Talk:Electrical engineering/Archive 2

Suggestion #1
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)

Suggestion #2
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)


 * 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)

Thanks for response CJ. I agree with you on the use of "/" or "and". The challenge of explaining the useage of the 2 terms will indeed be a difficult one but Im sure that a collaborative effort between all interested parties will ensure a satisfactory outcome (eventually!)--Light current 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Survey
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)


 * I dont think votes from unregistered users or sockpuppets (as above) should be allowed!--Light current 20:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


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


 * 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)

Please do not use this Survey

This survey is asking the wrong question, and missing the point. I don't think any result that comes from it either way is going to a valid concensus on if Electrical Engineering and Electronic Engineering should be different articles, as it instead asks which is the better of two articles on Electrical Engineering.

This poll can not, and should not, be used to represent any concensus on this issue either way. (Nor can any straw poll generate a concensus) Idealy, this survey should a) Not have happened at all as a general discussion had only been ongoing for a short time, b) been a question directed at the root dispute not two versions of an article. --Barberio 13:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Version 1
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.


 * 1) I believe this is the better article. Cedars 06:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I prefer this version. C J Cowie 14:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Additional comments re vote #3 below: I would tend to put less value on the opinion of an unregistered user.C J Cowie 01:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Additional comment re suggestion #2 above: I support the suggestion. C J Cowie 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Far superior.  Of course electronics engineering is a subfield of electrical engineering.  In many ways, power engineering has become the more minor portion of the field. 216.237.179.238 21:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I prefer version 1. The new version and the contents of electronics engineering appear to have been changes made unilaterally by User:Light current, and are not consistent with what I've seen in North America, at least. --Christopher Thomas 21:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Definitions change over time. Wikipedia should reflect current usage (i.e., LC's list of counter-examples), with an appropriate note about the historical distinction. - mako 08:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Electrical engineering is the more common term in the US (in my experience).  Common usage here seems to suggest that what is called "electronics engineering" is treated (rightly or wrongly, I'm not sure) as a subcategory of electrical engineering, and as such, it should be discussed in this article.  An American looking up electrical engineering should find information on what his society commonly considers electrical engineering.  It should, however, be identified so that Europeans seeing the same information recognize that it may not fall within the term "electrical engineering" according to their usage.  I thus prefer this version of the article, though it is in need of some rewriting. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that qualifies as the silliest statement I've ever seen from a good-faith user on Wikipedia. We are not writing for Americans; we are not writing for Europeans.  We are certainly not writing for Americans but making concessions for Europeans so they don't get too confused when they try to read about a world-wide phenomenon.  You should know better than this. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I presume Mark is referring to comment #6 above?--Light current 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was talking about User:Spangineer's comment. "An American looking up electrical engineering should find information on what his society commonly considers electrical engineering." – well, really! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is rather a Nationalistic statement isnt it?--Light current 02:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Version 2
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)

My intention is to revert back to the original page as per the survey. The current article is a mess with bad grammar, a very short lead, duplicated information in the first few sections, muddled images, poor formatting and the bizzare inclusion of manufacturing engineering in the subfields section

I will however include information that the electrical and electronics distinction is more frequently made in the United Kingdom and Europe. You have stated that your interest is in electronics engineering not electrical engineering, so I am puzzled as to why you continue to edit this article rather than the electronics engineering article. Cedars 23:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Well, it is for sure that the basic branch is The Electrical Engineering. After the discovery of atom and sub-atomic particles, the applications became more wide. This gave rise to the need for a new branch of Electronics. now, we have Pure Electronics, Electronics and Telecommunications, Bio-Electronics, Electrical and Electronics, Instrumentation and Control, Electrical Instrumentation, Electronics and Instrumentation, etc.. We cant go on making all these project pages now. but some day or the other, they are going to be created. It is useless to argue on this point. It is never going to end. Let us keep the projects as they are and provide their respective histories. Then we can always argue on the history topics. Then, we might also include future or future scope topics for future reference. --Electron Kid 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Opinion
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)


 * 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)

The Atlantic divide?
The point is, in Europe at least, all these subfields come under the umbrella of electronics engineering in university and industry at large. This is plain to see by looking at some of my references. Therefore it is wrong to say that world wide all this stuff is the province of electrical engineers.

