Talk:Communication theory/Archive 1

Untitled
I think it's important to provide the various definitions of "communication" as defined by various prominent researchers in the field, such as Julia T. Wood and Steve Duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.151.187 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Conforms to all of the encyclopedic guidelines of Wikipedia? Why move it, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halavais (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any great suggestions. It seems the article is too academic for whomever is acting as editor. See Sociology for an example of what they're looking for in form and formatting. As for the content of this article, it's dead-on-accurate, but I don't know that that is what the editors are looking for. Downchuck 02:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC) It seems to me this article is very much in line with other Wikipedia entries on the Social Sciences. Only the evaluation guidelines seem out of place, and even there, they are necessary for a critical understanding of Communication Theory. Are the editors upset with the density of the article or the content? Perhaps a different style of prose is all they are requesting, one more optimistic, less esoteric. Downchuck 03:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that everything after evaluating theory should go. That's just general theory or social theory discussion and I don't think it is relevant to comm theory. The first part is good but could be expanded. Rauh 03:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Mapping the Theoretical Landscape" is certainly relevant Downchuck 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right Downchuck, that should stay. This is a large deletion on the page content and I'm somewhat reluctant to go ahead. Whoever added the part we are removing is anonymous and from this discussion page we are the only ones interested in it. What do you say, go ahead and massively edit it? Rauh 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm the anonymous author--it got moved from a different heading at some point. I'm more than a little disappointed to see it cut down. Strikes me that someone looking for an article on communication theory would find value in the evaluative section, even if it is redundant. But I'll post it locally and point students toward it there instead. Halavais 23:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

needed article
It would be great if someone who is familiar with communication theory could write an article discussing "receiver" in the comms theory context. I've had to remove links to "receiver" from this article (and several others) using the word in that context because the existing "receiver" article is a disambiguation page. Getting a "receiver (communications theory)" article to add to the "receiver" disambiguation would be really neat. -- Mikeblas 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * since the field itself appears to be fairly to really very badly defined (IMHO), i inserted a receiver (Information Theory) instead. -- Kku 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz?
The Leibniz reference is intriguing, but needs development. Unless someone wants to provide some context for this claim, I think it should be removed. Vault 18:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A "slippery" article
this article doesn't seem to fit a professional standard of academic writing. Use of first person plural and adjectives such as "slippery" make it sound more like a college lecture rather than an academic article, much less one that adheres to the style of an encyclopedia. Communication Theory is an abstract concept, but therefore deserves a straitforward approach so as the definition, not the nuance, maybe more easily understood by the reader. I would argue that the use of such adjectives gives a biased connotation on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.121.232.142 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC) --- The picture...what is that? Put aristotle there, the picture up there is BOGUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.85.123 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointer to Com Theory Wikibook
Just a quick note. There is some discussion above about the appropriate narrative and the appropriate depth for the article. To fall in line with Wikipedia style it should avoid the didactic. The original version of this article was moved over to a Wikibook and expanded a bit (and even made a "featured book"). If you are interested in helping to expand that, please take a look: Communication Theory Wikibook. - Halavais (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the Shannon's theory?
See A Mathematical Theory of Communication, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.187.93 (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

other languages..
hey, there is a Norwegian and Danish version of this.. it needs to be linked to: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunikasjonsmodell

(you'll find the danish one in the left field ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.126.129 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian article rather seems to be a version of Jackobson's Communication Model (sic!) which redirects to Jakobson's functions of language. Could someone with better Norwegian sort this out?  Morton Shumway  —  talk  20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Linked to Models of communication. -- Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Communication theory. 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/20100106130649/http://www.aber.ac.uk:80/media/Documents/short/trans.html to http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.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) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

communication
Communication and media Soufianben (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Communication theory. 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.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070317161730/http://cellnomica.netfirms.com/Abstracts/CoopAgentsUnifiedTheory.htm to http://cellnomica.netfirms.com/Abstracts/CoopAgentsUnifiedTheory.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20061203061548/http://cellnomica.netfirms.com/Abstracts/AbsTARK88.htm to http://cellnomica.netfirms.com/Abstracts/AbsTARK88.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803183008/http://www.westcomm.org/contact.html to http://www.westcomm.org/contact.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) 12:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Article needs major work
This page needs a complete facelift. It's ironic that people interested in the art/study of communication have let it get so out of hand. b_cubed 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Perhaps because this is such an important issue, it seems to me to be one of the worst articles I have seen on Wiki.  I have begun to attempt to show where there are particular flaws #(non-compliance witjh wiki standards) but the more the article is considered the more the need for a total rewrite becomes clear.  The individual elements are a tangle because they reflect the tangle in the overall structure of the article.  If there are no objections, I may attempt to sort out some of the major flaws in the "structure" but I fear this will have the effect of showing up the gaps, and these will take longer to fill.  However, if I could at least provide a cogent framework then others might at least be able to contribute.  LookingGlass (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As an example, the article sets out with the statement "Generally, human communication is concerned with the making of meaning and the exchange of understanding". There is no context given for this. What other definitions might there be?  Who subscribes to them? etc.  These are matters scholars might contribute to answering, however the fuundamental issue here is that there is no need to begin with such a complex conclusion.  Human communication = communication by humans and is therefore defined a priori as the exchange of information between humans. Meaning and understanding relate to the interpretation of this information exchange they are not that which is communicated.  Human communication (as clearly distinct to machine communication but not from communication between living things apart from human beings)  includes that which communicates for instance subliminal information, and information that is not understood cognitively nor even perceived consciously. Simply adding an edit tag doesn't capture this sort of problem that pervades the whole article. LookingGlass (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is title "Communication theory" however it begins with the words "Human communication is understood .." and continues on this theme. I propose rewriting the opening of the article to accord with its title and to reference other sections of wiki to do this.  There is another article on wiki on Human communication for instance.  It seems to me that this article is (or should be?) about ther theory/theories of communication rather than on communication or on human communication. I stopped adding the tags to the article. A rewrite seems the only answer. LookingGlass (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

