Talk:Quantifier variance

Use of edit summaries

Brews please stop you habit (here and elsewhere) of reverted on the basis that there has to be a talk page discussion of every edit. The edit summary can give a reason. For example material which is not referenced can be deleted on that basis alone. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries are fine for simple matters. They are not intended to substitute for Talk-page discussion where longer explanation is needed, as you know, and especially not for curtailment of such discussion as is your practice. In particular, it is your custom to make a one-line edit summary and when called for explanation on the Talk page, to say that you have 'already said clearly' what your objection is, and that is the end of any attempt to explain yourself. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you like to write long essays Brews but sometimes an objection can be summarised in a single sentence in an edit summary. That I did. It is also the case that I am making similar objections to material you are inserting on other articles. You seem to be under the impression that any mention of anything justifies an extended essay regardless of its relevance to the subject. THere is a perfectly good article on metrology there is no need to coat rack your opinions here ----Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

General Issues

The whole of the Mereology section appears to be a personal choice by Brews and as such its OR and/or Synth. There needs to be a reliable third party source to link this to the subject matter. We also seem to have the problem on other articles or a few favourite authors being used to make general statements

Please do not reinstate the next without a third party source and/or agreement of other editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Introduction to Ted Sider's "Four Dimensionalism" (which yes I confess is as far as I've gotten in that book) does contain a section dealing with exactly this issue (quantifier variance, the implied or explicit range of quantification) as regards both temporal persistance and, as a subsidiary concern, mereology; I will try to take a look at it and see if there are any cites that might be relevant here but invite any other interested editors to do the same as it might help. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

BrideOfKripkenstein: Thanks for your participation here. I've made a few changes along these line in my revision. Thanks for pitching in. Brews ohare (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a third party source which makes it clear that mereology is central to the subject of this article then its OK to incude something. But not if its just selected on the basis it mentions the term. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources cited on these matters, and to say they merely 'mention' the issue is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. Brews ohare (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note again that I am in agreement with Snowded regarding your behavior here and at other articles. Please discuss matters on the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge: Can you go beyond "Me too!!" to point out what you agree with Snowded about? It appears you are not referring to the content in this article, but to my general behavior? That isn't helpful here, where an article is under construction and comments on content are more valuable than applause for Snowded. Brews ohare (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded that the material you want to include involves original research and synthesis of sources. But shouldn't that have been obvious from my remarks? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not. You have not indicated just what part of the reverted material you think is OR. Can you point that out? You also claim WP:Syn, which is a policy against combining multiple sources to say something that none of the sources say. I am personally unaware of any transgression here, but of course it always is a possibility. Please point that out too.

Please bear in mind that this is an article under construction, so some changes are probably warranted. However, such changes are better served by specific remarks than by wholesale rejection. Brews ohare (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge: I see that you have again reverted the article to a skeleton. As I have noted above, specific suggestions for improvement are more helpful than your one-line edit comment "You have no agreement for your position on talk, and you know that"

I disagree with Snowded that this material is a casual mention of the topics of mereology and philosophical realism. That belief is based upon sources I have cited and quotations from various sources. To call entire papers by multiple authors in various books and journals a 'casual mention' is nuts, and patently false.

On the other hand, FreeKnowledge, you first supported your reversions on the basis that you agree with Snowded. If this notion of casual mention is also your argument, your reason is equally unsatisfactory.

You then suggested new grounds: WP:OR and WP:SYN. Theses issues also are unsupported assertions.

I hope you can understand my frustration in trying to craft this article. The objections raised are unsupported and provide no specific guidance as to how the article may be improved. Instead, what we see here is basically a smear campaign. Brews ohare (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments in edit summaries are meant to be brief. That's why there is a limit to how long they can be. Edit summaries were never intended as a substitute for talk page discussion, which is what you need to do now, even if it takes time and even if it is frustrating. Please discuss calmly, and don't accuse others of engaging in a "smear campaign", which can itself be seen as a personal attack. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledge: (i) We all know what one-line edit summaries are for. (ii) You have not provided useful Talk-page discussion so far. "Me too!" support is not helpful commentary. (iii) You seem to say that I've not supplied sufficient Talk-page discussion. However, Snowded and you as his echo have not replied to my remarks. I feel that I am talking to a blank wall. What is needed are specific comments on particular pieces of text that can be used to improve them. Blanket removal of large amounts of material provides no indication of what is necessary. Brews ohare (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you include large amounts of material whose relevance is not established by secondary sources but only your personal selection they will get reverted Brews. Engaging in discussion with you about the nature of that material is only relevant if you first establish relevance. If there is any blank wall here its is your refusal over many articles to accept the nature of this objection. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Just pick a particular item that you wish to discuss. Brews ohare (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Find a third party reference that shows relevance and I will happily do so ----Snowded ^TALK 00:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

About what? Brews ohare (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: You don't seem to have a reply. Let us take a particular point you raised earlier: "If there is a third party source which makes it clear that mereology is central to the subject of this article then its OK to include something."

