Talk:Santa Fe Institute

Complex adaptive systems
I changed the bit that said "complex systems and complex adaptive systems". As the article on complex adaptive systems says, they are a subset of complex systems, so "complex systems and complex adaptive systems" is a bit like saying "cars and blue cars". Nog33 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you are right. thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'd say that since complex adaptive systems are the more specific discipline, that we should highlight those, and let the reader infer that non-adaptive complex systems are the prerequisite.  But that may be just semantics. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had just added the direct link to complex adaptive systems because part of the description about complexity science is in the complex systems article and an other part in the complex adaptive systems. Now I refraised the sentence to "complex systems, in particulair complex adaptive systems". Will this do? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds spiffy, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think very little of what goes on at SFI is complex adaptive systems. They don't mention that phrase in their literature.  They say they do "complex systems", period.  Saying complex adaptive systems "in particular" thus seems rather misleading.  It implies that that's most of what they do, when in fact the opposite it true.  Perhaps you could just put a link to "complex adaptive systems" in the "See also" section?  Nog33 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you made a strong point. I removed it again. I would be nice if this article would develop some more and really explain, what those guys are actually doing? Since you are so interested, wouldn't you like to add something to the article yourselve? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Info on Bandung Fe Institute

 * This talk item is copied here from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems page

I had deleted a link on the Santa Fe entry to the Bandung Fe Institute (BFI) in Indonesia. Everyone should be made aware that this institution not a true institution in the usual sense, but is run by some amateur college drop outs. It lacks any credibility; one may verify this fact simply by visiting their website and reading any of their so-called "papers". An entry for Bandung Fe Institute was recently deleted from WP due to a Notability issue which I had raised in the former Talkpage there. A blog entry which discusses the Bandung Fe Institute as academic hacks can be found .Erik incognito 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I guess you mean the following link:
 * Bandung Fe Institute Research Institute for Social Complexity Studies in Indonesia
 * I restored it here to take a look as you suggested. - Mdd 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the blog I read: "Whatever they’re doing, they seem to be doing all the right things." It seems to me that those guys are making a nice start. However, listing this institute here a related to the Santa Fe Institute is far-fetched, and doesn't seems right because their seems to be no formal relation between the two. - Mdd 11:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of faculty members.
I removed much of the faculty listing information from this article. I feel that it doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTDIR, as well as WP:PEOPLE. Generally lists of notable people in articles are either links to people who have articles of their own, or are at the very least supported by non-primary sources as being notable. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We do not put lists of entire faculty on any articles, only notable faculty, generally meaning that the individual is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. While I'm sure some of those removed may be notable enough for articles, write the article first is the usual policy. Yworo (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the removal and with its replacement by a single category of "notable faculty." On the former, the removal disagrees with Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:PEOPLE:Lists_of_people. The Santa Fe Institute article is an article about the Santa Fe Institute, and per Wikipedia policy, it is okay to include within the article a list of relevant important people even if not all of those individuals are themselves notable. On the latter, the "notable faculty" category combines a number of people associated with the Santa Fe Institute who are notable for very different reasons. Unlike a listing of notable alumni or notable faculty, the Santa Fe Institute has an unusual structure of splitting its members into "resident" (people who are currently faculty on location) and "external" (people who are affiliated, but whose primary appointment is at another institution). Even if we agree that the WP:NOTDIR policy takes precedence, I think the listing needs to include more structure than simply "notable faculty". In this case, though, I propose reverting it back to the previous structure, with a complete list of resident and external faculty. Paresnah (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to split the current list into two sections, I would have no problem with that, but having every single faculty member in this article is excessive. The guideline you link to uses school presidents, headmasters, and headmistresses as an example, and it works here too. We don't need every faculty member, only the ones who are either notable in their own right, or who hold a position of significance at the school. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll be happy with splitting the existing "notable" list into the notable resident and affiliated faculty. Paresnah (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please also note that as these are lists of living people, you need to provide references. Yworo (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added references. Paresnah (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Influence section
Since there seems to be a little activity in the talk page...

