|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been reviewed by Nature on December 14, 2005.
Comments: No significant errors or major omissions were found.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
- 1 Confusions remains on Categories
- 2 Comments
- 3 Nature vs. Encyclopedia Britanica controversy
- 4 Please improve diction and clarity
- 5 Edit by the bellsouth.net anon
- 6 Was going to mention
- 7 Academic Advisor
- 8 Indian?
- 9 Name
- 10 Hinduism Template
- 11 Added Text
- 12 Yang-Lee etc.
- 13 British India
- 14 What is this pakistan thing with this guy and which templates
- 15 Voting == Does this article come under scope of Wikiproject Pakistan?
- 16 Protected
- 17 user:Bharatveer's drive-by edits
- 18 Chandra's Atheism
- 19 Small edits
- 20 The name Chandra
- 21 Is this the same Chandrasekhar...
Confusions remains on Categories
Chandrasehkar was born in a city what is now part of Pakistan. He also has been educated and attended Pakistani university where he graduated. To that account, should we include his name in category of Pakistani physicists or even Pakistani scientists? Einstein's name has been included in German, American, and Swiss Categories. So, shall we include his name to Pakistan categories?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I may add, that Chandrashekhar was not born in Lahore, pakistan, but rather, Lahore, Punjab, British India.
Hmm... It seems that the first paragraph and the 2nd paragraph contridicts itself. "...and a brother of the Nobel physicist CV Raman." and "Chandrasekhar was the nephew of Nobel-prize winning physicist C. V. Raman." Fyu 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fixing per [C. V. Raman] who is identified as his uncle.Trapolator 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Nature vs. Encyclopedia Britanica controversy
In their response to the controversial Nature study, EB people told that first edition of Principles of Stellar Structure was form 1942 and not 1943 as the referee mentioned. This information is not present in the current version of the English WP article. For those who would like to know about the date discrepancy, a first edition publihed by University of Chicago Press is from 1942 (as EB tells), but the enlarged one, published by Dover Publications, which as been reedited in 1960, dates from 1943. It is significantly longer than the first edition (313 pages instead of 251). My database mentions the following comment:
- An unabridged and unaltered republication of Principles of stellar dynamics as originally published in 1942 ... [Additional] articles [published in 1943] are also included and are unabridged and unaltered.
So basically, the book as we know it today is from 1943, but the first (20% shorter) version of it is from 1942, as EB says. So depending on whether one has in mind the first edition of the book as we know it today (1943) or the first edition of the book which has this title (1942), EB is or is not right. Alain Riazuelo 13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please improve diction and clarity
Someone added some useful information about Chrandra's family, but I think the bulk of the article should be about his scientific work, e.g. neutron stars, black holes and colliding plane waves, and his ambitious translation of the Principia. Is it just me, or has the English diction of this article become somewhat strained? In any case, I think some sentences can be clarified, e.g. the sentence He was one of the more distinguished of the ten children of CS Iyer who was an ICS (member of the Indian Civil Service, topmost government service cadre of pre-Independence India), a Carnatic music violinist from the Thanjavur district of Tamilnadu who authored several authentic books on South Indian musicology is confusing. ---CH 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit by the bellsouth.net anon
Someone using the IP address 18.104.22.168 (registered to BellSouth.net Inc. of Atlanta, GA; also geolocated in Atlanta) added the claim Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar also collaborated with Albert Einstein.
Bellsouth.net anon: this claim is too vague to be useful; do you mean Chandrasekhar and Einstein coauthored a paper? Could be, but if so, what is the citation? If not, just what did you mean? Also, you stuck in this bit of (mis?)-information in an awkward manner. Please give the citation and try again if you can tell us how to verify your claim. TIA ---CH 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Was going to mention
An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure myself, if only to wonder why it seems not to be in the article; its Dover Publications edition was my own introduction to the author's name if not to his work... Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The Mathematics Genealogy Project is the only source that gives Chandrasekhar's advisor as Eddington, who was a friend and scientific rival to him. Chandrasekhar himself states in his Nobel autobiography that he was "a research student under the supervision of Professor R.H. Fowler" at Cambridge. --22.214.171.124 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In 1910, India didnt exist, so please remove the India flag.
Lahore is a Pakistani city, and used to be a Punjabi city before 1850. His nationality is Pakistani, or Punjabi if you want to be that specific.
