Talk:Management cybernetics

message: No action has been taken on notability re: this article over a long period of time.  "Cybernetics and management" by S. Beer has 766 citations as of today on Google Scholar, although the original article is regrettably buried behind a pay-wall.  I will be bold and remove the notability marker on this page.  Tommy.rousse (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing notability marker

message: "Management cybernetics" has a google-rate of 22.100, with hundreds of real links. It seems to be more then just an idea, but developed into a scientific paradigm, to which multiple scientists contributed. - Mdd 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is established by reference to independent sources about the topic. The references do not seem to be in good shape, and it's hard to tell whether any of the three citations are reliable or independent.  Can you point out the citations to sources that establish notability? At least a couple of the cited sources appear to be too close to Stafford Beer to be considered independent. Dicklyon 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You should really be writing the article from sources, and citing them; notability will be evident when you've done so. I recommend starting with these books. Dicklyon 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't need to do it, but why don't we just leave the tag until someone else gets around to it.  Just need to make some citations to multiple independent reliable sources on the subject.  If you've done so, just point them out here. Dicklyon 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
What I don't understand in your action is that these guidelines speak of reliable sources and not reliable in the article references. I added these reliable sources as further reading and external links. What more can you possibly want? - Mdd 08:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sections 3, 4, and 5, have no references at all. Recognizing that you wrote them, on what did you base the information? That's what we mean by sourcing at WP. By notability I think we mean, can you show that this is anything more than Cybernetics, as taught to people who will go into management?  that it's a discipline, not a textbook title.DGG (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Right; I'm not commenting on the subject so much as on the article.  As long as the evidence of notability is not propertly cited, the presumption of notability is not obvious; the tag calls for people who are into the topic to improve the article, by citing the required evidence of notability, so that the article will not be seen as a potential candidate for deletion due to not having that required evidence of notability.  It's nobody's job in particular, but the tag should stay to remind editors that it still needs to be done. Dicklyon 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled at your interpretation.  There's no "notability of the article".  There's the notability of the subject, as established by references in the article.  Read WP:NOTE again. Dicklyon 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The sources by Stafford Beer and the Cwarel Isaf Institute are very clearly NOT independent, since Stafford Beer coined the subject term and founded that institute.  I haven't examined the others yet, but it would be useful if you'd prune the list to a few that you think are sufficiently independent to serve as evidence of notability, and point those out.  Dicklyon 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, the state of the references in the article is exactly what is needed to decide whether notability has been satisfactorily established.  Look at what the tag says: "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject" (third party means not by you and not by the subject of the article). A less good way, but workable, is for you to present your sources here, so I can review them and add them to the article.  If you've already done it, just be nice and point them out.  Why all the whining? Dicklyon 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of your other articles look like they have sufficient independent references, so no problem.  Others, like Kenneth D. Bailey (sociologist) have only references to books, articles, and websites by or affiliated with the subject, and no ref at all to the independent sources needed to establish notability.  Don't be surprised if someone notices and tags it.  All you have to do to fix it is add some refs to independent sources about him (assuming those can be found).  Same here.  The tag is not a claim that the subject is not notable, just a reminder that it's not yet been established by references in the article. Dicklyon 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Did I say I would tag it?  No.  But if I had come upon for some reason on my own, not directed by your comment above, then yes I would have given it a notability tag.  It's good that google will  make it easy for you to find the cite the required evidence of notability.  Why not go ahead and do so? Dicklyon 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no opinion on the subject.  I just happened to find the article and noticed that it does not contain the required evidence of notability (like so many wikipedia articles that I tag!). Dicklyon 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my way of thinking, the refimprove tag is redundant when there's a notability tag.  Dicklyon 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it was because you wouldn't cooperate and tell me which ones you think are independent enough to serve as evidence of notability. Dicklyon 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The notability of Management cybernetics 

message: I think you have an extraordinary way of looking Wikipedia article development. There is:
* The notability of the subject
* The quality of the article that is representing the subject
Now I understand that you also see:
* The notability of the articles that is representing the subject
* And to encourage people to improve the article you question it's notablity  
It's nice to know that some editors think this way. - Mdd 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled at your interpretation.  There's no "notability of the article".  There's the notability of the subject, as established by references in the article.  Read WP:NOTE again. Dicklyon 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The sources by Stafford Beer and the Cwarel Isaf Institute are very clearly NOT independent, since Stafford Beer coined the subject term and founded that institute.  I haven't examined the others yet, but it would be useful if you'd prune the list to a few that you think are sufficiently independent to serve as evidence of notability, and point those out.  Dicklyon 20:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, the state of the references in the article is exactly what is needed to decide whether notability has been satisfactorily established.  Look at what the tag says: "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject" (third party means not by you and not by the subject of the article). A less good way, but workable, is for you to present your sources here, so I can review them and add them to the article.  If you've already done it, just be nice and point them out.  Why all the whining? Dicklyon 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of your other articles look like they have sufficient independent references, so no problem.  Others, like Kenneth D. Bailey (sociologist) have only references to books, articles, and websites by or affiliated with the subject, and no ref at all to the independent sources needed to establish notability.  Don't be surprised if someone notices and tags it.  All you have to do to fix it is add some refs to independent sources about him (assuming those can be found).  Same here.  The tag is not a claim that the subject is not notable, just a reminder that it's not yet been established by references in the article. Dicklyon 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Did I say I would tag it?  No.  But if I had come upon for some reason on my own, not directed by your comment above, then yes I would have given it a notability tag.  It's good that google will  make it easy for you to find the cite the required evidence of notability.  Why not go ahead and do so? Dicklyon 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no opinion on the subject.  I just happened to find the article and noticed that it does not contain the required evidence of notability (like so many wikipedia articles that I tag!). Dicklyon 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to establish notability 

