Talk:Egalitarian dialogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
	Ethics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Egalitarian dialogue article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

1 Comments

[edit] Comments

hi. i really don't know how to edit, so i did my article on the microsoft word and the copy/paste to wikipedia :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocriticus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 April 2008

Hello! If you want to see how to edit wikipedia, here are some cool links:

How to write articles

How to EDIT articles

Cheat sheet

For this particular article, I would suggest fleshing out the introduction a bit. I would place a link to power politics or power relationships (non wikified links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower).

For the body, I would break it up into what egalitarian dialogue is a response to or an outgrowth from and what it actually is. In the case of wikipedia, it is better if it doesn't look like an essay. No formal structure is needed, no conclusions. You are also not required to discuss the subject in its totality. For example, a preponderance of your sources deal with pedagogy. Why not focus on this as it relates to teaching rather than more generally?

good luck! Protonk (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)