Talk:Society for General Systems Research
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Randykitty in topic International Society for the Systems Sciences
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Article section(s) removed
editDue to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
Society for General Systems Research members
edit- Presidents (with year of presidency)
|
|
|
- Other initial SGSR members
|
|
The above listing (slightly different) has been part of this article. I consider putting this listing back. However I am not sure about the current Wikipedia policy about this kind of listings. I will look into that some more first. -- Mdd (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that a list of former presidents certainly is worth including, but I wouldn't include a list and the template that currently is on the page. As for the "other members" section, I find that a bit curious. Many societies will have notable members and we mention them in articles if they did something for the society that was important for the society (such as being president). Just being member is nothing special, so I would not include the second half of this list (indeed, that's why I removed it earlier). --Randykitty (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I Wikipedia a lot of (notable) members of organizations are listed in Category:Members of organizations. The (former) listing here was an alternative for these kind of categorization. There is a reason for these categorization and for the listing, and that is give the Wikipedia reader a simple overview of the people afflicted with the organization. -- Mdd (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Far as I see, these are mostly members of national academies or Fellows of very large societies, not just "ordinary" members. Being a member of a national academy or a Fellow of a large and selective society is one of the criteria of WP:PROF and makes a person notable. Being a member of the SGSR is a different kind of membership, me thinks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I Wikipedia a lot of (notable) members of organizations are listed in Category:Members of organizations. The (former) listing here was an alternative for these kind of categorization. There is a reason for these categorization and for the listing, and that is give the Wikipedia reader a simple overview of the people afflicted with the organization. -- Mdd (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The article says that this was "renamed" to International Society for the Systems Sciences. If that is true, then this is basically the same society as the ISSS and this article should be redirected there. Any sourced info in this article that is not yet in the ISSS article should then be merged there. --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The mean reason to create (and keep) a separated article is, that the SGSR is a main origin of the general systems movement especially in the first decades of it's existence. At the moment both articles are in need of some improvement... and I am trying to improve them myself soon, but this will take some more time. In my opinion there are enough independent sources to justify a separate article. -- Mdd (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting that there are enough sources. I'm just saying that given this was a simple rename, we don't have two societies (which of course would have to be covered in two different articles), but just one society that in the course of its history had two different names. As an example, there are many sources about the person Cassius Clay, but he changed his name and we don't have two articles about this one person, so we redirect to Muhammad Ali. I think that having two different articles for the same entity is confusing and that a much more substantial and coherent article could be made by combining these two. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you got a point. I merged the article into the ISSS article. -- Mdd (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you got a point. I merged the article into the ISSS article. -- Mdd (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting that there are enough sources. I'm just saying that given this was a simple rename, we don't have two societies (which of course would have to be covered in two different articles), but just one society that in the course of its history had two different names. As an example, there are many sources about the person Cassius Clay, but he changed his name and we don't have two articles about this one person, so we redirect to Muhammad Ali. I think that having two different articles for the same entity is confusing and that a much more substantial and coherent article could be made by combining these two. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)