Talk:Situationist International/Archive 4

Carefully written?
Does the phrase 'carefully written', referring to Situationist texts, have a source somewhere? It sounds like it's trying to say that they are hard to read. That might be handled by a direct quote, if no commentator is available to establish the point. Otherwise it sounds a bit euphemistic. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it is poorly-written. I intend to rewrite that section, hopefully with references, here in the near future.  Thanks for pointing it out. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This sentence "As many of the original Situationist texts tend to be carefully written, some people have found them dense and inaccessible. " makes no sense. Supposedly a carefully written text would be one that expresses the ideas clearly and convincingly. (User:afaus) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)~
 * Only if the writer's care is taken with the intention of expressing ideas clearly and convincingly. It could rather be to develop nuanced and complex concepts that do not pander to a popular audience. Or, to be as obtuse as possible to impress one's mates. Skomorokh  12:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that wasn't very constructive of me. Might I recommend you badger RepublicanJacobite  incessantly to rewrite it until you are satisfied with its cogency? He loves when you do that.  Skomorokh  12:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a very constructive use of your time, User:afaus. I will get right on it! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Core Arguments
Debord wasn't the main intelectual and the spectacle is not a core theory of the SI. I propose this section be removed altogether - the Key theories section covers this already. If you really want to keep the section in, it needs to cover Unitary Urbanism, Situgraphy and Deournment at the very least before the Spectacle... Paki.tv (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy here the discussion we had in my talk:

Hi there, am not convinced by the 'core ideas' section in the SI article. Debord wasn't the main theorist - Jorn was at least as influencial in the SI, especially ideas of Situgraphy etc. Also Wolman Vaneigm and others at different points. also the spectacle is a later development of situationist theory and not central to the SI at all. I think that section at least needs to look at other ideas/ people or be taken out. its all covered in 'key ideas' anyway... Comments? Paki.tv (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Hi Paki.tv, good points. Although I may miss some important source, I've always read of Debord as the main contributor, with Vaneigm right after him with is 1967 book. I'd like if you could add some sources on the prominence of the members. The article currently is almost totally unreferenced, particularly the 'key ideas' section which is also not very clear. Since the article is at an early stage of development, I would say that adding referenced material is what it most needs. Probably deletions won't be helpful at the moment, I would just use maintenance tags. So on the topic on the contributions and prominence of the situationist we can find good sources to add. PS. It probably would be helpful to discuss all this on the article talk.--Sum (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general observation, I don't think that the recent deletion of referenced material, replacing it with an unreference one, was a constructive way to collaborate on the article.--Sum (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'Core Ideas' section is not referenced at all - outside of the circular self references to Debord. The opening lines: "The main intellectual of the SI was Guy Debord, whose work The Society of the Spectacle (1967) established Situationism as a Marxist critical theory. The Society of the Spectacle is widely recognized as the main and most influential Situationist essay." are all unreferenced and also untrue. I propose deletion of the section.86.149.79.41 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, both with your idea that the section should be deleted, and your assertion that Debord was not the "main intellectual." This is a widely-held belief.  It should, though, be referenced, yes.  If you, on the other hand, have references on behalf of Jorn---your apparent favorite---please provide same. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we work to try to FIND sources and IMPROVE the section instead of just deleting it? Just chucking anything that has any small problem is not really a good method of editing. Zazaban (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit is sourced, so please do not revert without explaining your reasoning further. Paki.tv (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus has not been reached, and I don't understand what you mean when you say 'the edit is sourced.' The reasons you gave on the talk page as original research. Please wait until there is consensus for the changes. Zazaban (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg|thumb|right|300px|When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or [[Help:Reverting|revert]] the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.]]

