Talk:Modal operator

The analysis of modals

I actually really like the interpretations of modality included in the subsections, but as far as I know, they're pretty non-standard. The deontic section is really intriguing, but the alethic section seems like a stretch. If anyone (the author?) can find citations for them, that would be cool. If not, I think they need clarification (and/or deletion, I'm afraid).--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The literary examples are worse than useless; they are simply examples of someone lacking/acquiring knowledge, being good/bad, etc. This has nothing specific to do with, does not explain, and is hence deeply misleading regarding, the specific modes of using modal operators within symbolic logic to formalize various claims. This article looks like it just is based on somebody's pet theory, or pet misunderstanding, of the topic, which instead needs some serious treatment by an expert in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.159.215 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This article really needs rewriting, or alternatively should be be deleted. Instead of an explanation of the modal operators (do we need such an entry? is this not already taken care of in the section "modal logic"?) we get an idiosyncratic application of the various types of modal operators to fictional texts, based, as far as I can make out, on one author's non-expert(?) application of modal logic to fictional texts. The article is thus misleading to anyone who simply wishes to gain basic information as to what modal operators are. --Flosfa (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)