Talk:Interpersonal communication

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelbaiyyy (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xchen321 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019, between 9 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trestoncooklincoln. Peer reviewers: SHRansom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2019, between 29 May 2019 and 2 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acd1223.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acadams7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Autumn 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwhitt21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clean up

This page needs a more or less complete overhaul and extension Macp (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its gone from bad to worse. It was a lot better at my last edit [1], dunno where the rubbish set inLihaas (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noise factor

Where is the noise? My battle throughout interpersonal communication is the noise factor--and the art of filtering. Where are they in this illustration or entry? It seems these two factors are the real rough spots in the communication model and should not be negleted here. Any feedback?

I think it's fair to say that this article was put together by someone who'd maybe completed one undergraduate course. There's nothing here about such central interpersonal ideas as Schutz' needs theory, Hart's (and others) ideas of the stages of formation and dissolution of relationships, interpersonal perceptual biases, styles of interpersonal conflict and relational repair, immediacy, rhetorical sensitivity, coordinated management of meaning, symbolic interaction, gender in communication. It wrongly equates interpersonal with group communication and public address!!! We're stuck with a bad sketch of a communication process model and the tired old Johari Window (yes, I know it's in all the texts, but it's mired in the objectivist viewpoint that was already dying in the 1960s when Joe and Harry created it). I'd jump right in and edit, but I haven't the time to hunt down the right citations. Truddick 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

I believe the link to the Social Interaction Dynamics and Social Skills Wiki which is at www.sidwiki.com should be added to the external links of this page. The aspect of interpersonal communication covers many aspect such as body language, interpersonal relationships, social dynamics, conflict resolution and language patters. The SID wiki covers there topics. It provides resources that is more relevant and practical than a lot of institutional source or regular websites. Visitors can add to and edit the wiki to make it more usable and realistic based on real life experiences. There are other links which lead the reader to a research study or a psychology paper which have a lot of statistical and scientific language, but don't provide the average reader much insight in terms of easy to understand and follow techniques. Studies often say that results are inconclusive and spend a lot of their focus talking about the mechanics of research.

The SID wiki just give straight forward down to earth advice to what the implications of a certain principle mean for the reader in a practical sense without going into all the technical jargon. There are, off course, materials which will teach interpersonal communication to the reader, sadly a lot of it is commercial based, especially the most easy to follow, ie: Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie. Even Dale Carnegie's famous courses run in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars range and require attending a class room. SID wiki provides a resource where users can view, discus and contribute to personal improvement and communication resources with minimal cost and time commitment. SID wiki is not meant to be commercial and there is minimal advertising.

Here is what someone working on Wikia, Jimmy Wales's new project said about it:

"Really nice work building this. I don't know if you're aiming for social good or to own your own wiki, but I work for Jimmy Wales's new wiki project wikia.com - we'd be thrilled to host you and advertise your wiki to our users if you wanted to come over and let us host you. If not, sorry for the spam and best wishes with your project!" Gil [2]

What I like most about it is that it's free, non commercial and flexible so that it can adopt and evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seductionreport.com (talk • contribs)

The problem with it is that it appears presently to be the work of a single author, and thus lacks the robustness of a mature wiki project. Give it some time to grow a bit, then re-add it. I know, you probably want the exposure here to help it draw more input. Unfortunately, that's just exactly what is meant by "spam"; see WP:EL and WP:Spam. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interpersonal Communication is communication between two peoples which happens in day to day basis. For example, while talking with the costumer as an salesman, talking with a professor or a classmate, while talking with a room mate or so on. Basically, it is a auditory, visual or kinesthetic communication between two persons. There is a sender, a different receiver and two persons give the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.40.3 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Diagram

the diagram on this page looks sloppy and unprofessional. somebody should try to find a better one on wikicommons or add one to it for use in this article. the current one does get the point acorss but, at the same time, it looks like a three year old boy made it in MS Paint. poj21

I like it. It's got character. Redleaf 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CHANGES IN ROLE OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNIVCATION IN CONTEMPORARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

today’s technology plays considerable role in verbal, signs and written communication in health care setting. Lack or little knowledge in digital devices may result in misunderstanding of information and can affect interpersonal communication between nurse and patient.Recent studies proved that empathy, respect, open mindedness and emotional intelligence are major components of interpersonal skills in modern health care setting which improve therapeutic relations between health professionals and patients. Hence with effective communication, nurses could serve the needs of patients and maintain effective professional boundaries at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjitkaur2014 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A few suggestions

Interpersonal communication has fundamental importance to human interactions and is a topic that can relate to all individuals. This wiki page could take advantage of many important and valuable components of interpersonal communication to draw the interest of readers right from the overview section portion. Unfortunately the overview is quite short and does not highlight how functional and effective communicational skills between people is the basis of successful performance in our everyday lives. The theories portion of the page could be structured better with the use of sub categorizations that may highlight main themes that could lead readers through the theories in a more effective way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttam1987 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The article could be strengthened with additional diagrams or visuals to accompany the theories discussed. Birnbryer20 (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Would the article be improved by moving Pedagogical communication toward the top of the article near Relevance to mass communication? Birnbryer20 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional Information Regarding Effective and Ineffective Interpersonal Communication

I believe that there should be a section above the "Theories" section that describe both ineffective and effective methods of interpersonal communication. This should be substantiated with recent scientific studies on this topic in order to provide a basis of empirical data as a way to confirm the validity of this new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwiles (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions for the Context Section

Hi there, our group has been working on the context section of this page as a school assignment. We are proposing to add information relevant to Context- In the Hospital Setting. Here is the link to the User page of our sandbox. We would love some feedback, if you have some to offer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ak14au/Interpersonal_Communication:_Situational_Milieu_(Hospital) Thank you, Kristine 05:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kh13zl (talk • contribs)

