Talk:Systemantics/Archives/2017

Not encyclopaedic
There is no substantial critique of the work from third parties. The article seems to take the book at face value, as a treatise on general systems theory. It fails to note that a good half of Gall's sources – e.g. Parkinson and Peter – were written, published and marketed as humour, regardless of the possible accuracy of their observations about the real world. yoyo (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)