Talk:Engineering ethics

message: This reads more like a history of technological development that one of engineering ethics. The material on James Watt is interesting but uncited. I'm expecting to yank this.
The impression this gives is that ethical development in engineering has revolved around the strucutral failures. That certainly addresses the "hold paramount the public" ethic, but it's only part of the whole story. Many case studies revolve around conflicts-of-interest and other more "business ethics" issues. There's a huge emphasis now on bribery and corruption.  ASCE, NSPE, ICE, and no doubt others are all over this now. This passage will need to be addressed.
There are some spectacular failures that drove the public to demand that engineers be placed in charge. The Boston molasses flood was instrumental in moving licensure laws onto the books in New England at the time.
There's a fair amount of non-neutral tone to this as well that need to be cleaned up.
I've got to get some sleep and will be tackling this tomorrow. I'll leave the  tag on for a bit.  Thank you for your patience. MARussellPESE 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoopee! I'm done! MARussellPESE 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "History" section

message: "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties." This seems totally at odds with the vast majority of military work, which is a disturbing and significant proportion of professional engineering. This concern isn't even so much as implied in the article. Why?
 --Jammoe (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military? 

message: They are technically possible, but should they be constructed and built? Does this fall under Engineering Ethics?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.143.78 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Bombs? Weapons of Mass Destruction? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Engineering ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203133506/http://www.asce.org/Ethics/Principles-Study-Application/ASCE-Code-of-Ethics--Principles,-Study,-and-Application/ to http://www.asce.org/Ethics/Principles-Study-Application/ASCE-Code-of-Ethics--Principles,-Study,-and-Application/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165346/http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1794 to http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1794
*Added  tag to http://164.109.88.17/ethics/FINALReporttoNSPEBoard-June2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Seeing as there's a potential edit war about to happen with discussion that was made on each other users' pages. Can discussion about the disagreement pertaining to licensing requirements be mentioned here? I'm just a neutral party that sees the discussion pretty interesting and perhaps a chance to get a better view or a chance to weigh in with discussion on here. Let me know. – TheGridExe (talk)  01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, I am at the moment swamped with an issue you can read about on Jimbo's talk page, plus I find Engineeringworld2 to be pretty much impossible to reason with. When I asked him "What part of 'This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity' are you having trouble understanding?" he stuck to his absurd claim that "[offering your services to the] public also includes other businesses". I see no point in debating with someone who refuses to acknowledge that offering your services to the public is not the same thing as offering your services to a business. WP:CIR. Eventually, when I get more free time, I am going to post an RfC and settle this dispute. Until then, I have higher priorities. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

text: User talk:Engineeringworld2#Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing requirement