Talk:Dialogic

message: 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)
thread_title:  last sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title: Links to Company Website

message: 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)
thread_title:  wikipedia vanity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article lacks Bakhtin works in reference section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  explanation of dialogics in Nozick 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509200803/http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/agillespie/documents/GillespieDescartesdemonadialogicalanalysisofmeditationsonfirstphilosophy.pdf to http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/agillespie/documents/GillespieDescartesdemonadialogicalanalysisofmeditationsonfirstphilosophy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lede

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simplify meaning.