Talk:Conversation/Archive 1

Archive 1

relevance unclear, can anyone suggest how to exploit for this article?

Tannen-related content

Tannen easier to link if bowdlerised, maybe

Google Wiki Tannen just recently brought me into this part of Wikipedia ...

Suddenly now I'm guessing the Wikipedia neutral point of view could give us a usefully bowdlerised slice of Dr. Tannen's work ... anyone agree?

The conversation I was having elsewhere included the snippet:

///

Do you already know & love the sociolinguistic work of D. Tannen at George Washington U?

I can’t exaggerate how great I think that work is. It’s like structured programming from Wirth, communicating sequential processes from Hoare, or usability design from Norman – it gives understandable structure to what before appeared to be random data. The domain isn’t computer science, but instead conversation between Americans.

Tannen points out that Americans mostly split into two different verbal subcultures, one agonistic, one synergistic. Only in synergistic culture can you plainly say “Please help” or “I’m sorry that happened” or “How do I do that”. Agonistic culture says other things more plainly, but specifically those polite efforts towards working more together instead come across garbled, as “I’m incompetent”, “I’m insecure”, and “I’m clueless”.

But Tannen’s work since the 90’s may be less useful in politically correct environments than it could be, because the most compelling anecdotes come so often from contrasting female & male speech in the USA (and political correctness requires us not to make distinctions between persons & nations).

1987 | http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/tellit.htm | http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/popular.htm#popart | http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend

The less direct and more carefully neutral point of view, by contrast - "synergistic" and "agonistic" rather than "female" and "male" - fits into politically correct environments without objection.

/// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:37, 15 April 2005 (talk • contribs) 67.188.98.5

Tannen easier to link if unmarked, maybe

Speaking in terms of:

///

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/nyt062093.htm

Marked Women, Unmarked Men

by D. Tannen

The New York Times Magazine, June 20, 1993

///

I'm looking to find an unmarked presentation of the same ideas, to disseminate broadly in politically correct environments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:08, 7 May 2005 (talk • contribs) 67.188.98.5

erm, excuse me

but wouldn't it be better if you just made it quick, LIKE INM REAL LIFE! which is the point, I thought, it would be best, to just say.

Conversation;

Taking turns to speak.

That's my idea.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.141.248 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 January 2006

That's called a dict-def, which can be useful in the lead sent. But it's no substitute for an article.
--Jerzy•t 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A conversation is communication by two or more people?

Illich: Who you are and even more deeply they change the way your senses work. Traditionally the gaze was conceived as a way of fingering, of touching. The old Greeks spoke about looking as a way of sending out my psychopodia [?], my soul's limbs, to touch your face and establish a relationship between the two of us which is this relationship, and this relationship was called vision. Then, after Galileo at the time of Kepler, the idea developed that the eyes are receptors into which light brings something from the outside, keeping you separate from me even when I look at you. Even if I gaze at you. Even if I enjoy your face. People began to conceive of their eyes as some kind of camera obscura. In our age people conceive of their eyes and actually use them as if they were part of a machinery. They speak about interface. Anybody who says to me, I want to have an interface with you, I say please go somewhere else, to a toilet or wherever you want, to a mirror. Anybody who says, I want to communicate with you, I say can't you talk? Can't you speak? Can't you recognize that there's a deep otherness between me and you, so deep that it would be offensive for me to be programmed in the same way you are.

...

Brown: Ivan just mentioned you had a focus on these larger societal issues and now you're coming to focus in recent years on the more immediate friendship. I'm very struck by the fact that you've always when I've used the word communication and then you say computers communicate but people talk, people have a conversation. I think the same thing is also true of the word relationship. You can have a relationship among instruments or between instruments, but you can only have a friendship between two people or among human beings. I guess one of the obvious points about the modern sophisticated world would be the technological terms that invade our own understanding of ourselves and our immediate life.

Ivan Illich with Jerry Brown, We the People, KPFA - March 22, 1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.46.81 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 5 August 2007

Way off topic

oi oi

good afternoon i would like some advise on frogs please???? anyone out there??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamwkd (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2007

always don't forget converses(shoes) adorable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.236.79 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio 4 program redirect thing

There's a radio 4 show named "Banter" which redirects here, because of its name. There was an article on it but it was hard to find. I added a redirect, but I don't know if it's correctly formatted. Feel free to fix it, but please leave a link to the radio show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.239.139 (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

HALLO APA KABAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.47.115 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

By ones self?