I mean that the changes I am making have references - more so than the statements I am going over. I have not stated OR as a reason. As for consensus, Wikipedians suggest the following model. Accordingly I have made suggestions before editing, then I have made an edit - I have followed advice to add references - all of which have been refused by you, sticking rigidly to a previous edit - not considering any of my suggestions or edits. I suggest therefore that it is you that needs to reconsider your position and offer conpromise or improvements... Paki.tv (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except there is not consensus. I personally don't think it would be hard to find a sources for what there aren't sources for. I also do wish you wouldn't use such a condescending attitude with me, it's quite unpleasant. Zazaban (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the source added by Paki.tv, The Situationist City By Simon Sadler, is a very good one, since it's published by MIT Press. That addition is for sure a step forward in improving the article, and I think that Paki.tv's edits should stay since they are referenced, and they can always be amended later as we find more sources, no need to start edit wars. I've added a requested quote tag to the reference of Sadler book at page 159. I'm looking at the version available from google books. What I've read so far doesn't seem to talk of Jorn as the most influent member, although the first sentence of the page is only partially available. So I'm quoting here the relevant passages of the page, hoping that anyone having the book will commplete the missing sentence: Jorn and Debord, with wildly differing priorities, remained friends, when Constant and [...missing part of first sentence at p. 159...] rounded upon Jorn, a long-standing associate, but did not offer his resignation as his colleagues from the Si's Dutchsection were being expelled.[3]  [...]  Asger Jorn apparently concentrated upon the production of Situationist theory rather than of genuinely Situationist works, and hopelessly ambitious Situationist projects rarely went much further than the written idea.[7] Debord left his maps fractured and uncertain without proceeding to depict a unitary urbanism proper, so it is unsurprising that he considered Constant's projections of an uncontested future space to be highly improbable. Significantly, perhaps, it is difficult to trace anything that Jørgen Nash's Second Situationist lnternational might have produced toward the construction of situations or of a unitary urbanism.

Also page 198, containing notes [3] and [7], is not available on the Google books preview. I think there has been a conflict within the SI between those that considered "political involvement" central to the SI, like Debord, and those that were against it and the role it had in the May 68, like Jorn. We must cover this debate in the article, and the more source we find about it, the better.--Sum (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jorn-as-key-theorist is most definitely a minority view. It is telling that Sadie Plant, in her The Most Radical Gesture, mentions Jorn only four times, whilst Debord is discussed at great length.  She also makes the key point, on p. 84, that it was only after the split, in which Jorn and the "northerners" were expelled, "developed a coherent critique of the society of the spectacle...".  And it is the theory of the spectacle and how it operates that is the most widely known aspect of Situationist theory.  This certainly cannot be said of "situgraphy." ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert
I don't think it's necessary to excise so much content. If there is an issue about who was the core intellectual I don't see why someone here can't just find an authoritative text and check this. If there is an issue with the current version request cites, if after some time they are not forthcoming then adjust accordingly, but the Debord material is still useful and is informative so I would personally object to its removal. If the claims regarding his prominence are incorrect simply recontexualise the Debord material, deletion is unwarranted, just add the Asger Jorn bit and give us the best of both. Cheers Semitransgenic (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no urgent need of deleting material.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The stuff about Debored and theory of the spectacle is really better placed in Guy Debord or Spectacle (Situationism). as for the spectacle being the most widely known aspect of si theory - i really doubt that but would be interested if you coould substantiate how it is more well known than, for example the derive, psychogeography or detournment - all of which i reckon are better known and understood than the spectacle theory. also - jorn was not 'against' the role of the si in may68 nor was he expelled from the si - as claimed above. its unpleasant indeed that we have to see auhorities developing in this area but worse to see editors who don't really know the subject very well coming across as authorities... anyway i go with the current consensus and try to find better sources Paki.tv (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see why it needs to be an either or situation, they were both involved and they both contributed, whatever information can be provided to better educate the reader in this regard is maybe what we want to work towards. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * u misunderstand my position i thi nk. The point is that many many people were involved not just these two. concentrating on debord limits it rigght down - thats why i have had to add jorn - who was just as or even more influential. i still thinkn the core ideas section should go - the key ideas bit is fine. but i will go with the current concensus. Paki.tv (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well what do the sources say? Do they reflect this? Keep in mind what it says in WP:SOURCES: "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them". Semitransgenic (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added a source asserting the "great significance" of Jorn. Any source from you?--Sum (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, good work with the sourcing, sorry, but no, I haven't had a chance to look for refs. Do you know off hand what publication is considered the most authoritative on this subject?? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * though reading it now, it still seems to be presenting Debord as overshadowed by Jorn. The quote provided, which should be added in the footnotes section not references, only says something about Jorn being a team leader because Debord lacked the personality for PR. Debord is also not listed among the names in the opening lines. I would like to see some of the secondary sources listed as cites, there appears to be far too much web based references (many of which are primary sources) used in lieu of better sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