Unre4L 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a playground for nationalist wetdreams. Please bear in mind that this place is not an outlet for Pakistani Information Ministry. Frankly your innane and bizzare edits like calling Panini and Chandrashekar 'Pakistanis' would be considered vandalism. I have been pateient and civil with you (despite all the rude personal attacks from Nadirali) for over a month. But dont test my patience too far. This might go to ArbComm. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, You are supposed to listen to arguments and make decisions using the outcomes, not basing them on your mood. India didnt exist in 1910, and neither did the flag. Lahore is a Pakistani city, and has never been Indian. Besides, his nationality is American. Unre4L 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Any why exactly did you remove the disputed sign?I am sure that goes against the rules. Arent you suppose to even spend 30 seconds thinking about why it might be disputed? Unre4L 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
First do take additional English lessons. RoI didnt exist in 1910 but it is has been a cultural entity for over 2000 years. For we cannot pigeionhole any pre-partition person as Pakistani unless they has supported Jinnah's movement. By your dumb logic, people what'd people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak be called.... Its not that hard to see, places like Troy may lie in Tukey but that doesnt dicount their Greek history does it? Pakistan seceded from Indian Union in 1947, it was recognised by UN as such.
As for the tag: Sorry no drive by tagging allowed, give referencs that call Chandra a Pakistani or buzz off. AN article doesnt become disputed just because you get nationlistic epileptic fits, every now and then. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Love the personal attacks. I will add them to my collection.
Any way. He was born in British India, which doesnt have the RoI flag.
Provide sources for the 1950-53 claim. Since I couldnt find any.
Even if he did hold Indian nationality, he held American nationality for far longer, so there should be an American flag.
I will follow up on the tag removing claim. I added a tag because obviously the facts are wrong. You removed the tag with no justification. I would call that a "drive by" tag removing. Unre4L 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- No facts are incorrect. Merely accusing Indians of "hijacking" people who obviously have no connection to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and adding tags about facts only you obviously dispute isnt justification for adding graffiti to a page.Bakaman 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you insist on discussing something I wrote weeks ago instead of what I wrote 5 lines up this page? These people had no connection to India either, a country also born in 1947. And by India, I mean India, not South Asia. Unre4L 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, it is your POV which has been blown to smithrens by loads of people (non-Indians included). RoI inherited all treaties and international entitlements of British India. WP is not a palce to plaster your country's revisionism.
Lastly you arent even contributing to articles! WikiProjects are not about claiming anything for a country... They are all about improving the articles, WP:INDIA have helped edit this article so obviously they'd put up their tags.... Is WP:PAKISTAN all about flamewars and tag additions? WP:AMERICA tag would have been added ONLY if the members of said project had collaborated on this article... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am improving articles by changing false information. I dont understand however, why dont you reply to the argument I have just made instead of bringing in statements made weeks ago. By all means, bring them up, but in the right sections. I will answer all of your questions. And I havent gone through even one discussion, where you dont bring in all sorts of Wiki policies instead of replying to my argument and falsifying it by logic. If your only weapon against my arguments is ignoring them, then I will start ignoring your statements altogether. Unre4L 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Falsifying by logic, wow. You are not even editing the article or adding content, merely "undoing the hijacking of Pakistan's ancient heritage". Ambrood, its funny how Rama's arrow is the only one actually writing Pakistan articles and then his page gets vandalized once it goes on mainpage.Bakaman 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Because I will get banned (again) if I even think about editing the article. Look at your buddys comments. He is threatening to ban me for tagging it. So I put in a few facts, but obviously not acceptable to you anyway. And ONCE AGAIN, you ignore the current argument and quote one of my 1 month old statements. Unre4LITY 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neither of us are admins, if you get banned its because of your own conduct.Bakaman 03:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The place of birth, is seldom considered, when referring to the nationality of a person. If that were the criteria, then Pervez Musharraf would be an Indian and Manmohan Singh a Pakistani because they were born in India and Pak respectively. Even his official Nobel autobiography says that "Madras where the family was permanently established at that time." and that Lahore was a temporary posting, but he gives ample info that they were tamil brahmins. These people (tamil brahmins) would have been the last to be in Pakistan after the Partition, given their religious and linguistic gulf with the muslims of Pakistan and is absurd to claim he was a Pakistani because of his birth in a city which btw still came under "India". Oh, until he became a citizen in 1953, it is obvious from deduction that he held an Indian citizenship. Idleguy 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- As a distant relative and being from the same native as him, I could clearly say that Dr. Chandra is a native of Tricy-Srirangam in Tamilnadu, India and his father was working there in Pakistan when he was born. In no way, he could be counted as a Pakistani. His is a full fledged Indian.