Really? --66.229.208.133 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. The Compact OED specifically states that a conversation is an exchange between two or more people. (http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=conversation&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname). And the conversation page itself explicitly calls out the difference between a speech and a conversation, where a soliloquy (which the "by one's self" links to) is a speech. Any thoughts? 128.6.213.80 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Alex

Scope of The Accompanying Article

topic of this article

Conversationhas many meaning, and only some of them are covered here. They overlap to such an extent that it might be better include them within a single article rather than attempt to compose an accurate disambiguation page. With all respect to the previous comments, there are both social and informational meanings to consider, and a great many links to multiple topics in sociology, psychology, politics, history, literature, and communication theory to insert, even though I may not be the best person to fill in all of this. Perhaps no indiviual person is. DGG 00:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Smalltalk

This page should mention "Smalltalk", or better still a new article "Smalltalk" should be created, with the already existing article of that name being moved to Smalltalk (software).-- ExpImp^talkcon 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Small talk is a standard term that we have as the title of an article; "smalltalk" in the sense closely related to this article is an odd usage, and potentially an obnoxious affectation.
--Jerzy•t 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Banter

_ _ Banter is a Rdr here, perhaps better to small talk. Should they be separate articles? If so, Conversation needs to refer and link to Small talk.
_ _ In any case, it is perhaps worth discussing the expression "gay banter", one place or the other? Where it is not meant "small talk" among gay people or about gay matters, or perhaps "about lame subjects", it is occasionally noted as being used in the expression "Enough of this gay banter", e.g.

It's a Monty Python thing, John Cleese says it to the accountant who wants to be a lion tamer. I think so anyway, it could be from somewhere else.

_ _ It's indeed in the lion tame sketch, but I think of the 5 words as a (perhaps) Victorian trite catchphrase for "Well, let's take up the matter at hand", and "gay" meaning simply "light-hearted". Should be somewhere where "banter" will lead readers.
--Jerzy•t 19:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
_ _ Last lines in _Opera Guyed_, by Newman Levy (Knoff, 1923):"For harmless fun and merry banter/ Give _me_ Ed Wynn or Eddie Cantor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburgh Poet (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it follow the word "banter" by a person's name in brackets? We know they did not nivent the word! 62.6.161.131 (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk Shows

I don't rightly see how TV talk shows are good examples of conversation. Indeed, far from it, I'd say. On "entertainment" talk shows, the "conversation" is often pre-scripted. On "current-event" talk shows, many of the guests are there simply to represent a certain known point of view, and not at all to listen to what anyone else has to say. So I certainly think that the reference to talk shows ought to be removed. In fact, someone might want to add a section summarizing critiques of talk shows. I know this issue is much discussed by some people, perhaps by Postman, among others.

Absolutely agree on this. It's also an issue that the mentioned talk shows are only known by US people, so it's not a good idea to mention these in the first line of the article. Moving the Talk Shows topic to the Types of Conversation section can be a temporary solution. Kuteni 13:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC) comment je mappele

I believe talk shows are much better examples of propaganda, a very focused, utilitarian talk, rather than conversation, which focuses on human interaction. Universalss (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Helping chatterboxes improve

I've been trying to find an article on chatterboxes in an effort to find a cure for (at least) one of them. I'm not sure why, but the number of chatterboxes I have had to have conversations with has increased. Not sure if it's linked to any increase in autism in the general population, or an increased insecurity in people. But I'm going to lose my mind if I can't get these people to be quiet now and then. They not only talk too much, they interrupt like crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.16.201 (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversation between strangers

I do not see why a mental health professional has a particularly interesting case in any conversation amongst two strangers. As an IT specialist I always seem to get the "my computer is not working" type of questions and a friend of mine who is a doctor always gets the questions on (little) physical problems. I rather think it is some way to execute the concept of smalltalk than it is the "special" mental health professional that draws all the attention to himself. --131.211.229.214 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interrupting and steering conversations

there needs to be material on interrupting and steering conversations also mention compulsive talking--Penbat (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

do not fall into just one category

Is this really right?

The majority of conversations can be divided into four categories according to their major subject content:

• Conversations about subjective ideas, which often serve to extend understanding and awareness.
• Conversations about objective facts, which may serve to consolidate a widely-held view.
• Conversations about other people (usually absent), which may be either critical, competitive, or supportive. This includes gossip.
• Conversations about oneself, which sometimes indicate attention-seeking behaviour.

In the real world, few conversations fall exclusively into one category. Nevertheless, the proportional distribution of any given conversation between the categories can offer useful psychological insights into the mind set of the participants.

Can't I have have a conversation about objective facts about myself, e.g. that I'm taller than you. What about subjective conversations about other people, e.g. that you're the swell-est fellow in United States? Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

conversations with A/I

this article should mention conversations with computers. or even between computers Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben Smeaton

The opening paragraph is terrible.

Also, compare "conversation" with "dialogue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.23.4 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

tried to improve

how does it look to you now? any better? love to have your contributions on the lead (PS, deleted comment about who Ben S. is. Hope that's okay. Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

true?

