Talk:The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Criticism Misleading

Other than the fact that the criticism has no citation, it is also flat-out invalid, because that very matter is addressed several times in the book - in fact, it's one of the book's main points. It should be either removed, or replaced by a more informed criticism (of which I'm sure there must be many). I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia works, so I don't know whether I should remove it myself, or not. --Roint (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

There was a similar article called Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, with some additional material towards the end. I have merged the additional material in here. --RichardVeryard 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style

The paragraph I flagged is written as opinion, but without attribution (i.e. "catchy garbage"). It should be re-written in neutral language, with a specific citation from Habermas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.143.210 (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN's

There are multiple editions of this book with different ISBN's; I added a Polity Press ISBN to the reference at the end; the MIT Press ISBN *also* is correct. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]