Feedback for Situational Milieu

Hi group, my name is Jacqueline and I just read over your article additions. Kh13zl, Mh14wc, Ak14au and Jm14kq here are a few suggestions on improving this section as a whole. Seeing as the section of situational milieu was empty before, there have been some considerable additions. The hospital context was chosen which I found was a great way to present the material. Referring back to Wikipedia:Good article criteria this was quite well-written. Great detail was used to demonstrate the situations in the hospital context. Examples were given and how to use each type of communication which I found quite helpful when trying to implement the information in my everyday life. It was written at a neutral point of view as well, completely factual and informative for the reader's understanding. The flow of the paragraphs was great. The layout allows for an introduction, conclusion and a meaty section for the examples and definitions of the aspects of the situational milieu. This section of the article helps broaden the article in it's coverage. However, the situational section only talks about interpersonal communication and its affects on the hospital context. To broaden this section, many or more examples in different situations should be added. A list of references was also provided to proof and support to the addition of information. There were no images added in this section, which could make the article more credible. This article is also quite stable because before these additions, it had not been changed too much and since the additions, edits have not been made. Overall, your contributions are fantastic and they add more information to the article itself. With these edits made, the article has become more credible and provides more information for the reader. So great job fellow Wikipedians on the editing process and consider some of my suggestions for improvement. Jc12xu2014 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jacqueline Jc12xu2014,

Thanks so much for the feedback. Just so you know, we were actually just assigned the hospital section of situational milieu, which explains the lopsidedness of the article. We'll look into adding an image.

Thanks again! Kristine 15:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I had a few thoughts about your edit and work on this article. I think you clearly outlined and presented valid concepts in your section on situational milieu. I think your content is excellent :) You've also backed everything up with really great references! What I see as being the most significant area for change is grammar and sentence structure and content. I notice that some of the sentences seem to be kind of confusing because they present several ideas, are very long, and somewhat incoherent.

You refer to the noise of "medicare equipment". Did you mean "medical equipment"?

In this sentence "External noise consists of influences around the receiver of the communication that distract from the communication itself", I think it might be clearer if instead of saying "influences around the receiver of the communication", if you said "External noise is made up of the external environmental influences and noises going on." Anyways, I would try to clarify that sentence.

Also these sentences: "External noise common in the hospital setting may be a health care professional's thoughts of future tasks distracting them from a present conversation with a client. Other barriers that can affect effective communication between healthcare professional and client are perception, values, emotions, sociocultural background, knowledge level, and roles and relationships." The last sentence has an issue with plural and singular grammar. "barriers" is plural, but then you switch to singular "client are perception", and then you switch back to plural. "client" needs to be pluralized to "clients".

In this sentence: " Asynchronous communication can be sent and received at different points in time. Examples of this type of channel are text messages, emails, and notices on a message board.[6]", it would clarify things to start it by saying that "Asynchronous communication messages can be sent...".

I find this sentence to be awkward:" When an urgent situation arises, as they frequently do in the hospital environment, communication through synchronous channels is ideal.". I would change it to something like "When an urgent situation arises, synchronous communication is often ideal". This is true of many situations--not just those in the hospital, and I think that the reader could infer this. It also helps to clarify the sentence for me.

This sentence: "There are several benefits of synchronous communication, such as immediate delivery of the message and less frequent misinterpretation of the message." I would change to "Benefits of synchronous communication include immediate message delivery, and fewer misunderstandings and miscommunications."

This sentence I feel needs revising: "Finally, roles and relationships refers to the fact that the conversation between two nurse for example will be different than a conversation between nurse and client". I would change it to: "Finally, roles and relationships refers to the concept that a conversation between two nurses will be different than a conversation between the nurse and a client"

This sentence is confusing and cliche: "When mistakes occur in hospitals, more often than not, they are a result of communication problems rather than just errors in judgment or negligence." I would say "Mistakes in hospitals are often resultant of communication problems, as opposed to errors in judgement or negligence."

This could be reworded: Furthermore, when there is a lack of understanding and cooperation, due to a breakdown in communication in the hospital milieu, it is the patient who suffers the most, [9] therefore it is essential to cultivate an environment conducive to effective communication, through appropriate use of communication channels and awareness and elimination, when possible, of the effects of internal and external noise." to "When there is a breakdown in communication in the hospital milieu, and resultantly there is lack of understanding and cooperation, ultimately the patient suffers [9]. Therefore it is essential that external and internal noise be minimized, and that appropriate communication channels be used.

Again, I think that your basic ideas and references are excellent, but some of the grammar and sentence structure needs changing! Hy13ac (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hy13ac, thank you for your feedback. Though I don't agree with all the points you made, I do think that a few of your suggestions are quite valid. Our team will be sure to consider your suggestions when deciding which edits to make.

There are a few things that I'd like to mention.

First of all, the following sentence is not in our section. "Finally, roles and relationships refers to the fact that the conversation between two nurse for example will be different than a conversation between nurse and client". I'm not sure where it came from.

Also, I don't think that the following sentence is chiche at all, and if it were, changing the structure would not make it less so. "When mistakes occur in hospitals, more often than not, they are a result of communication problems rather than just errors in judgment or negligence." If I could allow myself to give you a little feedback on giving feedback, it would be that 'cliché' has a rather negative intonation and should probably be avoided when providing feedback in order to avoid misunderstandings and potentially, hurt feelings.

Again, thank you for your feedback.