So your goal is to establish there is some relevance of 'mereology' to 'quantifier variance'. For some reason you require a third-party source to establish pertinence. I assume that this means a party with no axe to grind. Now Wasserman is cited. He has a long discussion under deflationism about quantifiers describing views of Lewis, Putnam and Hirsch among others as to what a quantifier can refer to: "Lewis and Unger assign (or, at least, intend to assign) different meanings to the existential quantifier" "Unger could interpret Lewis by replacing singular quantifiers over composites with plural quantifiers over simples" Is this a third party? Koslicki discusses the matter without naming participants: "But settling on the meaning of the existential quantifier by itself does not settle what is its range...[Philosophers can still dispute] over what exists and how many things exist" This discussion is in the chapter on 'Ordinary objects as mereological sums'. In my opinion these are both third-party sources and they both connect mereology with the 'range' and interpretation of the quantifier. Quantifier variance is the name Hirsch gives to this question: exactly what expressions can be construed as quantifier expressions, and just which arguments in a quantifier expression are acceptable? " I believe we have here the connection you wish, between mereology and the range and interpretation of the quantifier. Of course, 'quantifier variance' is Hirsch's coinage, and is not universally employed to designate the topic. Same as with 'meta-onotology': used to describe its subject, but not by everybody. Are you satisfied? Brews ohare (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been on flights for over 24 hours and with a 9 hour time difference so I'm going to have to look at this tomorrow when I am more awake. However on the face of it, you still seem to be creating a coat rack for material that is already in another article. But I will look at it in more detail ----Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Sounds hectic. To establish the connection between quantifier variance and mereology, the easiest approach is to use Hirsch's own words. He occupies himself a lot with how quantifier variance relates to mereology. In Chapter 5 of Quantifier Variance and Realism is his paper by the same name. At the end of its second paragraph, this paper says "we have a choice between operating with a concept of the "existence of something" that satisfies the mereologist or operating with a different concept that satisfies the anti-mereologist." This phrase is quoted by Sider. Whatever the conclusions of this paper, it seems clear that Hirsch thinks there is something to be said about the connection between mereology and quantifier variance.

What I am after is to present this matter. If you can take some time to really look at what and who is involved, that would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the article that do not bring up mereology or realism; the article would be clearer if ti went into these matters at greater length, but my interest in improving this article is now over. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Quantifier variance, mereology, and philosophical realism

Should these discussions on Mereology and Realism and Antirealism be included in the article on Quantifier Variance, or should they be constrained to the "See also" section? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The form of the article I have proposed is found here. It has been reverted several times on the basis of vague flag-waving of WP:SYN and WP:OR not tied to specifics in the text, and claims of peripheral relevance which appear gratuitous. Some useful suggestions are in order. There are three major areas of disagreement, and comments upon any or all of these sections could be helpful:

1. Introduction
2. Mereology
3. Realism and antirealism

The introduction is immune to problems like WP:SYN and WP:OR. The other two sections are extensively sourced and appear germane to the topic judging by the articles and books that discuss them in this context. I am unaware of any possible conflicts with WP:SYN and WP:OR, and if any can be identified clearly, I would be happy to fix them. Brews ohare (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to hear what specific things are considered WP:SYN or WP:OR? ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this. It the fourth RfC that Brews has raised on philosophy articles in the last few months. All on similar issues. I'm engaged in a workshop and event the rest of today (Australian time) but will come back overnight. Needless to say, as elsewhere Brews has misstated the objection. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hang on... is this an RfC? Because it certainly doesn't read that way. From WP:RFC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template." Brews, your statement of the issue is not neutral, and it isn't even in the form of something that can be reasonably commented on. Not only that, it's blatantly false. The other editors are not reverting to a skeleton article, they're simply removing two sections that they deem irrelevant or inappropriate, citing WP:OR and WP:Syn. I suggest, if you want anyone to take this seriously, that you properly describe the dispute in a neutral manner: 'Should these discussions on Mereology and Realism and Antirealism be included in the article on Quantifier Variance, or should they be constrained to the "See also" section?'

