This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
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)
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)
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)
I agree. I have deleted the link (which had been reinstated). Nice article btw.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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) 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
Agreed! Taram ( talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
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)
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)
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)
I agree. I have deleted the link (which had been reinstated). Nice article btw.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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) 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
Agreed! Taram ( talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)