Jump to content

Talk:Fazlur Rahman Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aalaan (talk | contribs) at 01:47, 1 March 2014 (→A Class???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Image:Fazlur Khan Stamp Bangladesh.jpg

User:Ragib's edit summary argument as to why a fair use stamp image can be used to illustrate the subject depicted on the stamp:

well, a lot of precedent exists from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_stamp_images , so unless all of them have been removed, the use of the image should be ok

This is a specious argument. You're basically saying, "Everyone else does it, so it's OK". If every editor made the same argument, then none of the improperly used stamp images would get removed. Even if there are (many) other cases, it still doesn't make it right here. Read {{stamp}} carefully -- it says that stamp images can only be used to discuss the stamp itself. As the saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. howcheng {chat} 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I found that most of the images on Category:Fair_use_stamp_images are used in the articles on the biography-page of the person depicted. These should all be removed. --Ragib 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Architect Is Not the Same As An Engineer

This article is wildly inaccurate. An architect is not the same as an engineer. He may have designed structural components of the Sears Tower and John Hancock Tower but did not design the buildings themselves. Americasroof (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Americasroof, I think one should have a sound knowledge-base in structural engineering and structural architecture and the relationship between them in the context of modern building science, before judging Fazlur Rahman Khan's architectural contribution to the building of Sear's tower. SOM architect Bruce Graham and SOM engineer Fazlur Khan worked together as a structural design team and without the structural engineering expertise, architectural design remains a dream. This is specially true when we are talking about a relatively new theory being tried out in structural engineering field, as implemented in building of Sear's Tower. The design used in this construction was directly influenced by Fazlur Khan's research and innovation. Beside, who said that a structural engineer can not have any architectural knowledge?! Infact, from the experience of being a civil engineer's son and a civil engineering student myself, I have met enough structural engineers who are actively involved in such design works that would generally be considered an architectural specialty. Fazlur Khan was a strcutural engineer first and foremost, but that must not make us blind in appreciating his excellent grasp in structural architecture. This interview of the main architect of the Sear's tower, Bruce Graham, who worked closely with Faz Khan, may shine some light here: http://www.som.com/content.cfm/bruce_graham_interview
Also, in the introduction section for John Hancock Center, SOM writes: "The world’s first mixed-use high-rise, the John Hancock Center is an architectural icon mirroring the collaboration between architect Bruce Graham and structural partner Fazlur Khan. The multidisciplinary nature of the design remains an archetype for the collaborative ideal that continues to make SOM a leader in the spectrum of design disciplines."John Hancock Center—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromell (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not any way demeaning to the important role he played in John Hancock in designing the steel framework. The source you just cited refers to calls him a partner to the achitect -- not the architect himself. Emporis calls him an engineer. http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=116876 An architect designs the overall look of a building. The engineer makes it happen. Americasroof (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americasroof, you are looking at a complex network of inter-related disciplines as completely separate disciplines. When somebody designs something like a two story house, yes you might be right. However, when we are talking about designing something like Willis(Sears) tower at a time when nothing like this existed, it is nowhere near as simple as you are perceiving it to be. Even a twenty story office building requires architects to work with structural engineers. In some cases structural engineers have little contribution, in some cases they have larger contribution. In the case of Fazlur Rahman Khan, the architect used designs which were pioneered by Fazlur Rahman Khan's research. And in highly specialized level of structural engineering, engineers often posses no less expertise on structural architecture than any good architect. Not all engineers have similar grasp in their field. Remember, we are talking about someone who completed three graduate and post graduate degrees, namely: MSc in Structural engineering, MSc in Mathematical Mechanics and a PhD in Structural Engineering from arguably the best graduate program in Civil Engineering in the USA (UIUC) within the span of 3 years. And if you want me to give any example of his solo architectural contribution, then I can name so many of them. One of the wonder he designed was the revolutionary roof of the Haj terminal in the Jeddah International Airport, Saudi Arabia. Emporis calls him an engineer because he was an engineer, which does not imply he had no contribution to the architectural side of his projects and neither can it prove his architectural inventions were false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.222.234 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americasroof, watch 4:40 onward http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aswJTvUpGFY