Do you know if people who deal with electronics (ie radio, comms, etc) subjects are called electrical engineers in the US? If so, we should make that clear, and also make it clear that over here (UK and Europe) these practioners of electronics engineering are called ( surprisingly enough) electronics engineers and not electrical engineers. This may be the crux of the differences expressed.--Light current 19:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., I do not know of any schools that offer "Electronics" engineering degrees. If you are an Electrical engineer in the U.S., you might design power circuitry, or radios, or any strictly electrical circuits. If you design computers or integrated systems that use some form of logic, you would be a Computer engineer. If you design really small electrical things, you would be a Microelectronic engineer. --mdd4696 23:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In Canada (and the US, if I understand correctly), "electrical engineering" covers just about everything done with electrons. Only relatively recently (within 20 years) has a distinction between analog and digital systems been made, with the study of digital systems and of hardware used for information processing being called "computer engineering" (as opposed to "computer science", which usually covers information theory). In many universities this is still considered a subset of electrical engineering. I've never heard the term "electronics engineering" in North America outside of the acronym expansion of "IEEE". The discipline described in electronics engineering would be considered "electrical engineering" over here. --Christopher Thomas 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it does appear that the American/Canadian engineers are lagging well behind not only Europe but ther own institution's (IEEE) definition. More weight to my argument.--Light current 03:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is "lagging" is irrelevant. What matters is how the term is used, and more to the point, how the users of the English version of Wikipedia think the terms "electrical engineering" and "electronics engineering" should be filed. So far, voting is strongly in favour of restoring version 1 of the article. We'll see how it looks in another week or two. Or, restart the RFC, including "electrical/electronics engineering" as a third option, and make everyone vote again. What I object to is you breaking out "electronics engineering" into its own article and removing large tracts from "electrical engineering" unilaterally. This did not occur with proper consensus beforehand, and will make the page less useful to readers in North America. Consensus is strongly suggested before any major change. --Christopher Thomas 06:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not 'break out' electronics engineering as you put it, I retreived it from the trash can. It existed before I started to work on it but someone had redirected it to electrical engineering-- thats what really annoyed me. I removed the large tracts from electrical eng before it became clear that there was indeed such a differnce in terminology and I thought they fitted better in electronics engineering. Any way the large tracts can easily be copied back in by anyone if they have a mind to (even you could do it). As I said to Cedars, my proposals were on the talk page for quite some time before I acted, and there were no negative comments of any note. Perhaps folks didnt take me seriously. Big mistake!

It would seem from your post that you have not noticed my admission of error and my new suggestions for the page. There is still a problem, but not as great a problem as I thought there was. As I said before, the page needs to represent views of all the English speaking world, and, in a large part of it, the term electronics engineering has a distinct meaning. If you have not seen my suggestions, I repeat here and now that I am prepared to help sort out this situation, but I dont think steamrollering on with a vote on an argument that has changed is going to be very productive. Yet it seems that that is what folks want to do. A vote on the old proposal will not solve the problem. Cooperation from everyone in sorting the mess (not wallowing in it) may do.--Light current 06:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Side note - please consider indenting your comments, so that threads can be easily picked out. I notice that this has already been mentioned to you on your talk page.)

My indents are well defined--Light current 07:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You aren't indenting at _all_. I've fixed your previous comment to show you how to do it. Use one or more  :  marks before your comment (for each paragraph). The number of  :  marks indicates the depth of indenting. Wikipedia turns this into indenting when rendering the talk page. By convention, replies are one level deeper than the comment they are replying to. --Christopher Thomas 07:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I tell you what. You dont fix my indents and I wont fix yours- I have good reasons for doing it this way OK??--Light current 07:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? Name them. You also interleaved your reply above, not below, the comment you were replying to, making things even more confusing for anyone reading. Intenting conventions exist for a reason. Between this and your reshuffling of comments previously, you appear to be doing a great job of making this talk page less readable. --Christopher Thomas 17:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My indents are well defined and logical. The method you and some others use would have comments indented off the page in a very short time making it very difficult to identify the writer. My way, the writer is obvious by his constant indent value.--Light current 17:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The RFC that you'd originally posted is still on the books, and people - like me - are going to come here and vote on it. That is the consequence of starting an RFC. I've already suggested what to do if you feel that the two solutions listed aren't acceptable: add a note to the RFC listing in Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology to indicate that the available options have changed, turn the current voting sections into subsections of a section called "old RFC (date)" without deleting, modifying, or reshuffling the contents further, and start a new section called "new RFC options (date)" with subsections for new voting options as gathered from the previous threads.


