Talk:Walter J. Ong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Works of related interest"[edit]

This is supposed to be a biographical article about Walter Ong, not a bibliography of "related" works by other authors. I'm removing these sections. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Contributions in perspective"[edit]

This entire section reeks of original research, as if someone simply pasted their school essay on Ong. I suggest removing it entirely. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


OK, I give up. What is the ethnic origin of "Ong"?Lestrade (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

According to Thomas Farrell, the name originates in East Anglia and was originally spelled "Onge" (possibly derived from "Yonge").WQUlrich (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Major works[edit]

Adding this from main article space: --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2013 (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)


I would like to see citations for the information in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Romanov[edit]

Does anyone know of any English-language studies of "Историческое развитие культуры. Психолого-типологический аспект" or of the author, Vladimir Romanov.

Have Ong's works been translated into Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdurkan (talkcontribs) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)