Balajiviswanathan 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Idle's example is excellent. Unreal, if you want to say Chandrasekhar is a Pakistani, by your logic the President of Pakistan is an Indian! :-) GizzaChat © 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think he was a Pakistani, nor an Indian. He held American citizenship for most of his life and that is the fact at the end.
- Calling him Indian will be a nationalist gesture, which I totally accept, except that this is Wikipedia. :)--User:Anupamsrŧæłĸ ¢øn 08:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Quasar#History_of_quasar_observation.
The term quasar was coined by Chinese-born U.S. astrophysicist Hong-Yee Chiu in 1964, in Physics Today, to describe ...
- Idle's example is excellent. Unreal, if you want to say Chandrasekhar is a Pakistani, by your logic the President of Pakistan is an Indian! :-) GizzaChat © 07:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoever called Chandrashekar an Indian. User:Unre4L's inability to understand that project tags on talkpages arent meant to claim national ownership is getting irritating. its just that WP:INDIA members have helped maintain this article... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 08:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you are assuming a lot of things here. A lot of hindus stayed in Pakistan after partition, and you cant assume he would have left. I will say it once again, His Nationality is American, and he was born in Lahore, Pakistan (then British India) As for Musharraf, he is a Mujahari, an Indian immigrant to Pakistan, nobody hides that. But if you do want to call him Indian, go ahead, I dont mind. Unre4LITY 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You don't realise that you are actually strengthening the case. In his own autobiography he states that Lahore was a temporary posting for his father and he says that they jumped to Madras at the first opportunity and this was years before 1947, so no question of where their priorities and roots lay. These ppl weren't even long time Lahore residents or people who had ancestral roots in Pakistan that would compel them to stay in Pakistan. Funny that you don't mind Musharraf being called an Indian - when he is the "first citizen" of Pakistan, but mind when an Indian is called an Indian! Idleguy 14:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Forget Pakistan, it was a suggestion and you obviously dont like it. I am saying his birth place cannot be RoI, since it didnt exist, and he had the American nationality longer than any other nationality, and I am still waiting for a reliable source stating he held Indian nationality for 3 years after 1947. Even so, it wouldnt change his American nationality. Unre4LITY 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You say: "he had the American nationality longer than any other nationality" Hmm. Let's see. He was a US citizen from 1953 to 1995, i.e. 42 years. But he was an Indian citizen (the republic or dominion status of India doesn't matter) from 1910 - 1953. So that's 43 years. Since 43 > 42 I see by your own standards he's had the Indian citizenship longer than any other citizenship. Like, I said your talk actually seems to strengthen this case, so I suggest you stop rewriting history and contribute positively to Wikipedia. Thanks. Idleguy 14:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you had read the first comment you would know the republic or dominion status of India DOES matter. Republic of India, and British India are 2 very different things. And especially in this case, where the City of his birth is not even part of the flag you have put up on the article.
British India had 2 successor states. India alone cannot claim to be the successor state.
Unre4LITY 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let's just cut down this needless talk. He never held a Pakistani citizenship. He and his family chose to come back to present day India and he held Indian citizenship before he became an American. At no point in his life did he or his family even attempt to go back to Pakistan nor did he have any official links to Pakistan, because ethnically, linguistically and religiously, there were no ties. To top it he surrendered the Indian citizenship to obtain US. Nobody except u talks about him as a Pakistani, just because he was born in a place that now is in Pakistan. It's like calling Manmohan Singh a Pakistani! Despite that example you've continued to harp on this subject. I suggest you seriously contribute to Wikipedia or stop this claim. If Pakistan has not produced a Nobel Laureate, then this isn't the place for staking a claim based on birth places. This will be the last reply here. Thanks. Idleguy 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I said he was born in Pakistan and his nationality is American. As you probably didnt see, I didnt pursue him being Pakistani, because he is as much Pakistani as he is Indian.
Follow your own suggestion and cut down on the needless talk. I still need sources for him holding Indian nationality for 3 years. Besides, he held American nationality for more than 40 years. So it makes him American.
