Talk:Ontological warfare

For the sake of simplicity - Warfare that is Ontological in nature, is ontological warfare. 1. "Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations." Warfare, either against or using, ontology - should therefore be considered as ontological warfare. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology NOTE: I have tried to follow the talk page guidelines as best I could, but please let me know if I am committing any infractions against the etiquette. Thanks -Patrick Adams 1:47 PM PST, December 14th 2013- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.36.243 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might or might not be too tangential to the article to mention that ontological warfare has been systematically used by realists against various idealist and even materialist tendencies including surrealism (which is almost without exception described in dictionaries, encyclopedias and on the web as a literary and artistic movement despite the fact that even a cursory examination of primary sources (such as Breton's Manifestoes) would show this to be utterly false). I would maintain that ontological warfare is one of the prime tools of the Pre-automatic dictatorship, though perhaps a Meta Wikipedia article would be better on this point, or the view that this is not the case can be included for NPOV. Realists and others interested in repressing automatism have made absurd claims in this regard, such as that there are no automatic texts (the ones claimed to be automatic simply being forgeries, that only temporal-lobe epileptics can easily produce automatic writing, etc.) -- Daniel C. Boyer

This article needs drastic trimming, or deletion. The phrase "Ontological warfare" has only eight Google hits of which:

Three are from Wikipedia, referring to or in this article
Four, inclduding one of the Wikipedia articles, report Peter Murray-Rust's comment about "semantic and ontological warfare due to competing standards" in the context of XML.
one is humorous, and refers indirectly to the same comment by Peter Murray-Rust
one other refers to information warfare

Suggestion:

trim extensively
move what's left to propaganda and information warfare.

disagree. there are 157 hits on google groups; 11 on web, 10 of them different from wikipedia. It is a specialized term but is becoming more common. -- Waveguy

This strikes me as an aimless rant. I read the article, and I'm no more enlightened as to what "ontological warfare" is than I was beforehand, other than the fact that I'm sure the author doesn't like it. What the heck IS it?? And what is namespace polution? I might be able to guess, but the article certainly isn't telling me. Isomorphic 08:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)