Best,

Kristine 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! My name is Shawna and I am also a nursing student making edits to the situational milieu section. The edits you have all made on this wikipedia page look awesome! The new section that you have included is very well done. If you would be open to feedback there are a few (very few) things I have to comment on, the last paragraph under the situational milieu explains that a lack of communication can cause harm to a patient; I was thinking perhaps you could expand on this topic. While I was researching for my wikipedia article, I found many useful sources explaining how the lack of face-to-face communication between the patient and health care provider has an extremely negative impact on the healing of the patient and I think it would fit nicely in your article. I would also suggest that you find more sources to support ideas you already have, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4 where there is only one reference used. This will improve the credibility of your additions, showing that there is information on this topic elsewhere rather than only in one source and it can also give you a new look at the information. Overall the edits look great! Thank you for taking my edits into consideration and best of luck in the home stretch of your wikipedia project! Sg13vp (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shawna Sg13vp,

thanks so much for the feedback. May I ask in what source you found the information you mentioned? I would love to take a look and expand a little, as suggested.

Thanks, Kristine 15:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kristine, I apologize for the late response but if you still want to take a look, here is the link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00281.x/full

Stevenson, F., Cox, K., Britten, N., & Dundar, Y. (2004). A Systematic Review Of The Research On Communication Between Patients And Health Care Professionals About Medicines: The Consequences For Concordance. Health Expectations, 235-245. I hope this can still be of some value to you! Sg13vp (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sg13vp, if you have other sources, please direct your fellow editors to them - you could give them a link to your edits of another article (if that's where the information is) or to a section in your group sandbox, wherever they can easily link to the information you're referring to. Thanks. LynnMcCleary (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding more citations to increase credibility is good, but you also have to be careful about Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The placement of citations at the end of the paragraph is appropriate if the citation supports everything in that paragraph, see WP:PAIC.LynnMcCleary (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback re: hospital context

@Kh13zl, Mh14wc, Ak14au, and Jm14kq:, good work here. You've condensed a lot of information about the hospital/healthcare environment as a context that influences communication. I like the clarity and concise approach. I have a couple of suggestions for you as you work on your final edits for the course (though of course, I hope that you'll all stick with Wikipedia and continue to work on this or other articles).

I noticed in your sandbox talk page that Kh13zl's second source described emergent and retrospective context. This would be appropriate to include in the introduction to the context section.

The hospital or healthcare context is one example within the situational milieu category of kind of context. I think it would be helpful to have an introductory sentence in the Situational milieu section (replacing the original point in this section) about what situational milieu means - including the examples provided in the list. This would help with flow and would make it clear that the elaborated explanation you've provided about healthcare isn't the only situational factor that is important for context.

I notice that the new introduction to the context section (not done by your group), has information that is specific to the healthcare context. It probably fits better within your section than in the general introduction about what context is.

I wonder if there is an opportunity to link to other Wikipedia articles. That might be a way to further condense the information here (e.g., if it is available in more detail in other articles) or link readers to more details in other article. I think the patient safety article might be a relevant link.LynnMcCleary (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Student Edits to Introduction to Context Section

Hi, Ad14xz, Lb13an, Jc12xu2014, and myself have changed the context section of this page because it was completely plagiarized and that does not fit under Wikipedia's good article criteria. More suggestions are welcomed.Jessica (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Jessica,Ad14xz,Lb13an,Jc12xu2014, I'm glad you've enhanced the introduction to the context section and include sources. Just to clarify. Because there were no sources in the section and the same information was found on other websites, it wasn't possible to verify the source. It seems like the content in this section was either copied from the article to other sites or had been copied here from another site.--LynnMcCleary (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

LynnMcCleary, do you mind clarifying what you just said above? We did add our references into the context section of the page. Is that what you are referring to?Jessica (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear Jessica . I was referring to the statement that this section was previously completely plagiarized. I think I wasn't clear when we discussed this in class. It's just that we don't know for sure that what was originally in this section was plagiarized. We know that it wasn't referenced (which means it didn't meet Wikipedia criteria and might have been plagiarized) and that the same text showed up in other places. It's possible that those other websites plagiarized from Wikipedia. It happens a lot. You've done the right thing by removing material that could be plagiarized and adding citations. It's just that we don't know who originally put this material in the article. If we assume good faith, we assume it's possible that other sites plagiarized from Wikipedia (but we still go ahead, like you did, and improve what's there). I hope this makes sense.--LynnMcCleary (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clearing that up LynnMcCleary. Now everything makes sense and I see where you are coming from. We cannot assume it was all certainly plagiarized. Thanks again.Jessica (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

To other editors, my apologies for not assuming good faith and removing the previously written context section on the page. My group and I assumed it was plagiarized and therefor removed it and added our own.Jessica (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Jessica , your group was justified to remove content that didn't have citations and improve the article by adding text with citations. Your new text is faithful to the ideas in the original introduction and respectful of the original editor(s). I'm glad you were bold and addressed this problem. LynnMcCleary (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

By addressing the feedback given by another classmate, Lh12qv, I have more clearly defined what dyadic communication is in the section edited by our group. Again, thank you for this suggestion as it improves the context sections clearly.Lb13an (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Student Edits to Cultural and Linguistic Backgrounds factor in Context Section

Hi our group has been working on changes for the context section. Here is a link to our sandbox page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wd14bt/the_cultural_and_linguistic_backgrounds_content_of_the_Context_section. We are hoping to add more in depth information about where messages are derived from, and talk about the different subsections of context. We also found references as some of the work under the context section didn't contain any references. If there are any questions or concerns feel free to comment in our user page. We would appreciate feedback. Cf13za (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits Done For Developmental Progress by 4 Brock University Nursing Students

