User talk:Kenneth M Burke/Archive 1

Systems theory

Hi. Just saw your recent contributions to systems theory. Nice work. ... Kenosis 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi back

Hi back and thx for the note -- and your good wikiwork. I'm curious what brought me to your attn, esp as i've not been editing much lately. I'm guessing it's my note at systems theory -- ? "alyosha" (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I see you have been doing a lot of work on the Shared Governance in Higher Education, but I reverted your page blank, please don't blank the page outright. --Nevhood 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. I will redirect the old page to your new article. But, to rename or move a page, you should follow the process used in Help:Moving a page. Thanks, and good luck with your article! --Nevhood 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see you asked for your old page to be deleted. Do you want it to follow through or would you like to just redirect the page to your article? --Nevhood 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)! --Nevhood 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will all make sense in the end

It will. --Kenneth M Burke 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hopefully it will. --Nevhood 06:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Central American Report.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Central American Report.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Fixaller and Systems Theory

Who I am is explicit at all times: I am a graduate student in planetary science at Caltech. You can link to my webpage: [1], which contains contact information as well.

Re. the accusation of vandalism from User:Fixaller: there are two separate points here: should the logo have been removed under WP:LOGO, and was it effective/appropriate for the article given that it was there? The first is unquestionable. The second is less so, but User:Fixaller's reasons for including it constitute WP:OR and come close to WP:BOLLOCKS. Note: I do not have Admin authority and did not delete the file. It was removed by User:Eagle 101 (see the deletion log: [2]). I merely nominated the article for speedy deletion. Michaelbusch 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Review of the Talk:Systems theory

Thank you for your effort to clean up the Talk:Systems theory page. Instead of deleting part of the discussion, I've put these parts in an archive. I hope this also is suitable solution?
As you can see, I also replaced your arguments into a chronological order. What's left of the talk page is still very long, but all recent. I don't know if we should do anything about that? Greetings - Mdd 16:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction. Are you aware of the recent moves, that the category:systems is going to be deleted, see [3]? And that the category:complex systems is under attack, see: [4]? The first discussion is closed, the second still open. - Mdd 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial changes at the Talk:Systems theory

I just restored the discussion in it's orginal (rather unreadable) form and stored it in the archive. Keep up the good work. - Mdd 03:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay thanks. I didn't really take to analyzing what you had done. I simply noted that my name was being placed after comments not my own. Actually did not mean to make reverts myself. Thanks for your help nevertheless.--Kenneth M Burke 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off cause I apologize for placing your name at a comments that was not your own. However this confirms once more some idea's I have:

It's very difficult afterwards to read a talk page, and determine who is speaking if the comments are not signed.
People who took a part in these discussions don't seem too care to much
They at least don't feel responsible or don't think it's appropriate to make the discussion readable for outsiders.

For me the talk pages are complementary to the articles, and both have an important function in the functioning of the Wikipedia.