The "Influence" section suggests that several complexity programs were started as a direct consequence of SFI. That's probably true, but the sources are just links to the various programs' sites. As far as I can tell, none of those sites mention SFI as anything other than another institute, if at all. Do we have any sources that say there is direct influence? If not, it's either original research, or weasel words, and it needs to go. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My most recent edit may have resolved this point. I agree that it's not clear that the (previously) listed programs or institutions were a direct product of SFI. There are definitely some instances where the causality is clear, but that number is small compared with the more diffuse notion of "influence". In a sense, the "complex systems" world got big very quickly, and SFI's leadership was more indirect. In my revision, I eliminated the list and instead pointed to the more comprehensive list of complex systems departments, institutions and programs on the Complex Systems page. Perhaps this is a sufficient solution. Paresnah (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is much better, but it's still suggesting something, without actually being able to say it outright, which isn't great. I added a (citation needed) tag to it for now. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Claims of influence require citations to reliable third-party sources. As the section was completely uncited, I've removed it. Yworo (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring some of the text from the Influence section and incorporating it into the History section. I now cite external sources to back up the influence claims. Also, Yworo, please do not arbitrarily remove other sections that I've added. This talk page is active and is the appropriate place to discuss such things. Paresnah (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
Since the Santa Fe Institute is an educational non-profit research institution, I propose to add the university infobox template to the page. This will allow the page to highlight important details like date of establishment, current president, location, number of researchers and staff, official website, etc. Paresnah (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be great. You might consider Template:Infobox institute, instead. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The University template would not be appropriate, since it's not one. Infobox institute seems more appropriate. Yworo (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added the Institute infobox. Paresnah (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Business Network section
The sources for the section on the Business Network were problematic. I replaced one which was a picture post from (presumably) an official SFI Google+ account. The other one appeared to be a brief press-release which offered no information that couldn't be found on the official SFI Business Network site. Since both of these sources were effectively primary, I replaced them with more accessible and informative sources on the SFI site. I think reliable external coverage is sorely needed for this section (and the article as a whole). Without some sort of verification, this section is merely providing a platform for promotion, which is, of course, unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a hard time finding much on the current state of the Business Network that was not located on the SFI website. The events they hold appear to be by invitation only, and so there's not much written independently about the membership or activities. The Waldrop and Cowan references do mention the Business Network, but they understandably spend most of their time discussing the history of the institution and the science. In terms of revising this section, perhaps it would be best to remove the current list (current notable members), and replace it with some text describing the Business Network's relationship with SFI over the years, along with some of the notable members over that time (whom are mentioned by Waldrop and Cowan)? Paresnah (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that would be an improvement. Right now it's difficult to determine from the context given the degree which Business Network is involved in research, as opposed to being a method of corporate fundraising. If this distinction isn't clear in sources, the Business Network probably doesn't warrant an entire section, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pending further expansion with the discussed sources, I removed the section and moved the sources to the section on organization. Grayfell (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Books
Could someone provide a list of books published by the SFI? I searched their website but couldn't find anything.Lbertolotti (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Building
Could you please provide some information/history of the building? Were they built for the institute or they have had other purpose before SFI?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Omermar 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omermar (talk • contribs)

Keep or delete category: Jeffrey Epstein?
The category of "Jeffrey Epstein" was added to this article, apparently solely based on its external link: "Jeffrey Epstein gave $275,000 to Santa Fe Institute" (Albuquerque Journal). I'm not sure it's appropriate to paint such broad strokes, considering their reaction to his next donation following his first conviction. Also, I don't see the category, nor any mention of Epstein, in the Stanford University or Harvard University articles, or on other think tanks that he donated to. A lot of criminals donate to a lot of worthy causes to increase their own legitimacy... Do we coatrack them in, or deliberately paint a broader picture that shows how each is some small part of the history; or, perhaps a separate category for institutions? Opinions invited. Lindenfall (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)