And lets use good ole logic on this one. The page links to RoI. And Lahore has never been part of that India, so in the current context, the article couldnt be more factually wrong. And that is breaking Wiki policies. Unre4LITY 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Lahore is a Pakistani city and India did NOT exist before 1947 and that is a FACT. Now, if you can NOT deal with facts then I do not think wikipedia is the place for you to be editting or writing articles. 126.96.36.199 15:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Calling him Pakistani is like calling your president Pervez 'Indian'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Praveen pillay (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Let us not indulge into this baseless pointless debate again. Especially putting the tags above or below, does it matter? Really? Work on the article, not on the talk page.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 11:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Madhu 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
As I had thought, here is a quote from S. Vishveshwara's Leaves from an unwritten diary: S. Chandrasekhar, Reminiscences and Reflections
|“||In his later years, Chandra had openly admitted to being an atheist which also meant that he subscribed to no religion in the customary sense of the word. Perhaps his religion was that of Christopher Marlowe who wrote, "I count religion but a childish toy, And hold there is no sin but ignorance."||”|
- So do I. I am an atheist, but I also consider myself Hindu. Not because "hindu are the people living in hind yada yada" but because the "religion" as a term does not clearly defines Hinduism. For me, even Dharmic religion is nothing but an attempt to use "religion" as a blanket term for all spiritual philosophies.
- The point is, yes he was a Hindu. Being atheist does not make you not-hindu. That is why Buddha is considered Hindu though he had his own philosophies, and which clearly meant that he subscribed to no religion in the customary sense of the word.
- And how come it is related to Hinduism template? How many times do we need to reiterate that templates represent what kind of contributors are interested in contributing to the article? Come up with these arguments when there is a mention that he was devout Hindu until his death or something.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have substantially rewritten the lead and the "early life" section (mainly just added text and removed incomplete or incorrect statements), and also added a section on Chandrasekhar's career. I will attend to the remaining sections "Nobel Prize" and "Legacy" later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In "early life" there is mention of the Danish "Nordisk institut for teoretisk fysik" in Copenhagen, but the name is spelled in Swedish. Does anyone know the reason that the name is not rendered in Danish (as I have just shown it here)? The two languages are so close that it hardly matters; furthermore there is no dispute at the level of Pak-vs-RoI. Snezzy 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I was the one who added that piece of text. I might have read about it on the Nobel Foundation Web Site (where the name (possibly) was given in Swedish, instead of Danish). Please go ahead and change it to the Danish, if you haven't already. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently new editors are making the same changes that have been made, discussed and reverted before. First, Chandrasekhar was an American astrophysicist born in British India. This is what he himself says in Nobel autobiography (see above) and what the Nobel announcement said as well. So, please stop calling him and Indian-American astrophysicist. Second, Yang and Lee were doctoral students of Edward Teller and Enrico Fermi respectively. Their only connection with Chandrasekhar was that they took an astrophysics course with Chandra for which the latter drove 75 miles each way (to Chicago), twice a week, from Yerkes Observatory in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. This piece of science folk-lore was first mentioned in the introduction to some lectures Chandra gave at Chicago and has since become a kind of urban science legend, which unfortunately is only partly true. The popular version of the legend has only two students in the class, Yang and Lee, and goes on to say, "... x years later, the entire class won the Nobel Prize." Yang himself many years later was to remember other students in the class as well, but that isn't convenient for the legend. Finally, Chandra was an atheist and did not consider himself a Hindu in any spiritual or existential sense. See quote in the discussion above. It is one thing to put a Hinduism template on the talk page, it is another to mention it in the article itself. That would not only be inaccurate, but would be a disservice to the man and what he was about. I have therefore reverted these changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
