Talk:Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers/Archive 1

History

The history section is very unclear and short on background.

Electromechanical

Was this organisation ever known as "Institute of Electrical and Electromechanical Engineers"? Is that expandonym a different IEEE? The IEEE website doesn't seem to have anything to say about its electromechanical doppelganger, but I always thought the electromechanical version was correct - untill today. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of that one, and I've been a member for mumblety-mumble years (pulls out card from wallet, reads years, sighs over misspent youth, returns card to wallet). --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

IEC and IEEE

Why is there an IEEE when there is an IEC? Are they working competitively? --Abdull 11:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IEC is involved in standardization and certification, on the opposite the IEEE has many activities in addition to standardization.

In standardization they are not really competing as IEC and IEEE signed an agreement in 2002 to have common dual logo standards. There are already many such standards. The aim of both organization is to avoid duplication of work, there are not so many experts in the world ready to write standards, generally in addition to their "normal" work.Dingy 06:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Membership models is another key difference: IEC has countries for members (the U.S., China, United Kingdom, etc.) -- IEEE has individual professionals as members. IEEE does many things beyond standards -- conferences, academic and practitoner publications, and within some of the countries where it is active, insurance programs, accreditation and even 'informing' public policy. [JDI May 2006]

Is IEEE really international?

One must study their legal documents to state this clearly. But as it has been recently discovered, U.S. is not the whole world (yet), so the fact that IEEE has to follow the U.S. parliament issues shows that they are not fully international yet. I hope things get smooth soon, and they really want to be independent of any single country.
The "I" stands for "International," not "Independent."

Sorry, but the "I" stands for "Institute". The views presented in [some of] IEEE magazines show that they see things from a U.S. national view.

Also, the United States does not have a "parliament".
It does seem that you need to learn to do some close reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.12.125 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All legal organizations must have some umbrella for operation. The ISO and IEC operate out of Geneva. Some organizations actually hold United Nations charters (which is as international as one can get.) However, whatever jurisdiction is used for the legal formation, each of these is still subject to the legal reguirements of the jurisdictions in which it operates. American law can be applied to any organization operating in the U.S. (with an exception for diplomatic immunity where folks can be kicked out for serious violations.) The IEEE is subject to these constraints, and also those of China, India, the U.K., etc. wherever it has meetings, conferences, or even sends its publications. Which does not mean there is not a lot more IEEE can do to become more international. Since the overall membership of IEEE moves from a U.S. majority to a non-U.S. majority this will become even more important. Clearly countries like India and China are rapidly becoming major factors in the engineering world. (Joining much of Europe and Japan where this is already true.) [JDI May 2006]

The International Weights and Measures organization and the ITU operate out of the area of Paris, France. The International Monetary Fund operates out of Washington, D.C., as does the Organziation of American States. UNESCO and CERN both operate out of Geneva. All of these have to have a home country and a home city, legally.
98.67.107.241 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Power of IEEE

Removed "They think they're God." What was meant is not clear. Obviously not literally. If the refernce is to the wide use of IEEE standards, the commenter should examine how IEEE standards are written. They are widely used because they are written by a large community of users, manufacturers, experts, and regulators.
98.67.107.241 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

IEEE Standard Logic

I just came across "IEEE Standard Logic" which is a 9 valued logic standard used for digital system simulation. Seems like this should at least be linked from this page. User: fresheneesz

Coverage of Standards

It appears to me that, given the quantity of words devoted to IEEE Standards, that this article makes standards appear to be the chief business of the IEEE. Different members have different opinions of what in IEEE is important to them. I'm sure that some members regard standards to be the function of the IEEE that is most important to them. Others regard the Societies (which provide Transactions and Conferences as the most important. Still others may regard local activities or, perhaps, professional activities as the most important.

