Talk:Systems theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A Question - April 2007

In the Sociology section there is a reference to Raven (1995) and it is not listed in the Reference section. I am wondering if the document cited is : Raven, J. (1995). The New Wealth of Nations: A New Enquiry into the Nature and Origins of the Wealth of Nations and the Societal Learning Arrangements Needed for a Sustainable Society. Unionville, New York: Royal Fireworks Press; Sudbury, Suffolk: Bloomfield Books. (Chapters 1 [which summarises the whole book], 4 [“Some Observations on Money”], and 17 [Summary of Parts I to III and overview of Part IV: The Way Forward] are available at www.npsnet.com/cdd/nwn.htm ). Monica Figueroa (mofigueroaca@gmail.com)

I don't know, I will look into the reference. I anticipate noting other sociologists that I am more familliar with and I believe were more influential/foundational for the area of sociology/systems theory. Sorry for the slow response.--Kenneth M Burke 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found several literatures from Raven, John, who is an educator. My guess is that the reference is for the book that you have noted, but it seems that he had written some articles during the same year. I will keep investigating. If you find any additional information, do let me know.--Kenneth M Burke 01:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Content deleted from page that requires further research - May 2007

General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics - 4 may 2007

Many early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields of science. The term goes back to Bertalanffy's book titled General System Theory. von Bertalanffy's objective was to bring together under one heading the organismic science that he had observed in his work as a biologist. His desire was to use the word "system" to describe those principles which are common to systems in general. In GST, he writes: "...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general." (GST p.32)

"Thus when von Bertalanffy spoke of Allgemeine Systemtheorie it was consistent with his view that he was proposing a new perspective, a new way of doing science. It was not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on "general system theory," to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories."

--Kenneth M Burke 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that every sentence of the first paragraph is either incorrect or misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.5 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I seemed to agree with you on the current situation. But then I looked back in the articles history. I found that this deleted content (see the next text) made more sence five months ago. - Mdd 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General Systems Theory as an objective of systemics - 1 january 2007

Many early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields of science. The term goes back to Bertalanffy's book titled General System Theory. von Bertalanffy's objective was to bring together under one heading the organismic science that he had observed in his work as a biologist. His desire was to use the word "system" to describe those principles which are common to systems in general. In GST, he writes: "...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general." (GST p.32)

However, the translation of the German into the English general system theory has "wroth a certain amount of Havoc" writes Errvin Laszlo in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory..

"The original concept of general system theory was Allgemeine Systemtheorie (or Lehre). Now "Theorie" (or Lehre) just as Wissenschaft (translated Scholarship), has a much broader meaning in German than the closest English words "theory" and "science." A Wissenschaft is any organized body of knowledge, including the Geisteswissenschaften (Scholarship of Arts), which would not be considered true sciences in English usage. And Theorie applies to any systematically presented set of concepts, whether they are empirical, axiomatic, or philosophical. (Lehre comes into the same category, but cannot be properly translated. "Teaching," the closest equivalent, sounds dogmatic and off the mark. However, doctrine can be a translation for it as well.)

"Thus when von Bertalanffy spoke of Allgemeine Systemtheorie it was consistent with his view that he was proposing a new perspective, a new way of doing science. It was not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on "general system theory," to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories."

Notes:

However as a first presentation of General Systems Theory, this text was also not very clear - Mdd 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify my clarification. I have already begun to collect sources that will be useful from top to bottom, from sociology to living systems. It seems that the biggest problem with the passage about GST as a general theory of systematics is that it seems to infer that the theory attempted a reductionism. That is evidently not true and should be clarified. --Kenneth M Burke 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided combining general systems as an objective of systemics with a coherent section including types of systems and systems inquiry would be most appropriate. I will need to collect some sources to accomplish it and want to add some better sources to the introduction and overview. May take a little time. If anyone has insights, do feel free to dialogue. --Kenneth M Burke 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind, I think I'll keep those sections separate (but still not quite sure how to explain systemics. I also still have to check sources by Lazlo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding photo of Margaret Mead