 * I am perfectly capable of editing the documents in question, but I'm not going to do that until reasonable consensus is reached. What I'd do if I was going to edit it right now is revert to version 1, then tweak the introduction to more prominently mention the difference in usage between North America and Europe (and maybe mention "computer engineering" in there briefly as well). I'd fold back in anything useful from electronics engineering, and turn that back into a redirect. If I did this, you'd likely take strong offense to it and change things back, so I don't see the point in doing it until consensus is reached on what edits should be made. This is how editing in Wikipedia is supposed to work. In the meantime, you started this debate, so you can handle the legwork in managing it.Christopher Thomas??

Correction. It was not I who started the debate but User:Cedars as you will see if you look at the edit history of this page.--Light current 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did check the edit history. You were the one who removed content from electrical engineering and resurrected electronics engineering. That event, which you initiated, is the cause of this debate, so I find your statement that User:Cedars started it dubious. You say you went through due process before doing so, but the fact that so many people have responded negatively suggests that you should have spent a bit longer trying to get others' opinions on wheher this should be done. --Christopher Thomas 17:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As for "pulling electronics engineering out of the trash can", the edit history shows the only previous version as a cut and paste from what looks like a course calendar. The material there is all original material written by you or moved from electrical engineering. There was nothing to resurrect from previous versions.
 * --Christopher Thomas 07:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So a complete syllabus describing the training of an electronics engineer is nothing?? At least we say what it is we're trained in. I didnt notice similar material on the elec eng page. That gives me a good indication of your attitude to electronics engineers!--Light current 07:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you even check the old page? It had no useful content. You can find it right here, if you want to check it yourself. It was a bunch of three-word topic headings mashed together without any formatting, explanation, indication of relevance, description, or otherwise meaningful information. A description of "what we're trained in", or even a _decent_ course syllabus, or even a glance at Category:Electronics, would convey far more information. This information already existed in electrical engineering. If you felt that European use of the term "electronics engineering" should have been mentioned, the place to do it was in electrical engineering. Instead of ranting about my "attitude", how about a) checking the articles you're talking about, b) checking the Manual of style, and c) reading Consensus? And how about actually following my suggestion if you want the RFC to produce a vote between the options you want, instead of railing about how people are voting on the wrong topic? I've done my best to explain to you how due process works, but you have so far failed to act on or even acknowledge it. --Christopher Thomas 17:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well yes of course I checked the old page- it had a good description of the training and education of what we call an electronics engineer, This page had effectively bben dleted by a redirect to elec eng that did not incorparate this material. I resurrected the page utilising this material and moved stuff from elec eng that I thought fitted better under electronics eng. This original info was NOT contained on the elec eng page. If you look at the edit history of elec eng you will see that I did try to modify it to bring it into line with the European view but I was reverted a couple of times by User:Cedars. So yes, I do check the articles before I rant about them - Its a pity not all editors do adequate research before commenting or voting on a subject. As to consensus, a consensus agreeing that something is OK when it plainly isn't is useless. Hence it needs bold action to shake people out of their erroneous cosy consensus!--Light current 17:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A big misunderstanding!
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)

Repair
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)

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)

Look here to learn more differences!


If you cant be bothered to click link its here:

''Electrical and Electronic Engineering, in common with other engineering disciplines, is concerned with applying scientific principles to solve engineering problems and advance the technological level of society. It is therefore a highly vocational subject.

Electronic Engineering is concerned with ‘small scale’ systems; microelectronics, digital communications systems, computer and internet technologies.

''Electrical Engineering, on the other hand, encompasses ‘large scale’ systems, namely the generation, transmission, distribution, utilisation and control of electrical power and renewable energy. At Cardiff we offer separate degree courses in Electronic Engineering and in Electrical & Electronic Engineering.''

So in the Cardiff case, only Electronics eng is big enough to stand on its own! Electrical eng has to bundled with electronics if you want to study it!