My point is that there needs to be a more equal emphasis between the various services that IEEE provides. That said, I see nothing wrong with having a separate article on IEEE Standards, which goes into as great or greater detail than does the current article.144.189.5.201 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, because outside of the society, probably the most important contributions are the standards. The article shouldn't be written from an insider point of view, right? But I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate standards article going into greater detail. -- Superdosh 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up tag removal

I removed the clean up tag from this article because after reviewing the content I really didn't see any need for it. Does anyone have any objections to this? --Lperez2029 14:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of wikilinks in the "Notable IEEE Standards committees and formats" and "See also" that point to nonexistent pages. The pages should be made to exist or the wikilinks should be dewikified. Jeff G. 07:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Except for reviewing of the links, I read the article and it appears well composed and fairly clean. As to your comment, I do see a need for cleaning out external links (Wikipedia is not a link repository WP:EL) which don't appear to actually be used as references or just plain dont work. --Lperez2029 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Added Confusion Tag

I don't understand this paragraph:

"The transition from Associate to Member grade grants several privileges. Members are permitted to vote in general IEEE elections, while Associates are not eligible to vote. Members holding Member grade or higher are permitted to hold volunteer office positions, while Associates are not eligible for office positions."

This is under the heading "Associate Member", whereas there is no heading "Member"

74.192.41.156 14:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting the convoluted (SNAFU) paragraph - it was indeed very confusing, actually, the IEEE web site also contradicts the role of the "Associate" by calling them, in some instances "Associate Members" when they are not. I clarified the section and removed the confusion tag - please let me know what you think. Thanks --Lperez2029 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See also [1]

More information on mistaken "Associate Member" relationship -- IEEE [2] --Lperez2029 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cloaking and black-hat SEO spamming of any flavor

The oft-reverted critics of IEEE Web publishing policy may have something important to say, but the point if any is obscured in vague and vitriolic Web jargon. Perhaps if they would just say how the policy compares with other scientific and engineering publishers, they might be understood and even tolerated. 166.68.134.174 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

The only ref to criticism in the "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers#Criticism section is one self-published source. The section should have a WP:Reliable Source or be removed. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The fact that people who criticize IEEE don't publish their criticism in "Reliable" sources does not make the critics disapear. I should add that DJ Bernstein (who wrote the page the article links to) is a senior researcher at University of Illinois. If that doesn't entitle him to have an opinion on IEEE, what does? IEEE is far from being a unanimously accepted institution, and this fact should be present in the article. BTW, the "Reliable Source" page you link to is a guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. I agree that better citations could be added though, but I didn't find any. I could use a hand there :) Joelthelion (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is more discussion on the subject here:[3]Joelthelion (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many thousands of senior researchers at Universities around the world. Bernstein is just one. If the criticism is widespread, we should be able to do better than one prof's personal page. You also demonstrate a misunderstanding of how WP works by saying it is "a guideline, not a Wikipedia policy". Policy on self-published sources links across to WP:V which IS a policy. p.s. I'm not denying that criticism of IEEE is out there, but sorry, one prof's personal web page is insufficient. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You should also respond to the arguments of the two wikipedia admins on the link I gave. I agree that the link could be better, but since there is no "association against IEEE", I'm not sure we can find anything better. In any case, the section should stay because IEEE criticism is widespread and not mentioning it would leave the article horribly POV Joelthelion (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't respond on the archive... so I'll repeat my simple claim: self-published sources generally don't count. If there is widespread criticism, surely it shouldn't be hard to find in the mainstream press, e.g. the technology section of a newspaper, or a non-IEEE technology magazine. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"self-published sources generally don't count" I don't really understand what reliability the publisher adds to the content. Loads of papers published by scientific publishers are pure crap. Some self-published stuff is good. Anyways, I have found that Richard Stallman shares DJ Bernstein's views of the IEEE (http://www.stallman.org). So we have two notable authors sharing criticism of the IEEE. Isn't that enough to justify a three-line mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelthelion (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As a pioneer of "copyleft", Stallman's views on the IEEE and copyright are hardly surprising. I don't know much about Bernstein, but as a writer of free software his views are also not surprising. I'll also note that Stallman and Bernstein are computer scientists, not electronic engineers, so they don't need the IEEE and can afford to be critical. I don't deny there is criticism... what needs to demonstrated is that the criticism is widespread. As for "self published sources generally don't count", please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how stallman's or Berstein's websites don't provide verifiability of their opinions? How is Stallman's website not "a reliable source" to his opinions? Stallman is a reprentative of the Free software movement, so his opinions are probably shared by a couple million of persons. Bernstein is an example of those persons, and Stallman explicitely endorses his views. I think that's more than enough for "widely shared". Finally, I thought we might want to cite ( http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/publications/rights/IEEECopyrightForm.pdf ) the IEEE copyright form as evidence of their methods.Joelthelion (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Stallman is a known expert in copyright issues, which is the matter at stake (not electrical engineering). His work (the GPL) has been widely used, published and commented. I don't think you can argue that he is irrelevant to the subject. Joelthelion (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would rather say Stallman is a well known copyright campaigner/advocate, i.e. an expert maybe, but a very opinionated one. We know Stallman's opinions on software copyight are shared by a great many people, because a great many people repeat them. Where are all the people repeating Stallman's and Bernstein's views? Especially from within the EE industry itself? And why isn't the criticism in any sort of media except Bernstein's blog. If we can't find them, then I suggest we change the article to say, "A number of Open Source software proponents, such as RMS and Daniel Bernstein, have criticized IEEE's copyright policy..." Again, I don't deny that the criticism exists, but a couple of prominent Open Source software people don't equate to "widespread criticism". In fact, if they're all we can find, then we should use the wording I suggest above, limiting it to some OSS people. In short, we need evidence to use the word "widespread". Peter Ballard (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the new wording. Joelthelion (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the article according to the new wording. I have also added some web references, but I am not sure how to "retrieve" them for archival. Do you know how to do that? Joelthelion (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. And I have no problem with your web references - they look fine. Again, I myself have problems with IEEE's copyright policy - though because I work in the commercial rather than the research sector it affects me at the other end - I don't like having to pay $$$ for documents such as the Verilog or VHDL standards. But we need documented opinions, not personal opinions. WP is an exercise in researching + writing neutrually! Peter Ballard (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion about copyright does not include the statement that the IEEE allows "authors and/or their companies shall have the right to post their IEEE-copyrighted material on their own servers without permission" (Publication Policy 8.1.9.D http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/policies.html). This effectively allows authors, at their choice, to make the article openly available. Roughly 1/3 of the IEEE authors take this route. This has earn the IEEE Green Open Access rating the from SHERPA/RoMEO guide (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php). Do others agree this is a missing statement?Jtbarr4 (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Posted above information in publications sectionJtbarr4 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Another contributor objected to a previous overreaching statement on comment about author fees. Provide an expanded statement with references on Open Access business models discussing the variety of funding models.Jtbarr4 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says that "Attendance fees to conference meetings are also notoriously high." this claim is not supported and as far as I know is not true. Conferences of similar organizations (ASME, ASCE) cost about the same. I believe that this claim should either be substantiated by a source that had provided reliable comparative information, or deleted (Moshekam (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)).

