Talk:The Society of the Spectacle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophical literature

This entire article is lifted from Computers in postmodernity. If it doesn't get expanded significantly, is there a need to have it repeated here? Joyous 23:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

For some reason I find that quite hilarious.User:tarma2002

I have a question: should some of the sections that address the Spectacle in the article dealing with the situationists not in fact be here? I'm interested in the pages for the The concentrated spectacle, The diffuse spectacle, and The integrated spectacle. However, since these ideas are used by people who may not agree with all of Debord's ideas (and his penchant for controversy), I'm not sure how to proceed. This article needs work. I would be interested in hearing an opinion about this. Cyclopean typewriter 19:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedman?

Does anyone have any idea who this Friedman is who is referenced several times in the text? There is no book title, or any other bibliographic information ever given. I am not sure who entered all these notes, but they are not particularly helpful. Tomorrow, I will attempt to sort this out. If anyone sees this, and has some ideas, feel free to improve the article in the meantime. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Having received no response to this question in the past two weeks, I am going to remove all of the "Friedman" references in the text and all assertions supposedly backed up by said references. If, at some point, someone can point to a book or essay, and provide page numbers and other pertinent bibliographic information, the references can be restored. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is just a typo: the source is Freeman, which was present in the references section, untill a smart republican moved it among the "external links".--SummerWithMorons (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it was a rather serious typo, a typo made worse by the fact that the citations were incomplete, with no title or page numbers given for the assertions made. Given those serious errors, I believe I was entirely justified in removing the information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)