user:Bharatveer changed all references to "British India" to "India." The reason for using British India is simple. It is what Chandrasekhar himself used in his Nobel biography. It is also being used in other tertiary sources like Encarta. (See the discussion on the Jinnah or Iqbal talk pages.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you . India without that wikilink would be fine. -Bharatveer 07:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, India without the Wikilink is not fine, simply because in Wikipedia India links to Republic of India. I have already said to you (which apparently you are not able to comprehend) that British India is the correct term. His passport when he first traveled to the UK said, "British Indian Passport" (British Indian Empire). Stop trolling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pls educate yourself.Can you give any proof that the Passport said "British Indian Passport".Now stop trolling and provide proof to what you have said now.-Bharatveer 08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can't help draw comparisons between Chandrasekhar and Pervez Musharraf. The article on Pervez says "born Delhi, British India". In a similar manner, article on Chandrasekhar should say "born Lahore, British India". And how in this world is this article under Wikiproject Pakistan? Bob Woolmer was born in India (and not British India), but that doesn't mean his article comes within the scope of Wikiproject India. Chandrasekhar didn't even spend his childhood there! Guys.. keep this nationalistic crap out of Wikipedia please. And Fowler, yr userpage says u r a prof. Atleast you should be matured enough. Makes me feel it might be the same case as Essjay. Guys.. grow up!!! --188.8.131.52 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh.. so u r resolving to negative tactics to gain an upper hand. Nice try but plz give me a break! If the Pakistani Wikiproject tag is staying here, then I am adding Indian Wikiproject tag to Pervez Musharraf's article. And plz, don't BITE. I am not a Wikipedia regular but I am well aware of its policies. And whats up with yr edit summary? rv undiscussed changes by IP Undiscussed?! Dude.. didn't I leave a message above regarding the issue? I think you should stick to being a prof. Lol --184.108.40.206 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the anonymous user that the Pakistani tag should not be on this pg. Most Pakistanis have never even heard of him. IP198 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I didn't put the Pakistan tag (and have no interest in it), I'm just trying to make sure that it be discussed, not arbitrarily removed by some anonymous illiterate who walks off the street and decides to edit Wikipedia. I think the people who originally put the tag should be given a chance to discuss potential changes first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- arbitrarily removed by some anonymous illiterate who walks off the street and decides to edit Wikipedia Oooooooo.. now that is what I call a personal attack.. and this is going to the Administrator Noticeboard for sure.. so what do you know about me Mr. Fowler.. just because you know English better than I do.. you think you are too smart?? Go get a life man.. you disgust me.. this is definitely not going unnoticed.. --220.127.116.11 03:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
To user:18.104.22.168, "Name of town, British India (now Pakistan)" is perfectly acceptable and is used by other tertiary sources like Britannica and Encarta. See
- (Encarta) here for Jinnah,
- (Britannica) Sunil Dutt: "Indian film actor and politician (b. June 6, 1929, Khurd, Jhelum district, British India [now in Pakistan]—d. May 25, 2005, Mumbai [Bombay], India)";
- (Britannica) Qasimi, Ahmad Nadeem. "Pakistani writer and journalist (b. Nov. 20, 1916, Angah, British India [now in Pakistan]—d. July 10, 2006, Lahore, Pak.)"
- (Britannica) Ramanand Sagar. "Indian filmmaker (b. Dec. 29, 1917, near Lahore, Punjab, British India [now in Pakistan]—d. Dec. 12, 2005, Mumbai [Bombay], India), as the head of the Bollywood production company Sagar Arts Corp.,..."
- (Britannica) Shamsur Rehman "Bengali poet, journalist, and human rights advocate (b. Oct. 24, 1929, Dacca, British India [now Dhaka, Bangladesh]—d. Aug. 17, 2006, Dhaka), earned the designation “unofficial poet laureate of Bangladesh” with more than 60 volumes of heartfelt, often fiercely patriotic poetry."
- For people born in locations currently in the India, the bios simply say "British India" and not "British India (now in India)," but that's understandable. See Britannica for Naushad Ali: "Indian motion-picture composer and music director (b. Dec. 25, 1919, Lucknow, British India—d. May 5, 2006, Mumbai [Bombay], India), was credited with the introduction of an elegant new style of music to Indian cinema through the incorporation of Indian classical and folk music into his compositions."
- Fine. Go ahead but at the same time please add "Delhi, British India (now India)" to the article on Pervez Musharraf. And, please explain why that article is not within the scope of Wikiproject India? --Sriram Deshpande 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Both the Britannica and Encarta pages on Chandrasekhar say "now in Pakistan" for Lahore. Neither encyclopedia, however, adds "(now in India)" for locations in British India that are now in the Republic of India, as the last example above demonstrates. The reason for this presumably is that "now in India" seems redundant and repetitive, i.e. it is understood that in this context, British India (without qualification) refers to parts of British India that are now in the Republic of India. As for the Pervez Musharraf article, that is not my job, if you feel it should be changed, please take it up on the talk page there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What is this pakistan thing with this guy and which templates
How come pakistan is related to this guy, India, in more than one way, eixsted for whole world even before 1947. You still are happy to dissociate him from India, good job when stating facts. Some of you are even willing to say he was not hindu, though if i try to argue with you, you will run like anything. Hinduism doesn't need anybody to be theist or atheist, it is not believer/unbeliever type religion. Somebody suggested that templates are to categorize contributors to articles. I think in that case you should have only some template for science and get rid of all other templates attached to this article. But don't think you are doing a great job if becaue of your bias you don't associate hindu or India with that man.Skant 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Voting == Does this article come under scope of Wikiproject Pakistan?