IEEE conference fees are very high considering the service they offer. They ask the organizers of IEEE conference to pay a huge sum of money to the central organization, even though they provide very minimal service to the organizers. Smaller conferences (not endorsed by a major publisher) are usually cheaper. I agree the claim is not substantiated, though. I don't know what I could cite to show that? Joelthelion (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science

IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is being debated as being a fringe journal in relation to the article tired light. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

IEEE acronym

According to the official website, IEEE stands no more for Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. So, it should only be called IEEE (eye triple e). What do you think? Sergioroa (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The URL is http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/home/index.html and The comment in full is "The IEEE name was originally an acronym for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Today, the organization's scope of interest has expanded into so many related fields, that it is simply referred to by the letters I-E-E-E (pronounced Eye-triple-E)"

But I just looked in my nearest printed journal, and it said, ".... is published monthly by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc." So it seems to me that the full name is still the official name. I'm not sure which way to go on this one. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is still the official name as they wish to maintain the history associate with it. As time passes though, IEEE has advanced from an organization serving hundreds specializing in electricity and electronics into one that servers hundreds of thousands ranging from systems engineers, computer engineers, robotics specialists, electrical control systems engineers, electrical engineering educators, and everything in between. Furthermore, IEEE has become quite active in establishing standards for various fields of electrical engineering. Generally, IEEE is the preferred method of referring to the organization. --JadeFox (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should move the page to IEEE in the near future. --covracer (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

