Talk:Electrical engineering/Archive 2

message: As the USA and Europe do have such a different views on the term electrical engineering, I suggest that this page now deal only with the items  that are common betweeen US and Europe and that the other subjects are shown on another page (like electroncs engineering for instance). Could be done by links in text or 'See also's' at bottom of page. Could I have some reactions please from the other editors interested in this page?--Light current 02:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion #1 

message: In a further attempt at reconciliation between me and other editors interested in this page, I am prepared to make another conciliatory proposal. This is in fact the same proposal as User:C J Cowie made a few days ago in that there should only be one page called Electrical/electronic engineering (note I put electrical first as a goodwill gesture). If this page were to explain the differing terminologies between US and Europe, I think this could solve all our differences. I think Cedars' suggestion is retrograde and solves nothing. 
Would editors like to comment on this latest attempt at concensus??--Light current 01:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been contemplating reiterating that proposal. The use of "/" or "and" should be which ever is favored by wikipedia standards. I think that the use of electrical vs electronic may be as much a matter of context as geography. Explaining usage may be an interesting challenge. --C J Cowie 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By Wikipedia convention "and" is always preferred to "/" ("/" was previously used for subpages). I disagree with the idea of moving the page to electrical and electronics engineering as the title is a bit of a mouthful and would disrupt the article if every instance of the word "electrical engineering" had to be replaced by "electrical and electronics engineering" and every instance of the word "electrical engineer" had to be replaced by "electrical and electronics engineer". Right now "electrical and electronics engineering" is mentioned in the lead, both "electrical and electronics engineering" and "electrical and electronic engineering" redirect to this page (as a sidenote these redirects were only created due to this discussion they did not exist as pages before) and the distinction sometimes made between electrical and electronics engineering is clearly outlined in the lead. Cedars 00:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion #2 

message: This is a survey that aims to determine which version of the electrical engineering article is preferred. Please vote for one version or the other. Feel free to add additional comments to your votes. More background on the issue can be obtained by reading this talk page.
:Im quite happy to see this subject voted upon, as long as the polls remain open for a suitable perion of time. As you said, the original article was here for three years without major change, so there should be considerable time allowed for interested parties to become aware of this important debate and make a decision based upon the evidence that has been provided by both sides. --Light current 16:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think votes from unregistered users or sockpuppets (as above) should be allowed!--Light current 20:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please see my post at bottom of page (now moved to top) regarding misunderstanding--Light current 01:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Were not voting on the contents of electronics engineering which I have have just resurrected and added to, we are voting on the electrical engineering page. But it appears that many folks have sought to ignore my latest sugesstions at the top of this page regarding conciliation.--Light current 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 1. Well of course my vote goes here. It should be pointed out that the new (V2) electrical eng article should be read in conjunction with the new one (recently revived having been destroyed) on electronics engineering. It should also be noted that no material has been deleted in this process. All original material still exists but now its on the correct page.--Light current 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The survey is not over yet and has a few weeks to run. Your intention in the light of the new evidence is ungratious in the extreme I feel. I have tried to alter the article to satisfy everyone. Your proposal would leave the article as it was which is TOTALLY unsatisfactory to us Europeans! Now why dont YOU try to reach some compromise-- I have!!--Light current 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: See it here!
Version 1 was the existing version of the article. It acknowledges electronics engineering is sometimes regarded as distinct from electrical engineering but discusses electronics engineering as a subfield of electrical engineering.
# I believe this is the better article. Cedars 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 1 

message: See it here!
Version 2 is a revised version of the article by Light current. It limits discussion about electronics engineering based upon Light Current's belief that electronics engineering is not a subfield of electrical engineering.
:1. Well of course my vote goes here. It should be pointed out that the new (V2) electrical eng article should be read in conjunction with the new one (recently revived having been destroyed) on electronics engineering. It should also be noted that no material has been deleted in this process. All original material still exists but now its on the correct page.--Light current 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey is not over yet and has a few weeks to run. Your intention in the light of the new evidence is ungratious in the extreme I feel. I have tried to alter the article to satisfy everyone. Your proposal would leave the article as it was which is TOTALLY unsatisfactory to us Europeans! Now why dont YOU try to reach some compromise-- I have!!--Light current 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 2 

message: Electronics is a subfield of electrical engineering. It's the same physics behind both and I don't think there's a need to completely "sterilize" the electrical engineering article of all references to this important and useful field. Look at the HVDC stuff and tell me where the electronics leaves off and the "electrical" begins. It's all one.  --Wtshymanski 06:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: HVDC is a crossover area with electrical and power electronics specialites. Simple electronics engingeers or simple electrical engineers could not deal with it as it requires experience in both areas. ie you need electrical engineers trianed in power electronics or electronics engineers trained on HV power systems to deal with it. --Light current 20:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: Ah-ha!. Now here we are at the root of the disagreement thats been going on!. OK so we must try to keep both sides of the Atlantic happy by writing the electrical engineering page such that it reflects practice and terminology throughout the world. 
If the term electrical engineer describes what you say (in the US) then of course the description on the page must say so. But it must also make clear that most of what you Americans call electrical engineering is, over here in Europe actually called electronics engineering and electrical eng here is only the heavy stuff!
--Light current 23:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A big misunderstanding! 

