Talk:Orality

Encyclopedia or Commentary? I have removed the phrase "Have they heard the warning of Socrates?" from the title of the main picture--What is this? A commentary? Anapologetos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The caption now reads "An oral community in Cambodia confronts writing." What does this mean? From a Western perspective it means that they need to find the money to go to school. From the perspective of the concept of 'orality' it means that there is more to it than that. And it was Socrates who first pointed out just how much more. Removing the question leaves the caption devoid of context.Brett epic (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it leaves it with little/no context, but is it really appropriate to have such a commentary-like caption in an encyclopedia? Do we need a different picture? Or how can we caption the current way appropriately?Anapologetos (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase you removed was a question. It was not a commentary. It provokes the reader to begin thinking about the issues that are presented in the article. The picture, like the caption, refers directly to the article. In my personal view, the article is encyclopaedic. Don't you agree?Brett epic (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but I would disagree--An encyclopedia article is not a place to "provokes the reader to begin thinking about the issues that are presented in the article." It is a place to present the relevant data to the reader, and let the reader draw his own conclusions--According to what wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia is, "provoking the reader to the begin thinking about the issues presented in the article" is not part of it. Don't get me wrong-I think it is good to get people thinking critically, but I don't believe that this is an appropriate place. Thoughts? Anapologetos (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I have replaced the question we have been discussing with an explicit statement of fact that offers the same context. Stylistically not as interesting, but as you say, Wiki is an encyclopedia. Does this address your concern?Brett epic (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we be debating Ong's Characteristics of Oral Culture?

Ong's characteristic #2 -- Additive rather than Subordinative -- cites Ong's reference to the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis. Someone added a different translation, demonstrating that the multiple appearances of "and" do not occur in the new one, thus challenging Ong's example. Should this be included? The article already mentions that "these are subject to continuing debate" and it seems to me therefore that the debate doesn't belong in this section; rather, what Ong contributed to the debate (or perhaps how he sparked a debate) belongs here.

Not to mention that the second translation was not provided in Ong's works (as far as I am aware), nor is it cited to be from any other published critique of Ong (which might be helpful, I suppose, in clarifying the "continuing debate" while not actually debating).

I suggest we remove the second [agonistic, as it were] translation of the Bible in this section. - Begeun (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ong cited the second example alongside the first in his book, intending to show how oral modes of communication evolve into literate ones. In the nearly four centuries between the publication of the Douay-Rheims version and the Modern American one, residual orality in the English speaking world had declined dramatically, and that was impacting even something as supposedly objective as a 'translation' in fundamental and highly predictable ways. While the first example certainly depicts orality, the second should be retained because it highlights the contrast with literate culture.Brett epic (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Would it be appropriate to make this connection more clear in the article? Presently it reads

The New American Bible (1970) offers a translation that is grammatically far more complex.

Perhaps it should read (paraphrasing Brett epic's comments above)

Demonstrating how oral modes of communication tend to evolve into literate ones, Ong additionally cites The New American Bible (1970), which offers a translation that is grammatically far more complex.

- Begeun (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!Brett epic (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Material removed from the article as too remote from topic

I have just deleted the following statements from the article because even though they are probably true, they seem to me too remote from the subject of the article:

In a benchmark study on rural poverty the World Bank estimated that about 1.2 billion people earn less than US $1 a day (adjusted for Purchasing power parity), and that about 70% of them live in rural areas.

“More than half a century of persistent efforts … has not altered the stubborn reality of rural poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. The likelihood of achieving the Millennium Development Goals without a focus on improving the livelihoods and service accessibility of rural dwellers is low.”

--AlotToLearn (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)