Is this statement in the lead true? " A successful conversation includes mutually interesting connections between the speakers or things that the speakers know. For this to happen, those engaging in conversation must find a topic on which they both can relate in some sense."

Is mutual interest a necessity or prior knowledge a necessity?

Second, what does it mean to relate to the converstaion, and why is that necessary? Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

removed narc. personality

because it was unrelated to article Piratejosh85 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

social support system

"Derber observed that the social support system in America is relatively weak..."

what is the social support system in america? never heard of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.50.201 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was something derber defined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.222.219 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Archives

As it appears the most recent comment was 2013, I am WP:BOLDly setting up a talk-page archive here. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

English

Topic about Country Daaha Axmed Cali (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

no explanation

removed dia's edits [1] because they came w/ no explanation, and I feel they were wrong. I would be willing to discuss, but I will remove without an explanation Piratejosh85 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the explanation for the "basic good manners" was included in my text. You had just to read it. The wording is not perfect and could be worked on but the information is necessary to distinguish it from an argument or a brawl. For the internal links maybe you should have a look to WP:OVERLINK. For what goes in the lead section, have a look to WP:LEAD.--Dia^ (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dia,

Please look at these notes.

I have replaced a potion of the lead because I feel "A conversation is an form of communication between two or more people in which all the participants take an active role and follow some basic rules." is not informative enough. I feel the old lead gave a more accurate, informative description of a conversation.

However, I have attempted to include/incorporate your idea of rules of conversation. I think by rules you mean something akin to rules of engagement. I've added a Par. to this end.

I've also created a new section discussing the advantages of conversation. I agree with you: that didn't belong in the lead. So I've percolated some information downward into that sections.

I have tried to create a compromise, and incorporate your good ideas. Thoughts? Ideas?

Piratejosh85 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note: am very familiar with WP:Lead

I'm pleased to read that you are "very familiar" with how a lead section in Wikipedia should be written because to me, reading you latest edit, is not so evident. First you chose to reinstate a sentence that has been tagged as needing references since September 2010. Why? That's beyond my comprehension.
Than in the very first sentence of the lead you substitute my "basic rules" (that I agree with you, is not particularly good, maybe was clearer "good manners") with "rule of conversation". So now it reads "conversation is [...] communication that follows the rule of conversation". To me it sounds as helpful as "What's a computer? A computer!" Than there are bits like "Spontaneity occurs because a conversation must proceed, to some extent,". There is no "must proceed". Conversations are not a compulsory activity that need to go on for a fixed time and spontaneity doesn't "occur". Not to mention that I don't find expression like "more-or-less spontaneous" much encyclopedic, especially in the lead section. Last but not least, a debate is not a conversation.
Sorry if I seem harsh, but to me the lede reads like the work of a 15 years old student (and the rest of the article is not much better imho). Maybe we should get some more people to have a look at it. What do you think?--Dia^ (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What do I think? I think you are very funny. You can't say "sorry if I seem harsh," and then follow that with, "but to me the lede reads like the work of a 15 years old student." The later makes the former seem a bit artifial/fake, no? Further, even a "15 years old student" would know that it should be the singular: "year", and should be "lead", not ledes.

I think that having a nuetral 3rd would be a great idea! I would love more attention on this article.

One of your points:

• Than there are bits like "Spontaneity occurs because a conversation must proceed, to some extent,". There is no "must proceed". Conversations are not a compulsory activity that need to go on for a fixed time
• "Must" refers to the requirement of spontanety. Not that the conversation will go for a fixed period.

Concerning WP:LEAD, here's why the current version is superior. It can stand alone as a concise overview. Contrast your suggestion: which was unspecific and ponderous. It defines the topic, rather than giving an unprecise gloss.

The lead is weak for the follow reasons. It doesn't explain why convresation is interesting or notable, and doesn't summarize the content-to-follow. However, the version you suggest does none of the previous either.

PS> Why would someone reinstate a sentence that has been tagged as needing references since September 2010? Is that really beyond your comprehension? Give it a try; work the old grey matter. Can you still come up with no legitimate, acceptable reason why someone would reinstate such a sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratejosh85 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks to have corrected my mistakes, but a little question: Are you a wizard or a witch that apparently managed to replace a potion in the article? Spelling mistakes do happen and in you last post grammar errors as well. But let's get back on topic. About the sentence that was tagged 12 months ago as needing references you should read WP:NOCITE The pertinent bit reads: "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." (emphasis added). --Dia^ (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dia,

Here is my proposal: we put down the weapons and cooperate. That is what I want. I do not like sniping across the internet. And I think we can come up with something good. What do you think?

We should come up with a lead together. I propose the following lead:

"Conversation is interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people in which participants follow basic rules.

Conversation analysis is a branch of sociology which studies the structure and organization of human interaction, with a more specific focus on conversational interaction.