Heres some more:  

This ones got electrical as a subset of electronics!

They dont even bother with elec eng here!

No electrical eng here so how can electronics be a subset of it?

Electrical and electronic engineering are separate here too! extrct from above link:

''Electrical Engineering concerns the generation, supply, distribution, application and control of electrical energy. It is the powerhouse of manufacturing industry and without it, industry and the nation would grind to a halt! The field of electrical engineering is now expanding to include automotive and ship propulsion systems, aircraft control systems, and the technology used to convert renewables such as wind and solar power into electrical energy for the national grid system. Electrical Engineering is central to virtually all manufacturing processes and their automation (imagine the career opportunities here) and the electrical engineer is often a key figure in these industries - a fast-track to management if you are so inclined. This course is available with management or language.''[end]

The only real electrical eng course here is the one called power eng. T

There are a lot of other courses all including electronics or electronics eng

There are many more references on the web but I think I have proved my point that Electronics engineering is in NO WAY subset of electrical eng. I will change the article to reflect this.

--Light current 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

They say elec eng is the same as computing-- total bullshit!

Look at Stanfords logo. A wavelet and a transistor. What have these got to do with Electrical?

 Again the Berkeley course is electronics in all but name

 Well MITs weird anyway. Just look at the shape of the buildings!!

 Most of this course is electronics

 look at research areas -- all electronics engineering!

 This says elec eng is the same as computer science - so we can discount that one!

 Electrical is the same as computer engineering here!

 Research prog all electronics, no electrical!

 They think elec eng and computing are the same!

 All research is electronic here

 any one who builds ccts on Sdecs has got to be joking of course and cannot be taken seriously!! 

 So elec eng is the same as computer eng again!! Total B***ocks

 yes, describes elec eng in its intro but all the courses are electronics!

--Light current 22:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

Please dont patronise me!!! So you werent serious after all about wanting me to improve the article BTW I dont need your permission to change the article so try some proper arguments yourself instead of just reverting me--Light current 11:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

You decided to halt editing of this page- not me. I continue to improve it. You continue to criticse me for doing so --Light current 21:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Cedar, I have had my intentions posted here for quite a few days. No one, until now, has decided to complain. And its only you. So much for consensus. It seems you can change the page without consensus or explanation but when I explian the good reasons for changing and get no adverse conmment, you lie in wait until Ive done all the work and then revert it!!. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia. Electrical engineering is now just a shell! Why not admit it!--Light current 10:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on examples/counter examples
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)

A more accurate statement would be that no one has supported your changes. I stand by my request that you not edit the article until you have consensus for a change or can noticably improve the article (culling vast blocks of text from the article and ruining its formatting is not improving it). Cedars 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Page changes
Despite the references you provide it is still not universally accpeted that electronics engineering is a separate field that must be distinguished from electrical engineering. Electronics engineering has been described as a subfield of electrical engineering in this article for the past three years without incident. There is no problem with creating a separate article on electronics engineering but please do not edit the article unless your changes will improve the article's quality. Editing the lead of the article so that it describes electronics engineering as a separate discipline and then leaving the rest of the article so it describes electronic engineering as a subfield of electrical engineeering does not improve the article. Cedars 00:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If this page has been here unaltered for three years, then it just goes to show some people editing this page are ill informed (to put it mildly) about engineering in general and electrical/electronic eng in particular. Ive only just come across it and I was truly shocked amazed and annoyed at its arrogance regarding  the important and well established field of Electronics Engineering. Corrercting the whole page in one go is a rather large task and may not be possible without lots of complaints and reversions by others.  so Im just testing the water - its warm!--Light current 00:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ive changed the page now -- see what U think. Please reply here with any changes you think need making.--Light current 02:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose that there should be one article entitled Electrical and electronic engineering. Sorry about the ID confusion. I wrote 3 paragraphs and only signed the last one.--C J Cowie


