Talk:Engineering/Archive 2

Addition to History / Renaissance section
OK, so I tried to edit the article with an item about the amazing engineering genius, Brunelleschi, but my edit was immediately removed - so clearly I don't know enough about how to effect changes to an article. So instead I will propose the following insert at the start of the section on History / Renaissance:

"The foremost engineer of the Renaissance era was Filippo Brunelleschi who designed and built the immense dome for the Cathedral in Florence (Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore) in the mid 1400s. Many have referred to him as the first modern engineer. He is joined by Leonardo da Vinci (also a Florentine) and others in a resurgence of technical skill during the Renaissance." 24.13.34.10 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bio-engineering and Synthetic Biology
I think there should be an additional section in this article biological engineering. I am myself a Biology Engineer (this specialty exists in France, but not only, in Belgium, in Canada (Biochemical Engineers from Polytechnique Montreal), etc.).

The reason why I feel that it should be added is that the past years have seen the rise of a new field in Genetic Engineering called Synthetic Biology based on the re-engineering of living organisms.

Main actors are Drew Endy from Standford, Craig Venter from the JCVI, George Church from Harvard and Jay Keasling from Berkeley.

There are numerous ongoing projects in this field, one of them being the building of an open-source registry of "BioBricks"

I am doing immunology research and am not really in the field, but if anyone knows more about it, maybe he/she could write that part.

What do you think about it?

Ulalume (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Found this article: Synthetic Biology - putting engineering into biology

Ulalume (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
I have requested the good services of WP:3O here. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ please see above. Zoo  Pro  04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ZooPro for your opinion and your advice. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Engineering branches
I have made an overhaul of the Branches of Engineering section with an authoritative book reference from Oxford University Press on this very subject, stating that the five major branches of engineering are chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical and industrial. This was reverted by User:Dr.K. who believes aerospace should be included but industrial excluded.

Perhaps Dr.K. prefers aerospace engineering for some reason, but from a reasonable, objective perspective it's hard to see it as anything other than a subfield of mechanical engineering. I'm sure Dr.K. has a different opinion, but it is generally not considered a major engineering branch. In any case, I have provided a far more reliable source, a book devoted to the very subject of organizing disciplines, whereas the current text is supported by a very weak web source from a college. It seems the facts are quite clear. I'd love to hear the reasons for the revert. Engini86 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not about me. Please see lengthy debate * above. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Engineering/Archive 1 * (Sept-Nov 2007, Oct-Nov 2008) – Athaenara ✉  00:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway I am adding far more reliable sources supporting the consensus version. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the 2+ years old debate in which you dominated by writing about 50% of the words, then I believe it would be useful to have a more meaningful discussion at this point. The source you added (I presume you mean the one by Dexter) is itself contradicting your position. It lists four branches of engineering, not the five that is in the current version. Furthermore, it does not say that those were the four definitive traditional or historical branches; indeed it is just a casual suggestion presented with e.g., implying those were merely four of the potentially dozens or hundreds of other engineering disciplines on the author's mind at that time.
 * In fact, none of the sources you provided really support your position: that there are five main, traditional branches of engineering and that aerospace engineering is one of the five branches. I would like to hear some of your arguments why aerospace should even be considered separate from mechanical in this context. Certainly, the prevailing and logical view is that it's a subbranch of mechanical, which is one of the traditional branches.
 * There are currently four branches (chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical) that are undisputed and two (industrial and aerospace)that are disputed for inclusion. The current version should reflect that. Engini86 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have Imperial College and the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences which support Aeronautical and you remove it? Please do not remove cited material. The threshold here is verifiability not truth per WP:V. As far as your comment: If you are referring to the 2+ years old debate in which you dominated by writing about 50% of the words; it is quite novel. My arguments helped reach consensus which lasted for two years never mind the comparative statistics. It is actually three years if you count when the debate actually started. We have a stable version now and the onus is on you to gain consensus from other editors to change it. Edit-warring with WP:3RR and all is not the way to do it. Also please avoid making ad-hominem aguments and comment on contributions not on contributors. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the one who has been deleting cited material with this edit which removed a reliable citation; on the other hand, I have preserved all the citations that existed previously when I added a new reference. Can you give a reason to justify your selective removal of that ref? You are not helping the process or your claim when you remove citations in such manner. I will restore the citation you have deleted.
 * As I have said before, you have not provided any sources that support your claim that there are five main, traditional branches of engineering and that aerospace engineering is one of those five branches. The onus is on you to provide a verifiable source supporting that claim. Please review WP:BOP.
 * I am interested in a serious, civil discussion here. But you have chosen to revert the addition of new citation and react to any changes to your version with hostility. Any review of the page history will clearly show that all the reverts thus far have come from you. Instead of blindly reverting changes to your own version, I would appreciate it if you are willing to address the concerns raised regarding your claims and and your sources. It does seem you are passionate about including aerospace engineering and excluding industrial engineering from the section, but please be aware of WP:OWN. Thank you. Engini86 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of throwing slogans at me such as WP:OWN please try to understand what is written above and how many other editors have agreed with me over the past three years. You will see that there were many other editors who agreed with me. Please see WP:CONSENSUS for more information. As far as your claim:You are the one who has been deleting cited material with this edit which removed a reliable citation;  is concerned, I removed your citation because it was redundant due to the fact that it just supported the rest of the branches which were already cited. Your edit did not mention Industrial Engineering therefore it was not used to support the addition of new material. Therefore it was redundant. Now that you have added Industrial to the main branches at least it supports something new and I will leave it for now although I am not convinced that Industrial is a main branch and the reference you provided is simply a handbook which reflects just the opinion of its author and is not as reliable as Imperial College or the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences which both support Aeronautical as a main branch and they are better quality citations. Anyway let's wait for some other editors to join this conversation and offer their opinions before we proceed further. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

<< My main concern here not so much that Industrial should be included; my concern is the obvious inconsistency of including the narrow subdicipline of aerospace engineering while simultaneously excluding similar-scoped disciplines such as Industrial, Biomedical, Software and many others. If we include Aerospace there is no logical reason that prevents an endless creep to include dozens if not hundreds of "main" branches. Normally, disputed material in Wikipedia should be excluded until the dispute is resolved. In this case, I suggest that both Industrial and Aerospace be excluded, but you reverted that change. I am going to talk at depth about the numerous serious problems with the sources that you are currently using. I hope you can take a serious look at them:

The Imperial College website is merely a course guide: the thesis of the quoted sentence is simply to state Imperial's course offerings, not to declare which are the main branches of engineering. In other words, you've taken the sentence out of its context to support a point that is unrelated to the sentence thesis. Similarly, the quoted sentence in the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences paper simply mentions four branches as examples (headed off with e.g.) among an untold number of other branches that the author potentially considers as "main" branches. If we instead follow a strict reading of that sentence, then we have to conclude that chemical engineering is not a main branch of engineering. Also. while both are reputable organizations, neither sources are peer reviewed documents that would indicate reliable sources.

The most important problem is that you can't pick and combine parts from different sources to support a new argument, as that would constitute synthesis, a form of original research (see WP:SYN: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.). For example, you can't take a source that says "A, B and C are main branches of engineering" and combine it with another source saying "B, C and D are main branches of engineering" and then conclude that "A, B, C and D are the main branches of engineering." In doing so you are arguing a new claim not supported by any of the sources.

In other words, it is not enough to cite a source that just states "Aerospace is one of the main branches of engineering." You need to have at least one reliable source that definitively states "Aerospace, Chemical, Civil, Electrical and Mechanical are the main branches of engineering." Basically, for Aerospace to be included as it is in the current version, the source must support your entire argument: that there are five main branches of engineering and that Aerospace is one of those five branches. Notice the difference in that my citation clearly states Chemical, Civil, Electrical, Industrial and Mechanical as the five main branches of engineering.

I hope you can see that I am not trying to stir trouble as these are very valid concerns. Otherwise, there's nothing preventing the addition of other narrow subdisciplines on similarly weak grounds that you use to support aerospace. And I still find it hard to see how aerospace is anything other than a subbranch of mechanical. Engini86 (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the lesson in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR but if you checked my contributions you would have noticed that I specialise in WP:SYNTH/OR detection, so I really do not need the reminders. This is a special case we have here. Every Engineer knows, without needing citations, which are the main branches of Engineering. Because of this there has been no research on what constitutes a main branch because this would be unnecessary. So you asking for academic research papers dealing with such a well-understood subject misses the point. Given that we do not have academic research papers defining the main branches the second-best choice is to find sources such as I have found supporting the association of the various branches with the adjective "Main". It is an imperfect solution but we cannot always have perfection. In an imperfect world we are driven by such approaches and consensus. The current long-standing consensus is for the presentation of the five main branches as they stood for three years now. As far as Aeronautical/Aerospace being a main branch, I discussed the option somewhere above. I am not inclined to repeat the arguments here. Since I am frankly tired repeating these arguments ad-infinitum every other year or so I propose that we wait for further input from other users or even open a WP:RFC. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 09:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And please avoid bolding statements. It is rather distracting and unnecessary. Let's keep the volume of the conversation down. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 09:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for input here at the WP:WikiProject Engineering. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 09:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You said that "Every Engineer knows, without needing citations, which are the main branches of Engineering." This is exactly what I have been saying - every engineer knows which branches they are and he/she will tell you that Aerospace is not one of those branches but rather a subbranch of mechanical engineering. The current version of the article, with Aerospace included as a main branch, certainly does not reflect that prevailing view. Therefore my point is that if you want to challenge the conventional view and include Aerospace along with the commonly accepted branches, then the onus is on you to provide a rock-solid citation to back up your claim. An exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. I've already provided a peer-reviewed academic work that clearly states the five main branches, which does not count Aerospace. This is not a difficult task as you make it out to be.
 * I'm glad you say that you specialize in WP:SYNTH/OR, but I'm disappointed you ignored that with the sources you added here. And please don't use consensus as an excuse - This is not about consensus but about the basic problem with an unverifiable claim. Challenging an unverifiable claim does not affect consensus. We will have consensus just as easily without including Aerospace, and it should be excluded until the burden of evidence is met. Engini86 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You say: <tt>This is not about consensus but about the basic problem with an unverifiable claim. </tt> I have provided two very reliable citations for Aeronautical so your claim is not valid. Remember these citations are verifiable and high quality. So don't call the fact that Aeronautical is a main Branch "unverifiable" or, worse, REDFLAG. It is supported by 2 (two) reliable sources. You calling aeronautical a sub-branch of Mechanical is irrelevant. My opinion or yours does not really matter. Only reliable sources matter. Imperial college and the International Council on Aeronautics call Aeronautical Engineering a main Branch. That is verifiable and high quality evidence that Aeronautical is indeed a main branch. Since we cannot agree on Aeronautical we have reached an impasse that can be resolved by other editors adding their input so we have to wait for more opinions. As far as your handbook reference calling Industrial Engineering a main branch, that in my opinion is a real REDFLAG. I know of no other source that calls Industrial a main branch. But let's wait for the opinions of others. I am done here for now until I hear some more opinions. Let's just agree to disagree at this point because I see no more progress as things stand right now. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As discussed before, you are misusing both of your sources to argue a completely new claim not advocated by either sources, a clear violation of WP:SYN. You say you specialize in WP:SYNTH/OR but apparently ignore this when other people question your own sources. To be honest, I find this behavior extremely disappointing. Currently your claim is not properly supported by any of your sources, and as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is an unverifiable claim. I'd love to agree to disagree on the Aerospace/Industrial issue. But you will still need to address the basic problem with original research and misuse of sources. Are you going to address the problem or not? Please meet the burden of evidence or remove the unverifiable claim. Thank you.
 * I know you strongly support Aerospace engineering but please understand that Wikipedia requires content to be properly supported by reliable sources. If your view is anywhere close to mainstream it should not be difficult to find just one reliable source without resorting to original research. Engini86 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep making personal comments about me and I remind you again about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and I ask you yet again to stop. I have no interest discussing any further points with you. This is why I asked for a third opinion. This cannot be decided between us. Neither I nor you hold the key to this article's content. Let's wait for a third person to address these points. As far as your allegations about OR on my part I simply copy and paste my comments from above:<tt> This is a special case we have here. Every Engineer knows, without needing citations, which are the main branches of Engineering. Because of this there has been no research on what constitutes a main branch because this would be unnecessary. So you asking for academic research papers dealing with such a well-understood subject misses the point. Given that we do not have academic research papers defining the main branches the second-best choice is to find sources such as I have found supporting the association of the various branches with the adjective "Main". It is an imperfect solution but we cannot always have perfection. In an imperfect world we are driven by such approaches and consensus. The current long-standing consensus is for the presentation of the five main branches as they stood for three years now. As far as Aeronautical/Aerospace being a main branch, I discussed the option somewhere above. I am not inclined to repeat the arguments here. Since I am frankly tired repeating these arguments ad-infinitum every other year or so I propose that we wait for further input from other users or even open a WP:RFC.</tt> But, again, let's wait for a referee/third opinion. It clear that we have reached an impasse here and we need further input from the community. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 03:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There has not been anything even resembling personal attacks here. Anyone reviewing this discussion can see that I have explained my concerns about the citations with a lot of civility and patience. So please drop the WP:CIVIL threats.
 * WP:OR applies every time you add a citation to Wikipedia - It is not something you choose to follow when convenient and ignore when inconvenient. No, the fact that somebody is unable to find academic research papers does not turn this into a "special case" where original research is allowed. It is never, ever acceptable to misuse sources to argue a completely new and different opinion. You said <tt>Given that we do not have academic research papers defining the main branches the second-best choice is to find sources such as I have found supporting the association of the various branches with the adjective "Main".</tt> If this is indeed what you have done then it is almost a textbook example of original research. That's not an "imperfect" solution - it is OR and it is an inappropriate solution. And as I have said, it is not really that difficult to find a reliable academic work on this topic if the claim matches that of the mainstream.
 * You try to frame this as simply a disagreement between your points and mine. But this is still about a fundamental problem with verifiability. You say that you are not interested in responding to my point any further. That's fine but it doesn't make the problem go away. I had hoped you would actually address the point instead of avoiding it or repeating a non-answer. Engini86 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You commented just above:<tt>To be honest, I find this behavior extremely disappointing.</tt> This is a personal comment about my behaviour. Per our NPA policy these types of comments should be avoided. Comment on contributions not on contributors. As far as the rest of your reply let's just agree to disagree. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally am not that concerned with defining the main branches, but rather including the options for the different types of engineering. One might also look to academic institutions to see X number of programs exist? Perhaps this could be an interesting research project for someone. Having said this, I found this link that points to 10 main branches and seems to have many references for each (rationale). I have not reviewed these sources and will leave that to others should it be of interest. Please check it out if you are so inclined: http://www.creatingtechnology.org/branch.htm -- Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwmu (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jwmu. I'll have a look. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, Wikipedia is not a directory for different programs and course options at institutions. The topic here is defining the branches of engineering and it sounds like you might be interested in something else. Perhaps you are right that it would make an interesting research project, but it's not for Wikipedia. Engini86 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about and I really don't care. I don't recall making a point about research projects and I am certain that you misunderstood my point even if I made one. I also find your penchant of quoting policies to me for no good reason to be counterproductive and useless. Again I would really like that we simply stop this failed discussion and wait for a third opinion. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  03:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was clearly responding to the initial comment made by User:Jwmu so I have no idea why you need to interject the conversation this way. In any case, I don't think you should take the comments personally and with such negativity, especially when the comments are not about your points. Engini86 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I did not observe the indentation of your comment and I thought It was directed at me. I struck my comments. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should Aeronautical Engineering and/or Industrial Engineering be classified as Historical Main Branches of Engineering based on the sources provided? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we have a brief summary, by proponents of each position, of what support is found in sources for their opinions, so we don't have to read all the discussion that preceded this RfC? Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dick. I'll try to be as brief as possible. The fact that there are four historical main branches (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical Chemical) is not disputed here because it is supported by various WP:RS. However in the case of Aerospace there are only two sources which support it as a main branch: The Imperial College website and the International Council for Aeronautics conference paper. However these two sources vary as to the remaining main branches, so there is no single source mentioning all five (or six main branches if you count Industrial). Industrial Engineering is only supported by a single handbook published by Oxford Press. I think that since Aerospace evolved historically in parallel to Mechanical as a separate branch and given the two citations it should be mentioned as a Main Branch. I disagree with the inclusion of Industrial because it is not a historical main branch. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

<<< I'm going to summarize one of my comments from the earlier discussion. There are two major problems with the citations used to justify Aerospace Engineering as a major branch of engineering. There is (1) a problem with original research as synthesis of material. And then there is (2) also a problem with the way the sources are interpreted.

(1) The Aerospace proponent here believes that the main branches of engineering are Aerospace, Civil, Chemical, Electrical and Mechanical engineering. It is essential that we do not pick and combine parts from different sources to support a new argument, as that would constitute synthesis, a form of original research (WP:SYN: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.). For example, you can't take a source that says "A, B and C are main branches of engineering" and combine it with another source saying "B, C and D are main branches of engineering" and then conclude that "A, B, C and D are the main branches of engineering." In doing so you would be arguing a new claim not supported by any of the sources.

In this case, it is not enough to cite a source that just states "Aerospace is one of the main branches of engineering." There needs to be at least one reliable source that definitively states (along the lines of) "Aerospace, Chemical, Civil, Electrical and Mechanical are the main branches of engineering." Basically, for Aerospace to be included as one of the five main branches of engineering, the source must support the entire argument: that there are five main branches of engineering and that Aerospace is one of those five branches. A quick look at the sources from Imperial College and the International Council for Aeronautics shows quite clearly that we have a case of WP:SYN here.

(2) Second, both sources used by the proponent are misrepresenting the original meaning of the text. The Imperial College website is merely a course guide: the thesis of the quoted sentence is simply to state Imperial's course offerings, not to declare which are the main branches of engineering. In other words, the sentence was taken out of its context to support a point that is unrelated to the sentence thesis. Similarly, the quoted sentence in the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences paper simply mentions four branches as examples (headed off with e.g.) among an untold number of other branches that the author potentially considers as "main" branches. Also. while both are reputable organizations, both sources are self-published and neither are peer reviewed documents that would indicate reliable sources.

In contrast, my citation from Oxford University Press clearly states, definitively, that Chemical, Civil, Electrical, Industrial and Mechanical as the five main branches of engineering. It is also a published book from a reliable source. Engini86 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when is the handbook which you provided a peer-reviewed publication? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 05:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you are not suggesting that a journal from a respected university press like Oxford has not been extensively fact-checked. In addition, the publication is overseen by a university research institute with its own editorial board seen on its homepage. There are at least three unaffiliated academic research papers I am aware of that have cited this publication. On the hand, your citations of self-published material from the college website and the reproduced archives of conference proceedings are obviously not fact checked. The level of reliability is not even comparable. Engini86 (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * About your comment:<tt>I hope you are not suggesting that a journal from a respected university press like Oxford has not been extensively fact-checked.</tt> I did not mention anything about fact-checking. I asked you if it is peer-reviewed and you did not answer my question. And this is the first time I see a journal being called a handbook. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:RS: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." The fact that the source has been overseen by an editorial board of academic scholars and published by a respected university press is more than enough to show the publication is peer-reviewed. It would be quite unreasonable and extraordinary to still assume otherwise. Engini86 (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be more useful if you guys would link your sources here, and refrain from arguing with each other. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Here are my sources:

Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the current mess of refs cited (in the article, just before you put those here). It's pretty much junk. None of these seem to be secondary sources about the main divisions of engineering. How about looking into some books, like this one that actually talk about the historical main branches? You could mention the big 4 (or more if you include the mining/metallurgy/petroleum branch that shows up historically), and then mention some of the newer ones, like this book does. Or pick some other book. But not University course catalogs and junk like that. I don't know about that handbook; is there a link? Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see nothing in the book link you provided about any main branches. There is no snipet view. The handbook has no reference text-related link as far as I know. As far as the current citations being junk I disagree. They are at least strong indicators, in the absence of books, of which disciplines are considered main branches. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  06:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you're in a different country or something. It says "1.4 THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF ENGINEERING WORK In the middle of the 20th Century, civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical and mining engineering were thought of as the main branches of engineering. These have been further sub-divided to make way for more specialisation with newer branches including aeronautical, aerospace, agricultural, automotive, biomedical, coastal, computer systems, electronic, environmental, mechatronic, medical, optical, rehabilitation, and transport engineering, to name but a few."  Try the search there and see what alternate views you find.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's funny. I can't see a snipet of your book but the Oxford handbook comes in clear. Anyway I have no problem mentioning what you wrote above but I still doubt about Industrial at least on the WP:UNDUE side. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is my citation: Julie Thompson Klein, Robert Frodeman, Carl Mitcham. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, 2010. (pp 149 - 150). It is copyrighted work, but a preview is available via Google Books. A small quote: "Today, the five so-called 'traditional' major branches of engineering are civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical and industrial engineering." Engini86 (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked at it on Amazon, before you put the Google link (and Google doesn't seem to want to show me those pages). Not a bad book, but certainly not a journal, just some North Texas guys that organized a bunch of contributors and got Oxford to publish it. Maybe we should just be up front and mention that different sources have different lists of main branches... Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that with the only caveat being that I really doubt that Industrial is regarded as a main branch by too many sources. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 06:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see Industrial mentioned more often than aeronautical. This book] lists the big 4 plus Industrial as the main branches.  I don't see one that lists the big 4 plus aeronautical.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's surprising but I'm ok with it in the absence of more evidence. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with including more branches, or limiting the list to just the undisputed "big four" of civil, chemical, mechanical and electrical. However, we still have a basic problem that Aerospace currently lacks any kind of reliable source that properly supports its inclusion. Given the mainstream view that aerospace is part of mechanical engineering, I highly doubt that there will be any sources mentioning only Aerospace along with the big four, although it might be reasonably included if we have a list of 20 or so "main" branches. Failing that, I propose we limit the list to the four undisputed branches, or the five including Industrial, at least until we find reliable sources for Aerospace that are not OR. Engini86 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And this book lists 10 branches, with Industrial at number 4 and Aerospace at number 5, both ahead of Chemical at 6 (by employment). Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, though very few sources put Industrial as one of five either. I'd say list the top 4, and then the various additional branches that are sometimes listed as major.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree on mentioning just the big four for now and maybe include a mention of others in the future if a few books can be found to support them. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅. For the big four. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy to see that we have somewhat of a consensus at least for the time being. I think it would help that any new sources we add regarding this issue should be published work (ie not web-only material) from reputable places. And ideally the source should definitively state along the lines of "The major engineering branches are A, B, C and D."
 * As a suggestion, perhaps it might actually be a good idea to maintain the limit to just the big four branches for the long term. It would certainly make it easier to avoid future controversies on what qualifies as "major". And it would prevent the inevitable gradual "creep" to include aerospace, industrial, biomedical, computer, environmental ... that would surely lead to more and more endless debates. Engini86 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * After this debate I wholeheartedly agree with mentioning only the big four for the foreseeable future. Good point. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it doesn't hurt to mention more, if done with appropriate balance to not confuse them with the big four. See my article edit.  Revert if you don't like it.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The way you presented it is great. I'll add citations a bit later if someone doesn't beat me to it. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 07:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this dispute is over. Well done people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Martin for your kind words. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! It sounds like everyone is an engineer!
So apart of the engineering definition is the creation of structures.This is considered engineering? Some structures maybe, but would you consider a guy working construction an engineer? I hope not. As for the definition, it could be applied to hundreds of different jobs. If you consider yourself an engineer, you better be working on mechanical and or electrical components and get grease on your fucking hands. If not, you better have some other word in front of the title engineer (Bio,ect.).
 * Consider reading the lede again. "applying technical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge to design", "to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions" etc. Its grease + science. User A1 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

-- Ever heard of civil engineering? as in the design and construction of buildings? Bridges? Domes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icexist (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ) Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)