Talk:Development communication

message: Deleted the last part; RISK COMMUNICATING IN A FAMILIAR TONGUE:The Roxas City AIDS/HIV Council Experience, which was actually a copy+paste article or blog post :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.85.21.251 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk communicating in a familiar tongue: the Roxas City AIDS/HIV Council experience 

message: This article apparently is or was the focus of a class project ('COMM 330'). Please add documentation on this page regarding the class, instructor, etc., using the template provided at the top of this talk page. And before adding new material to the article, please develop first & wikify in your sandbox... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class project 

message: The opening paragraph is almost complete nonsense. This article does not accord with standard textbooks such as Colin Sparks, Globalization, Development and the Media (SAGE, 2007). There seem to have been major rewrites from the Phillipines with conflict of interest issues. As it exists this article is confusing and almost useless. User beware!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.152.149 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable and confusing 

message: Thanks for the proposed additions to the top-level 'See also'. 'Public relations' already is included in the'navigation box at the end of the article. I added 'Propaganda' to that, as well -- a useful addition. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Copyedited this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:
*Broad claims  such as "The general spirit of the time " doesn't belong in WP without supporting detail. Consider:
:Despite the Cold War climate,[what climate?] the spirit of democracy [what spirit is that?] and the wish for international solidarity [whose wish?] were able to influence media policy. Neither the lessons [what lessons?] of the misuse of mass media for propaganda nor the dangers of monopoly control of the mass press were forgotten [by policymakers?]. Even the once sacred print media [it was sacred?] could legitimately [how legitimate?] be brought within the scope of policy. The general spirit of the time [!!??%^&] was favourably disposed to progressive change and to social planning in all spheres of life.[what does that have to do with comm policy?]
* This article would benefit from greater use of secondary sources instead of what appear to be biased primary sources.
* Switched most inline refs to "real" refs.
* Moved to conistently talk about development communication policy instead of communication policy development, etc. The article needs to decide whether it wants to discuss DCP CDP CPD or something else, and stick to that decision. They are related but discipline is necessary to avoid befuddling ordinary readers.
*A significant part of the article is dedicated to advancing an unvarnished forom of the "UN" view of communications, which is however true, hardly uncontested. It also wanders far from the topic of develeopment communications. It is not enough to claim that all commuications issues affect development communications and that therefore everything is germane. Instead, specific connections have to be drawn and focus maintained. I killed most of it. Perhaps another home for it can be found, but this is clearly not it.	
*So-called debates present only one view
*Merged the two definition sections
* In definitions, "Development support communication (DSC) is development planning and implementation..." reduces to communication is planning, which is obviously wrong, and also uncited
* Including items such as the telegraph makes the subject so broad it becomes incomprehensible. In what meaningful sense does it belong here?
* The schools are named, but not characterized. How did they differ in their communications approaches? The piece does not say. E,g, in India, NGOs did this and government did that. What did the "school" do?
*Many of the sources are just a name and a date, which is insufficient.
*Restated many universal claims to claims by their authors.
Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit ++ 

message: Well it's five years on. Somebody (righteously) tagged this for another ce. The article quintupled in size while I was gone. The bloat and bloviation I'm finding are truly appalling. The organization is nonexistent. E.g., definitions of DC are scattered throughout, with no attempt to reconcile them. Off-topic stuff shows up everywhere, presumably to namecheck some author. I have edited many thousands of articles. This is undoubtedly the worst of any of the non-trivial ones. Are any SMEs watching over this? If so, you are grotesquely derelict. Perhaps you have another purpose than writing WP-compliant pieces. If so, please take your benighted project elsewhere.
So far I have removed about 20%. I expect to remove much more, although whether I can get it back to 5k or so is daunting. My goal is to let the salient points survive, hopefully more understandably. The virtue signalling, aspirations, and reifications of individuals will go. I was initially willing to consider the notion of splitting this in two. But no. Jabba the Hut cannot be split. He must be slain. Editors: who are your leaders? How can they let you vomit up this garbage? Is this a contest to see who can say the least in the most number of words? This reminds of those fake pieces that people write and submit to journals to show how broken the peer review system is. Did somebody write a bot to produce this stuff? I have no specific comments to offer at this juncture. Once this thing starts looking like an article I will offer more concrete comments. Lfstevens (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five years later 

message: Article needs attention to communication issues in multilingual contexts. See also: Talk:Health communication#Health communication in multilingual societies.--A12n (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development communication in multilingual societies 

message: Section needs major revisions as to structure and content to qualify as a WP/encyclopedia article section, that is, it should provide only a comprehensive summary of information on development communication policy science and should focus only on factual and verifiable information concerning the said subject. As such, redoing the framework/outline of the section would be a good start. There is also a need to reconcile this section with WP main articles "Development Communication Policy Science" and "Development Communication and Policy Sciences". Just my thoughts!
Gajorod (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development Communication Policy Science 

message: 103.232.155.171 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  development communciation and ancient culture  of Asia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Development communication. 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/20120928182928/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017073250/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Development communication. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130022559/http://upou.edu.ph/papers/flibrero_2009/DevcomLB_history.pdf to http://www.upou.edu.ph/papers/flibrero_2009/DevcomLB_history.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206152325/http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-1-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html to http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-1-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html/
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) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I struggle to find a single section of merit in this article. This doesn't seem like a coherent field of knowledge worthy of an article. Rarely is there a coherent meaningful idea in this article. Can we just delete the whole thing and start over? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a single passage in this article that is a well-formed coherent well cited text?