Talk:Fragmentalism

This article was nominated for deletion on June 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

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:
/
	Metaphysics

Thanks Tim for the editing job but i reckon you just chucked the baby out with the bathwater so to speak...it now reads anti the title and is now inherently far too pro-science. This is not the spirit of fragmentalism at all so if this article is retained rather than deleted it will still need some further revision to bring it back to something good. Why did you dump the Indian lady link? Vandana Sjiva and her quote...she is wicked & an excellent source...anyway thanks oh well, I guess tomorrow is another day, cheers Peter morrell 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the article was unbalanced as the original version spent the majority of the text criticising the idea rather then defining the idea and discussing its development and use. To have one paragraph define a concept and then the four subsequent paragraphs decrying it does not even come near to a neutral point of view. This new version of the article is not "Pro-anything", it merely describes the idea, its uses and relation to other philosophical positions. However, I've asked for some feedback from the Philosophy Wikiproject, as metaphysics really isn't my area of expertise! TimVickers 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this is that it is a pejorative term. And that should come through in the article. Hence the negative quotes... Peter morrell 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten to make this clear. TimVickers 14:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm wow! well done, Tim, that is a great improvement. Thanks again Peter morrell 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fragmentalism. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015164356/http://idrinfo.idrc.ca/archive/ReportsINTRA/pdfs/v23n2e/109174.htm to http://idrinfo.idrc.ca/archive/ReportsINTRA/pdfs/v23n2e/109174.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]