 * The problem is the the term Electrical eng means nothing thes days. It has to defined by its so called sub fieldd. The sub fields are now the main fields. I did not study Electrical engineering even tho thats what the Dept was partly called and I object stongly to being called an electrical engineer. Is that plain enough?--Light current 20:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The development of the profession of electrical engineering is not much different from other fields with regard to the development of specialties. As technology has advanced, specialties have developed to the point that the identification of the specialty has become as important as identifying the overall profession. However, few specialists have turned their back on their heritage and refused to be known by other than the name of their specialty. What is a medical doctor? Perhaps he is a general practitioner. How many general practitioners are there today? In the US, most of what we now call "primary care physicians" are internists (doctors of internal medicine). Many or perhaps most engineering graduates that do actual engineering work are actually electronics engineers. Since that is such an important specialty, and since IEEE was formed by merging earlier electrical and electronics engineering organizations, the new organization was named the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Universities are now often similarly naming their electrical engineering departments. Electrical engineering is the technical foundation and the heritage of electronics engineering. Electronics engineering provides essential instruments, control systems and design tools for electrical engineering. The two areas are inextricably combined and should not be viewed as two completely distinct fields. Electronics engineering was, to a great extent, developed as a part of electrical engineering and should be considered to be a subfield even though electrical engineering is, in in some ways, just a collection of subfields dominated by electronics engineering. The article should be reverted to the last revision by Cedars.---C J Cowie 02:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support C J. Cedars 04:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Light current, I'm not trying to hide your viewpoint - in the reverted article it recieves a very prominent mention in the article's lead. However your viewpoint is not a unviersal veiwpoint. Your feelings on being called an electrical engineering are fine but they are not a rationale for changing an article. On the flipside I have studied a number electronics engineering subjects and I would prefer to be called an electrical engineer to an electronics engineer. I have no problem mentioning your viewpoint in the article's lead nor do I have a problem with having a separate article for electronics engineering (I have actually been hoping someone would create one for some time) but I cannot accept your current changes to this article. If electronics engineering is that important to you, maybe your time would be better spent editing the electronics engineering article. Please consider these comments carefully. Cedars 04:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

--Light current 01:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Who said this ? please identify!--Light current 22:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Other than that, I think that the article should be left as Cedars has revised it.--C J Cowie


 * Well Im sorry I totally disagree!--Light current 21:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Electrical and electronic engineering are inextricably combined as recognized by their combined membership in the major professional organizations, IEE and IEEE. They share a common historical course of development. They share a common core of fundamental principles. The basic distinction between electrical and electronic engineering is that electronics engineers specialize in the design and application of electronic components and devices. According to Britannica, electronics is the "branch of physics that deals with the emission, behaviour, and effects of electrons (as in electron tubes and transistors) and with electronic devices." Electronic components and devices include electron tubes, cathode ray tubes, semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, microprocessors etc. Electrical components and devices include resistors, inductors, capacitors, transformers, electromechanical devices, motors, generators etc.--C J Cowie


 * Correct - elect eng deals with all of these: Electrical components and devices including resistors, inductors, capacitors, transformers, electromechanical devices, motors, generators etc. but not much more.

--Light current 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Most electrical products and systems include a combination of electrical and electronic components and devices. --C J Cowie 14:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct -we are not talking about electrical products. We're talking about electronics and how it's different from electrical eng!--Light current 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Confusion

 * 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)

I have added a clarification on the distinction between electrical and electronic engineering to the lead. I have no problem with a separate article being created to discuss electronic engineering. As explained in the lead, electronic engineering can be viewed as a subfield of electrical engineering or as a related but separate discipline. The choice to view it as a subfield is historic (to the article). Cedars 00:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Removal of material
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)


 * 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)

Sorry I cant agree with that one. If thats so, how do you define electronics?--Light current 18:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

History of electrical engineering
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)


 * 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)

