Talk:Holophrastic indeterminacy

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Analytic/synthetic distinction#Quine.27s criticisms and responses|analytic/synthetic distinction]] The anchor (#Quine.27s criticisms and responses) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Tags[edit]

It would help in adjusting this article to meet the criticisms of the tags placed by Snowded if it were explained (i) just what Snowded believes is WP:OR in this article - I don't see any - and (ii) it seems there are already several third-party sources cited - what more is wanted, exactly, about what?

The phrase in your text originates with Quine and that is supported by a primary source only as are the other paragraphs. You have some sources which comment on the issue of translation (of which Quine is an important part) but those do not seem to relate directly to the subject of this article. It reads like an essay on the subject based on your reading, hence the OR tag ----Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: The first general source (Hylton) specifically mentions holophrastic indeterminacy. As that article makes clear, as does this WP presentation, and as Quine himself makes clear when introducing this terminology, the subject of Quine's view of translation depends upon this concept. If that is understood, it also is clear why an interest in Quine's views of translation ipso facto introduces an interest in both holophrastic indeterminacy and indeterminacy of reference, the last mentioned having an article devoted to it in a similar fashion. Brews ohare (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to establish the subject from third party sources as a subject. Its to be expected that other authors will reference Quine's use and you are still writing an essay using primary sources----Snowded ^TALK 03:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source for 'holophrastic indeterminacy' is Quine, who presented the viewpoint of course, and his work is indeed cited and even quoted. However, eight other sources are cited that comment upon Quine's position and provide a spectrum of views and analysis, covering the entire subject and putting Quine into context. The suggestion that this article is an essay of mine seemingly implies that somehow my personal opinion has shaped the presentation, an assertion for which there has been absolutely no foundation laid. Mere assertions without supporting presentation of questioned text and with no request for what needs sourcing is just argumentative. The personal unsubstantiated opinion of a WP editor carries no weight. Brews ohare (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you are working from primary sources? Tag stays ----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Snowded: Just to clarify what you are objecting to here. Could it be that you do not think the subject of holophrastic indeterminacy is important enough to warrant a separate article? Or is it simply that you think the present treatment needs improvement to do justice to the importance of the topic? If the latter, perhaps you could suggest some sources?

Please contrast this article on holophrastic indeterminacy with the article on the second type of indeterminacy Quine brought forward: indeterminacy of reference. Perhaps you could comment upon whether that article meets your standards or not, and if so what could be done here to match what was done there? Or, perhaps both holophrastic indeterminacy and indeterminacy of reference should instead be merged with Indeterminacy of translation? The same points can be raised with the article Radical translation. Brews ohare (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just find a third party reference Brews. This is 101 Wikipedia and its getting very very tedious having to constantly point it out to you----Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a good move that you have asked three other editors to look at this. It's not my area of expertise despite having a Philosophy degree so the eyes of experienced editors would be useful. However I suggest they check out your history on Philosophy articles and your ban from Physics articles so they understand the behavioural context here ----Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the idea of fresh eyes. You have not suggested any comparisons with these other articles. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

It is natural to refer to Quine's work in discussing Holophrastic indeterminacy inasmuch as he originated the term and the topic. However, the article does not refer only to Quine, and includes reference to Peter Hylton, to another article by Peter Hylton, to Jeff Malpas, Hilary Putnam, Crispin Wright, and others for an evaluation of the importance of Quine's work. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still need third party sources Brews, its not enough to deal with what you find 'natural'. Now pleas STOP deleting tags until you have agreement to change. Has a months enforced holiday taught you nothing? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request 'needing third-party sources' is not clear. First, you do not say what specific assertions or statements within the article require a third-party source. Second, you have not said how any WP policy applies to require such a source. That is, how does the material you select (when you do specify it) fall within WP guidelines or policies showing these (as yet unspecified) items do require third-policy sources? Please flesh out your argument with both of these two aspects. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC

It is not difficult to see Brews. The lede and both the following sections start with conclusions drawn by you from primary sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

This article is completely impenetrable. 188.221.176.93 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]