message: I shall attempt to repair the page but with some modifications so that everyone on both sides of 'the pond' is happy--Light current 02:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repair 

message: === How the IEEE defines the difference ===
Interesting extract from IEEE page:
What is the difference between electrical and electronics engineering?
The number of differences between electrical and electronics engineering may vary, depending on the context in which the question is asked. Some distinctions which may exist in academe may not exist in the business world. There is also a significant amount of overlap, not only between electronics and electrical engineering, but with other engineering disciplines as well. Most notable are the overlaps between electronics and computer engineering and with electrical and mechanical engineering.
Electrical engineers generally deal with large-power applications, such as utility and industrial power systems, whereas electronics engineers deal with low-power systems such as computers and communications. 
Most work in electrical engineering makes use of knowledge of both electronics and electrical engineering. Power systems today are making increasing use of power electronics and digital controls for controlling power flow, and many electronic systems make use of milliwatt electro-mechanical components.
Most electrical/electronic engineering programs today focus on electronics engineering.
A few programs offer courses in basic machine theory and transmission lines that provide the fundamentals of electrical engineering, while some of the larger universities offer programs in power systems engineering. With the rapid growth in information technology, digital control systems, and robotics, EEs must have a solid understanding of electricity and magnetism as well as the ability to continually update their knowledge of electrical/electronics, mechanical, and chemical systems.''
[end quote] 
all bolding is mine--Light current 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No you haven't proved your point
=== Counter-examples and my comments on them ===
 
THe IEE covers both sorts of engineers and incorparates the Institute of Electronic and Radio engineers of which I was a member. 
The IEEE covers both sorts of engineers as it says in their title. Are all its members call electrical engineers even if they're doing comms or radio etc and dont know one end of a motor fronm the other (like me!)?--Light current 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't change the article again unless you intend to improve it or have obtained consensus on this page about the change. Cedars 09:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with moving most of the info on Electronics Engineering to a more specific page, but the idea that Electrical Engineering doesn't encompass Electronics Engineering -- apparently engendered by a semantic error on the part of one person at the IEEE -- should not cripple this article with misinformation and poor flow.  And I concur, since this is a fractious issue, you should discuss changes before making them. 216.237.179.238 21:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: A completely neutral statement!--Light current 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences 

message: Interesting extract from IEEE page:
What is the difference between electrical and electronics engineering?
The number of differences between electrical and electronics engineering may vary, depending on the context in which the question is asked. Some distinctions which may exist in academe may not exist in the business world. There is also a significant amount of overlap, not only between electronics and electrical engineering, but with other engineering disciplines as well. Most notable are the overlaps between electronics and computer engineering and with electrical and mechanical engineering.
Electrical engineers generally deal with large-power applications, such as utility and industrial power systems, whereas electronics engineers deal with low-power systems such as computers and communications. 
Most work in electrical engineering makes use of knowledge of both electronics and electrical engineering. Power systems today are making increasing use of power electronics and digital controls for controlling power flow, and many electronic systems make use of milliwatt electro-mechanical components.
Most electrical/electronic engineering programs today focus on electronics engineering.
A few programs offer courses in basic machine theory and transmission lines that provide the fundamentals of electrical engineering, while some of the larger universities offer programs in power systems engineering. With the rapid growth in information technology, digital control systems, and robotics, EEs must have a solid understanding of electricity and magnetism as well as the ability to continually update their knowledge of electrical/electronics, mechanical, and chemical systems.''
[end quote] 
all bolding is mine--Light current 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the IEEE defines the difference 

message: THe IEE covers both sorts of engineers and incorparates the Institute of Electronic and Radio engineers of which I was a member. 
The IEEE covers both sorts of engineers as it says in their title. Are all its members call electrical engineers even if they're doing comms or radio etc and dont know one end of a motor fronm the other (like me!)?--Light current 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't change the article again unless you intend to improve it or have obtained consensus on this page about the change. Cedars 09:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with moving most of the info on Electronics Engineering to a more specific page, but the idea that Electrical Engineering doesn't encompass Electronics Engineering -- apparently engendered by a semantic error on the part of one person at the IEEE -- should not cripple this article with misinformation and poor flow.  And I concur, since this is a fractious issue, you should discuss changes before making them. 216.237.179.238 21:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-examples and my comments on them 