I think that the history of technology is a fascinating subject, but most technology articles would probably be better with little or no history. It might be better to just very briefly state the contributions of the principle scientists and engineers and leave the reader to click the names and read the history in the biographical articles. A history of technology article might also be good, but individual biographical articles should still be the place for the bulk of the material. Why do I keep getting logged out in the midst of editing? --65.26.227.118 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) --C J Cowie 17:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a sub-article is a good idea but I wanted to focus on the main article. If someone could split the section into a sub-article for me I would welcome the move. As said, the main article already exceeds the 32 kB suggested maximum and I can see this becomming a problem if the main article is nominated for feature status (long articles are also a general problem for the less-enthusiastic reader). The article also needs an improved lead and a summary of unsolved problems in the area. I have already made offline progress on an Unsolved problems in electrical engineering article to fit in the and could post it if desired. Cedars 03:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Electrical vs. Electronic Engineering
I have only skimmed this discussion, but can I just put in an oar for the UK here? In the UK, we call most of our degree courses Electrical and electronic engineering, and the bulk of Uni departments are similarly named. Electrical engineering is not a dying breed: the professional institute here is the IEE: The Insititue of Electrical Engineersg. -Splash talk 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a small correction here: Its the Insititution of Electrical Engineers. --88.111.102.7 17:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to put a strong vote on keeping Electrical and Electronic engineering seperate. Electrical and Electronic engineering fields are somewhat similar to Antrhopology and Sociology fields. They have overlap, and similar subjects, but are seperate fields.

Most pointedly, the summary is misleading in the distinction between the two.

Electrical engineering is the application of the physical science of electricity and related fields. Power engineering, Instrumentation engineering and Telecommunications engineering are Electrical engineering fields. They are concerned directly with the physics of operation.

Electronic engineering is the application of products of Electrical enginering. Control engineering, Signal processing and Computer engineering are Electrical enginering fields. They use individual items produced from Electrical engineering fields.

A good example, A DAC that produces signals suitable for sending to a speaker is a electical enginering product, as well as the speakers themselves. A sound card using that DAC in a computer is a product of Electronic Engineering. Someone who developes and works on DACs is not in the same specific field as someone who uses those DACs to construct soundcards.

It makes sence, both on the issue of the seperate meaning of the phrases, and the intrests of clarity, to give these two seperate subjects two seperate articles. Those in the US who might be confused by this seperation can be offered an info box showing a short summary of the two fields, and a link to the oposite one. --Barberio 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A simpler distinction between the two that I arived at.

An Electricial engineer can produce a battery, transformer, transistors, coils and an ariel. An Electronics engineer can put it together into a radio.

--Barberio 06:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * An Electricial engineer can produce a battery, transformer, transistors, coils and an ariel.
 * Well I sort of agree about the battery, and do agree about the transformer, but transistor circuits, tuning coils and antennas are definiteley in the field of electronics engineering and not electrical engineering. A look at the final year syllabi for the two courses from universities shows this. Links further up the page.^--Light current 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

How long does a poll last?
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)

''Copied from my talk:--Light current 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

I ask you to please not revert the electrical engineering page again. The survey at 6 to 1 clearly indicates that your proposed article does not have popular support - it is rare for a poll to be as decisive as this. It would be sad to see this matter go to mediation or arbitration. In considering your next course of action, please consider that other people have put a lot of time into improving the electrical engineering article. By changing the article, you are changing their work. Please also try to look at this objectively. However you feel your work has changed the article for the better - there is now an explanation of the distinction sometimes adopted between electrical and electronics engineering in the lead and there is an electronics engineering article. It may be best for you to keep working on the electronics engineering article and then revisit this issue in a week's time. If you need to contact me please feel free to use my talk page. '' Best wishes,

Cedars 00:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

National (Or Continental) Point of View
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)

I will also note this article is getting size warnings. This indicates that it should be split into seperate subjects anyway. --Barberio 14:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * *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)

Please lets not display nationalism on WP--Light current 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not nationalism - a statement of fact. Jimbo Wales lives in Florida, does he not? --Wtshymanski 19:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it may be a fact, but your quoting it is liable to stir up nationalist arguments as to who is better than whom etc. So I would ask you not to do it. Thanks--Light current 19:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought an encyclopedia was the place to state facts? --Wtshymanski 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not when intended to incite hatred! So please desist!--Light current 23:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Systematic Bias Response
Hi everyone,

I am deleting the systematic bias tag from the main page and moving it to the talk page. I am also going to ask Barberio to rephrase his comments for the systematic bias page.

I am not going to remove the systematic bias tag completely because the article, like so many on Wikipedia, could use a more international focus. For example, I believe South Korea like the United States, Canada and Australia publishes detailed statistics on their workforce here. But I am unable to access them because I cannot read Korean. Nevertheless, the article does try to achieve an international perspective in the Demographics section by comparing engineering graduate numbers from eleven diferent countries, offering the detailed workforce statstics of three different countries and comparing the percentage engineering degrees make up of all degrees across six different countries.

