Wiki's content on earthquake engineering is currently a bit of a mess.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I am going to try to clear it up (but it might take me a while). Earthquake engineering includes analysis and design. Currently there is a reasonably decent article on analysis, and several articles on design which all seem to push the same approach and one product in particular (Earthquake Performance Evalunation Tool).
I have created this as a separate article, and propose to merge several articles into this one so that there is one clear and concise article on earthquake engineering. The Seismic analysis article can then remain as a more detailed article on analysis, which is probably the largest single topic.Tkn20 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I propose to merge:
into this article. The last three are in my opinion just adverts for particular products, and may be original research (so there is little to merge, but some of the content would be relevant when included with other available research and products). This is a big topic, covered very badly with several articles giving only a tiny view of the whole. The best thing to do is to start with a good overall article.
In the case of vibration control - there is perhaps a good argument to keep a vibration control article, but it shouldn't be primarily about earthquake vibration as it currently is. Vibration is caused in machines, by pedestrians, cars, wind and all sorts of other causes. The vibration control article should be much more general, and the earthquake specifics merged into this article. Tkn20 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Article Earthquake engineering now contains all basic information from six (6) articles recommended for merging which should be redirected to the following sections and subsections of Earthquake engineering:
It does not bother me much, but is there a reason for the list of "main objectives of earthquake engineering" in the into is presented in list form, rather than prose? It's not hideous, but does not seem necessary. WP:EMBED perhaps has some insight? Again, not a huge deal to me, just seems like it might be better. ./zro (⠠⠵) 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If it does not bother you too much, why should we scratch it? Anyway, the list format of presenting the main objectives of earthquake engineering seems to me more visual, easy for viewing and, therefore, should be preferred where appropriate. Best, Shustov (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like there are blocks of text in this article which are word-for-word copies of outside works. In Earthquake engineering#Failure modes, a number of the image captions are drawn directly from USGS documents (e.g. [2]) without attribution. (That section needs some cleanup in any case.) Footnotes, people! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear TenOfAllTrades: you persistently demonstrate obsession with the fixed idea of my plagiarism in the article Earthquake engineering. Unfortunately, I am a Doctor in earthquake engineering and not in medicine. However, if you wish to recover soon, please, try the following:
If you are still warm and looking forward to accuse me in stealing “blocks of text which are direct copies of USGS documents” (citation from your talk on Earthquake engineering of 16:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)), please, be advised that USGS, according to its mission statement (see USGS#Mission), is the agency which stays far away from the field of Earthquake engineering and, therefore, there is nothing valuable for me to steal from them. You may, also, compare the Categories for USGS and Earthquake engineering articles: absolutely no correlation! Due to this, your allegation that “a number of the image captions are drawn directly from USGS documents (e.g. [3]) without attribution” (citation from your talk on Earthquake engineering of 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)) holds no water. Again, as I stated before, of the total of 14 images from the section Earthquake engineering#Failure modes, 7 were diligently credited to USGS (to verify, just click on the pictures!). Besides, I provided an external link to USGS site, see USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (talk of 10:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)). By the way, I do not have any exclusive rights for editing Earthquake engineering. If anybody feels able to do the job, pull up your panties and go ahead! My best New Year wishes to all Wikipedians! Shustov (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
USGS-authored text is in the public domain. See http://www.usgs.gov/laws/info_policies.html. I don't think there is a substantial copyright issue here with the text. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You have no case, sorry! It is not enough just to pronounce a copyright violation: you have a burden of proof of your complaint yet. By the way, copyright infringement is not plagiarism! Your accusation in my alleged plagiarism from USGS unidentified source reminds me George W. Bush’s accusation of Iraq in hiding its weapon of mass destruction. Provide facts, and I will be the fist to insert the references. Again, keep in mind that plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. On the other hand, I am not the author of Earthquake engineering but the main contributor. Shustov (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
1. There is no copyright issue except one mentioned above. 2. There is no plagiarism issue because we are all Wikins and not authors (see Plagiarism). 3. Now, after TenOfAllTrades provided his comparison list, I will address it ASAP by performing the editing. Shustov (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What is good for the article, is good for me! By the way, do not trust Google too much: if you feed Earthquake engineering there, you will not find even our article though it is viewed up to 10,000 monthly. Shustov (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've had a quick look at the rest of the article. Again, I don't offer any guarantee that I've found all the problems. What I have found is rather troubling. A number of other sections of this article aren't original.