As a group we have been discussing editing the developmental progress section and the context on this page for about two months now. The link to our sandbox is - User:Jc12xu2014/sandboxgroup. This is where we have been making suggestions to edit the page. We edited the developmental progress section of this page because there was absolutely no information for it.Jessica (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We began by researching information on the topic (credible sources only). We then each summarized our sources and commented on each others summaries to see if they were relevant or not. With our information we divided development into different stages that we thought we the most appropriate. Once we did that we started working on the user page of our sandbox. The four of us split up the age groups and began working on bits and pieces of it until it finally all came together. The four of us also created two images that relate to our description under developmental progress.Jessica (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We got our information from credible secondary sources listed in the reference page. We decided to split the developmental progress section into different categories based on how they progress in different age groups. The age groups were split based on the similarities of certain aspects of the development in that period. We included 2 diagrams to help support the information we added. We developed the upside down pyramid to demonstrate the amount of growth in each stage and a pie chart that shows the amount of communication that is verbal compared to nonverbal. Ad14xz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Throughout our research, we noticed that the most development occurs in the stages of infancy, this is shown in our pyramid to demonstrate the importance of this stage. We also found that non-verbal communication is used much more than verbal, again shown in the pie chart. Adding these images and adding more information on the developmental progress and its effects on communication with a neutral point of view with references to provide research helped this article achieve the Wikipedia: good article criteria. The main point of the addition was to demonstrate the adaptation that needs to occur in order to effectively communicate with an individual of any age; non-verbal mostly during infancy and increasingly more verbal as development progresses. Jc12xu2014 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

When first reading this article, we realized as a group that many aspects such as the context, was plagiarized and that credible information under Wikipedia's good article criteria was not found under the development section of the article. While collaborating ideas in our own talk page and sandbox, we decided that grouping together age groups in stages of development was best to organize the information in a logical way. By editing the context section, this increased the article's credibility as it is now referenced correct, credible sources where the information was found. To tie our section further together, we decided to add informational images to help overall understanding of when development occurs and it shows that infancy (being at the top of the upside down pyramid) is the greatest age group which learns the most in development in regards to interpersonal communication.Lb13an (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read our rationale behind our groups edits. We are all welcome to feedback and further ways to editing the page. Lb13an (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the nursing students who has also been assigned to review your groups contributions to this page, if your group is willing to hear feedback in what I have to say about your contribution, I'd really like provide some. What I noticed was what an amazing job everyone in your group did in making the communication for verbal and non verbal communication, and the pyramid images, looks like everyone had put a lot of effort and hard work into doing so, and also how good of a job your group did in meeting the wikipedia criteria's within the images. I was also very interesting to read about the developmental process of communication and your information has furthered my knowledge on the developmental process of communication. One thing I noticed about the page was that the 0-1 years of age (first paragraph) had a lot of information but only one resource to back it up, maybe this could be one thing that could be improved. Overall everyones contributions looks like they had put so much hard work into this, and that they where all done in good faith. Thank you for taking my feedback into consideration. :) Adams sam (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adams sam, thank you very much for the feedback you have given my group. We thought the images were a great touch so I am glad you noticed them. My group and I will definitely look into providing more than one resource for the 0-1 age group. Once again thank you for your feedback.Jessica (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback:

I am also a first year nursing student who has been assigned to give feedback to the changes made by the group above.

Jessica , Jc12xu2014. Ad14xz, and Lb13an, as it is mentioned above, you ladies would not mind receiving feedback so I am going to go ahead and state a few points. First and foremost, you all have added some exceptional changes to the article! The addition of the images allows the reader to easily visualize and understand the aspects of the development process. The breakdown of the development of communication in one’s life is truly great, I wouldn’t think of organizing it in any other way. It is extremely well written since I did not notice too many grammar errors. A minor error was made in the sentence under the “0-1 Years of Age” section. In the first sentence I believe it was meant to say “an infant mainly uses non-verbal…” rather than just use. Another minor grammar error is in the next sentence where I think you meant to add an apostrophe when you stated, “bit of a newborns life…” Keep in mind, these are very minor errors but this article may be read my many in the future so you want to keep it as professional. Overall you all have addressed only the main aspects of the topic which is great in keeping it broad. I understand it must have been tough trying not to go into minor details and the article has also been neutral. Thank you for allowing me to give you feedback! Well done. --Tania (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Tania, thank you very much for setting aside some time to review our article and provide us with some feedback. We have addressed the minor edit issue that you mentioned.Jessica (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! First and foremost, congratulations on the (near) completion of your first Wikipedia article. I was reading through your talk pages and sandboxes and appreciate how much work was put in to making this section better. Awesome job!

Your edits were organized and thorough and I thought the addition of the images gave the article a professional appearance. Overall, very well done! In regards to my suggestions, I’m going to be picky because there are so many awesome things that corrections are few and far between.

Firstly, in the opening paragraph of the context section I got confused when you said: Generally, the focus has been on "dyadic communication" in health communication research with a focus on the patient and the provider”. The first time I read this, I was looking not only for an explanation as to what “dyadic communication” was, but also for an explanation as to what is focused on now. Just based on the wording here, “the focus has been on”, led me to believe that the focus had been changed to something different and made me look for what was coming next. After reading the paragraph a couple more times it clicked in, but maybe shuffle the wording around slightly to avoid this happening again.