That said, I believe the training and certification section shows just how committed this article is to achieving an international perspective. It discusses certification in Europe and eight other countries, it discusses legislation from three different countries, it presents two worldwide organizations and it uses a case example from Israel.

The reality is people all over thew world use electrical engineering to refer to the study and application of electricity and electromagnetism (including electronic engineering). Some examples include:

Zimbabwe Australia India Japan Germany United Kingdom Turkey Chile Belgium

It is disappointing that both Light Current and Barberio who are so quick to accuse other editors of bias are eager to divide the world into Europe and America. As someone who comes from one of the four other inhabitated continents on the world I would argue this sort of bias is just as bad as an article that has a heavy North American bias. The reality is that the phenomenon of distinguishing between electrical and electronic engineering is far from global and may only be common in the United Kingdom and France.

Otherwise I believe we need to get over this issue and on with improving the article.

Cedars 10:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cedars, would you like to point me to an example of my bias against other countries? I dont believe Im guilty of that. It just so happened that the main thrust of the article seemed to be written from solely an American viewpoint. I was publicising the European (UK) view point. Just because I dont mention other countries' viewpoints does not mean Im biased against them. It's that I dont know their view point or their educational arrangements. Im waitng for someone to tell me all the details about elec eng in India, China and any where else. But we dont seem to have had may contributions from these other parts of the world yet do we?--Light current 01:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Some people use Electrical to also mean Electronic. But there are also many people who use them as seperate and distinct terms.
 * Some of you examples are spurious. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven's ESAT has gone through a variety of name changes, from Electrical, Electronic and even Electrotechnical. If you had even read their page, you would have noted they do infact distringuish between Electronic and Electrical fields, with their MICAS and ELECTRA schools. That the IEE also recognizes Electronic engineers as members, does not imply that they do not recognize it as a seperate field to Electrical Engineering. It is simply that they have not changed their original name.
 * Restoring the Globalize tag. I will not be retracting my Systemic Bias notification. Even if I did, I assume Fuddlemark would still want to follow this through.
 * I feel you're giving lipservice to the concept of NPOV here. Mentioning the rest of the world in an article that assumes a North American point of view on what Electrical Engineering is, does not negate taking that point of view. It is not okay to select one point of view here as being the 'winner'. You must describe both points of view, and must find a suitable way to do so. --Barberio 13:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Barberio,

I am moving the template back to the talk page because the WikiProject Countering systemic bias page says, and I quote, "The template may be placed on the talk pages of relevant articles".

Could you please answer the following questions for me (one at a time not as a group).

What evidence can you provide that this is a viewpoint restricted to North America?

If the article does present a strictly North American viewpoint. Why would I, an Australian, support an article with a North American viewpoint?

Why do you continue to divide the world into two parts North America and Europe when there are four other inhabitable continents in the world?

In this sense, are you not the one guilty of systematic bias?

Why are the first and second paragraphs of the lead not sufficient to describe both viewpoints?

How would you describe both viewpoints?

How can you accuse me of paying lip service to the concept of countering systematic bias when I provided five paragraphs in my response discussing the issue?

Thanks,

Cedars 00:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, lets say this again... An article that reports the North American useage as the 'correct' one is Systemicaly Biased. Reporting that 'some others' use the phrase differently is not giving a neutral POV, especialy when there is no concensus to support the articles view being the majority. This article as writen represents the North American useage of 'Electrical Engineer', and represents it as the 'correct' and majority useage.
 * This is plainly unacceptable under NPOV policy. The quickest way I could correct this would to move this Article to 'Electrical Engineer (North America)' and create a disambiguation redirect, but this is a suboptimal solution.
 * As for the {globalize} tag. Placement location is still under debate, it has been proposed that it be a talk page only tag, Template_locations, but there is no concensus in support of that yet. The systemic project page may have jumped the gun, or have an out of date recomendation. --Barberio 01:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Barberio,


 * The suggestion to move the article to "Electrical engineering (North America)" is obviously unacceptable. Firstly because it prepetuates this implicit assumption that many people on this talk page seem to have that the world is divided into two continents (North America and Europe) - there are actually seven conentinents (North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Australiasia and Antartica). Secondly, because it makes no sense to have an article on electrical engineering in North America that also mentions the United Kingdom, South Africa, India, Ireland, Zimbabwe, Australia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Russia, Chile, China and Turkey.