message: Firstly, most of those counter examples I provided you with were from universities who titled their departments something akin to the "Department of Electrical Engineering" your observation that most actually do most of their research in electronics only strengthens the claim that electronics engineering is a subfield of electrical engineering. Secondly, your viewpoint that electrical engineering and electronics engineering are separate disciplines is highlighted in the lead of the first paragraph of the article I keep reverting to. Thirdly, your claim that no-one else has objected to your changes is not true, both C J Cowie and Wtshymanski have commented on your work.  
:A completely neutral statement!--Light current 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on examples/counter examples 

message: :This article complely confuses the roles of electrical engineers and electronics engineers and is therefore misleading to the reader. Electronics engineers do not like to be called electrical engineers and I suggest all the the stuff relating to electronics (ie anything not power oriented) be removed to its own page on Electronics engineering--Light current 20:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its is NOT a subfield as I have proved many times on this page. It is a subject IN ITS OWN RIGHT!!!--Light current 02:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: I intend to remove all material that is plainly to do with electronics engineering and put it on the correct page. The present page is misleading to an extreme in that it says electrical engineers do everything under the sun including the stuff done by electronics engineers. This is patently untrue and offensive to electronics engineers who trained and graduated in Electronic Engineering (not ELectrical)!!
Electrical engineering is about motors and power distribution and transformers and such like. 
It is not about telecomms, electronic circuit design, radar, communications, radio, telemetry, radio frequency systems, waveguides, television, electronic devices, computers, optoelectronics, microwaves, fibre optics, software, audio systems, consumer electronics, telephones, GPS, satellite comms, transistors, electronic filters, aerials, noise, logic systems, electronic measuring instruments, control systems, electronic components, missile guidance systems, avionics or a host of other things. 
These are the preserve of Electronics In fact electrical engineering as such is quite narrow. .--Light current 01:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are actualy incorect in that Aerials, Fiber Optics, Telecomms, Radar, specific fields of communications, radio engineering, audio systems and satellite comms 'are Electrical enginneering not Electronics. Yes, they are two seperate fields, but Electrical engineering is not as small as you state. Products of these fields are offten used by electronics engineering, but are not a product of electronics engineering. --Barberio 18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of material 

message: Cedars trimmed the history section substantially. Is this really the a good move? Why not put the whole history section into an article History of electrical engineering and only provide a summary of some highlights here? I think the field of ee is large enough to justify such a move. Hirzel 16:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the page title should be called History of electrical engineering- it is nearly obsolete as  a separate subject in its own right, but a history of its developments and subsequent fragmantation in the 1960s would be good especcially in the light of current discussions on this topic.--Light current 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: AFAIC, the only unsolved problem in electrical engineering (in Europe) is what to call a dying subject.--Light current 19:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of electrical engineering 

message: This poll has been closed after only a few days when the article has been sitting here for 3 years unmolested. Only now has some interest been generated but Cedars has decided that he has now won the vote (also counting unregisted users) and has failed to count support for my version. If this vote is not reopened for a reasonable time to allow all interested parties to vote, I will continue to edit electrical engineering as I see fit bearing in mind all the new opinions that have emerged in this short period.--Light current 00:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten zillion flies must be right! But I will not revert the electrical engineering page back to my version. However I am most unhappy that you have fiddled the election result by bringing the poll to an early close--Light current 02:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long does a poll last? 

message: There have been a lot of comments here about 'not consistent with what I've seen in North America' and 'An American looking up electrical engineering should find information on what his society commonly considers electrical engineering'.
This is flatly not an acceptable policy, and it is actualy working counter to the Wikipedia project's attempts to reduce systemic bias. 
Wikipedia's intent is to provide a Neutral Point of View on providing information. This article currently focuses, deliberatly, on the North American point of View on the meaning of 'Electrical Engineering'. This makes the article inherently POV. I'm tagging the page with {globalize} till you can come up with some method to give a neutral report of the meaning, be it in one article or by splitting into multiple articles. I'm also going to bring this to the attention of the Systemic Bias project.
I'll repeat that again, it goes against the Wikipedia Project's NPOV policy to focus description of a term primarly on its meaning to North Americans. --Barberio 14:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I point out if it weren't for the Americans who set up Wikipedia, there'd be nothing to argue about ( and without the Americans there'd be no Internet as we know it today). --Wtshymanski 18:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *sigh* Not only does this display an utter disregard for NPOV, but your lack of understanding of the History of the Internet. Go read it, the Internet as we know it was an international development, particular technologies were developed in the US but general systems were being developed worldwide. The basic principles of the Internet Protocols were widely known, and it is only a specific implimentation that came from the US. --Barberio 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Not nationalism - a statement of fact. Jimbo Wales lives in Florida, does he not? --Wtshymanski 19:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought an encyclopedia was the place to state facts? --Wtshymanski 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National (Or Continental) Point of View 