moving this here for the time being, until it can be cited and added in the footnotes Quote: "Jorn’s role in the Situationist movement (as in COBRA) was that of a catalyst and team leader. Guy Debord on his own lacked the personal warmth and persuasiveness to draw people of different nationalities and talents into an active working partnership. As a prototype Marxist intellectual Debord needed an ally who could patch up the petty egoisms and squabbles of the members. Their quarrels came into the open the moment Jorn’s leadership was withdrawn in 1961. . . . Finally, 1966-8 saw the vindication of Debord’s policy, sustained against every kind of opposition, of adhering rigidly to the uncompromising pursuit of a singleminded plan. When the time came — in Strasbourg in November 1966 and in Paris in May 1968 — Debord was ready, with his two or three remaining supporters, to take over the revolutionary role for which he had been preparing during the last ten years. Incredible as it may seem, the active ideologists (“enragés” and Situationists) behind the revolutionary events in Strasbourg, Nanterre and Paris, numbered only about ten persons." and this:Quote: "Nel 1972, quindici anni dopo la sua fondazione [...] l'Internazionale Situazionista si scioglie in quanto organizzazione. Durante questi anni, il movimento, caratterizzato da un'ideologia dell'estetico e del politico di matrice marxista e surrealista, produce una quantita' consistente di scritti teorici, opuscoli, libri, film e lavori artistici nel campo della pittura e della progettazione di interventi nella dimensione urbana. Di grande rilievo e' il ruolo degli artisti, tra cui in particolare Asger Jorn, Constant e Pinot Gallizio;" The above need be addressed following WP:NONENG guidlines. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a further problem with the cites that refer to The Society of the Spectacle, wikipedia cannot reference itself. They should direct here instead. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the reference it to the book not to wikipedia. The link to a repository copy of the book can be anywhere, wikimedia or any other website.--Sum (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * it just gave the name of the item and a page number, no other information was provided for the sake of supporting verifiability apart from the link to a wikipedia article on the book, at least that's that the way it appeared to me, the reader simply gets: The Society of the Spectacle, thesis 1st, "The whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles." Without more detailed information about the title the cite is referring to its essentially self-reference. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't even know that the Society of the Spectacle is a book by Guy Debord, I wonder why are editing this article in the first place :) --Sum (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to get ratty, I know what it is, but you have to assume when you are editing any article that the general reader is ignorant of the subject matter; never assume the person has prior knowledge. Its simply a matter of sticking as closely as possible to WP:VER, lets try and do that, shall we? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You just needed to add the author name to the references, as I just did, and that you immediately deleted. Please stop your edit war.--Sum (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry but your interpretation of events is a little skewed here, there was an issue with referencing, I pointed out what it was, you chose to ignore this despite it being contrary to standard practice, I then altered the links to run in accordance with standard practice, provided an author, a publisher, a date of publishing, and a date of translation. I would not interpret that as any kind of edit war, simply trying to improve the referencing in a keeping with WP:VER, I don't see why you would have an issue with this. Cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Current revision is ok. Cheers :)--Sum (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just added the two quotes to the footnotes.--Sum (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Stile for references and notes
If you want the quoted text to appear in the footnotes, you have to insert it into the body of the article, which makes it more messy when you try to edit it. That's why I put them in the references section. Since the manual of style is a guideline, we can make an exception to it if the quotes are lenghty. Maybe we could add a section with just all the quotes of the article.--Sum (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry but I haven't seen this approach before here, I don't think its usual, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't support an exception. If you have problems editing the text why not try one of the editing tools that are available? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Style is supported via "guidelines"- which are suggestions 'pointing to' desirable qualities- they are not formal requirements. Most important is clarity. Logical and desirable is any usage which increases clarity- especially for the newcomer. OTOH consistency and professionalism are also desirable; and the article represents both. Perhaps the consensus of WP:WikiProject Architecture will eventually address this layout, but I do like the uncluttered way these quotes lie. What is less fortunate is the approaching-impenetrable, specialist tone of the article as a whole.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O.v 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unused reference
I couldn't find where this was cited in the text, so I've moved it here for now: Mario Lippolis, in Internazionale situazionista 1958-69: (February 1993 ) L’Internazionale sconosciuta Contributo all’aborto di una familiarità fittizia. Skomorokh 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite.php
From media wiki Cite.php:

Having the content of a reference within the article body makes the text confusing to edit and discourages new users to contribute. A reference is lengthy and complicated, while the short form (with the closed tag) is brief and elegant. A solution, which require no software changes, is already mentioned in the Criticism section:

"A possible solution would be to have the actual reference section contain all of the references with given names, then throughout the article, simply reference by name, instead of the full citation." --Sum (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The authority for citation formatting on Wikipedia is WP:CITE, not MediaWiki. Regards, Skomorokh  16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Jorn and Einstein's theory of relativity
Insertion:, removal:. --Sum (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sous les pavés la plage
"Sous les pavés la plage" has been used by Thomas Pynchon in his new book Inherent Vice. Bernard Cousin has claimed authorship for this famous graffito and has told a convincing story:
 * Bernard Cousin, Pourquoi j'ai écrit : sous les pavés la plage. Editeur: Rive droite, ISBN : 9782841521098 Ael 2 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, Pynchon citing situationist facts is a big news. I know there are anti-capitalist arguments in Against the Day too. Thanks Ael.Sum (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification templates
Taken from Please_clarify:
 * clarify or what to mark individual phrases or sentences
 * elucidate to mark individual phrases or sections which require further explanation for general (i.e., non-expert) readers
 * confusing or unclear to mark sections (or entire articles, though this is undesirable)
 * examples to mark individual phrases or sentences which require examples for clarification