IEEE Standards category

I was bold and found a few things I thought should be in Category:IEEE standards, so I added that category to a lot of articles. Reading more, I'm not sure I did the right thing in all cases. It is not clear to me which IEEE #### are standards, and which are working groups. Nor am I sure that the IEEE standards category is appropriate for "groups of standards". If someone who understands the IEEE better than I do could double check this category and the work I did, I would great appreciate it. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the IEEE web sites, I don't think you need to worry about the difference between a "working group" and a "standard" - proposals always have a P before the numerals, but the working groups seem to be known by the standard number they're working on. I think you can lump in both in the category with little risk of confusion between a bound set of printed pages (the standard) and a bunch of people e-mailing each other ( the working group). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the President

The current President of the IEEE is Lewis Terman, however the link goes to the page of a different Lewis Terman (born 1877, died 1956), possibly the grandfather of the current president. I could de-link the name, but that probably isn't the right solution... 220.253.14.162 (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's always right to unlink a wrong link. I've also condensed the discussion of membership grades because, really, who cares? I don't and I've been a member for 30 years. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Condense, but don't truncate. You have been a member for 30 years, other people may have no idea what an "IEEE Fellow" is, and look it up on wikipedia :) --Raistlin (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to condense. Though there were a lot of words in what I edited out, there was no information. This whole article is full of puffery that needs trimming. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have unlinked the Lewis Terman link. It leads to the wrong person! I was shocked when I started reading the article without seeing the date of death of the person. I was wondering why the IEEE would elect a eugenecist as its president! [:D] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.194.136 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlinked again - careful reverting vandalism, since the Terman article is not the IEEE president Terman. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and payment criticism

Do scholarly journals usually pay authors for their submissions? If you get an article into "New England Journal of Medicine" or "SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics", do you get a royalty check each year for all the reprints published? I don't think so - can anyone cite a source saying that IEEE journals are unusual in this respect? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claims they are unusual. Notable people have criticized the IEEE's copyright policy, and it should be reflected in the article. That's it. Joelthelion (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So this article should say Like other scintific and technical journals..., so that readers don't get the idea that journal authors get paid. Stallman et. al. aren't arguing particularly with IEEE, but with all of technical publishing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? To the contrary. Usually the institutions associated with the authors are expected to PAY MONEY to the journal in question to have anything published there. I am pretty sure that the IEEE journals come in this category. Publishing technical journals is an EXPENSIVE proposition, and the publishers do not have wide enough circulation to expect to make money off those journals, pay authors anything, etc. Please do not jump to the conclusion that publishing a technical journal is anything like publishing a wide-circulation magazine like TIME, NEWSWEEK, or POPULAR SCIENCE. Even those magazines are having big problems making ends meed nowadays.
98.67.107.241 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

AIC Ratings

I want to know what the letters AIC stand for as it relates to the relationship between an electrical transformer and the distribution panel it feeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.46.17 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know about computers

If so there's an article about computer architect Earl Killian who is up for deletion here. Please help us determine whether he's notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You bet. Problem is, most people writing about the deletion question, including myself, know nothing about computers; hopefully there are people here, who follow this page, who know, and can add intelligent thinking to the debate. Do you know about computers?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not on the level needed to meaningfully contribute to the deletion discussion - which is suprisingly large, considering that WP:NOTABILITY is about a clear a guideline as we ever get around here. If I were !voting, I'd say "Keep", though I never heard of the guy before today...lots of relevant hits on Google Books, for example. But I don't think deleting the article would leave a gaping hole in tne encyclopedia, either. It's all puffery and a forest of footnotes with no biography - but article *quality* is never a valid arguement in a deletion discussion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

IEEE Criticism

• This in-progress discussion has been copied from my talk page by agreement between myself and User:Janto ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Good work on removing some of the speculation from the IEEE article!

I think the references to Stallman and Bernstein's opinions should stay as they are very prominent figures in their fields. i.e. I think at least the original text ("A number of free software proponents, such as Richard Stallman and Daniel J. Bernstein, have criticized IEEE's copyright policy.") is unbiased and relevant.

Linking to their websites are not meant as wikipedia's support of their opinions, but as proof that they have these opinions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:SPS, but I don't see how it applies.

Also have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_October_31#Inappropriate_critical_remarks_about_the_IEEE

janto (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with Stallman and Bernstein's opinions is that the views are expressed are on their personal web page of their personal web site. It also obvious that they are beating the drum of a cause.