In the Earthquake engineering#Research for earthquake engineering section, passages describing earthquake engineering research programs are taken from outside sources.
Portions of the section Earthquake engineering#Seismic vibration control are almost certainly a cut and paste job from a paper reference. The footnote points to a book that I can't put my hands on right now, but the same author (T.T. Soong) published an abstract which uses suspiciously similar language:
There are more, but I'm running out of steam.
From an editorial standpoint, it's worth noting that many sections of this article are essentially direct copies of other Wikipedia articles, as well. (Compare Earthquake Protector, Vibration control, Prestressed structure with their sections in this article.) Those sections need a good dose of trimming to comply with WP:SUMMARY, if they belong here at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've found most of the problems with this article. I've made a copy of the article at Talk:Earthquake engineering/problems. Highlighted are areas which seem to be obvious problems.
As usual, I can't guarantee that I've caught all the problems. The article is a mess from top to bottom. It's also entirely possible that sections may fall into more than one category, but I can't be bothered to muck around with double coloring.
There appears to be a whole family of articles created by Shustov which duplicate the content of portions of this article. Most refer heavily to Shustov's web site and publications. I don't know whether this article or the others came first, but the short external articles should probably be merged, while the substantial ones summarized here. In some cases, the duplication is nested a couple of articles deep. Some include:
I a very concerned about the heavy reliance on a single author. This article contains at least sixteen links to Shustov's websites (URLs contain ~shustov) as well as any number of links to offsite copies of publications with which he is involved. Someone else who has some expertise in the area needs to have a look; I suspect that we may be weighting our coverage rather heavily towards one person's work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Vladimir Lenin believed it could. Apparently, some Wikipedia administrators would also love to. If not a real state, then, at least, the terra incognita of Earthquake engineering. Thus, the intermediate administrator TenOfAllTrades who, according to his background, is not legally allowed, in any form, to practice Earthquake engineering, never-the-less, keeps vigorously imposing his unprofessional judgments by mercilessly cutting the Wikipedia article on Earthquake engineering without any open discussion (6 cases of his editorial assault for 1 hour 17 minutes of 6 February 2009 only!). Will anybody cut him short, please? 69.108.101.89 (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The criticism mentioned in #Article problems above has been duly responded; see: [15] and [16] which includes: ‘Administrative paranoia or Suspicion instead of Evidence’, ‘Earthquake Protector: false pretext for deletion’, ’George W. Housner: editorial abuse of National Medal of Science laureate’ and ‘Clear up User:Shustov of false accusations in plagiarism by User:JzG’. 69.108.101.89 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This Russian idiom (in original: “пустить козла в огород”) is the best way to describe what’s going on in the editing of Earthquake engineering article now. The “truck farmer” there, User:Shustov, is blocked by User:TenOfAllTrades for alleged plagiarism in the section #Failure_modes. After all, that “plagiarized” section stays untouched while the well-protected goat enjoys chewing out everything of value in other sections. I wonder: is there any animal control in Wikipedia? 69.108.101.89 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Everybody knowledgeable in the science of earthquake engineering is invited to evaluate the following draft subsection of the section called Seismic vibration control and give your recommendation on whether it should be included in the article Earthquake engineering:
Shustov (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be better if the article Earthquake engineering structures remains independent from Earthquake engineering in order to become a core for further innovations in this area. Shustov (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I was curious to find out which parts of the world have building codes specifying earthquake resistance. If there's any objective way to measure the adequacy of the varying codes, or at least compare them to the earthquake threat in a given area, that would be educational. -- Beland (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 1, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.