Talk:Dialogic

Philosophy: Continental / Contemporary 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:
/
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Dialectic process vs. dialogic process was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 October 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Dialogic. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

last sentence

Is the last sentence, about Wikipedia's dialogism, OK under WP:SELF? I was thinking of doing something similiar in Intertextuality, but wasn't sure if this kind of self-reference was considered acceptable.--Hickoryhillster 12:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make it so that "dialogism" links to this page?

Good idea. I just made the redirect from Dialogism.-Hickoryhillster 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Company Website

The external links to the Dialogic company don't seem to belong here; since this article really is not about the company, the links seem like advertisements. As an analogy, the article on Apple (the fruit) doesn't have an external link to the computer company. The Apple article does have an internal link to the article on Apple Computer; if Dialogic (the company) is notable enough, maybe it should have its own (neutrally written) article with a link from here.

-Hickoryhillster 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have deleted the link (which had been reinstated). Nice article btw.

wikipedia vanity

I don't think the last part should necessarily be limited to wikipedia, and it could be argued that the opposite is true. --128.32.185.214 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks Bakhtin works in reference section

I had to go to his biography to get the one mentioned in the article: Bakhtin, M. M. [1930s] (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press. [written during the 1930s] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.94.182 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

explanation of dialogics in Nozick

The section comparing dialectics and dialogics needs work in general, but the assertion that Nozick's work exemplifies dialogics needs qualification. Without this I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.199.65.5 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

The article is confusing on the very point that brought me to it: first it says Bakhtin contrasts dialogic and monologic literature, then it says for Bakhtin all language and thought is dialogical. Those seem to me contradictory. Is all literature and thought dialogical, or only the part that is not monological? Could someone clarify? Colin McLarty (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dialogic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509200803/http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/agillespie/documents/GillespieDescartesdemonadialogicalanalysisofmeditationsonfirstphilosophy.pdf to http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/agillespie/documents/GillespieDescartesdemonadialogicalanalysisofmeditationsonfirstphilosophy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explaination in top section

I think that the top section (introduction) of the article should explain what dialogic/dialogism means, which it does not at the time of writing. Torr3 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would of it could but it can't.

The article wraps ill-defined concepts in nebulous verbal fluff. That simplicity and clarity are absent is a consequence of lack of meaning. 86.149.160.84 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Taram (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

The lede needs a single simple (non complex and non compound sentence) .explaining what ialogic is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.132.203 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Saying dialogue comes from dialogue does not give a simple definition for the casual reader. It just gives the source which is not the definition. Taram (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify meaning.

Might my fellow editors be open to simplifying the meaning of dialogue so searchers without a background in philosophy can get the meaning without having to learn other terms such as "putative" first? Taram (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]