Secondly, I liked how you separated physical and situation milieu from context. However, I did have to google what “milieu” meant before proceeding. This could have just been me missing out on common knowledge, but maybe consider doing a little definition of each underneath the heading to explain what each are as opposed to just listing a few examples. Personally, I find it time consuming if I’m looking through an article and have to continuously define words throughout so I can understand the reading. Also, now getting into your section on developmental process, I was a little confused about the pictures. Upon first glance I got all excited because they were visually very organized and appealing, however, they seem a little random. The pie chart about the percentages of communication doesn’t relate specifically to anything in the section. You make a point to mention how infants use mostly non-verbal communication, is that what you meant the pie chart to represent? If so, maybe add “in infants” into the little description underneath.

As for the rest of the section including the milestones, I agree with the comments above mine. Read the sections over once more slowly to catch all the little spelling mistakes and you’ll be awesome. Once again, great job, great additions to Wikipedia! If you need clarification on any of the comments I've made, absolutely feel free to ask me! Lh12qv (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Lh12qv, Adams sam and Tania, thank you so much for the feedback, we as a group will definitely take these suggestions into account when further editing the article. Although we may not agree on all of the edits, we appreciate the time and the effort put towards helping us improve our article. Jc12xu2014 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again to Lh12qv, Adams sam and Tania, as Jc12xu2014 said above, we will take in consideration the thoughtful, effective feedback you have given us and improving this page collaboratively.

Lh12qv, as for further clarification on your first comment about dyadic communication, we will as a group make note of further explanation of this. Thank you for being critical of the article edits we have made, and the context section was edited from I believe at least three other perspectives, so it was difficult to collectively make a logical flowing paragraph. Again, we appreciate everyone's feedback and appreciate the attention to detail. Thank you all!! Lb13an (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Professor Comments re: student edits

@Jb11ko, Lb13an, Jc12xu, and Ad14xz:, your edits are thorough and well referenced. Congratulations. You'll have to be careful about any advice from classmates to add more information. There may be more than usual for a section of an article already. Your writing is mostly succinct, so I don't have much in the way of specific recommendations to make this more concise. I would, however, advise you to go back and see if you can see anything that you might be able to delete without losing meaning. If you want advice on this, please let me know.

One approach that is used in Wikipedia articles is to have a brief description and then refer to another article about the topic. I see that you link to Language development in the section. I also see that the language development article has a notice that it needs citations and more content. In fact, your section has more relevant information than that article. However, there is also a suggestion on the Talk:Language development that the page be redirected to Language acquisition. Your group or future editors may consider enhancing Language development and then culling some information from this section. This is beyond the scope of what's expected for the course assignment, but it might be worth considering.

Your information is in a subheading called developmental progress and emotional states - but there's no information about emotional states. It might be clearer for the reader to make your subheading developmental states and make another subheading for emotional states (to be elaborated on by a future editor).

Also, please see a review by a classmate that is below in Culture and Linguistic Backgrounds. --LynnMcCleary (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, LynnMcCleary. We are extremely proud with what we, assuming the rest of my group agrees, have accomplished throughout these past couple of months. Thank you for your suggestions and feedback, we will definitely look into making those changes.Jessica (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Culture and Linguistic Backgrounds

Hi, myself and my group members were assigned to edit and add information to this subsection as part of a project. Since there was no information previous in this subheading we have found information using new credible secondary sources. We particularly found information on how important of a factor culture and linguistics is in regards to communication, as well as different factors in cultures that affect communication. We are also providing examples in regards to professional field of nursing and how culture and linguistics plays a factor in the health care field. Here is a link to our sandbox with our edits that we are going to add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wd14bt/the_cultural_and_linguistic_backgrounds_content_of_the_Context_section. If there are any questions or concerns feel free to comment on our user page because we would appreciate any feedback given to us. Thank you. Cf13za (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback to Editors

Hi Cf13za, my name is Lindsay and I just read over your addition to this article, and if you and your group members are willing to hear some feedback, I'd love to make a few points. What caught my attention first and likely other users, was the addition of the images which both fall under Wikipedia's good article criteria. This benefits the entire article in a positive way so great job - the diagram is a clear representation of nonverbal and verbal communication. Other than other edits to the different pages, I've been watching this page for a few days now and it has been relatively stable which is another good point to add to the criteria. Another strong point of your edits was that it was broad in its coverage. You and your group members extensively cover multiple areas of this topic and went into great detail. Also, I think it would be beneficial if your group condenses some of the material in areas, and I feel that it could be more concise. The section that introduces, "There are 5 major elements related to culture that affect the communication process: History, Religion, Values, Social Organization and Language." could be just focused on. I know that your other edits are in good faith, I think it would just be easier to follow and understand if possibly this was the centralized idea that was focused on. More elaboration to this idea, and less of other broader terms would be better. This is my reasoning that I don't think at this time, this section can be well written under Wikipedia's good article criteria. There are sections that I feel would be better if more grammatical editing was done. I also think it would be easier to understand the information (possibly why I'm having a hard time defining what is most important) is if the edits were more organized and the layout is easier to understand. However, I also think your sources used follows Wikipedia's good criteria of verifiability, and that many new sources were used like you mentioned in your rationale. Overall, I feel like this had a lot of great additional information that has followed many points of good criteria, and only a few minor details to consider changing. Thank you for reading over the feedback, good job with editing the page :) Lb13an (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lindsay. I would like to say thank you very much for your feedback. It improves to review points in the article. Thank you. Willian Dullius (wd14bt) (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lb13an thank you for the helpful feedback. I particularly found the part where you think we should focus on the 5 elements of culture helpful. We ended up creating links to other wiki pages explaining what each means to help further the page. Your feedback was very helpful when completing the edits. Thank you! Cf13za (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Revised feedback LynnMcCleary (talk) Hello all, I have also been assigned to critique the section under context called Culture and Linguistics in the Interpersonal Communication article. I would like to start by saying that I found a lot of the information cited in the added material very interesting. I also think that adding images always makes an article look good. Well done! There were a few things that I’ve noticed and would like to mention.