From what I understand Mead is not regarded as one of the founders of Systems Theory. Her one claim to fame is that she was temporarily married to Gregory Bateson, who did contribute. Shouldn't we find a better photograph? John D. Croft 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Mead was important in the systems theory movement, and stayed that in a way. She was present at of the earlierer Macy conferences around 1950 and was later president of the systems society ISSS in 1972. Like lots of things it's a bit difficult to determine in what way she as important - Mdd 00:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

She was also president of the SGSR for a time. I used the photo mainly because it seemed more appropriate than Bertalanffy toking on a cigarette right on the front page.--Kenneth M Burke 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In about 1987 the SGSR or Society for General Systems Research became the ISSS or International Society for Systems Science... So formally the ISSS in 1972 was still called the SGSR. We were talking about the same thing.

But back to John D. Croft's question. Margaret Mead can be seen as one of the promotors of General Systems Theory... but a founder of systems theory? I don't recall an important article or book from Mead here selve about Systems theory. Maybe John can tell us with part (or sentences) of the article he found confusing. - Mdd 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Mead, if I am not mistaken, was indeed key to the founding and expansion of GST. In fact, she was co-founder and President of the Society for General Systems Research (now ISSS) right after Von Bertalanffy. -- Albert F. Case, Jr. 72.187.109.150 - 19:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Still confused - Jun 2005 nearing its second anniversary

Since the following comment is archived, I thought it apropos to resurrect it for its second anniversary.

After reading this article I now know what System Theory focusses on and what is it applied to. However, I'm still at a loss when it comes to understanding what System Theory is."

This is a common problem when authors lose sight of their target audience, namely the intelligent layman in search of enlightenment.

Friends, please help me out with some concrete examples of specific problems where system theory has been used effectively. Even better, show me how system theory is applied to a sample problem, or, if that is too complicated, what about illuminating the matter with some helpful anologies.

Thanks a lot! -- Philopedia 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of this comment is still valid. The only change I would make is that, after two years of "improvement", reading this article no longer identifies the focus of Systems Theory...

Please trim this down and focus it on whatever it is that constitutes Systems Theory. 214.4.238.61 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I did not recognize you as a separate user. Welcome under strange circumstances.--Kenneth M Burke 02:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Could 214.4.238.61 be more specific in what he or she means by Please trim this down and focus. If he or she has specific idea's about improving the article then we can talk about it. Thank you. - Mdd 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point

The page as presented say a month ago, was written by significant educators within the system movement. Since that time nearly all the subtle properties of systems have been removed and or misinterpreted. This article does not reflect the systems movement as it actually exists. (It is not up to wiki editors to decide not to use the founders picture just because he is smoking a cigarette. ) You are free to write as you will but don't complain when your work is ignored. 66.190.40.64 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(IP Location 66.190.40.64 : United States - Wisconsin - Madison - Charter Communications).

Maybe You can be more specific about these misinterpreteds. Then we can do something about it. - Mdd 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting with sentence one:

Systems theory in its broadest sense is the interdisciplinary study of human life and social organization in terms of systems.

First of all systems theory is transdisciplinary, in the broadest sense it transcends all study. Secondly, while human life is important to systemists, systems theory is about the Universe, including but not restricted to human life. Thirdly, while social organization is an important aspect of systems theory, organization is not all of systems theory.

And sentence two:

Where talk about "systems" has become commonplace, the term in relation to the science known as systems theory is ironically somewhat misleading since the area involves heterodox approaches to what one may think of with the catchphrase "system."

I have no idea of what this sentence says/means, and wonder what the significance is justifying writing it as sentence two. Do you hace a source for the observation?