i think it should be more article about theory........so the student can learn from it..........professor hafiz a.k.a prof ha-peace from malaysia.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.6.188 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i think be more article..... the theorist must be more than they are............ from prof hafiz a.k.a prof ha-peace that teach in harvard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.6.188 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironic indeed. I added a general caution to the history section since, even after cleaning up the grammar, it skips 2,500 years of history. The rest of the article mainly consists of a jargon-y list that fails to inform readers about communication theory. I'd like to help, but I came to the page precisely because I don't know enough about the topic. dweinberger (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One might see this as a sad commentary on the art itself. Read a current text book though and this page will come as no surprise. Nickjost (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably has more to do with the relative youth of the field, and its lack of "discipline." You might have said the same thing about sociology half a century ago. The truth is that there is not a cohesive "theory of communication"--it is rather a bit of a jambalaya, drawing in rhetoricians, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, librarians, linguists, and many others. So, from the perspective of a relatively closed discipline, it's bound to look a bit confused. There really isn't a "communication theory." A more appropriate title would be "communication theories," but that's a bit pedantic. The fact that there is volatility should not, however, result in an confused article. Indeed, it argues for the need for something to act as something of a map, pointing to articles that present more depth the various traditions that inform communication. - Halavais (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the article is seriously lacking in content. I am in a course on Communication theory and still cannot decipher what this page is trying to define it as. Can anyone advise as to why we are taking such a mundane approach to explaining about communication? It is such a dynamic topic that should have a better explanation than the one being given. Jacksonb8166 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It would be better to replace this article with a redirect to information theory. Constant314 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed replacement
I wrote a potential mostly-from-scratch replacement to this article and put it in my sandbox. I tried to incorporate pieces of the current article but with limited success -- the "old" article is primarily oriented to information theory and heads straight for the disciplinary areas rather than focusing on what communication theory is. I tried instead to follow the model I see in the Sociological Theory article. In terms of process from here, I am proposing a drop in replacement with edits based on feedback, and I thought I'd allow 30 days for that discussion to take place (this timeline also subject to discussion!). From there I'm sure the fabulous ways of wikiediting will take over :). There's a lot of history in the comments below, reflecting many different states of the article. I'll ping all people who have commented on this in the past. Thanks to User:Benjamin_Mako_Hill -- he assigned me to write this article as part of my Communication PhD general exam. Kaylea Champion (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks great! There are a few little problems, but I think it's pretty awesome. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep the history section. It’s one of the most valuable sections for folks who want to learn about the entry and not looking for further references. It def needs work but that can be future improvement.

Not super keen on the new epistemology section. Can be removed as I don’t see it central to comm theory, or at least summarized a lot more. For one, no need to define epistemology there. If needed, link. Rauh (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for many comments -- the history section is a history of a strand of information theory as an academic discipline; it doesn't really cover communication theory per se. But that could be added; then again history-of-theory is different from theory-is. But the history of information theory could go into an article more focused on that. Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as the epistemology section, appreciate the comments there too. Slimming down seems viable -- my thought here is that "what counts as theory" very quickly boils down to "what counts as knowledge" and then one needs some way to talk about epistemology right in there Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The “Communication Theory by Perspective/Subdiscipline” section is great.

I would love to see more of an incremental update that a full replacement. But maybe keeping the history section might be leaving the best part of the current article. Rauh (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an older suggestion to follow the Sociology article for this page that seems a much better template than Sociological Theory. Rauh (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Communication studies page (....which also needs work....) is probably the best analogy to the Sociology page in terms of topical scope. I do really like the 'Theoretical traditions' section of the Sociology page.Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for many comments and feedback -- I think I've managed to incorporate everything and the new version is now live. Of course, looking forward to many edits and productive future revisions. Kaylea Champion (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)