I further propose that you write into that what you mean by "rules". To what rules do you refer? What do these rules do? Why are they necessary? Maybe you might even incorporate conversation analysis into these rules.

If you arre agreeable to the foregoing, I am going to move part of the lead down into the article. I will create a new subsection called "Characteristics". It will look like this:

Characteristics

Conversations are interactive. Interactivity occurs because contributions to a conversation are response reactions to what has previously been said.

Conversations are spontanuous Sponteneity occurs because a conversation proceeds, to some extent, and in some way, unpredictably. The scope of that spontaneity may legitimately be somewhat pre-limited for the purpose of expediency, e.g. a talk show or a debate. But a scripted conversation falls outside this definition.

Dia, what do you think about these proposals? Can we cooperate? Please give me your thoughts. Appreciatively, Josh Piratejosh85 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

PS> What do you think about completely getting rid of the "strategies" section. To me, that section isn't actually about conversation. It's more about people/psychology, or at best the conversants themselves (as oposed ot the actual conversation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratejosh85 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with "sniping across the internet" and who is doing that. You are clearly unaware of some policies in Wikipedia and I'm trying with patience, without retaliating to you tone, to make you aware of them. Another helpful page I'd like to pint out is WP:OWN. I don't own what I write here and I'm not really interested if are my words or someone else's that end up in the article, as far as they are good and pertinent. Since it seems to me, that you are particularly attached to this article, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Writing better articles too.

Then, going back on topic, by "basic rules" I mean "etiquette". Things like "do not shout", "do not interrupt when someone is talking", "listen to when someone speaks to you" and so on. The reason being, although it seems self-explanatory to me but you said you want an explanation, that without them a conversation can degenerate very fast in a brawl. Moreover, I feel that we need the bit "in which all the participants take an active role" because without it a monologue or a speech would be "conversation" too. Last but not least, you could find this book interesting: Conversation: A History of a Declining Art and maybe you'd get an idea why to me parts of this article sound written by a 15 year old. Have a nice week-end.--Dia^ (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dia,

Please comment on current version.

Note: I agree that, "we need the bit 'in which all the participants take an active role'". However, I feel that idea is within the word "interactive" currently in the definition. Is there something else outside of the word interactive you had in mind, or you feel is missing?

I would like to know if I have captured your idea of etiquette, or if you feel there needs to be more on that.

Note: i have adressed the importance of etiquette in a lower section.

I would also like your thoughts Re: getting rid of the "strategies" section. I feel this is outside the scope of the artile. Thank, Josh Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead is still missing "a form of". I'm still not happy with "interactive". If during a speech I boo or clap I interact but I'm not taking an active part in a conversation. So the lead should be "A conversation is a form of communication between two or more people in which all the participants take active and respectful part in it." (with "respectful" instead of "basic rules/rules of etiquette/basic good manners" - still not 100% satisfied, but I can't think of anything better). From the lead is missing the information why it is important.

An history and a "conversation in in literature" and/or "conversation in different cultures" section are missing.

In the article there is way too much boldface. Please before using it read MOS:BOLD

Moreover I noticed that you introduced the word "conversants" in the article. Please have a look at its meaning: conversants. Unless you have other references, the word is used in the wrong context. --Dia^ (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dia,

Re: The lead is still missing "a form of".

• To me, these words seem a bit superflous because it goes without saying that conversation does not include all forms of communication. However, I see your point that in the pursuit of precision, these words do narrow the scope of the lead. I have added these words

Re: If during a speech I boo or clap I interact but I'm not taking an active part in a conversation.

• I disagree. Interactivity requires response-reactions from both persons. If you boo but illicit no reaction, there is no interactivity, and no conversation. But if you get a reaction, there is interactivity, and I would count that as a conversation.

Re: "respectful" v. rules of etiquette

• I would like to know more about your opinion. I used "rules of etiquette" because, in my mind, not all conversations must be between persons activly showing respect. Take a conversation between two people who hate eachother. It is possible they are not respecting eachother (calling eachother names, flipping eachother off, etc.), but are following rules of etiquette (not knifing eachother). I am not sure about this at all. Seriously: I'm not. And would like more of your thoughts.

Re: From the lead is missing the information why it is important, a history of convsation, information about why conversation is noteworthy, and information on conversation in different cultures. There is also way too much boldface. Moreover I noticed that you introduced the word "conversants" in the article.

• I agree with every one of these points. Please feel free to attack any one of them. I will glad to see the work get done. I will try to change out "conversants" as soon as I have a little time.

Actually, got all the "conversants" out. Thanks for pointing that out.

JoshPiratejosh85 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Banter should evoke ownership"?

> Every line in a banter should be able to evoke both an emotional response and ownership without hurting one's feelings.

What does ownership mean in this context? Wiktionary doesn't offer any solutions. --PeterTrompeter (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)