Talk:Phonocentrism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phonocentrism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Phonocentrism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that, perhaps paradoxically, Plato defended his phonocentrism using the written word?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/May.

Wikipedia

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Language / Continental Low‑importance

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Philosophy of language
	Continental philosophy

Citation needed

Haha, "citation needed" is painfully ironic in this article -Pietro 24.84.229.90 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, "Citation Needed" jokes never get old IMHO. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

This entry seems to have been heavily edited by some Ong-disciple. Whatever Ong's accomplishments, I don't think his contribution to this debate merits 5 footnotes (4 more than Derrida!), 2 bibliography entries, and 5 in-text references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.67.144 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit: graphocentrism

There seems to be a bias built into the discourse article of this article. It seems to serve to obscure an objective sociolinguistic interrogation of the differences of how spoken language and written language function and interact. I think we can look into these distinctions before we get so far down the line into the postmodernist critiques of meaning itself & the semiotics implications. It is an exercise for sociolinguistics.

If the graphocentrism article did a better job at fleshing out the point of view that favors the written over the spoken, then we might be able to find a balance on this. skak E L 16:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in this and related topics. please take a look at my recent contribs. You may notice that the article spoken language is very weak. skak E L 16:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]