Now I'll comment on the real question at hand, instead of on the edit warring clearly going on. Firstly, I'm not an expert on these issues, so it's going to be very hard for me to make a determination as to whether there is any Syn or OR going on, and even harder to determine whether the sections are appropriate, though I'll try my best. Frankly, that may speak to the quality of the article, because it's all but indecipherable to someone unfamiliar with the specific topic (despite having a good bit of training in formalized logic), but that's not what we're here to discuss.

Starting with the Mereology section: "An important question is the role of composite objects in quantifier variance." This already smacks of Syn and OR. How am I to know that this is an important question? Do you have any good secondary sources that say so? If so, cite them, otherwise, you're just editorializing. Assuming that Mereology does play an important role in Quantifier Variance, the rest of the section does seem nearly acceptable, though there still is a good bit of editorializing going on there, and you really need to stick to just what the sources say, and nothing else. Don't try to draw your own conclusions, no matter how obvious they seem to you. This is the very definition of Syn. All that said, it does look like this section is relevant to the topic at hand, and in the main Mereology article, I don't see anything relating specifically to its relation to Quantifier Variance. This section is about the relationship between the two subjects, and so is appropriate here only if the editorializing, which does seem to run afoul of OR and Syn, is removed.

The section on Realism and Antirealism seems a little more questionable to me (though, perhaps, this is because I'm beginning to understand the subject more thoroughly). This whole section can be summed up in a single sentence, two if you want to include the quote. The conclusion of the section is plainly editorializing, and has no place in the article. This section, if it's worth keeping, needs to have all editorialization (OR and Syn) removed to be acceptable, and it really should be rewritten to meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. Arathald (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I boldly changed the RfC prompt in hopes that the more neutrally-worded question suggested above will attract more outside comments. Brews, as you started the RfC, you are free to revert (or edit/clarify the question) if you want. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Arathald, I'm happy with your summary of the situation and would support an edit along those lines ----Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson: A good move. I've concluded that there is no point in pursuing this matter. As there is clearly no intent to arrive at a good contribution, but only the intent to keep this article as short and as unimportant as possible, there is little point in continuing the charade of interaction. Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Brews, please read WP:AGF before you continue to participate on Wikipedia. You've definitely crossed the line there. The other users involved are clearly interested in resolving this and increasing the quality of the article. Snowded agreed that my suggestions, which are completely reasonable and retain all of the cited content that you've added, make sense. Rather than accusing other editors of violating the good faith principles of Wikipedia, perhaps you would like to explain why you disagree with the approach I suggested, and offer a counter-proposal that addresses the OR and Syn concerns that I brought up independently. Arathald (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Arathald: Your comment says you don't think the topic of Mereology is worth mention in this article, despite the references to it by Hirsch, Schaffer, and so forth that Snowded dismisses as not 'third party sources'. Of course, these are primary sources, but Hirsch, for example in his book on quantifier variance discusses Putnam's, Hawthorne's, and Sider's various views of mereology and contrasts them with his own. In my mind reference to these and other primary sources establishes the importance of the point and achieves WP:NPOV by presenting various perspectives upon it. Seesawing back and forth over what 'evidence' is needed here is just silliness.

I've no problem with earnest attempts to contribute to this proposed text. If you have difficulties with violations of certain WP policies you mention like WP:OR and WP:SYN, go ahead and suggest concrete fixes to the contribution that would avoid those problems. I am presently unwilling to engage in trying to meet vague applications of policy.

No attempt has been made by yourself or by Snowded to justify your claims of OR and SYN, which are completely unsubstantiatable. Go ahead and make a concrete effort toward actually shaping the proposal instead of advancing supposed policy infractions that are so vague that they are of no help at all in crafting a better contribution. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disputed prod

I have disputed the proposal for deletion on the grounds of "OR, SYN, Personal reflection/essay". Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion and it is clear that the rationale for deletion is actively disputed on this very page. It is also worth pointing out that the reasons given are not in themselves grounds for deletion: they are grounds, if correct, for normal editing processes. The concept of "quantifier variance" in itself seems to be sufficiently notable to justify an article on the subject. Spectral sequence (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)