--Sum (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

C-Class promotion - requested feedback
At Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, requested feedback for promotion to C-Class.--Sum (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record:. --Sum (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Large-Scale Edit
Yesterday I made a really large edit that thoroughly organized the page, added citations, and added content. Another user thought I shouldn't make such a big edit without discussing it first, even though personally I think the current page is a complete eyesore and my edit was an obvious improvement. Here's the edit I made/plan to make: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Situationist_International&oldid=413892416 If you have a problem with any part of it, please respond to this subject. I would be happy to change things. I did remove some content that I thought was too unrelated, but not much. If there is no response in the next few days I will go ahead with the edit. BlindMic(talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My genuine apologies if the above talk post or my edit summary came off as rude. It wasn't intended to be disrespectful. I think my edit was an improvement, but obviously ideas and debate are welcome and encouraged. BlindMic (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge of wikipedia policy, large changes are welcome and there is no need to prior authorization or discussion (althoug is preferable to have it done as a series of section-specific edits, which are easier to review). This edit indeed offers valuable improvements to the article (I've only read the first part of the history section), but there are also removals of inline references, a thing usually considered disruptive, as they are the most valuable resources of an article. Prior to your edits there were 104 inline citations, now there are 96, and you said you added some, this means you deleted more than 8. To a lesser extent, is also disruptive to delete content to which one's object; a more contructive practice would be to mark the disputed content with inline tags (and/or move it to other sections), so appropriate discussion may follow.--Sum (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I may have made a few missteps with the edit, and also would likely have been better off making smaller piece-meal changes. I'll keep this in mind for future edits. BlindMic (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Situationist prank" into this article
There is currently an article titled "Situationist prank." Essentially it describes three events organized by situationists, the Notre-Dame Affair, the Strasbourg scandal (in which students distributed the situationist pamphlet On the Poverty of Student Life), and the anonymous publication of "The Real Report on the Last Chance to Save Capitalism in Italy" by Gianfranco Sanguinetti. It seems like a rather awkward article to me, and I think its content would better fit in this article, possibly integrated into the history section. At the very least I think the article should be renamed; I think using the term "prank" in describing these events is questionable and certainly not the best way they could be described. I'd like to hear what others think. BlindMic (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree "prank" is not the best term choice (I did a literal translation from the frequent Italian expression scherzo situazionista). Although some English sources indeed use the term "situationist prank," 'Hoax' is the most commonly used, and more accurately describes the subject. About the merging, despite the current stub/list status of the article, I think the topic is indeed quite broad and a highly referenced one, one of the most frequently cited aspects of the SI, and likely his most influential concept in legacy movements like punk rock and culture jamming. A search in google books offers plenty of material for a whole article.--Sum (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. In the SI article there was a legacy section discussing also punk, where is it gone?--Sum


 * I wasn't aware "situationist prank" was a term with special significance. A Google search of term indeed brings up a significant number of results. My worry is that it's not clear to me if "situationist prank" means anything more than, simply, pranks done by the situationists; if it doesn't, then the article is fundamentally a list. If it DOES have special meaning besides that, there should be a section explaining what it is or a general description, aside from listing examples.
 * A simple search on Google shows that "situationist prank" is a more common phrase in general than either "situationist hoax" or "scherzo situazionista." (I'd be interested to see where you read the latter term, because a Google search produces only 14 results.) Based on this, situationist prank may indeed be the better term, although it still doesn't feel like it fits that well. I'll let you use your judgment on that.
 * There certainly is great content in the article, I'm just worried that it seems to be just a list of actions by the situationists. If the term is notable and significant as you're saying, and you can explain it in the article while citing sources, I'm happy keeping it.
 * Regarding your question on the SI article, I reincorporated the section I believe you were referring to back in. I'm not sure, but I likely removed it because it looked rather tangential and unnotable, and lacking in sources. Looking back it was a clear mistake to remove the content outright like I did. I apologize. I'm still rather new and learning proper editing procedure.BlindMic (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove the reference to Sartre
I don't think that it's correct to say that the idea of situation is derived from Sartre and I think it is related to Henri Lefebvre instead. Here is an article about Sartre written by the S.I. that obviously means Sartre wasn't someone the members of the S.I looked up to. And here is another article that relates the theory of the situation with Henri Lefebvre's theory of moments. Lefebvre himself talks about his relationship with Debord and the S.I in this interview. And in this letter to Jorn, Debord says how Jorn's critique of the theory moments is at the heart of "situationist" problems. And finally in this letter to Andre frankin, Debord talks about the theory of moments and the situation.

Maybe the relationship and later break of the S.I and Lefebvre, and the idea of the situation as derived from a critique and expansion of Lefebvre's theory of moments is something that should be covered in this article. I cound give it a try, but I don't feel so confident about it since I'm new to editing Wikipedia and English is not my first language.--Ahor65 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the references to Sartre from the etymology section and placed them here, pending clarification or clearer sources. BlindMic (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The concept of the "situation" may originate in Sartre's concept of a Theatre of Situations. What Sartre calls a situation in a theatrical play is what breaks the spectator's passivity towards the spectacle.