Jump to content

Talk:Internal–external distinction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that reasons for changes were given in the edit summary. I've removed excessive quotation and material using primary sources which needs secondary ones. I have further removed material that was rejected on other articles ----Snowded TALK 20:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded's changes

[edit]

In a series of edits, Snowded has revised much of this article without any Talk-page discussion. They are as follows:

  1. find a secondary source for that material No secondary source is required to state what Stephen Hawking says - he said it in print.
  2. remove excessive quotation and use of primary sources These quotations are from the basic sources and require no justification. They are what Carnap says and what Quine says and they say it better than other secondary sources who simply do the same thing: quote Carnap and Quine
  3. remove opinion It is hardly an opinion that Myhill uses a more formal language - it's obvious
  4. remove directly sourced material rejected on other pages a ridiculous claim and contrary to fact. This material points out the analytic-synthetic arguments that any reader will want to know about.
  5. simply remove over quotation Quotation from Quine is critical to understanding his views
  6. Remove essay like phrases and unsupported statements Simply Snowded's prejudices at work
  7. missed that A non-explanation for removing the simple statement 'Quine disputed Carnap's position from several points of view.'

This barrage of changes need point-by-point discussion here on this Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Brews, you have created a barrage of material, much of it already rejected on other articles. You (as you have been told before) need material that makes Hawkins relevant and that is a violation of your Physics ban. You were bold with much of this material, you have been reverted so DISCUSS
On the various points above. Primary material can only be used is particular circumstances. My view on this was confirmed on the RS notice board when you raised it. Excessive quotation is discouraged per policy; we are an encyclopaedia and are meant to summarise the material. You need a source to show that Hawkins is relevant here, you can't just decide it is ----Snowded TALK 21:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snoweded: You have made lots of unsupported claims here. For example, that much of this material was already rejected elsewhere. Please document, and if you want to count some of your own earlier rejections, please supply reasons this time around.
There is no need to make Hawkings 'relevant': it is perfectly obvious that he discusses one example of ontological pluralism, which is the subject where he is cited. Discussing his philosophy is not a violation of my physics ban - which you bring up just as another piece of irrelevant mud-slinging.
There is no 'excessive' quotation -all sources that discuss Quine and Carnap do exactly the same thing. If you think it is excessive, please defend your viewpoint, which is not widely shared by published authors.
It is time to get down to actually detailing your objections, Snowded, instead of simply announcing your personal opinions. It is not possible to DISCUSS when you have said NOTHING. Brews ohare (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you have made no attempt to address my reaction to your reversions now or in the past; hope you try to do that here as part of your willingness to DISCUSS. Brews ohare (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded has made some good points, and you would do well to listen to him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FreeKnowledge: It is not a question of whether Snowded has made some 'good' points, but whether he has bothered to make any points at all that go beyond his personal preferences, like fewer quotations. Perhaps you could help out here by indicating just which items you think need attention? Brews ohare (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brews you seem to be under the dellusion that when people disagree with you they are just expressing a personal preference. In fact as you were told at the RS notice board stringing together quotes is synthesis and deprecated. You have expressed a disagreemtn with wikipedia policy here whic is fine, as long as you do not edit on the basis of your personal preferences. Also you need to learn that if oth editors disagree with you then you cannot simply reimpose your original material without agreement. This article has value, but not if it is just a place for you to collect material that has been rejected on other articles. I have removed the disputed material. Happy to go through that point by point if it would help but on the talk page pleae. At the moment it looks like FreeKnowledge agrees so you are in a minority. Don't edit war work with others----Snowded TALK 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-ontology and the internal-external distinction

[edit]

In this edit Snowded removed the link to meta-ontology in the phrase "The internal–external distinction is a meta-ontological distinction " with the comment: its not inclusive to the use of the term "meta ontology" as you well know. As I am in fact unaware of this fact, and as the entire article falls under the rubric 'meta-ontology', I am interested in some further indication that in fact this distinction is used in other contexts, and assuming some such evidence can be provided, how it relates to this article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You attempted to enforce the "meta-ontology' word on the main Philosophy article and failed to get support. Now you seem to be attempting a flanking exercise on less prominent articles. There is no agreement that meta-ontology is universal, many philosophers talk about ontology without the "meta" which is of recent origin anyway. You cannot define a long standing philosophical issue as falling within a category, if the use of that category is controversial ----Snowded TALK 18:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded: What has your answer got to do with your in-line edit comment? To address your latest point, yes, the use of meta-ontology is not universal. That doesn't make it use controversial. For those that use the term meta-ontology, the Internal–external distinction is in that category. That does not place it outside Ontology inasmuch as most agree meta-ontology is a sub-field.Brews ohare (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting the use is not universal, hopefully that means you understand why an edit which assumed it is, is wrong ----Snowded TALK 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a philosopher, Snowded, your inability to make distinctions is amazing. Saying "The internal–external distinction is a meta-ontological distinction" is not 'wrong'. It is perfectly accurate. Perhaps you interpret this sentence incorrectly as this sentence: "The internal–external distinction is a distinction used only in meta-ontology." Now this last sentence actually is wrong. The first version would be accepted even by those who don't put 'meta-ontology' in their working vocabulary but do know what it means. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brews if you provide some new argument based on content I will respond. Repetition of previous arguments and personal insults, sorry better things to do ----Snowded TALK 04:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag: This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay

[edit]

This tag was added to the article by Snowded. Of course, he is entitled to his personal views about this article, but in fact there is nothing in this article that reassembles 'personal reflection' or an 'essay'. The article presents the views of Carnap and Quine and cites their major presentations of their work. It includes several verbatim quotes from these principle authors to convey a flavor of their writings. It then describes later commentary by reputable philosophers and provides citations to their work.

If Snowded thinks there is some kind of personal bias involved in any of this, he is welcome to point it out. However, until he provides a basis, so far as I can see there is nothing here to substantiate the application of this tag. I have removed it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quotation, the whole style is essay like but you don't let other editors engage when you are on a roll so you will have to live with the tag. Just because you disagree with it does not justify you removing it without consensus. ----Snowded TALK 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template is incorrectly applied. The tag page suggests "Use this tag to identify personal essays. Personal essays describe the author's own feelings about a topic." There is none of that here, and you've made no attempt here to explain what else you object to. Consensus of who, Snowded? There is only you, and you've got the purpose of the tag wrong. Brews ohare (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Brews. You reverted a series of changes and rather than edit war I tagged the article. I could have chosen others, that was the easiest. It gets removed when there is either consensus on a series of changes (I will attempt a variation of my last set) or if other editors agree with you. I have embolden a key phrase here that you need to pay attention to ----Snowded TALK 05:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded: Your use of this tag is your own personal choice, not a group decision. Your use of this tag does not accord with its documentation. Nothing you say explains the use of this tag. This is not an edit war; it is pointing out inappropriate use of a tag. Brews ohare (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internal–external distinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted off topic wording from lead

[edit]

Edited the lead to clarify "distinction" in context, can't find my old or new password to log in 75.82.19.242 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internal–external_distinction&oldid=1202972154"