1.The first thing that crossed my mind when I printed the five pages was that it’s perhaps a little long. What you’ve written is probably long enough to be an essay. I can’t speak for anyone else, however when I look something up on Wikipedia, I am looking for a paragraph or two of information. More than that, and I tend to look elsewhere.

2.This is the context section of the Interpersonal Communication page, therefore Interpersonal Communication was already defined at the top of the article and probably didn’t need to be defined again.

3.I wonder if the definitions of culture and linguistics are not just a little too long. I believe that if you focus on more concise definitions of culture and of linguistics, while paying closer attention to grammar, punctuation, and syntax, this part of the article could be an easier read.

4.I also noticed that you started by defining culture, which was followed by a paragraph about linguistics, to then go back to culture again. It was a little confusing to me. Perhaps you could format the article in a way that would flow a little better.

5.Finally, I understand that being nursing students, we want to focus on nursing issues, but remember that this is an article about Interpersonal Communication and not a page about Interpersonal Communication in Health Care. Although very interesting to me, I wonder at the relevance of the information in the section called Communication amongst nurses and other professionals… to readers who are not health care workers. This part seems to be from a nursing point of view, rather than a neutral point of view.

Hi Lynn McCleary. I would like to say thank you very much for your feedback. It improves to review points in the article. Thank you. Willian Dullius (wd14bt) (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

While reading your edits, it was very clear to me that thought and effort went into what you added. Congratulations! Kristine 02:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kristine. I would like to say thank you very much for your feedback. Willian Dullius (wd14bt) (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kristine, I would like to say thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on our wiki page under culture and linguistic backgrounds. We tried to shorten the content on the page as you suggested, and fixed any grammatical errors that were present. We also re structured the page as you suggested by putting linguistics first and then all the information about culture. We deleted the "Communication amongst nurses and other professionals..." as it was not in a neutral point of view. Thank you again for the feedback! Cf13za (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have read over your addition to the article and it was very well written and clear to understand and read. The image that was added helped a lot to further understand the topic and is included in the Wikipedia good article criteria which benefits the article. There was lots of coverage of material for each sub-heading discussed, however another example could be added when explaining the differences in cultures amongst people since there is only one. Also for the 5 elements related to culture, this could be expanded upon further and explain how each element affects the communication process. But overall it was very well written and included lots of different sources which contributes to the verifiability of the article and falls under Wikipedia’s good article criteria as well. Thank you for reading over the feedback and I hope it was helpful. Connor (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Connor. I would like to say thank you very much for your feedback. It improves to review points in the article. Willian Dullius (wd14bt) (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Connor thank you for the feedback on our article. We tried to expand the 5 elements of culture by adding links to other wiki pages which further explains what each is in more detail. Thank you for taking the time to give us feedback. Cf13za (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Professor Comments and Suggestions

@Wd14bt, Kd14hf, Jf13jo, and Cf13za:, congratulations on the hard work you've put into your editing and reaching this milestone. I agree with previous reviewers that it's clear you've gathered a lot of information and learned a lot about culture and interpersonal communication - in addition to learning how to edit Wikipedia.

I also agree that the amount of information is more than needed for a section of an article. You could go back to your edits and figure out what is essential for a reader to grasp how culture as a context influences interpersonal communication.

It might be possible to point readers to other articles for more detail about culture - by adding links. For example, there is an article Cross-cultural communication (however, it's been flagged as having multiple issues. Perhaps your group or future editors might want to use some of your research to enhance that article. Enhancing the other article is beyond the scope of your course assignment - but whittling down the content that you added to leave only what's essential is part of the assignment. I encourage you to try to edit at least some of the content (I know it's really hard to get rid of something that represents all the time and effort that you've put into this). Linking to Culture might help you. The cross culture section of Nonverbal communication might be good to link to (though I see that it is also flagged as having issues - maybe next year's class can work on it!) --LynnMcCleary (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LynnMcCleary for the feedback. When refining our article we took what you said into consideration and revised our page by getting rid of information that is not relevant to culture and linguistic backgrounds. We have taken the time to also add links as you suggested to help shorten all the information on our page. Thank you again for the feedback. Cf13za (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

This is Jane Ghafour; I was assigned to comment your edits to this article. To start off the overall appearance looks great as I quickly skimmed it. Also, the images your group included look great as it compliments the rest of the Wikipedia article; it’s relevant and helpful with a good description underneath. I then did a more in depth reading and referred to the good article criteria all throughout. With that being said, I am pleased to say this is a great Wikipedia article (especially the newly edited portion). I feel that it’s very well written, professional, clear and concise. However, it’s quite lengthy, but that’s never a terrible thing. The important thing is it contains accurate and useful information pertaining to Interpersonal communication. It is also verifiable, because you have evidently included credible secondary sources and cited them accordingly. At first glance I was a little concerned, because the first paragraph was not detailed enough to talk about interpersonal communication. I then looked at the group explanation of what had been edited and it then made more sense. I read through each age group, as each look great. The only thing I would fix is a few grammatical errors within the first age group (0-1).

I have a few suggestions such as: age group 0-1

-In the first bit of a newborn’s life, crying is the only ……. (I would change the wording there)

-“Also within the 1 to 5 month stage, the newborn begins laughing”. (I would rephrase this is add more detail to this sentence)

-Between 7 and 10 months the infant start putting (you could delete “the”)

-I was a little confused, because you mention that the infant say’s “mamma” “dada” at two different age groups; 7 to 10 months and 10-12 months. Is this accurate?

