This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think it's important to provide the various definitions of "communication" as defined by various prominent researchers in the field, such as Julia T. Wood and Steve Duck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.151.187 ( talk) 20:24, 20 February 2005 (UTC)
Conforms to all of the encyclopedic guidelines of Wikipedia? Why move it, exactly?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Halavais ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be great if someone who is familiar with communication theory could write an article discussing "receiver" in the comms theory context. I've had to remove links to "receiver" from this article (and several others) using the word in that context because the existing "receiver" article is a disambiguation page. Getting a "receiver (communications theory)" article to add to the "receiver" disambiguation would be really neat. -- Mikeblas 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The Leibniz reference is intriguing, but needs development. Unless someone wants to provide some context for this claim, I think it should be removed. Vault 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
this article doesn't seem to fit a professional standard of academic writing. Use of first person plural and adjectives such as "slippery" make it sound more like a college lecture rather than an academic article, much less one that adheres to the style of an encyclopedia. Communication Theory is an abstract concept, but therefore deserves a straitforward approach so as the definition, not the nuance, maybe more easily understood by the reader. I would argue that the use of such adjectives gives a biased connotation on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.121.232.142 ( talk) 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture...what is that? Put aristotle there, the picture up there is BOGUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.85.123 ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note. There is some discussion above about the appropriate narrative and the appropriate depth for the article. To fall in line with Wikipedia style it should avoid the didactic. The original version of this article was moved over to a Wikibook and expanded a bit (and even made a "featured book"). If you are interested in helping to expand that, please take a look: Communication Theory Wikibook. - Halavais ( talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See A Mathematical Theory of Communication, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.187.93 ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
hey, there is a Norwegian and Danish version of this.. it needs to be linked to: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunikasjonsmodell
(you'll find the danish one in the left field ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.126.129 ( talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Communication theory. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Communication and media Soufianben ( talk) 11:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Communication theory. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This page needs a complete facelift. It's ironic that people interested in the art/study of communication have let it get so out of hand. b_cubed 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
i think it should be more article about theory........so the student can learn from it..........professor hafiz a.k.a prof ha-peace from malaysia.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.6.188 ( talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
i think be more article..... the theorist must be more than they are............ from prof hafiz a.k.a prof ha-peace that teach in harvard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.6.188 ( talk) 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ironic indeed. I added a general caution to the history section since, even after cleaning up the grammar, it skips 2,500 years of history. The rest of the article mainly consists of a jargon-y list that fails to inform readers about communication theory. I'd like to help, but I came to the page precisely because I don't know enough about the topic. dweinberger ( talk) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
One might see this as a sad commentary on the art itself. Read a current text book though and this page will come as no surprise. Nickjost ( talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It probably has more to do with the relative youth of the field, and its lack of "discipline." You might have said the same thing about sociology half a century ago. The truth is that there is not a cohesive "theory of communication"--it is rather a bit of a jambalaya, drawing in rhetoricians, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, librarians, linguists, and many others. So, from the perspective of a relatively closed discipline, it's bound to look a bit confused. There really isn't a "communication theory." A more appropriate title would be "communication theories," but that's a bit pedantic. The fact that there is volatility should not, however, result in an confused article. Indeed, it argues for the need for something to act as something of a map, pointing to articles that present more depth the various traditions that inform communication. - Halavais ( talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that the article is seriously lacking in content. I am in a course on Communication theory and still cannot decipher what this page is trying to define it as. Can anyone advise as to why we are taking such a mundane approach to explaining about communication? It is such a dynamic topic that should have a better explanation than the one being given. Jacksonb8166 ( talk) 03:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a potential mostly-from-scratch replacement to this article and put it in my sandbox. I tried to incorporate pieces of the current article but with limited success -- the "old" article is primarily oriented to information theory and heads straight for the disciplinary areas rather than focusing on what communication theory is. I tried instead to follow the model I see in the Sociological Theory article. In terms of process from here, I am proposing a drop in replacement with edits based on feedback, and I thought I'd allow 30 days for that discussion to take place (this timeline also subject to discussion!). From there I'm sure the fabulous ways of wikiediting will take over :). There's a lot of history in the comments below, reflecting many different states of the article. I'll ping all people who have commented on this in the past. Thanks to User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill -- he assigned me to write this article as part of my Communication PhD general exam. Kaylea Champion ( talk) 22:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep the history section. It’s one of the most valuable sections for folks who want to learn about the entry and not looking for further references. It def needs work but that can be future improvement.
Not super keen on the new epistemology section. Can be removed as I don’t see it central to comm theory, or at least summarized a lot more. For one, no need to define epistemology there. If needed, link. Rauh ( talk) 02:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The “Communication Theory by Perspective/Subdiscipline” section is great.
