Talk:Conversation
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Phenomena?
editIsn't it a bit odd to call it a phenomenon when "the conversation suddenly dies when everyone simultaneously runs out of things to say"?
It's obvious that when nobody has anything to say, nobody will be talking. This is neither a great leap in logic nor counterintuitive. I'd change it if I wasn't such a noob or had an idea what to change it to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.4.137 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 29 September 2005
The first sentence seemed rather pretentious to me, so I altered it a bit
editConversation is ...which make up the reality in which we reside. -> Conversation is ...which make up the world we live in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.66.91 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 August 2007
Quote
editPerhaps this quote can be added:
| “ | There is no such thing as conversation. It is an illusion. There are intersecting monologues, that is all. -Rebecca West | ” |
Subsection "Banter"
editThe "Banter" subsection is clearly a collection of opinions from one person (or a small number of people), with no apparent sources, and IMO is not well written for an encyclopedia because part of it seems like advice instead of definition and description. I happen to think most of what it says is probably true, and I happen to think that the advice is probably pretty good advice - but Wikipedia isn't the place for advice (not even good advice), and things written on Wikipedia need clear sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Why does this article exist?
edit"Conversation" (unlike e.g. Etiquette, Discourse, Debate, Public speaking) is not a recognized analytical category of linguistics, philosophy, sociology etc., and I see no appeal to other attested antecedents from history or contemporary media etc.
The academic works cited (Thornbury & Slade 2006, Warren 2006) are explicitly using conversation as a novel lens for research in their respective fields (English language teaching, natural language). Warren: "While there seems to be no generally accepted definition of conversation, if one reads through sufficient literature dealing with the analysis of conversation, it is possible to gradually piece together a working definition of what constitutes a conversation from the many attempts that have been made."
The structure and presentation of this article (particularly the unsourced & apparently original Classification taxonomy) give a misleading impression of authority, while the content is a hodgepodge of dubious observations and editorializing.
Wiktionary has this covered—recommend delete & merge relevant content, if any, into Conversation analysis, Sociolinguistics, Social psychology, Language education, Sociology of language, Linguistic anthropology etc. Dpj aok (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Even the question of whether "conversation" should exist as its own separate article aside, the article itself as written has a lot of sections that read more like someone giving their own personal advice and opinions rather than an objective description of the phenomenon. 142.114.168.229 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)