I wouldn't make such a point of it... if in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems I'm working on the systems theory article is of top importance. I've got the intention in time to make a mayor improvement to the quality of this article... not just by editing (like your doing) but more by getting this organized. An active editing of the talk page is own of these steps to get started. There a lot more to be done, for example a few hundred other articles to look at, So it's all going to take some time. In a while I want to organize a mayor discussion concerning the content of systems theory article, and then I would certainly like you to join. Once more, good luck and keep up the good work. - Mdd 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been planning to work on the page for some time. We'll get it in good shape. There is a lot of good content on the page, but it is just poorly organized and needs a lot of clarification and cleaning. I also know the archives has some important ideas that can be included on the page. Some extra research need also be done, I'm working on it. Nice to meet you. --Kenneth M Burke 02:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I'm looking forward to exhanging ideas about the organizing, clarification and cleaning of the systems theory article and some more. I'm intending to take all the time it needs to substantially improve the main article(s). Maybe we can start with exchaning some ideas. So maybe a first question: Are there things you want to ask me? Are there things I can do for you? - Mdd 23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:Mdd#Systems theory) In responding to your comment on my user page, I thank you for your welcome. I also appreciate your professional courtesy to ask if I needed anything. I am fine and will do well to work on the systems theory page; in fact, I am happy to work on it. I've recently printed it to review my revisions and have a direction to take the article. I am sure that you will be pleased with the final outcome. Thanks, Ken --Kenneth M Burke 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you already noticed that my English isn't too perfect... but I'm trying to learn. You telling me about your state of mind made me wonder if I should have asked a less direct question. I'm also happy though, that you doing fine. I was already under the impression that you're highly motivated to work on the systems theory article. The reason I asked you is, that a was also under the impression, that you could need some more time to make your own adjustments to the systems theory article?
If this is so I can guarantee you, that there is some time left. With the WikiProject Systems I want to start an initiative to significantly improve the systems theory article... not in the now common way of inviting all kinds of people to start editing the article. In the WikiProject I want to start a redesign process first, like now started around the systems engineering article. I'm not sure though when to start such an initiative for the systems theory article. This article is more special because a group of disciplines come together here and interact. I'll going to try to find some more people with different perspectives.
Beside the top down approach from the WikiProject Systems, you've already seen, I'll join you with some bottum up editing and talking around the systems theory article until the time is right to start top down. I'll see you there. - Mdd 11:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:Mdd#Systems theory) Actually, I didn't notice - here in the Midwest USA we don't speak English very well either. Just joking. Though I'm not an expert, I know a fair amount about it as a generalist. I don't need much time doing the research, just in gathering sources. I just hope my working on it piece by piece is not too cumbersome (first, I needed to clean it up to see what we have to work with). It will be nice in the end. - 18:37, 8 May 2007 Kenneth M Burke

Wikification of the Talk:Systems theory

Yesterday I made a new attempt to reconstruct the archives of the Talk:Systems theory. (Maybe you can take a last short look at it?) I now sort of understand, that you or Tommy Mandel run into some serious trouble with the Wikipedia administration. I still haven't figured out what the result was. Do you know what happend to Tom? In two weeks I'm in the Midwest (Detroit and Atlanta), is that anywhere near you? If so maybe we could meet? - Mdd 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been around, but am still new to the page and have worked on it simply in recognizing that it was in a sorry state before. I have not had any problems with the wikipedia administration. I know that there were questions over the gestalt image. I have gone through the archives to ensure that the all issues that users have addressed will be resolved in the best way possible. It seems that Tommy Mandel was involved in the renaming of the page to systems theory (really, I would have no issues over renaming the page to General Systems Theory). Tommy also had some issues with the gestalt image (which I commented on given all the disruption over the image). He secured copyright information for the use of the image. I will contact him if he would like to add it to the page. The page itself now is not perfect, but progressing.--Kenneth M Burke 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in St Louis it seems we will probably fly over you on our way from Atlanta to Detroit. Good luck with those employers. I understood that Mr. Mandel comes from the ISSS site (where I once tried my luck), and I'm interested in his experience. What I don't know now is if he is still active, or erased or put on hold or whatever they do? It would also be nice to have some articles about organizations like the ISSS in the Wikipedia. I allready started a list of those organizations, see [5]. There is enough do be done, regards - Mdd 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lycos Logo.gif

Hello, Kenneth M Burke. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lycos Logo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Kenneth M Burke. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--Kenneth M Burke 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Systems Theory (GST)

Hi, wouldn't you be interested in writing a new and kind of historical article on GST? I have some idea's about it... I even wrote an article in the Dutch Wikipedia about it. With GST I mean the GST as paradigm in the 1950s and 1960s, which a mayor inspiration world wide in the scientific world. I read a book about the founding of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, I think it was in 1968. They were wondering if they shouldn't start a GST department withing the faculty of philosophy, because the concept was so hot in those days. I did some research in that direction in the first General Systems Yearbooks, and earlier work of Bertalanffy and there is a lot to tell, then place in the systems theory article itselve. Would you be interested? Or what is your impression on this matter? - Mdd 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(PS. Please respond here and not on my talk page.- Mdd 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

I would be happy to work on an article with you. I have done a lot of research into current ideas in psychology, philosophy and the philosophy of science that would be useful in bringing GST into the twenty-first century. The historical framework would be very useful for a grounded theory approach. I also think that developing an article with a good philosophical and historical framework is critical where many colleges and universities have begun "systems" oriented degree programs in education often working

Correction: ~~without contemporary theory development~~. [[6]] (Really, Banathy is the only significant author I've encountered, but it looks like the center has a reading list I should look into).

