Talk:Conversation

Phenomena?

Isn'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

Conversation 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

Perhaps 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 ”

ref= http://quotationsbook.com/quote/8464/

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)

Subsection "Banter"

The "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?

"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)