|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
It looks like someone used this page to do some socialist-bashing. Stephen Hicks' credibility is certainly not thoroughly established, and a quick look at his website reveals links to the Heritage Foundation. The response itself is also too general to be included in this article, not to mention the fact that it's a gross over-simplification of how socialism had changed since the 1800s. This book is hugely influential and many have written about it, there should be some commentary out there that's more relevant and credible.--Dalarocca (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears several people are in agreement that the relevance and the credibility of the source for responses is in question. Having read this book I believe this response is also a straw man argument against Marcuse. I am removing the section. (Glamajamma (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
Nearly 1/3 of the article is the response section. The response section is based off of one person's opinion. Someone should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe we could add the critic response of my neighbor too? - Just being cynical - Mr.Nobody 09:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
The use of the past-tense in the introduction ("argued," "created," etc.) seems to suggest that One Dimensional Man was intended to be more of a current-events work than a description of society which would remain relevant.
While it would be accurate to say that certain aspects no longer apply to the world after the end of the Cold War, the fundamental premises of the book remain very much applicable to the contemporary world.
If nobody has any objections, I'm going to change the wording to the present-tense.
--Apjohns54 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)