I would love to see more of an incremental update that a full replacement. But maybe keeping the history section might be leaving the best part of the current article. Rauh ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There is an older suggestion to follow the Sociology article for this page that seems a much better template than Sociological Theory. Rauh ( talk) 02:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think it's important to provide the various definitions of "communication" as defined by various prominent researchers in the field, such as Julia T. Wood and Steve Duck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.151.187 ( talk) 20:24, 20 February 2005 (UTC)
Conforms to all of the encyclopedic guidelines of Wikipedia? Why move it, exactly?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Halavais ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be great if someone who is familiar with communication theory could write an article discussing "receiver" in the comms theory context. I've had to remove links to "receiver" from this article (and several others) using the word in that context because the existing "receiver" article is a disambiguation page. Getting a "receiver (communications theory)" article to add to the "receiver" disambiguation would be really neat. -- Mikeblas 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The Leibniz reference is intriguing, but needs development. Unless someone wants to provide some context for this claim, I think it should be removed. Vault 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
this article doesn't seem to fit a professional standard of academic writing. Use of first person plural and adjectives such as "slippery" make it sound more like a college lecture rather than an academic article, much less one that adheres to the style of an encyclopedia. Communication Theory is an abstract concept, but therefore deserves a straitforward approach so as the definition, not the nuance, maybe more easily understood by the reader. I would argue that the use of such adjectives gives a biased connotation on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.121.232.142 ( talk) 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The picture...what is that? Put aristotle there, the picture up there is BOGUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.85.123 ( talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note. There is some discussion above about the appropriate narrative and the appropriate depth for the article. To fall in line with Wikipedia style it should avoid the didactic. The original version of this article was moved over to a Wikibook and expanded a bit (and even made a "featured book"). If you are interested in helping to expand that, please take a look: Communication Theory Wikibook. - Halavais ( talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See A Mathematical Theory of Communication, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.187.93 ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
hey, there is a Norwegian and Danish version of this.. it needs to be linked to: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunikasjonsmodell
(you'll find the danish one in the left field ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.126.129 ( talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Communication theory. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Communication and media Soufianben ( talk) 11:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Communication theory. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This page needs a complete facelift. It's ironic that people interested in the art/study of communication have let it get so out of hand. b_cubed 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
i think it should be more article about theory........so the student can learn from it..........professor hafiz a.k.a prof ha-peace from malaysia.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.6.188 ( talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
i think be more article..... the theorist must be more than they are............ from prof hafiz a.k.a prof ha-peace that teach in harvard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.6.188 ( talk) 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ironic indeed. I added a general caution to the history section since, even after cleaning up the grammar, it skips 2,500 years of history. The rest of the article mainly consists of a jargon-y list that fails to inform readers about communication theory. I'd like to help, but I came to the page precisely because I don't know enough about the topic. dweinberger ( talk) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
One might see this as a sad commentary on the art itself. Read a current text book though and this page will come as no surprise. Nickjost ( talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It probably has more to do with the relative youth of the field, and its lack of "discipline." You might have said the same thing about sociology half a century ago. The truth is that there is not a cohesive "theory of communication"--it is rather a bit of a jambalaya, drawing in rhetoricians, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, librarians, linguists, and many others. So, from the perspective of a relatively closed discipline, it's bound to look a bit confused. There really isn't a "communication theory." A more appropriate title would be "communication theories," but that's a bit pedantic. The fact that there is volatility should not, however, result in an confused article. Indeed, it argues for the need for something to act as something of a map, pointing to articles that present more depth the various traditions that inform communication. - Halavais ( talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that the article is seriously lacking in content. I am in a course on Communication theory and still cannot decipher what this page is trying to define it as. Can anyone advise as to why we are taking such a mundane approach to explaining about communication? It is such a dynamic topic that should have a better explanation than the one being given. Jacksonb8166 ( talk) 03:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a potential mostly-from-scratch replacement to this article and put it in my sandbox. I tried to incorporate pieces of the current article but with limited success -- the "old" article is primarily oriented to information theory and heads straight for the disciplinary areas rather than focusing on what communication theory is. I tried instead to follow the model I see in the Sociological Theory article. In terms of process from here, I am proposing a drop in replacement with edits based on feedback, and I thought I'd allow 30 days for that discussion to take place (this timeline also subject to discussion!). From there I'm sure the fabulous ways of wikiediting will take over :). There's a lot of history in the comments below, reflecting many different states of the article. I'll ping all people who have commented on this in the past. Thanks to User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill -- he assigned me to write this article as part of my Communication PhD general exam. Kaylea Champion ( talk) 22:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep the history section. It’s one of the most valuable sections for folks who want to learn about the entry and not looking for further references. It def needs work but that can be future improvement.
Not super keen on the new epistemology section. Can be removed as I don’t see it central to comm theory, or at least summarized a lot more. For one, no need to define epistemology there. If needed, link. Rauh ( talk) 02:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The “Communication Theory by Perspective/Subdiscipline” section is great.
I would love to see more of an incremental update that a full replacement. But maybe keeping the history section might be leaving the best part of the current article. Rauh ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There is an older suggestion to follow the Sociology article for this page that seems a much better template than Sociological Theory. Rauh ( talk) 02:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)