-“They can also respond to simple commands” (This sentence is too short, I would add more to it)

Age Group 1-2 years of age: -“if parents do not speak to their children at this age, it can becomes quite difficult” (become)

Those are the only grammatical errors I found. Other than that, everything looks great within the Developmental Progress section. I was also assigned to edit the context and situational milieu paragraphs. I read it twice and did not find anything wrong with it. It’s very clear and well phrased. You have cited everything correctly and look good. Overall your group has done an amazing job with teamwork and it clearly payed off. It’s clear this group has been referring to the good article criteria throughout the assignment. It’s very well written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and included images that work well with the topic. Jane (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Context-is-Everything2.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation format conversion necessary for "Technology and Interpersonal Communication Skills" at bottom of page

I was skimming through the page when I noticed the section with the aforementioned title completely breaks Wikipedia's format. If someone would rewrite it or remove it altogether (it looks as though someone pasted their essay in a new section) that would be a definite quality improvement to the page 66.154.211.254 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Biases Within Article

In at least two sections, the article takes a particular position on the idea depicted.

• Under New Parent and Marital Quality, the quote "It is important for couples to identify ways that may help them maintain marital satisfaction while coping with becoming parents” is an opinion. That sentence should be removed.
• Under Couples Coping Enhancement Training, the quote "Lastly, couples should make use of technology within their counseling. They should use the Internet and seek help online in addition to their counseling program. Having technology that can help couples with immediate problems is a very useful thing" is an opinion. These sentences should be removed.

--SSchaffer1 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)SSchaffer1

Major changes without explanation by Logophile59

Logophile59, you are engaging in major changes to the article, having rapidly removed 12kb of text in your last 14 edits. This series of edits has been undertaken without any explanation here on the Talk page. Furthermore, your edit summaries for major removals of content, including removal of references, are singularly unhelpful, carrying non-explanations like, Copyedit #4, or Copyedit #6. Can you please stop what you are doing, and give cause why your edits shouldn't be removed, and the article rolled back to revision 913395489 of 20:56, August 31, 2019 by SSchaffer1? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot Hi Mathglot, this article was marked as requiring a major copyedit. As noted at the top of the page, I am working on this as part of a drive by the Guild of Copyeditors. Because copyedits require many small changes, it is impossible to detail every single change made. Copyedits do typically involve shortening since when a sentence is confusing there is usually a simpler and more straightforward way to say it. However if you think I am making the article worse, not better, I am happy to stop, and you are welcome to roll the changes back to the beginning. I am sorry if my efforts have caused you frustration. Logophile59 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I've looked up each of the references I've deleted and one of them was to the editorial board list of a journal. I also replaced several allusions to references (of the form "Jones et al. 2004") with actual citations. Logophile59 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Logophile59:, thanks for responding. If you're doing this many changes, and have them all numbered out, you must have some vision of how you want the article to end up, or a plan of what you think needs to be changed, either the problem with the existing material that needs to come out, or the missing content that needs to be added? Can you sort of share that plan here a bit?

I'm all for simplification to make it more straightforward. As far as individual edits, I don't agree that it's impossible to write a more appropriate edit summary than you have been. Afaic, edit summaries are part of improving the encyclopedia, which is what every edit is supposed to do in some way. Different people use them in different ways, many just repeat *what* they did in an edit. But personally, I don't think that's the best approach, as ultimately, people can see what you did by doing a diff. For more substantive edits, I try to answer the why-question, "how does this edit improve the article?" That's just my approach, and you don't have to follow it. But I hope you can see why the summary Copyedit #6 is not helpful, to those trying to follow along with what you are doing. If we look at that edit, for example (here), I notice changes to section Cultural and linguistic backgrounds which precede existing sources. I wonder if you have checked these sources in each case, or whether you consider these grammar or syntax changes, that don't require checking the source? Also, the changes are significant enough and spread around enough, that the diff program presentation makes it difficult to see exactly what has happened. The diff appears to show that some sections of text were deleted entirely, such as the paragraph following "Influences in Verbal Communication", and sourced variously by three refs by Muñoz, Corbin, and Neuliep. Normally, if you remove properly sourced and relevant text from an article, it's a good idea to confine the edit to just that one section of removed text and references, and explain in the edit summary, why it was helpful or an improvement, to remove them. And that it is just one small portion of the changes in "Copyedit #6", which in turn, is only one of your series of changes.

It seems like you're trying to improve the article, and frankly this is a ton of stuff to go through; can you just agree to make smaller edits targeted to one part of the article so that the "diff" is comprehensible? (You can use the "Show changes" button which appears right next to "Show preview" in the edit window, to see the current diff. If the results from "Show changes" is confusing, or hard to interpret, it probably means you're trying to do too much, or at least, that other editors will have trouble figuring out what you did. Time to stop that edit, and wrap it up before saving. Also, smaller changes will make it easier to come up with a detailed edit summary for each one that represents your vision of how that particular change improves the article. If you can do that, I'd appreciate it, and I suspect a lot of other editors at the article would, too. That will mean a higher total number of edits and a smaller amount of changes in each one than you've been used to. I hope that is something you can work with. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, I apologize again for the annoyance I've caused you. I am happy to save more frequently and try to provide more helpful explanations. With respect to the paragraph you mention, I did combine two paragraphs that seemed rather "fluffy" into one (removing text like "If there is a language barrier between the sender and receiver attempt to seek clarification, do not try not [sic] to interpret the meanings of the message. There must be sensitivity present for individuals who are expressing opinions on culture and language. We live in a multicultural time, and this plays an important factor in considering that each individual has their own languages, beliefs and values that are allowed to be expressed"). There are several places in the article like this where text appears to have been directly lifted from a reference, and in each case I've tried to extract and summarize the substance. I think of this as part of copy-editing, but I accept your point that this places a too-heavy burden on a reader who is trying to figure out what's been done. I will try my best to deliver chunks that are more digestible. Thanks for the feedback. Logophile59 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Logophile59: thanks. If you notice content that appears to be lifted from a reference, that can be problematic due to copyright considerations. Please, if you notice any more instances of this, take the steps found in the "Dealing with..." section at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, I also notice that the article seems to be undergoing active evaluation for a class. If people are still working on it, perhaps it would be best to remove the copyedit tag so that it no longer comes to the attention of the current Backlog Elimination Drive, and come back to it when you've finished. I can ask the organizers of the Drive whether this is acceptable if you like. Logophile59 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Logophile59: I don't think you need to ask anyone about removing such a tag, do what you think is best. Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Do you know how long you need to complete the course evaluations? I can see it would be very annoying to be in the middle of trying to assess your students' work and find it changing under your feet, as it were.