 * I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the article states that the unified definition of electrical engineering is the correct one. It merely states both definitions and then choses to adopt one. Nor do I believe that you have addressed the North America/Europe or North America/Rest of the world issue with your comments. However proided the systematic bias tag remains on the talk page and not on the main page - I am happy to leave it there for a few months.


 * Cedars 01:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Baird
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I agree whole-heartedly with Wtshymanski. Cedars 01:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Radomes are not electrical
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)

If we follow that argument we might as well include everything under the sun in elec eng. It would be better to say that EEs design RADARs not radomes.--Light current 18:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The argument seems a little contrived...
What we call ourselves: Electronic or Electrical (Electrical or Electronic if you prefer) seems more to do with what we do for a living than what we studied. At least in the US, my EE education included power systems, machines, electronics (analog and digital), control systems, field and waves, communications theory, etc.

What kind of engineer:

1- Designs a radiographic or fluoroscopic Xray system? Neither(Physiscist with some electronics help) 2- Designs a medial therapy linear accelerator? neither (probably a physiscist with some help) 3- Designs a switching power supply? electronics engineer 4- Designs a motor controller? electronics engineer 5- Designs a power amplifier? electronics engineer 6- Designs an electro-plating system? electrical eng 7- Designs an engine ignition system? electronics eng (for electronic ingnition) 8- Designs a Thyratron? electronics eng 9- Designs an automatic power transfer switching system? 10- Designs a high power strobe light? electroncs eng 11- Designs a Diathermy system? RF so electronics/radio eng 12- Designs an analog computer? Electronics engineer 13- Designs a magnetron? Electronics eng/physicist 14- Designs a magnetic bearing? electrical eng 15- Designs an elevator system? electrical eng 16- Does systems design of systems have power, analog, and digital components? 17- Does 3D Field and wave simulation of integrated circuits for signal integrity?electronics eng 18- Does low power wave guide design? electronics eng 19- Designs X10 home automation systems? electronics eng

Power, logic, communications, and analog control comes together in a lot of common products and systems. The whole argument strikes mean as a just a little contrived... I can't imagine hiring someone trained in engineering with electricty who could not eventually figure out all of the above -- no matter what you call them.

Are you going to tell me there are 'Electronic Engineers' today who couldn't figure out a synchronous motor or generator, and 'Electrical Engineers' who can't code information to modulate a carrier, or figure out how a relaxtion oscillator works?66.26.87.231
 * Could you please sign your posts by typing four tildes. Thanks--Light current 18:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ive answered some of your questions above. Where I have put electronics engineer, it means I would be happy to tackle it. Where I have put electrical eng, it means thatI do not have the expertise to tackle it as well as an electrical engineer would. Where I have left blanks its because I dont understand the question. If you have experience in all the above fields, then by todays standards you are a very 'broad' engineer indeed!
 * THe important word in your post is eventually. Yes after a certaing amount of practice and study and some experience at it Im sure most EEs could tackle all the above. But that doesnt mean that they will be hired to do these things if they do not have that particular specialism. As Im sure you know, jobs are even more specialised than yuor list these days. But the point is that in Europe, Electrical engineers and electronics engineers see themselves as different breeds. For instance I would not like to be thought of as someone who designs elevators or electroplating plant or motors. I hope this clarifies my view somewhat.:-)--Light current 18:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

New page describing electronic and electrical engineering properly
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)

Opening Pandoras box
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)

Page length
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)


 * 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)


 * It now serves as a general warning to keep articles trim and relevent, and consider splitting or pruning an article. See Article_size --Barberio 02:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

User:Cedars four reverts on this tag:


 * 03:47, 27 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Electrical engineering (moved tag to talk page - equally there are two people who want it on the talk page)
 * 02:57, 27 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Electrical engineering (removed tag)
 * 01:25, 27 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Electrical engineering (move systematic bias tag to talk page)
 * 11:11, 26 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Electrical engineering (move systematic bias tag to talk page)