Talk:Object-oriented ontology

Massive Revision
The previous article on object-oriented ontology (OOO) was rated "stub class" and contained no citations. Noting the need for clean-up, I composed and uploaded a comprehensive revision, which includes material on most of the movement's major players, along its evolution and principal ideas. All content is heavily sourced. That said, I strongly urge someone to revise the "speculative realism" page, which is also in need of clarification and additional citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fracpol (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that "all content is heavily sourced" The first two references are IMO not valid Wikipedia references. The first one is to a book with an invalid ISBN number. When I search both Amazon and Google for the book I can't find it. The second reference is to someone's blog. Now a blog can be a valid reference in some circumstances but to set up an entire article like this, it's not good enough. Pretty much everything flows from the definition at the beginning, if there are no valid sources for that definition I question whether any of this is truly notable and worth being in Wikipedia in the first place. The terms "object-oriented" and "ontology" mean very specific things in computer science, library science, and philosophy and the stuff in this article as far as I can tell has nothing to do with any of them. I'm not convinced there is a strong enough justification for this article at all. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Started editing some claims about Kant and realized that a lot of this is from one blog which is not very rigorous...uses the term "Copernican Revolution" incorrectly and is confusing...2606:A000:1126:811F:6502:EC9F:54B0:2F44 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)SD

Too technical
This is word salad to me. Someone familiar with the subject needs to figure out how to explain it in plain English rather than philosophical jargon. 74.79.22.82 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is in bad shape but any attempt to point out its problems gets immediately reverted. Star767 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think calling the current article "too technical" is giving it too much credit. See my other comment here. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  07:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MALICIOUS DOMAIN:
 * hxxp://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/a85ebcefb2ff56ef2d0d62965a6ad2dbefb44a35b495fb3c5efd48c846774c5a/analysis/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.inthemedievalmiddle.com
 * LINKS TO:
 * hxxp://www.freewebs.com/filer/blogger/rc.js
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/72a1fe0a5cbecf9ecf128ee7d09903b1eae009dbaadc48a7ac219341bf6222ad/analysis/1374133803/
 * SEE ALSO:
 * SUSPICIOUS http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?hash=8175f5bd53965595de2a571617f823ab&t=1374094464&type=js

Malicious Link Removed. See Talk
-- Gary  Dee  08:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Potentially Malicious Site: (Blackhat seo SPAM)
 * hxxp://www.zero-books.net/	"cheap cialis"
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/c9c587653c7f7dcde0e752953ea6e749c1c5ac0bc40b7666456cc3a2749f69df/analysis/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.zero-books.net
 * hxxp://www.johnhuntpublishing.com/login-v2.html		"viagra for sale"
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/4b4d76d141ef57c5bf20b8f9a71a12d1e7bbbd0e354eb6519e56b7979638604b/analysis/1374134964/
 * http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/results/www.johnhuntpublishing.com

I question the Value of this whole article
I just added a tag to verify sources to the article. The first source is a book with a tag for an incorrect ISBN number. The second reference and many other references are to self published blogs. A blog can be a good secondary source but not a primary source and especially not on a topic with so much jargon and terminology as this article. I'm familiar with the terms "object-oriented" and "ontology" and I know how they are used in computer science and philosophy and none of this article makes any sense at all to me. I think it would be reasonable to consider just deleting the whole article, the name sounds very confusing and makes one think it's going to be about computer science which is how I ended up here. But before I nominate it for deletion I thought I would tag it first and see if anyone can provide better references and to see if there is anyone out there besides the author who thinks this topic makes any sense and is even worth having an article. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I continue to question if this article should even exist. I added a tag today for over use of self published sites. If no one responds to the tags or the issues I plan to nominate this article for deletion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to document I'm not going to nominate for deletion after all. I did some research and have realized it's a legitimate topic. I think it's pseudoscience and nonsense but I think that about a lot of stuff that has a Wikipedia article. I still think this article as of now is terribly muddled and incoherent but won't nominate for deletion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that this is what happens when folk with no philosophical background try to do philosophy. I am not familiar with the version of Kant that is spoken about here - Kant never posits that objects do not exist independently of human perception - just that we can't know what they are "really" like. I'd suggest that, if Kant is going to be used, this article engages with the 1st Critique properly, rather than using dubious secondary sources. NomadWarMachine (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Couple notes: -The second citation is a blog, but its the blog of one of the primary 'philosophers' (i use the term loosely) involved, and he posts a lot of his continental word salad there. So excluding it as a source would exclude probably half the material for this topic. -OOO 'engages' with Kant because of the Kantian rejection of empiricism. So a bunch of (mostly continental) philosophers went all 'other stuff doesn't really exist', and a bunch of philosophers went 'we can't actually know anything about other stuff outside our perception of that stuff', and OOO says 'nuh-uh, other stuff exists for realz (and maybe we can know things)'. So really its engaging with those who followed Kant, but it 'blames' Kant for that turn in philosophy. (And that pretty much exhausts my understanding of OOO). -The 'see also' for object-oriented programming should really be removed. It has nothing to do with this page. --2602:306:CFEA:E360:C516:77BE:A100:BBC (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "object"
I think it's somewhat strongly lacking in the definition of "object" as defined in the philosophical structural systems the article references and discusses. Mydogtrouble (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please protect uninformed inclusion of "object-oriented programming" etc.
This change is likely to be reverted. It should be looked out for from time to time.--184.63.159.28 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted a reference to OO programming with a sourced quote from Graham Harman. Conflatuman (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)