Talk:Ontological pluralism

Tone

This article does not fit. If it can't be fixed, it should be deleted. See Pluralism (philosophy) for an example of a better article. Clerks. (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--but I'll say it more firmly--this article is a piece of crap written by a post-modernist. It says nothing, means nothing, and is useless to anyone interested in the topic. Grumpy otter (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not written very well at all - I would re-write but I don't know anything much about it (and even less now I've read the article) hence why I looked here in the first place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.107.151 (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm part of this chorus. The worst thing I've read - or rather, attempted to read - on wikipedia. If it was paper & I was in need, I still wouldn't wipe my arse with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.112.12 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I killed it per the above and my own reading. I'm not enough of a philospher to know if "ontological pluralism" and "pluralism (philosphy)" are regarded as distinct, but they seem similar enough William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: New version of Ontological pluralism

RfC is moved to User:Brews_ohare/ontological_pluralism#RfC:_New_version_of_Ontological_pluralism.

This article was redirected following a discussion of its content as of 2010. I have rewritten this article in its entirety, but Snowded wishes to delete this new version based upon this prior discussion of a different version entirely. It is my view that reconsideration is in order. If it is to be deleted, let's have the discussion and let's see if the article can be improved still further. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The question of ontological pluralism has some new currency as indicated by the sources in this revision. This new version is provisional, and it would be helpful to have suggestions about what needs to be added to it. In particular, it should be supplemented to include its application to information science. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the subject is treated as a subsection Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism that refers to Classical elements as the 'main article' on the subject. In fact, classical elements is an account of " ancient beliefs inspired by natural observation of the phases of matter; with the classical elements: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas and fire is equivalent to plasma." That discussion in fact has nothing to do with ontological pluralism in today's philosophy. This is also the subject of the first and longest of two paragraphs in Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism.

There is a second paragraph discussing one aspect of Wittgenstein's thought on the subject of language games. This discussion is very tangential to the topic and it s bearing is not made clear.

There is nothing here reflecting modern work on the topic such as that referred to in Matti Eklund (2009). Carnap and Ontological Pluralism, Huw Price (1992). Metaphysical Pluralism, Joshua Spencer (2012). Ways of Being, and on and on.

Considering the poor treatment of this topic on WP, it is time something was changed, and this draft article is a step in that direction. Some comment would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to think about a short summary, not a string of quotes and with no synthesis, to add to the paragraph on the redirected article. If that is accepted and the section expands, then and only then is there is a case for a new article ----Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just finding yet another place to recycle your pet material from meta-ontology and elsewhere. All the same problems as before. Changes should be made (and agreed) to the redirected paragraph and then we can see if it warrants its own page ----Snowded ^TALK 17:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: I have placed an alert to this discussion on Talk:Pluralism (philosophy). IMO a discussion of the new version is easier if the new version actually is available for review at Ontological pluralism. If it is rejected, there is no difficulty in returning to the old redirect. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Brews, you have created a mess of original research and synthesis. Two editors have reverted to you and you still persist. Please self-revert, status quo stands per WP:BRD until and unless you get agreement ----Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded: I don't understand why you are unwilling to allow the RfC to take place. It requires the presence of the new version so comment can be made. Brews ohare (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on a sandpit page Brews and link it, its disputed. You know how to do that, but I've saved you the time here. I will give you a bit of time revert and reference that material, otherwise I am making a 3rr report as you just went over the limit and this refusal to realise you can't just determine content has gone on long enough. I suspect any admin looking at your block record is not going to be sympathetic and it may well be time for an RfC on your behaviour overall ----Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]