66.190.41.50 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The systems theory page was in sorry condition. Much work has gone into improving it. Thank you for your feedback, your comments will be considered.--Kenneth M Burke 14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To address the issues you brought up

1. that systems theory is transdisciplinary and involves the study of many different types of systems is discussed later in the article, specifically in "types of systems."
2. Many authors note the contemporary reference to systems and that it has become a commonplace catchphrase. Some basic texts include Debora Hammond (cited in the references for the page). The book by Gerald Weinberg (cited in further reading) is another example. I mistakedly disregarded this book when I first began working on the page thinking it was another, but it is a good introductory text. General Sytems Theory: Ideas and Applications by Lars Skyttner (2001) is also a good introductory text.

If you are looking for a specific quote, I am sure that I could find a citation that notes the commonplase usage of the term "system," without a particular theoretical basis.

If you think that the introduction is misleading, a revision can be discussed. Do you have any suggestions? Again, thank you for your feedback. Are you new to Wikipedia? --Kenneth M Burke 14:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some hyperlinks in the text to get a better understanding of what we are talking about. I first have to look up some of the words before I can respons further. As not-native English speaker I don't know the meaning of comonplace, catchphrase and heterodox... - Mdd 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

After some looking up, it doesn't become any clearer. So I have to agree with the critic, that meaning of the second sentence is unclear. - Mdd 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Debora Hammond (2003: 11-12) specifically notes that systems theory:

"... became associated with the highly rationalized technological and institutional systems of the late twentieth century,"

from which the concept of a system ultimately led to criticism that downplayed the:

"... considerable diversity in the perspectives and ideological orientations of different approaches to understanding systems."

The major focus of her book is to understand the systems theory movement from its origins and define what is unique about the systems movement (i.e. how it is heterodox) in contrast to thinking of systems theory as some mechanistic, technocratic, bureaucratic and monolithic area of study that one might traditionally think of (i.e., what may be viewed as an orthodoxy) in using the term "system." She notes:

1. ...Robert Lilienfeld's The rise of Systems Theory: An Ideological Analysis (1978) as well as
2. ... the countercultures of the 1960s and their disillusionment with "the system" - here, one might think of the commonplace idea of being frustrated with the system - as examples of perspectives critical of systems thought due to contemporary perceptions of the word system.

In fact, I believe Fritjof Capra specifically notes that the word is misunderstood due to catchphrases. I'm sorry I do not have his book with me to cite it.

While there is clearly a diversity of thought in systems theory, such perceptions might be misleading when seeking to understand sytems theory from Ludwig von Bertalanffy's introduction of a general theory of systems. While the author is less interested in softening the use of the word system, Gerard Weinberg (1975) appeared to have written his text for many of the same reasons, given the percieved failures of the general systems movement and his belief that at the time there was a lack of quality introductory texts. It seemed to me that addressing perceptions of the word system was justified, particularly given recent interest in systems theory and simply due to the fact that our world today is undergoing dramatic changes in technology. Systems theory is a science, but nobody should be scared away in misunderstanding the idea of a systems theory.