WP:NOTRS The views expressed are a promotion of their viewpoint in a venue lacking meaningful editorial oversight. These venues are "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."

WP:SPS ..."self-published media, such as ... personal websites... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work... has previously been published by reliable third-party publications...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."

So, in other words, their opinions would be acceptable if the views were published in reliable third party publications. That is the point. Other media, such as a newspaper or magazine, need to report on their views. First hand opinion on personal websites is in contradiction to policies and guidelines. WP:V, WP:RS (fact checking, accuracy).

In contrast, the source and material that I have provided is much more balanced and says the same thing. Also it is a pubilcation that is reporting on this situation, and would be considered a reliable source.

These web pages as sources might be acceptable for their respective biographies -- to demonstrate their opinion on IEEE's practices. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What about just including the sentence "A number of free software proponents, such as Richard Stallman and Daniel J. Bernstein, have criticized the IEEE's copyright policy." and possibly a quick NPOV summary of their criticisms? The current wording only lists some facts about the IEEE publishing model and makes it sound like nobody is actually critical of them.

On whether one should link to their websites: I agree that Stallman's website is promoting his opinion and can't be used as support for the validity of his criticism. Also I agree that "their opinions would be acceptable if the views were published in reliable third party publications". However I fail to see how someone else reporting on what his opinion might be, is more reliable than linking to his opinion directly. janto (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My first thought is (I agree) I can't see how someone else reporting on his opinion is more reliable than linking to his opinion directly. This may actually be a unique situation. Uisng a personally written web page as a source, in this instance, may actually be appropriate - when added to the material already in the article. Let me look into this matter further.

I don't think using the phrase "a number of software proponents..." will work because it is too nebulous, and we don't have sources to back it up. It might be possible to simply say Richard Stallman and Daniel J. Bernstein critisize IEEE copyright's policy. Also, if there are other free software proponents who specifically disuss this issue these people might also be brought into this section in the same manner.

The only other problem I can see is that this entire section might be considered giving undue weight to a minority view point. There is a lack of reliable sources pertaining to the criticism of IEEE's copyright policy. The other day when I looked, I could find only one reliable source that reports on this topic. That is the reliable source now used in the "Criticism" section. The size of the section, and the amount of material in it appear to give undue prominence to this view point. If you read WP:UNDUE you will probably see what I am talking about. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the section title from "Criticism" to "Copyright policy", because there do not appear to be enough reliable sources to support this as criticism. Hence, criticism would be essentially WP:OR ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs major source work

I just tagged the article as it seems NPOV and a quick count reveals that 21 of 25 references are the IEEE's own website. Krushia (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

An important IEEE Award was left out

And it was established in 1972 -- nothing news! The IEEE Claude E. Shannon Award .
98.67.107.241 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

This article lacks criticism section. There is an opinion what such kind of institutions in the fact hinders the technological innovations and provides the grounds for establishing of reactionary groups like infamous Phoebus cartel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.244.14 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is the founder of Wikipedia said he wanted "peer reviewed material". I published widely in the IEEE including a 20pp article in 1967. There then followed fifty years of total rejection about my work or by me by the IEEE. Recently three Italians from the same Department in Florence University, in their roles as IEEE editor and also authors, in pursuit of "publish or perish" - having 50 or 100 peer reviewed articles to their names, published peer reviewed defamatory material about me, that I was "outside of academia and structured research". (I have been invited to lecture at 9 universities. There were government funded research projects on my inventions at three universities which I supervised.) So the founder wants peer reviewed material on my early work, then nothing on the next 50 more advanced years of my work, then finally peer reviewed defamation of me. So much for the system of peer review, for instance as practised by the IEEE. Ivor Catt. 17 June 2016. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59596.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.201.194 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Security breach

IEEE has been recently in the news [4] for the leaked username and passwords in plaintext of around 100,000 members. The leak was confirmed by IEEE [5] and they notified members, and instructed them to change their passwords [6]. All details of the breach can be read at the page of Radu Dragusin, the person who uncovered the breach [7]. Sine I am that person, I would ask if any of you could write about the breach, since I think I am not entitled to, since I am the primary source. Radu Dragusin (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Registration Price

