This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'm removing the references to his being a linguist, as I can find no evidence in the entire article that he ever did work on linguistics. Having a B.A. in Latin and an M.A. in English does not make one a linguist. And despite its name, the Modern Language Association is not a linguistics organization, but a literary one. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Under ""introduction"" there is a sentence which reads, in part "a thesis regarding cultural development that can be styled his technology thesis". This sounds horribly incorrect though i cannot fix it as im not wholly sure what the intent of the paragraph is. Ixtli 23:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What's with these "His most important work" and "His second most important work" designations? Labeling something his most important work seems a stupid idea in the first place, but if you're going to do it, how would it be Ramus over Orality & Literacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As the senior editor of An Ong Reader (2002), I selected the 28 pieces that we reprinted in this accessible collection and contributed the lengthy introductory essay. However, with all due respect to the anonymous contributor(s) who constructed this subsection, I do not consider this coherent 2002 collection to be one of Ong's works of major importance. But I do consider Ong's two 350-page collections in the 1970s to be among his works of major importance: Rhetoric, Romance, and Technology: Studies in the Interaction of Expression and Culture (Cornell UP, 1971) and Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Cornell UP, 1977). Nevertheless, An Ong Reader would be a good place for people who are not familiar with Ong's thought to start before they turn to each of these 350-page collections from the 1970s. -- Thomas J. Farrell
The reader is perhaps not in itself a work of major importance, but it does include essays of major importance (as is set out in the entry). That might be the rationale for listing it under the "Major works". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)