In fact, in defining systems theory, Bertalanffy introduces his book with a comparable discussion of prevalent thinkers that used systems concepts. I suggested that renaming the page General Systems Theory might be considered; particularly since if that is not what the page is about, then systems theory can refer to just about any theory or concept that makes uses of the word system. I can continue in explanation if you like. Nonetheless, certainly anyone is welcome to make changes. In the end, I hope there is at least consensus that the page has undergone significant improvement. --Kenneth M Burke 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that anyone can use the words system theory as he pleases, but the word has a particular meaning to those who teach and practice it. So if you want to write an article that reflects what is happening, you must refer to the actual sources. As it is now written, it appears to be your opinion, which is not even close to what we think of it. For example you have buried the critical difference between systems theory and classical science deep inside the article. Can you tell me what that difference is? The previous article was reviewed and corrected by several key people within the systems movement. But all their work was for naught. 66.190.41.50 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To conclude, I am very knowledgeable of the difference between classical science and how the advances in science influenced systems theory. The general implications are noted in the article and it was a topic that I was going to address in the section that I was yet unsure how to approach, the general systematics section (which previously appeared to simply cut and paste the section of a website onto the Wikipedia page). I am not going to summarize centuries of debate in response to justify my work. Works are cited, I would be happy to add specific quotes and page numbers if you like. You seem forthright that the page was better before my work. You are evidently welcome to make changes. Again, thank you for your feedback. With your critique and my defense below, I leave the page for others to work on now. --Kenneth M Burke 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to agree with the critic here from a different perspective. This article has been severly been rewritten by Kenneth M Burke. In my opinion this article is hereby transformed from a rather loose organized encylopedic article into a sort of contemporary essay... building on rather contemparary authors and contemparary opinions. I see those kinds of articles in more philosophical encyclopedias. It is however not the style or way I prefer it. If I had some more time I would explain myselve more, but unfortunatly I'm not around for the next two weeks. - Mdd 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay . . . However users might "prefer" an article, the article before was fragmented, poorly written and nearly embarassing. I have integrated everything that was previously in the article into a more coherent perspective on systems theory. I used a good majority of the sources that the article already used and have added additional sources. Everything is cited, though I note that I still have to check the Lazlo source.

I do thank you for your opinion on what you percieve to be my opinion, at least shared opinion among generalists. Ah yes, I also apologize that I did not address your English language questions and approached more the first commentator's questioins directly. However, curious myself and always interested in languages, I did find an English-Dutch dictionary online. [1] I hope that you will find it useful for your work on Wikipedia.

At least the article is significantly cleaned up and has been given some direction. In the discussion for the page, I openly noted the general direction that I anticipated taking the page and offered plenty of time to discuss the subject. Nobody replied but appeared to be more focused on arguing over logos and trivia. I did not mean to intrude on anyone's previous work, but their work has not been lost and is still represented on the page. I will eventually get around to checking the Lazlo source when I find the right edition, but will leave the page alone for others to change if they choose to do so. --Kenneth M Burke 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the online dictionary. It gives an explanation of comonplace:

• ...obvious and dull; "trivial conversation"; "commonplace prose". More... in Nederlands:onbenullig, plat, triviaal, vulgair, afgezaagd, alledaags, banaal, gewoontjes, nietszeggend...

... and now I'm rather in shock. Of all the things in the past 50 years said about systems theory by thousends of people... Is this the thing to be said about systems theory in the second sentence. I should think that this is a thing scientists say nowadays, who find themselve so unique and orginal that they can only look down on their predecessor....

... Or there is something else going on: In real life nowadays there is little common understanding about what system theory is about... That people use this word in all different directions. If that's the case... this article should just accept that as a status quo and do something about it. This article for expamle should list the different meanings that systems theory has in practice. If you take one look at the Dutch Wikipedia situation nl:systeemtheorie you can see that this is where I started explaining: with a system theory (disambiguation) article - Mdd 15:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectable enough idea, best of luck to you then. Rather, beste van geluk - if the phrase translates well enough. --Kenneth M Burke 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference

I asked you to point out the sentence which describes the difference between classical science and systems theory, It used to be in the opening paragraph. In its place we find this

"Where talk about "systems" has become commonplace, the term in relation to the science known as systems theory is ironically somewhat misleading since the area involves heterodox approaches to what one may think of with the catchphrase "system."

I have no idea what this means. Do we need an encyclopedia to read wikipedia? If the article were true to its subject we would be able to read about what you are saying.