Guess you'll be flying over my head in about a week or so?--Kenneth M Burke 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your contributions to the systems theory article brought or bring systems theory from the 1950s into the twenty-first century. But I'm not so sure you should call it GST. I think I have a kind of European perspective on the existence and development of GST, influenced by my professors in the 1980s, who started around 1968. For theme in the 1980s GST was a disappointment. They didn't tell me, when it became that. A Dutch phd study from 1973 from Doede Keuning was allready rather critical. For me GST is a paradigm that rose in the 1950s and declined in the 1970s. In the first General Systems Yearbooks you can see who people from different directions tried to contribute to a theoretical framework. Bringing them back to life would be nice... and analysing what went wrong. Now back to your American perspective. It can be that GST hasn't declined, or it did and rose again? And how important is it today? How many members has the ISSS left or did they all die? These are interesting questions... and it's nice to show where it all started. I wonder if there is even a mentioning in the Wikipedia of Boulding systems hierachie? - Mdd 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the literature I've read comments on the renewed interest in systems theory from the 80s into the 90s and suggests systems perspectives deviated from the original GST throughout the late 50s into the 1970s. Really, I don't think that the original GST ever really had much of an influence. The work of Thomas Kuhn in the philosophy of science has proven more influential in the social sciences (and I should read more Kuhn). Again, I don't believe that systems ideas are entirely influential today in the way the original theorists envisioned. With the rise of an interest in systems concepts there is certainly fragmented knowledge of the ideas. I definitely believe the philosophy of science and a history of ideas in psychology would help to clarify the original thought and help to develop a contemporary perspective. What "went wrong" is really a political question, a matter of the application of the theory into practice and misinterpretations of science. You can email me if you would like to continue to exchange ideas on the subject of writing an article. burke018@msn.com --Kenneth M Burke 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You point out some interesting things with I would like to comment on. But first I want to make clear that in the beginning I was thinking about creating an article in Wikipedia. But now I think of it more, there are maybe three things I'm interested in. First of all is the creation of an objective and encyclopedic article about GST in Wikipedia. Second I like to discust my knowledge, experiences and idea's, with you and other people interested. And third if this brings a new perspective on GST Wikipedia is not to place to publish these things... Then we should look further. A possible way to go is that I start a GST article and we use the talk page to exchange our idea's and looks who comes alone. - Mdd 21:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. In addition to the systems theory page, a history of GST for Wikipedia would be nice. Many of the theorists initiated important work in peace studies and conflict resolution that has not been introduced on the page. Their work in peace studies is what specifically differentiates the early theorists from later theorists. Debora Hammond's book offers itself as a good resource. Her history is certainly respectable, but I believe there are still many gaps to fill. I don't know that it is really enough to justify a new page. Maybe some unmentioned history can be added to the existing page. --Kenneth M Burke 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think elaborating upon the concepts in an encyclopedic manner justifies additional pages. Unfortunately, I cannot write latex for the equations. --Kenneth M Burke 00:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I like to discust this whole situation a bit more before I'll start an article about GST. I'll get back to you when I'm back. Best regards - Mdd 13:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must forgive me, I looked at your user page when very much focused on the systems theory page. I was under the impression that you are currently a student of systems engineering. Looking at your page again, I see that you earned your degree in the early nineties. Very interesting, travel safe. --Kenneth M Burke 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Interdependence

Its no problem at all, I found your additions to be very valuable, thank you for your contributions. When I get some time I will go through and clean up some of the formatting to bring it in line with wikipedia's manual of style and maybe add some things of my own, but I am pleased to see more wikipedia editors adding to our IR theory articles, many of them are lacking. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropic principle lead