IEEE is a leading conferences organizer in Engineering & Technology. Their Revenue is reported but registration fee is not properly mentioned. This info is essential Dentking07 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

IEEE Conferences

I would like to create separate article with different sections for "IEEE Conferences" as it is popular in academic/scientific community. References [8], [9] [10] etc. Dentking07 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC) as there is no reply, I am proceeding with article creation Dentking07 (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As the IEEE Conferences article has been kept speedy deletion by experiences editors I am keeping conferences section in parent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentking07 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

IEEE pronunciation

The pronunciation for IEEE should be included in the article somewhere. http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/IEEE.html 98.23.154.0 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it have an official pronunciation? If so, it seems reasonable to include it. Gah4 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirected

FYI, I have blanked and redirected IEEE Turkey to Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

IEEE Maxwell Award

The IEEE Maxwell Award should be added to this article, but I am uncertain where it should be. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

List of IEEE awards

Support split - The "Awards" section of IEEE is long, and should be split to a new article entitled List of IEEE awards. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Split the article. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed. Split the article. Risk Engineer (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Would that list then satisfy notability? Every professional association hands out buckets of awards to its members, it's part of the way to distinguish elite "us" from vile unwashed "them". But few of these awards are notable outside their own tiny, tiny, teapots. I've never seen a newspaper or (non-IEEE) magazine list someone's IEEE awards. Is a list of awards notable? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

IEEE

Participation of various country scientists. Anshuman Mondal 2003 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Should describe it as a 501(c)3 chairtable organization

The article describes IEEE as a "professional association." However, I think it should also be described as a charitable organization. As a starting point, the formal (and legal) ways it describes itself can be be found here: https://www.ieee.org/about/help/business-policies/tax-corporate-info.html ... I updated the infobox to link to the form 990 and to add a status attribute. However, I am an employee of the IEEE and while I feel comfortable making that kind of small factual addition to the infobox, I don't think I should edit the main body of the article. ... What we really need is a wikipedian in residence :-) --Joshuagay (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

spelling

Does the IEEE have standards related to spelling? The reason for asking, is that some chemistry articles use IUPAC names for chemicals, that being the official group for chemical naming. Sometimes I have suggested using IEEE names, and been told that WP:COMMONNAME applies instead. If they do standardize spelling, it seems reasonable to use it. Gah4 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium into Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Non notable. Should redirect or delete it. Rogermx (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably better to delete. IEEE sponsors many conferences and symposia, all of which are non-notable in teh Wikipedia sense - they don't get significant coverage outside of the closed world of IEEE members. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect Merging at IEEE would give undue weight to this one conference. I was going to suggest merging into the sponsoring society (IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Society), but it's been redirected to IEEE after a nomination for deletion. fgnievinski (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Support merge; the society does support lots of conferences, but only 3 symposium series, which are distinctive. Given that the IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium history goes back to 1947, it's worth merging this rather than just redirecting. I note that the other 2 symposiums had pages that were redirected to the IEEE page. Klbrain (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

How about merging/redirecting to List of IEEE conferences instead? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Combine "Legal Issues" with "Controversies" in History

I think these sections should be combined, but I am not sure how to do so. Okay, so I know I could just cut/paste from one to the other, but I think they deserve someone who is better at the writing to consider how to put them together. Also, surely we can find more interesting things about this group than what happened in the last year for the history section. I suspect that part of the problem is that the group of people who care about them (Electrical Engineers and so forth) largely get their news about the group from the IEEE news magazine (IEEE spectrum), so the IEEE doesn't show up in regular news that much. Rockphed (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split of IEEE TEMS

A template was added to the section on the IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Society proposing to split it to its own article. No rationale was provided, as far as I can see. I note that an independent article was AfDed in August of last year (as clearly indicated at the top of this page) and that AfD was closed as "merge". I don't see any big changes that would justify overturning the AfD, hence: oppose split. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for indicating the AfD. It'd have been better to simply redirect that article it here. Merging created a problem of undue weight: no other IEEE society is discussed in the article. So I'm replacing the tag. fgnievinski (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the articles about other societies, most of them seem non-notable, so I'm considering tagging almost all for merging here, except for a handful of bigger ones. fgnievinski (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)