Talk:Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Engineering  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Discussion[edit]

Removed trademark line. If it goes anywhere, it should be on the Iron Ring page (ignoring the merge notice for the moment). I'm not putting it there because I don't think it's very important. FireWorks 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from "Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer 1925-2000"[edit]

The article Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer 1925-2000 is about stamps commemorating the anniversary of this ritual; while there is some encyclopedic content that can be written about them, I feel it belongs in this article, not a separate one. Mindmatrix 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should remain separate from the Ritual and the Iron Ring. This page is specifically about the stamps issued to commemerate the Ritual. Other than the subject matter being commemerated, there are no connections to the Ritual. The specific artistic style of the stamp, its presentation technique, its use on commercial mail, details about its first-day issues, and many other stamp-specific details require that this article remain separate. ----PCStuff 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge - both pages have very little content. There isn't that much on the page with the stamp. I see no reason that is couldn't simply be an image (don't see why there need to be two images), with a caption in the main article. Nfitz 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - "Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer 1925-2000" doesn't need its own page.Ozzykhan 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

pov. material[edit]

I've removed some less than neutral material on the difficulties faced by foreign educated engineers in receiving accreditation. Let's be clear on this, The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer is not a formal part of the accreditation process -Dhodges 04:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

honorary[edit]

For the record, I am Canadian and do not support either British or American usage where there's a difference in Canuckish (Canucquois? Canuckistani?). I salute the Colours and went on manoeuvres, but kicked the tires at the curb, and realized that judgement calls must be made as to which side of the Big Pond our spelling comes down on. That being said...

While in Canadian English (as in British English), honour is spelled with a "u", honorary is not. The "u" is retained with certain endings (e.g. -able) and dropped with others (-ary). Thus our Prime Minister is the Right Honourable Joe Bloggins, but Colonel Bloggins is the Honorary Colonel of the Moose Jaw Fusiliers. I have checked my Gage Canadian, it gives honorary, as does my Oxford. Chambers online does not list honourary but honorary meaning afflicted with honour. Nor is honourary listed in any dictionary at OneLook, altho' it does suggest perhaps I meant honorary, which is listed in 17 dictionaries, including Oxford and Cambridge.

If you can find a reliable source that honourary is the correct spelling, please mention it, I'd love to see it (no, I'm not being sarcastic or condescending, I really am interested). All references to it indicate it as either an outright error or at best a hypercorrection; only one opinion I can find that seems to lend it (lukewarm) support indicates that it is a form of nationalist Canadian defiance against both British and American orthographic imperialism. Either way, north of the 49th, honorary is correct in all contexts, and undisputably so; honourary is disputable (and disputed) at best, dead wrong at worst. Lacking a reliable source otherwise, it is better to go with the undeniably standard Canadian spelling. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Spectators"[edit]

As the article says, many places do not allow people other than Iron Ring recipients or people with the ring already at the ritual though there are some exceptions. I do know that the University of Saskatchewan follows the policy of having the ritual closed to the public, but are there examples of places where close friends or family are allowed to observe?

Aftrbrnr (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive seen that if they(relatives/fmaily/friends) also have an iron ring they can come into observe. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"This page mentions too much"[edit]

While the ritual and ring is not currently secret, I feel that this page reveals too much. I am in support of making it completely secrete. It should damn well be. This page should be deleted and all references of the ritual and the ring with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.172.196 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel like this should go without saying, but Wikipedia is not confined to what you think should be public. It's confined to what is notable and legal to write about. Since there is no legal issue here (obligators are not even required to sign an NDA, it's just a general understanding; even if they were, Wikipedia would not be liable) the only possible question is notability, and you're not arguing that so I'm not going to argue that POV. Should we remove most of the content from Scientology because its leadership doesn't like people talking about what they do behind closed doors? Endasil (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The page hardly says anything at all.
It doesn't even mention the bits I still remember after 27 years, like the Book of Ecclesiasticus.
Varlaam (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (Camp 1)
Couldn't agree more. It says too little not too much. The whole Ritual sounds like the rituals of the Masons and others. As it seems to be a secret society, in that the thing which binds its memberships is secret (rather than the mere fact that members are members), the srticle should say so. At least that removes casual readers from bothering to read further by letting them know in advance the article contains no information of substance. LookingGlass (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It barely even scratches the surface of what happened. And for those thinking this is some kind of sinister secret, it's more of a community building exercise. Engineers in Canada do have to bear a large responsibility and are held to higher legal and ethical standards in their work than other professions(except maybe medicine). This entire ritual is done to ensure we never forget the standard we need to uphold.Myopia123 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Merge both The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer and the Iron Ring will be fine, because both of them they are connected to each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MONKFOCKER (talkcontribs) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Over-looked edit?[edit]

I know absolutely nothing about this subject - but ... Shouldn't "25 regional branches, called camps ..." have been updated to "26 ..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.43.2 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)