message: I've reverted. Baird's TV system might not have been electronic, but it definitely was electrical - my learned co-editor perhaps acted in haste? --Wtshymanski 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was mostly mechanical, using mechanical scanning with the Nipkow disk. The lighting he used was electrical, but what other essential feature of Bairds sysstem was electrical>? Any way, if it is to be inluded it should go in the electrical paragraph, not the radio and electronics one. Do you agree?--Light current 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How did Baird's TV signals get to the users? Electronically, by radio.  Wikipedia is very inclusive and I don't think a wide-ranging article is at all inappropriate for the electrical engineering topic. And why the snarky comments about Baird in the edit summaries?  --Wtshymanski 18:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I dont understand the term 'snarky'. My comments about Yogi are derisory thats all as he was an uneducated amateur --Light current 18:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree whole-heartedly with Wtshymanski. Cedars 01:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: And what is Wtshymanski saying exactly that you agree with Cedars?. Baird did not invent radio. His invention was totally mechanical and therefore does not belong on this page--Light current 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baird

message: see here
: One might well argue that any non-trivial electrical (or electronic) device has significant mechanical or civil design components.  Radomes are interesting because the structure's design is so much determined by the electrical properties of the EM radiation which is to penetrate it. A radome wouldn't look like a radome if it were not for its electrical properties. --Wtshymanski 18:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radomes are not electrical 

message: Because of the intransigence of certain editors in discussions about electrical engineering, I wish to direct all interested parties' attention to the new page on Electrical and electronics engineering which I have created in an attempt to prsent a fair, factual and balanced view of the activites of engineeers in these fields world wide showing no bias one way or the other. There is much work yet to do on it, but eventually I'm hoping that when consensus is reached that it will supersede the existing page called electrical engineering--Light current 19:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page describing electronic and electrical engineering properly 

message: Now that I have opened Pandoras box (so to speak), I feel that I should admit that the real scope of the problem has become much more apparent to me. We need to get evidence from wherever we can in the world on the practice of electronic and/or electrical engineering to provide as neutral a view of the subjesct as is possible. There will always be omissions because we wont get all the data in a finite time. But where we do see bias or lack of account of other countries' practices, we should seek to rectify it immediately whilst always being prepared to adapt the article to take account of new information as it becomes available. 
This will not be a short process, as User:Cedars would like it to be, and I think we should all settle down for the long haul on this one. It will of course require slightly more cooperation between us than of late, but I feel maybe soon is the time to bury the hatchet and start working TOGETHER. All in favor say AYE!--Light current 02:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Pandoras box 

message: Frankly, this dispute is getting silly.
For a start, atempting to give information about both Electrical and Electronic engineering on one article has resulted in an overlong article that is giving length warnings on edits.
Secondly, now the article does not distinguish that the useage given is based on nationality, in an attempt to paper over the cracks this information was removed. This is highly misleading, and gives the impresion that the stated meaning is used globaly.
Third, deliberatly taking a POV on a perceptual matter to represent it as the 'correct' one is not a good thing. It would be unnacceptable to write an article saying 'Some people say that licorice isnt as nice as chocolate, but this article will assume it is'.
After discussing this with Admin and on #wikipedia, I'm going to strongly advise that this article is split into Electrical and Electronic sections, and turned into two articles on Electronic Engineering and Electrical Engineering. With both articles clearly stating in the summary that the North American useage of the term 'Electrical Engineering' includes 'Electronic Engineering'. I'd rather not do this myself as I am not sufficently an expert in the field to ensure I do not lose context in the process.
The only alternative I can see is to have Electrical Engineering replaced with a disambguation page pointing to different pages per nationality. This is not something I think would be the best solution, nor do I think the 'Electronic and Electrical Engineering' article solution is a good one, but if there isnt going to be an agreement on how the phrase should be handled, then I can't see any other solution than disambiguation. --Barberio 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Im afraid some of these disputes do get a bit silly at first. But then, all of a sudden, people start to see sense and start to compromise. Just wait and see if Im right. Also, dont worry about the page length warning, that was put there for readers with old browsers that couldnt handle pages of more than 32k in length.--Light current 02:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It now serves as a general warning to keep articles trim and relevent, and consider splitting or pruning an article. See Wikipedia:Article_size --Barberio 02:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Only on stylistic grounds, which were already discussing anyway:-)
Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32K. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them.--Light current 02:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page length