I have no interest in working in wikipedia for the reasons stated above. AS I said before I had a group of educators who collectively corrected the article. All that is gone. In its place is something that we do not understand. This seems to be a trait of Wikipedia, but I didn't realize it was also a trait of honest workers too. If you are interested is the actual story read http://projects.isss.org/Main/Primer 66.190.41.50 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and certainly you are welcome to express your views. However, you may want to rethink your approach, especially in an online environment. --Kenneth M Burke 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to hear what I have to say or do you want me to say what you want to hear? I tried it your way, and you deleted almost everything I did. This is alright if you had made a better article, but the article that has resulted is misleading, misinformed, and apt to be mistaken by readers. It bears no resemblance to the systems theory we practice in the field. Again, the article was previously written in part by leading authorities in the field, the glossary, which you deleted, was submitted by the son of Ervin Laszlo. The first paragraph, which was deleted, was written by the president of the International Systems Institute, The photo, which was deleted, was submitted by the Coordinator of the Primer project at ISSS. I had a committment from the president of the World Organization of Systems and Cybernetics. You mention Deborah Hammond as a influential figure but she just got her Phd. I'm sorry, I know you are trying to do a good job and you are honest, but the article is not about systems theory anymore. 66.190.41.50 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can clearify a view points here

1. The contributions made to this article in the past are not gone, but stored in the history of this article.
2. That glossary is not deleted but moved to a new article Terms used in systems theory. I think the systems theory article should have a part with a summary of that article and its intentions.
3. What your telling me about the different authors is new to me... and I feel rather honoured that these proffesionals made their contributions.
4. The photo your talking about is I presume the Image:Gestaltsystem.jpg which was deleted but is back at WikiCommons
5. The article in it's present form isn't the final version. Anyone is allowed to develope it further, or to put things back from the history.
6. I agree with the critic that the current introduction isn't perfect... and I think it was better one year ago.
7. All the articles in the Wikipedia about the theory and practice of systems are far from perfect. This is why a Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems has started to work in this field together. Lot's has to be done, but we also need to learn to work together to improve the situation.

I do think that the critic 66.190.41.50 made some strong points with we should try to transform into action -- Mdd 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you mentioned Fritjof Capra. Here is an excerpt from his turning point book.

The dramatic change in concepts and ideas that happened in physics during the first three decades of this century has been widely discussed by physicists and philosophers for more than fifty years...The intellectual crisis of quantum physicists in the 1920's is mirrored today by a similar but much broader cultural crisis. The major problems of our time...are all different facets of one single crisis, which is essentially a crisis of perception...Like the crisis in quantum physics, it derives from the fact that most of us. and especially our large social institutions, subscribe to the concepts of an outdated world view...At the same time researchers...are developing a new vision of reality...emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic,holistic, and ecological. It might also be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisible dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process". What we are seeing today is a shift of paradigms not only within science but also in the larger social arena...The social paradigm now receding had dominated our culture for several hundred years, during which it shaped our modern Western society and has significantly influenced the rest of the world...This paradigm consists of...the view of the world as a mechanical system, the view of the body as a machine...the view of life as a competitive struggle...the belief of unlimited of unlimited progress achieved through economic and technological growth and the belief that the female is subsumed under the male...During recent decades all these assumptions have been severely limited and in need of radical revision. Indeed, such a revision is mow taking place...In science, the language of systems theory. and especially the theory of living systems, seems to provide the most appropriate formulation of the new ecological paradigm... - F. Capra