I didn't mean to accuse anyone of plagiarism, but it's true that the sentences I quoted above looked as if they were written for maybe a nursing manual, rather than for an encyclopedia. If I see anything that is clearly an issue, I will address it. Logophile59 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Logophile59: I have nothing to do with course evaluation here. I believe assigned students are sometimes asked to do evaluations of the article, or evaluations of each other's work on the article ("peer reviews"). See one of the Wiki Ed folks about that, such as Shalor (Wiki Ed).

I didn't interpret it necessarily as an accusation. It's normal for editors here to be on the lookout for content that may have been copied, and sometimes one can tell from the way something is worded. If the content here may have come from a webpage online, there are tools available that can compare the two, and give a statistical assessment of how likely it is that copying took place. See "Earwig's tool" at WMF. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: OK, thanks. LMK if I do anything else egregious. Logophile59 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Logophile59: I dropped the "In use" template, as explained on the article page. Btw, I'm just another editor here, not an admin or anything; I might be an experienced user, but I just have my own opinion and one vote; nothing more, nothing less. When you disagree about something, no need to defer to me; this is about discussion and consensus, I don't make the rules around here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Since you asked that I not perform major edits without discussing them on the Talk page, I was giving time for people to respond to the question I raised below about inaccurate apportionment of credit. Ironic to be having this discussion over a page on interpersonal communication! Best, Logophile59 (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation for class

Overall evaluation

Overall I would rate the quality as well-written. After seeing the article is rated as a C-Status and mid level importance it made me go back to look at the article. To be improved it would need to include more media, and go more into depth. I thought the article was laid out very well and included good subheadings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcjohnson11 (talk • contribs) 02:52, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Tcjohnson11, I added your course to the list of WikiEd courses above; if that's not accurate, please adjust as needed. Are you assigned as a reviewer? Pinging Shalor (Wiki Ed). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Mathglot! I believe that they're a reviewer - another student reached out to me about editing the article, but I'm not entirely certain. They're supposed to be editing individually, but they may be working individually on separate parts of the article. (Not super common, but it still happens.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Tcjohnson11, I went ahead and listed you as "reviewer" in your WikiEd listing at the top, per Shalor's comment. But when rendered, that lists you as a "peer reviewer", and you seem to be more of an "article reviewer", so maybe that's more just a general assignment, not a "reviewer" assignment? Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Relational Dialectics Theory: Question about apportionment of credit

Hi, I have a question about the apportionment of credit in this section. The section begins by saying that the theory "was developed by scholars Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery". Indeed the main article, Relational Dialectics, says that "[t]he theory [was] proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988". However, as I noted on the Talk page of that article, the reference crediting Montgomery is inaccurate. This article appears to have been written by William K. Rawlins, not Barbara Montgomery. See. Montgomery was one of the editors of the volume in which Baxter published his 1988 article, and she wrote an article entitled "Quality communication in personal relationships" for that volume, which based on the title was not about dialectics although I haven't been able to find information on the content on line. Montgomery and Baxter co-authored a book on the topic in 1996. I am not an expert but it seems to me that crediting Baxter and Montgomery co-equally with the initiation of this theory is inappropriate, although Montgomery made contributions that look significant later (e.g. ). I wonder if someone who knows more about the field than I do would like to comment? Thanks. Logophile59 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Logophile59, I don't know about the field, but I know that on a low-pageview article, you're not going to get much foot traffic walking by, so to speak; for a question like this, consider adding a brief, neutrally worded invitation in places where interested editors might be more likely to see it. The usual starting point for this, is the WikiProjects that the article belongs to. I have my doubts whether even that will be enough, but it's certainly the place to start.

Also, you appear to have asked a similar question at Talk:Relational dialectics. In general, rather than fragment a conversation, it's a good idea to pick one location for the discussion—whatever location seems best or most logical—and add a link from the other possible venues that you didn't choose, pointing back to the discussion location. The advantage is, that editors who come to comment, can see all the previous comments (if any) and respond to the entirety of the discussion. Since no one has responded yet at the other discussion, you could, if you wanted,, provide the link to this one, indicating that the discussion is happening (or should happen) here. (Or vice versa; your choice.) Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there! I noticed the image of the pie graph in this article was referring specifically to infants. I was wondering if there would be anyway to share proven statistics of verbal and nonverbal communication percentages for adults as well? Thank you. I enjoyed this article and found it easy to comprehend. Acadams7 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dukkha Lu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Demiboutzy (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors SPC 1017 Fall 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RhijhayeR (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tomeijam (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avanlo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Avanlo (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)