Criticism

This article is glowing with praise for Kahn. While I no opinion on him myself either way, I do believe some critique should be present. I may attempt this, though I feel it is necessary to declare my intention. Thanks, TheFireTones 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism comes when there is criticism. There is something to criticize about everyone. However there might be nothing to criticize someone's particular contribution to a specific field. When someone is writing about Brittney Spears, he might criticize her personal life because she is a celebrity personality and that is something perceived as common in the mainstream media. However Fazlur Khan is not such a personality and his contribution is related to Engineering and Science and to some degree social and cultural contribution. I do not see how one is searching something to criticize here! When somebody says Karl Friedrich Gauss was called "The Prince of Mathematics", it's not an overstatement. Similarly, when someone says Fazlur Khan is considered the "Einstein of structural engineering", that's not an overstatement either. Nobody is trying to glorify him here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.222.234 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/K_0187.HTM. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 04:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how he died not in article

how he died?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Class???

How can this article be rated as A Class when there are badly formatted references (raw links) and links to disambiguated terms? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not only that, this article is spilling over with praise and lousy POV subjective statements, "proven" by questionable sources like blogs and forum threads. Horrendous article that needs to be redone ASAP! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2013
User:Luthador unilaterally upgraded many of this article's WikiProject templates to "A class, high importance" in 2012, perhaps not understanding their significance. I've dialled them all back down to what they were before. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no blog posts or forum threads. Look properly:

These are not questionable sources. These are proper websites written by professionals. So please see them properly --58.97.168.109 (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well read this book from the section rebirth: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=Z5yfoPpVhmUC&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=The+rebirth+of+skyscrapers+in+the+1960s,+after+a+hiatus+of+over+thirty+years,+came+with+structural+innovations+that+transformed+the+industry.+Gone+were+the+interiors+filled+with+columns+and+frames+resisting+the+wind+%28with+substantial+help+from&source=bl&ots=p3feFD9I4n&sig=lc16g73DxrDC1nuUwluqpofm6MA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fhkCU8GpKc6R0QWs24GQBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20rebirth%20of%20skyscrapers%20in%20the%201960s%2C%20after%20a%20hiatus%20of%20over%20thirty%20years%2C%20came%20with%20structural%20innovations%20that%20transformed%20the%20industry.%20Gone%20were%20the%20interiors%20filled%20with%20columns%20and%20frames%20resisting%20the%20wind%20%28with%20substantial%20help%20from&f=false

It says: "A seminal building from this period is the chest Dewitt apartment building ... was a major development in modern architecture." This is why he is of high importance. There is no false glorification or POV pushing here. Read above section "criticism" what the user replied in Novemeber 2009. Look there are prestigious awards named after him see: http://www.ctbuh.org/Awards/AllPastWinners/tabid/6210/language/en-US/Default.aspx#awards-for-category/fazlur-r-khan-medal-award Look at this: http://www.saadigitalarchive.org/item/20120322-688 letters from Bill Clinton. also look at this: http://www.saadigitalarchive.org/item/20120322-689 A chair in Lehigh university was established in his honor: http://www.lehigh.edu/~infrk/about.html a street in chicago was named after him: http://www.saadigitalarchive.org/item/20120731-878 sculpture of him was also made: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/FRKhan-scultpure-willis-tower.jpg The reason why all these were done in his honor is because he made seminal contributions in the field of structural engineering and architecture and mentioning those in this article is not false glorification. It's not like I or any of the editors made things up. These are from proper sources, like university websites, books (e.g. Engineering Legends) or CTBUH. He did important work and mentioning those is not any overstatement. Also read this: http://www.saadigitalarchive.org/item/20120322-687 --Aalaan (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fazlur_Rahman_Khan&oldid=597606467"