You recently made some changes to this. I'm sure improvements were possible, but I'd just like to point out:

WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs for the lead of an article as long as this one, so shortening was not necessary. The new lead arguably fails to summarise the key points in the article.
The material you moved into the new section "Anthropic reasoning" is a summary of material contained in the main body of the article, particularly in the section "Character of anthropic reasoning". Therefore it makes sense as part of the lead, but not as part of the main article. This is also why there are no in-line cites. The terms anthropic reasoning and anthropic bias were bold because articles on those terms re-direct to Anthropic principle, hence they should be defined (in bold) in the lead.
The "rule of reasoning" mentioned in the second sentence is precisely we should take account of the constraints that our existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that we could observe, i.e. the definition given in the first sentence (see discussion of Carter's original definition in the main body of the article). Your new explanation viz: "the universe as we see it exists essentially because life exists to observe it and vice versa." is not a rule of reasoning but a claim of a particular causal relationship, incorporating the controversial claim "the universe exists because life exists" (see discussion of the Barrow & Tipler SAP in the body of the article). This is very far from the "original" meaning of the anthropic principle.

Could you think about these points and either return the lead to something like its earlier state, or defend your changes on the talk page? PaddyLeahy 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. Like I said...improvement is surely possible, if you can see a way to do it please go ahead. PaddyLeahy 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken, there is an interesting article at Citizendium [7]about systems theory, you might want to take a look at it. tom

Looks like it was closely borrowed from the Wikipedia page, though still better written than the Wiki page before it began its controversial transformation. Thanks for sharing. --Kenneth M Burke 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systems theory

Hi, I'm back and wondering how the article on Deborah Hammond is going. One of the most interesting things I learned last week was in a bookshop looking for a book of Deborah Hammond. I found a text like about her like here [8]. I was surpriced to read that she was ISSS President in 2005-2006. She seems hardly the women, who just got her Phd as Tom Mandel wanted us to believe. Do you know if her book was her Phd study? from what I read seems her book worth reading? - Mdd 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been gathering information on a number of different theorists, including Hammond. Her book does develop from her PHd. She is also Deputy Editor of Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences [9]. I did create a page for Walter F. Buckley and will get around to returning to the systems theory page eventually. I am waiting to see what kind of contributions are made to the page. --Kenneth M Burke 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me a new name: Walter F. Buckley. I've made some wikification to his article. I'm sorry I skipped the remark: Walter F. Buckley is of a seemingly almost silent minority in systems theory. This didn't seemed appropriate and have much added value. If you know more about Buckleys work, you could add this to the article. For example, that his Society - A Complex Adaptive System: Essays in Social Theory is an attempt to reestablish a firm scientific foundation for contemporary sociology, see [10]. While working at this article I was surpriced to see that there is no article about Social systems theory in the Wikipedia. This does seems strange - Mdd 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (PS. pleace respond here and not on my talkpage, thank you)[reply]

Banathy is most familliar to me in terms of social systems theory. I am also familliar with social systems theory with the study of techniques of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland. Belfast has undertaken very interesting economic, social and educational approaches to the conflict through the University of Belfast and business partnerships within the community. Though they make no direct correlation with social systems, the approach can clearly be interpreted as a social systems approach. I first came accross Banathy when researching the conflict and the methods of conflict resolution; but, that's original research. I will continue to look into theorists. I have kinda focused on other priorities, but will be around.--Kenneth M Burke 16:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean Béla H. Bánáthy. The article about him can use some more background to. - Mdd 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC) I like to repeat my request for some summaries of the works of Walter F. Buckley. This is one of the things I like to improve in the systems articles. Their are a lot of systems scientists mentioned, but still little is writing in the Wikipedia about their actual individual ideals. I'm sorry I can't do it myselve, because the WikiProject Systems gives me 101 things to do. I hope you are succesfull with your other priorities as well. - Mdd 22:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that's the same Banathy. There really is a deficiency of information on these theorists for Wikipedia. --Kenneth M Burke 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]