Talk:Boundary element method

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Much of this page should really be remarked as a biography of Carlos Brebbia. It is also a bit Anglo-Centric, ignoring much of the work done by researchers in continental Europe (Bonnet, Hackbush, Nedelec, etc., etc.,) and crediting Brebbia as essentially the originator of the whole field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.75.192.70 (talk • contribs) 17:59, June 7, 2006

Makes sense. Also, I'm concerned that the Brebbia material may have been copied verbatim from the paper cited at the end. If anyone watching this has access to EABE Journal, could you check? Thanks. FreplySpang 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This material has been extracted from the review paper by AHD Cheng and DT Cheng entitled “Heritage and early history of the Boundary Element Method”, published in the EABE Journal, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 268-302.

This page needs work - but the stuff on Brebbia should simply be deleted --Kiwimhm 04:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to read [1], it speaks for itself. the lemma should be speed deleted. --Snottily 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the biography of Brebbia does not belong in this page. It is actually longer than the portion which talks about the BEM and should be made a separate entry if to be kept at all. Gregvw 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd not to have a mention of Brebbia since he pretty much founded the field of BEM. I have spoken to Professor Brebbia and he has obtained permission from Elsiver to use the text from the paper cited above. I will be reinstating this information soon if no one has any objections, this is after all an Encyclopedia and should reflect historical fact surly?

Snottily can you please explain why a professor abusing their position on a conference committee for whatever their personal reasons were should have any bearing on the content of this page. It does not seem relevant or in keeping with POV? Maybe someone more versed in writing pages could help me make this article more factual without upsetting the first comments view that it was Anglo-Centric WITH the Brebbia material included (even though he is from Argentina so again I'm not quite sure how that makes his information Anglo-centric)

More discussion would be nice :) --Curuxz 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Brebbia played an important role in the history of BEM then he should of course be mentioned in this article. It would be nice to have some independent corroboration though (Brebbia is editor-in-chief of EABE). Nevertheless, that does not mean that the half the article should be about Brebbia. As the first comment states, this is not a biography of Brebbia and information like where he was born is not important. I guess it's a matter of balance: more people have contributed than Brebbia and his group at Southampton and they should also be mentioned ("Anglocentric" refers to the fact that Brebbia spent most of his productive life in the UK). If you can't write about all contributors to BEM, then my advice would be to condense the previous text to one paragraph. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaryelements.com?[edit]

Is it ok to add boundaryelements.com in the external links? They have a whole book on BEM on open access on their site, and some code examples. --Curuxz (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity[edit]

This article seems more like an explanation of the reasons why one should not use BEM than a description of the method itself. There is not enough detail of the method here to warrant such detailed criticisms. Wulfgang (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]