Talk:Fredric Jameson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:44, 14 March 2011

Ohio B‑class

	Ohio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Social and political / Continental / Contemporary B‑class Mid‑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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Aesthetics
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

This is pretty dense stuff.

I wonder if The Political Unconscious shouldn't be flagged also as one of his best-known works. The analysis of it given is brief enough; perhaps it should also mention that he adopts or adapts material not obviously from the left, for example Northrop Frye and the quadriga.

I'm going to attempt some straight copy edits to improve readabiliy.

Charles Matthews 10:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts, and on the need for copyediting. I haven't had a chance yet to read the large additions to this article carefully, but it definitely needs more on Jameson's literary-critical writing as well as his political thought. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any editing would be appreciated. I've only begun writing the article and haven't had occasion to properly distribute content in sections or care for readability. Please bear with me; it's ages since I wrote anything serious in English, and Jameson is dauntingly difficult to summarize adequately. The quadriga allusion beats me, though. ¿Care to expatiate? --Taragui 02:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quadriga is sometimes used for the four-level medieval scheme of Biblical interpretation literal/allegorical/tropological/teleological. Wikipedia may not have caught up with this, yet. Charles Matthews 08:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Litera res gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia, right? I didn't know about the term (though I had quite my share of the stuff reading the Church Fathers). Will add that when I have some time. Could you pinpoint me to a specific locus in Jameson for his take on the stuff? Thanks. Taragui 11:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Political Unconscious, Chapter 1, section II on Frye: '... Frye's work comes before us as a virtual contemporary invention of the four-fold hermeneutic ...'; so he nearly equates the two, explaining that in the following pages. Charles Matthews 12:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by the section "the critique of postmodernism." This gives the reader the impression that Jameson is an adversary of pomo, whereas if you read him carefully Jameson celebrates postmodern art at least as much as he critiques it. And you yourself mention this at the end of the section, where you talk about his critics' perception that he'd endorsed pomo. This sub-heading should be edited, don't you think? Nostalgiphile 05:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and rewrite it, although I don't think that Jameson can be construed as an endorser of postmodernity in any sense (apart from considering it an authentic expression of the Zeitgeist, but the authenticity is also a notion to be critiqued). I'm barely active in this wiki nowadays. Best, Taragüí @ 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to New Left Review abstract page for The Politics of Utopia. URL is .org not .net.
chacal la chaise (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political scam

As documented by Captain's Quarters [1] and Middle Earth Journal[2] somebody registered imwithfred2008.com, originally made a bogus site that linked possible Republican candidate Fred Thompson with the KKK. The registration entry was not hidden very well: Henry Reynolds 500 California Ave. #5 Santa Monica, California 90403 United States

Eventually and currently as of this writing the site points to the Fredric Jameson article page, attempting to hide the original intent. As a 2008 dirty trick about a notable candidate should there be a mention? Should it have its own page and disambiguation? Inquiring minds... TMLutas 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for history's sake, here's the offending page available at http://www.imwithfred2008.com

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> <html>
<head> <title>www.imwithfred2008.com</title> <META name="description" content="Fred Thompson, Fred Tompson, Fred Thomson"><META name="keywords" content="Fred Thompson, Fred Tompson, Fred Thomson"> </head> <frameset rows="100%,*" border="0"> <frame src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Jameson" frameborder="0" /> <frame frameborder="0" noresize /> </frameset>
</html>

And there it is TMLutas 03:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely irrelevant to any possible encyclopedic discussion, present or future, about Jameson. I don't really even see any point in preserving the page source or the details about the domain registration here -- it just seems completely irrelevant. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following message removed from the article referred to this. Charles Matthews 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imwithfred2008.com was originally used to smear Fred Thompson's presidential campaign. Please see http://www.imwithfred.com/

Postmodern theory?

I'm not sure why "Category:Postmodern theory" was deleted from this article by User:Woland1234 on November 26, 2010: the very same user who added this category to the Jameson article on October 28, 2010!!??

Let's put this article back into the category "Postmodern theory". Surely putting Jameson in this "category" is a helpful marker for readers. Surely it's not an "unreliable" marker! (??) Christian Roess (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality among others

The article style borders on hagiography at times. Combined with the meager sourcing for the article, I'd also question whether the article violates the original research policy. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge this. As someone quite familiar with Jameson's academic biography, this article is perfectly adequate. There are no major scandals being obscured, and the coverage of Jameson's work is fully commensurate with his status as a leading intellectual figure in the U.S. Also, there is no reason given by Horrorshow for this article to be in dispute. Personal distaste for an intellectual, or an intellectual's work, has no bearing on the Wikipedia article. As such, I request that the contested nature of the page be revoked.-TED, 19:41, 14 March 2011

Revision as of 23:42, 14 March 2011 edit 96.32.182.180 (talk) →Neutrality among others ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:44, 14 March 2011 edit undo 96.32.182.180 (talk) →Neutrality among others Next edit →
Line 84:		Line 84:
	The article style borders on hagiography at times. Combined with the meager sourcing for the article, I'd also question whether the article violates the [[WP:OR\|original research]] policy. [[User:Horrorshowj\|Horrorshowj]] ([[User talk:Horrorshowj\|talk]]) 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)		The article style borders on hagiography at times. Combined with the meager sourcing for the article, I'd also question whether the article violates the [[WP:OR\|original research]] policy. [[User:Horrorshowj\|Horrorshowj]] ([[User talk:Horrorshowj\|talk]]) 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

	I challenge this. As someone quite familiar with Jameson's academic biography, this article is perfectly adequate. There are no major scandals being obscured, and the coverage of Jameson's work is fully commensurate with his status as a leading intellectual figure in the U.S. As such, I request that the contested nature of the page be revoked.-TED, 19:41, 14 March 2011		I challenge this. As someone quite familiar with Jameson's academic biography, this article is perfectly adequate. There are no major scandals being obscured, and the coverage of Jameson's work is fully commensurate with his status as a leading intellectual figure in the U.S. Also, there is no reason given by Horrorshow for this article to be in dispute. Personal distaste for an intellectual, or an intellectual's work, has no bearing on the Wikipedia article. As such, I request that the contested nature of the page be revoked.-TED, 19:41, 14 March 2011