The above is pretty close to how we think and act. Unfortunately, the term "system" which was chosen by Bertalanffy to express his idea of organicism, has become multi-ordinal, it can have many different meanings. Systems theory, however, uses the word in a very different way than is usually ascribed to say, admintstrative system or transportation system. This usage of systematics is not how we use the word system theory. Bertalanffy defined the word a "elements in standing relationship interacting as a whole." Thus the difference between systems theory and other theories is this emphasis on the interaction, the relationship among the elements. Classical science, the science taught in our schools is focused on the object. Systems theory is focused on what objects do and the laws that are followed during this interaction... 66.190.41.50 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to read that you have a similair view on systems theory as F. Capra, but I'm interested to know what you want to do with this in the Wikipedia? You've ask a question about the difference between classical science and systems theory and when now answer was given, you started answering this question for yourselve. This talk page is not about exchanging ideas about systems theory, but about questioning the article and making suggestions and improving the article itselve. This discussion brought up some interesting point, which could be transformed into action... and that is where this discussion should focus on. - Mdd 02:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific to Kenneth M Burke. One of the things above is the question of the nobility of Deborah Hammond. You seem to use here opinion as an important source in the article... although I never heard of here and the Wikipedia has no article on here. An article on here could show her work and background and nobility. If this article remains missing... I for example have no problem anymore to erase all thoughts of here from this article. (like I did before some 2.5 years ago, with the mentioning of the role of Nickolai Hartmann in this article). If you do create such an article about Hammond, than you can write some partx about here vision on systems theory... with she shared with the couple you mentioned... whereby you can further for example put the first two sentences of the current systems theory article... because I strongly think they don't belong in this article here. - Mdd 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Important points of my defense made over the last weeks (today is May 25, 2007) has been archived to March 2007- I stand with the point that I have done much to improve the quality of the article. The page had been nothing but confusion since its inception and nobody was doing much about it. The page is still not perfect, but I have chosen to step aside with the critiques. You are evidently welcome to contribute to, and change the article as you like. Enough of this banter on the talk page about what I need to do to in order to make others happy. If you don't like it, change it! I have done honest work and refuse to get into a trap with people that seem to be criticizing for the sake of criticism. Again, no offense intended and maybe sometime in the future we will be able to work more cooperatively. Until then, I leave the page to other users. --Kenneth M Burke 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much interested in offense and defence, but in improving the article... because it's far from perfect yet. It would be a pitty if you just leave it like this, because there is still much to do, to learn and to achive. - Mdd 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on a page for Hammond as you suggested (really, she is only cited on the page three times). However, I still step aside from the systems theory page to allow users to correct any issues they may have with the page. --Kenneth M Burke 01:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good plan to write an article on Hammond and maybe on more contemporary systems scientists you know. This further improves the enviroment of systems theory and hereby the systems theory article itselve. I like to get back to on your efforts on the systems theory article in two weeks, if I have some more time. -- Mdd 11:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More confusion - May 2007

Revert back to the last edit by fixaller, include the representative graphic, and EXPAND on that. The article at that stage was reviewed and corrected by many authorities from within the field. Improvement beyond that state is not to reinvent the article, and in the process failing to grasp the essential uniqueness of systems theory, but to elaborate on the skeleton provided. At least what is written will be correct. Granted, systems theory is different and very difficult to grasp, but it is necessary that this difference be appreciated and the difficulty overcome. 69.47.35.93 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to do what you like. Part of working on Wikipedia is understanding that your work might be altered by other users. Also, I must say that I think it is quite odd that you boast of going out of your way to have an outside review of the page while criticizing Wikipedia. Quite rude, I think. But, do as you like. I might make only a final suggestion that you at least make sure that contributions are more than just content cut and pasted from websites. --Kenneth M Burke 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that reverting the article is an acceptable option. - Mdd 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(... The Following was intended for 69.47.35.93 and the somewhat out of nowhere, challenging comments:

You came out of nowhere saying the page would not be respected because of a photo. The article is not perfect, but I believe that it has been significantly improved. I have chosen to step aside, and evidently do not own the page. Either there are individuals genuinely interested in improving the article, or they are just here to throw their weight around on the discussion board. How easy it is to sit back and criticize. You are certainly more than welcome to provide any contributions that you might have in order to constructively problem-solve issues with the article. No disrespect intended, no harm done as I am done. --Kenneth M Burke 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)... )

I was also under the impresion that we had to do with a new editor and that was why I made these lay out corrections. But now I've the feeling we are talking to fixaller in both discussion items. Or is it that Fixaller (or what other usernames he used) is giving an answer for 214.4.238.61 - Mdd 03:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 69.47.35.93 had responded for the other user 214.4.238.61. --Kenneth M Burke 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we should give 214.4.238.61 the time to respond. For that reason I made this a new talk item -- Mdd 03:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--Kenneth M Burke 03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)