Talk:Reverse salient

according to whom
@ "in his seminal book" - according to whom? in the article: The book is being cited in quite many articles about energy transition and the origins of electrification (eg. in B. Sovacool, but also many others). I just have the book in my hands, it is impressively detailed and well written - it is seminal, I would say (studying electrical infrastructure from a social science perspective since quite a while)

article
Technological systems and their evolution deserve it's own article. --Dittaeva (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Split proposal
I suggest to split this article into two new articles: Reverse salient (war) and Reverse salient (technology). The present article is in fact a combination of two articles and a split would make possible to improve them more easily. Except the name, both subjects have very little in common. The Banner talk 22:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree, reverse salient (technology) has been borrowed from military use so for understanding the former the latter is quite useful.


 * Complicated. Hughes does very little in the work cited to explicitly tie his theory to the military jargon it appropriates (despite the fact that the connection is clearly there). It seems that someone searching to understand Hughes's "reverse salience" would benefit from understanding the military jargon, but possibly not the reverse? if not a total split in articles, some kind of compartmentalization is necessary. Weaving between the two concepts is to misunderstand both of them.

Not sure what the unsigned comments above made by IPs are trying to say, but "reverse salient" is not a military term. Maybe a nonce word in a handful of military publications out there, or a protologism at best; but whatever the definition it may have been given, it is no different from the definition of a salient. "Reverse salient" is certainly a technoloical systems term that may have its root in the military term salient. EyeTruth (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. There is no reason for a split. In fact there is no reason for a military meaning to be provided in the lede of this article. The "reverse salient" described in the source is none other than the same normal salient. The term, according to the cited source, was what the professor of the author of the source used to describe the Battle of Verdun. Like I guessed, it's no more than a nonce word in military vocab. I will move the military description to a section in the article, not the lede. And this is not an article for WikiProject Military History. EyeTruth (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

oh the pain
This paragraph is so filled with buzzwords and gobbledegook that I challenge the idea that this article has any utility to anyone. Really now, an encyclopedia is supposed to explain things to people. If every third word being used needs its own wikipedia page it is obfuscating things. So much handwaving.

''Technological systems may refer to a hierarchically nested structure of technological parts, whereby the system is seen as a composition of interdependent sub-systems that are themselves systems comprising further sub-systems.[3] In this manner, the holistic system as well as its properties is seen to be synthesized through the sub-systems that constitute it. Technological systems may also be seen as socio-technical systems that contain, in addition to technical sub-systems, social sub-systems, such as the creators and users of technology, as well as overseeing regulatory bodies. In both perspectives, technological systems are seen to be goal-seeking, therefore evolving towards objectives.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.160.255 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)