message: I just don't understand what you are doing. There are two kinds of tags:
* The first:
* The second:
The notability of this article is established by a listing of independent sources in the further reading and external links, so no first tag is needed. This article however doesn't contain inside references, so it needs a second tag. Right or wrong? - Mdd 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my way of thinking, the refimprove tag is redundant when there's a notability tag.  Dicklyon 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it was because you wouldn't cooperate and tell me which ones you think are independent enough to serve as evidence of notability. Dicklyon 15:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two kinds of tags here 

message: :Copied from the User talk:Mdd/Management cybernetics page:
In general, we may notice, every human activity and technological process may potentially be the domain of cybernetics, therefore it is valid  in the case of "management" too. Also in this sense, in my opinion, the notability of "Management cybernetics" is evident.
-- Fedelis 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, in the Wikipedia notability is far from evident if someone senses it. Anybody merely gets some time to prove it. - Mdd 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evident 

message: When Michael C. Jackson (2000) stated that management cybernetics makes little use of the more complex, observer-dependent notion of variety... one has to realize ... that Jackson makes a big difference between management and  organizational cybernetics. According to Jackson the variety concept mainly emerged in organizational cybernetics. That is why I try to refrase the sentence, that:
: ... Stafford Beer (1985) confirms variety as fundamental to matching resources to requirement and the measurement of performance...
I hope I cleared this for everyone, not that familiar with this subject..!?. - Mdd 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variety in Management cybernetics and Organizational cybernetics 

message: There is a kind of agreement made on my talkpage to solve the alleged copyright for now by detecting them with a template. 
I like to discuss how to solve these alleged problems later on but focus on detecting more of these possible infringements. 
If you or members of the WikiProject Copyright don't want to except this agreement that is fine with me, and I will stop reverting, what seems to Bacrito acting here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I noticed I made an error of judgement. And I reverting the change Bacrito made to soon. I had to take an other action or two, before I return it again. I will return here later on and respond. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained this error of judgement and some more in the comment in the previous talkitem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving the possible copyright infringements here 

message: One or two other things. I hope I have addressed to most of your concerns. About the edits made ever since and not detecting the people who made those edits: If you go through the his history yourself since 23 September 2007 you will find I have made a sever amount of the edits since then myself... including the one "mayor" edit, see here. 
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The edits made since Sept 2007 

message: As to your concern: "You must not claim to have written or rewritten material that you have not". some more. I think it is fair to say I am the mayor contributor of the current article, with a lot of assistance of other editor, even Dicklyon criticizing the old article on the talkpage. That is the whole idea of Wikipedia that we work on it together. There is one thing I still don't understand about this plagiarism and copyright problems here. My name is not on the article. 
So where is my claim that I have written or rewritten material all material..?? If I save my edits made here... there is a message below it:
:If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Any text that you did not write yourself (apart from brief citations) must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you use it. 
Did I write the text myself apart from a brief citation.... Now at the moment I can say, yes I did compose the whole article, I did write most of the text, but there could be parts which are not to be considered "brief citations". There are two or maybe three possible things here: The text is not brief, the text is not well (enough) cited, or the text should have been partially rewritten, because there was no need to use a citation that long.
It is true I missed adding citation marks, and I might have left rewriting the text. But a citation to long...!? In Holland I have had (long) discussions how long a citation can be. We took a closer look to the letter of the law, which doesn't state any exact amount of words. So I even went on contacting some publishers and asked for their opinion. Their sort of use the rule, they don't have one because that could be considered a cartel-arrangement, that a citation in a book should not cover more that 3/4 of a page in a for example 300 page book. And this is the criterion I have been using ever since, and I guess I still do (with one exception... that you should cite the whole essence of a book, which I believe is hardly possible). So with all this knowledge this article is written...!?
 
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claim to have written or rewritten material 

message: A reader without prior knowledge of the subject, after reading this article, is left none the wiser.   The article lacks a comprehensible explanation of what Management Cybernetics is, and hence fails to meet the purpose of an encyclopaedic article.  The article is very 'academic' in style, contrasting different terms but lacking explanations.  It needs attention to improve it.FreeFlow99 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless article