Talk:Systemantics/Archives/2012

Buzzword tag

I added the buzzword tag to this article, which seems to say very little in quite a few words.

The "advanced theory" is especially vague and tautological:

Advanced systems theory

1. Everything is a system.
2. Everything is part of a larger system.
3. The universe is infinitely systematized, both upward (larger systems) and downward (smaller systems).
4. All systems are infinitely complex.

This strikes me as a muddle of confused abstraction. What larger system is the universe a part of? - Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And I removed it, thanks to the clarifying edit that suggested that all of this was meant as a satire on bullshit rather than the genuine article. Thanks! - Smerdis of Tlön 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Although written in an entertaining manner, Dr. Gall's books actually present a realistic picture of how large systems work - or don't - that we can appreciate in daily life. These large system failures present themselves daily in health care systems, financial systems, etc. one user at a time. The book is written without mathematical formulas but the evaluation of large systems that Dr. Gall presents has potential for making life understandable and far less disappointing. This is a realistic picture of how life works.--Hpharte (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)hhart

Swapped Condom and Abstinence in final section

I thought this made more sense, putting Abstinence first as a priori was also first, and I'm 'reasonably' sure that the author was arguing against such systems and for ones developed by evolution (small E). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocker3 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

This article appears primarily to be a polemic against the utility of the book suggesting that because it takes a humorous perspective that it is therefore not valid. As a systems engineer, I have found the perspectives in this book pithy and invaluable. Many of my colleagues feel the same way. Just because it does not have a bunch of pseudo-engineering formulae typical of systems theory books does not mean that it should be ridiculed. The advice is sound and practical. (Ssaydjari (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Sami}

In response to this comment you seem to have rewritten the whole article, see here. Now I agree with you original assessment that the old version lacks objectivity. Your new version of the article created new problems. More to the point:

1. The introduction statement in the elder version It is written in the style of a serious academic work, and is often mistakenly cited as such. The content is similar in style to Parkinson's Law, Murphy's Law and the Peter Principle, which are referenced in the work. gives a questionable impression.
2. In the listing in the elder version of Some laws of Systemantics none of the statements are sourced, which makes the whole section a copyvio.
3. Your rewrite seems like Original Research in which you try to explain some of the original statements.
   1. It introduced several buzzwords in the structure (background, premisse, scope, first principle, feed back...). This headers lack a proper introduction, which makes the structure and message very hard to understand
   2. It gives new conclusions, such as calling the book a "systems engineering treatise". I cannot find any source that confirms it. I did learn that some systems engineers got inspired by the book and cited this book in there work. But that doesn't make this a "systems engineering treatise"
   3. Like any other Wikipedia article, this article should build on independent third party sources, for example on this kind of statements or the things mentioned in this blog.

Now because of the first two points, I will not return this article in its elder state. Because of the other points I will add an OR tag for now, and will try to rewrite this article later on. -- Mdd (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)