell you that the history of both will be the same? Or would you realise it all by yourself? I hope the answer is the latter. You also make it sound like you don't agree just because you are annoyed by the tone of my comments. I would hope that you were more objective than that even if my exasperation shows through.Noodleki (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

actually I just want to spend as little time as possible with someone who calls people names over the internet when there is a disagreement. My time off isn't spent searching out people to yell at me. So while I am open to collaboration, I'm not going to waste my time searching for possible intersections of agreement when I know that, so long as there is a disagreement, any such search will be punctuated by statements that degrade my intelligence and character. I am sure you can understand my point.

Now as we keep on saying, there are problems with your addition. Much of what you are adding appears to be original research. specifically none of your sources actually talk about public spheres, they talk about public opinion. Now while you are convinced that public spheres and public opinions are the same, unless you are using sources that actually say "public sphere" you can't add them to the article under the policy WP:SYNTH.

and again Wikipedia runs on consensus when there is a disagreement, so there isn't a consensus for the argument that public sphere and public opinion are the same. I side that public opinion is a possible product of a healthy public sphere, you don't need a healthy public sphere to have a public opinion. a public sphere regulates the interactions of individuals, a public opinion is the opinion that is developed through interactions within civil society. they are two different concepts.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am not calling you names. I don't want to be insulting here, but I really think you don't understand much about this topic. Why don't you read up about it - it is discussed in many general histories of the 18th century. To not understand that public opinion and the public sphere refers to the same historical event can only mean that you either haven't read anything about the subject or to have not understood it. Again, I do not want to insult or upset you, but I think you really need to read up about this before making these objections.

It's actually possible that there is a bit of a misunderstanding. You say that the definition of both terms isn't equivalent - and that is perfectly true. The sphere is the media of public interaction and opinion is the dominant view voiced by the public throug that media. What I am trying to say, is that the history of their development obviously coincides. When the sphere developed - pamphlets, coffeehouses and so on - do you think no public opinion developed at that point? That they sat around discussing politics and such like but voiced no opinion? Is it not clear that in terms of the historical development, that they coincide? The opening of a salon in Paris was both the creation of a public sphere and the place where a public opinion could be voiced! You are also incorrect in saying that public opinion exists without a public sphere. It doesn't, and that's the whole point. Again, as Habermas says "these concepts of the public sphere and public opinion arose for the first time only in the eighteenth century." Could you address that quote, please. So, you need a sphere for opinion and when you have a sphere you get opinion - in other words, the existence of one automatically presupposes the existence of another.

I'm not going to carry this thing on much longer, but I hope you try to be objective and honest about this. It's not easy changing your mind, but we should all have the same interest of trying to improve wikipedia's content. Please read about it - there are many books on the subject as well as material on the internet.Noodleki (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand our objection to your additions. At no point have any of us claimed that there was no public opinion, quite the opposite in fact, we objected to your equation of public opinion with the term public sphere. You can repeat that same out of context sentence of Habermas for ever (do you even have a citation for it?), it does not make your edit any more acceptable, because without citations in your edit that specifically mentions "the public sphere", it is entirely based on your personal interpretation of Habermas in regard to the examples you listed. This is at best what Wikipedia policy calls synthesis, at worst original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

it is actually Habermas's article "The Public Sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964)" published in the New German Critique, 1974, P. 50 first full paragraph, first sentence. It confuses me why he is using that sentence, when the first sentence of the article states "By 'the public sphere' we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed" (emphasis mine) which demonstrates a distinct differentiation of the two concepts.

But again, Saddhiyama is right, the addition we are discussing is WP:SYNTH and unless it is referanced with works that make the claim that the history is actually the history of the public sphere it goes against wikipedia policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just absurd. I will repeat for the final time in the desperate hope that you might finally understand this. Try very hard to actually READ what I write. I KNOW that they are two different concepts and have two different definitions. That is NOT THE POINT!!! The point is, that the history of both concepts is THE SAME!! As your quote directly confirms. It is with the growth of a sphere that an opinion can be formed. THE HISTORY OF THEM COINCIDES!!

They arise in the 18th century - you can't have one without the other. Let me give you some examples: the history of the coffee bean and of coffee drinking, the history of schools and of literacy, the history of the steam engine and the history of industrial revolution. These examples only partially overlap, whereas our example almost perfectly overlaps: the history of the emergence of a public sphere IS the history of the emergence of public opinion. The point isn't even that it's sourced in Habermas's article and any article that you could read on the matter, it's a matter of basic common sense which you seem to be completely lacking, if you so stubbornly refuse to see what is blindingly obvious.Noodleki (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

well our main point is that what you added isWP:SYNTH Coffeepusher (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And how is that the case?Noodleki (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

because none of the sources you used to make that whole history section mentioned public sphere.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned TIME AND TIME AGAIN that they share the same history: I have quted from Habermas to demonstrate this: I have even tried to appeal to whatever common sense you have. You are a stupid, stubborn idiot and I am done here.Noodleki (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OR you could have looked for different sources. Or you could have explored a history of the "public sphere" specifically. you had options we could have explored, but as I said earlier, I am not going to waste my time exploring options with someone who deals with adversity by yelling at a computer screen.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Internet, social media and the public sphere

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)

So it appears that there is a coordinated effort from the University of Westminster to work on an internet and the public sphere. Unfortunately these efforts consist of a new user making 2-4 edits and then disappearing only for another new user to appear, none of them interacting on the talk page, and none of them contributing elsewhere on wikipedia. Because of this behavior I suspect that this is some kind of a class project. The problem with all of these edits is that they are taking the form of article summaries rather than addressing the issue of public sphere and the internet. This is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia wouldn't consist of article summaries of the specifics of each article unless, like the Habermas-Fraser-Hauser sections, those articles founded entire areas of research. If we want to have this section and make it an encyclopedic then why don't we list out the common themes which are addressed in internet and public sphere research. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Discursive vs. discoursive

"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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public sphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmeredithycp, Jmcfadden1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annabelbonar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YIXdeecee. Peer reviewers: Tymiller.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)