If this article comes under the scope of Wikiproject Pakistan, then using the same logic, the article on Pervez Musharraf should come under the scope of Wikiproject India. It's time to test the smartness of Wikipedia users.
- No - for the reasons given above. --Sriram Deshpande 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that you ask this question at the Wikiproject Pakistan talk page to see if editors associated with that project are still interested in improving this article. Please note though that the wikiproject tags do not imply ownership of the article by the associated wikiproject or the corresponding country. Finally, I understand that you are new to wikipedia and therefore presumably unfamiliar with its policies,, guidelines and culture; therefore I recommend that you check out the links in the welcome template left on your page as well as the content of the WP:POINT and WP:VOTE articles. Welcome to wikipedia. Abecedare 04:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. Please do not start votes on issues like these. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Because of the on-going edit war, I have protected the article. Please resolve the disputed issues in the talk page. Thank you. --Ragib 08:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The 'disputed' issues are settled. Please see the quote above on the talk page, which clearly indicates that SC did 'not subscribe to any religion in the customary sense of the word'. Unless a source is found contradicting that, there is no dispute here, only an user reverting madly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 Jul 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any further concern about this? Or shall I remove the inaccuracy? Hornplease 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Unprotected. --Ragib 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit made. If anyone else has issues please can we discuss it nicely first? Hornplease 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I count at least 11 reverts since the unprotection. Apparently, not all issues have been resolved, so I am protecting this page again. Please discuss the issues in question in the talk page. All parties are requested to abide by WP:3RR. Thank you. --Ragib 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
user:Bharatveer's drive-by edits
user: Bharatveer has decided to grace this page again with his drive-by eloquence. (Last visit 23rd June.) This time, he has felt the need to add "India" (linked to the Republic of India) after "Madras" in the sentence, "Chandrasekhar attended the Hindu High School, Triplicane, Madras, during the years 1922-25." Since any reader ignorant of "Madras" will click on its link and discover that it is in India, such gratuitous additions make the text prolix and unfocused. Seeing that user Bharatveer was quick to edit-war over this, I decided to at least make the addition accurate. I changed India to British India, since Madras in 1922-25 was certainly not in the Republic of India; however, such nuances are lost on our intrepid India-warrior and he has reverted India back to his beloved Republic. While at it, he has also reverted Chandrasekhar's religion to "Hindu" in the infobox, describing the citation accompanying Chandrasekhar's atheism from "Current Science" to be merely the recollection of an acquaintance. I had originally put "Atheist/Agnostic of Hindu heritage," in the infobox. I think that is the most accurate description, since Chandra, while openly an atheist, was also deeply aware of his Hindu heritage, and, in fact, attributed his detachment later in life to his Hindu upbringing. However, he didn't belong to the school of thinking which claims atheism for Hinduism, (and more generally all forms of philosophy for Hinduism) and when pressed in that fashion by his biographer K. C. Wali, changed the conversation politely. I don't have the biography with me right now, but I remember this clearly. I think "Atheist/Agnostic of Hindu heritage" (with all its problems) is a much better description that either "Atheist/Agnostic" or "Hindu;" it at least hints at the complexity of his feelings about these issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I found an actual quote from Chandra's own mouth:
"Interviewer: "Have you, at any point of time, regretted your decision to leave the country of your birth?" Chandrasekhar: "There is no point in regretting or being happy over decisions you have made. I think it's irrational to reget the past anyway. You must reconcile yourself to the life you have chosen and lived." Interviewer: "Would you call yourself a religious person?" Chandrasekhar: "No, I am an atheist."
- Here is another:
"To someone who didn't know him well, Chandra must have seemed almost English, given his dress, and more importantly his erudition in European literature and music. However, his Indian formation obviously ran much deeper than the stories he sometimes quoted from the Mahabharata. Most obvious was his vegetarianism, which in his and Lalitha's case was not explicable as merely a religious requirement, because in fact he was an atheist."
- And, a more definitive one:
- Here is another:
|“||"There were other controversial inputs. These pertained to his iconoclastic views on religion. He seemed pleased with the published version of his interview "Why I Am Not a Believer," a copy of which the Indian embassy had sent him. He told me in an amused tone: "Some people back in the US say, 'Chandra has atheistic-communistic views!' To me he seemed happy with his atheistic disposition. What he said in front of the camera about the Hindu holy text Bhagavadgita did not surprise me. But whenever I play back the recordings, I can't help remembering Salman Rushdie, in these times of the crescendo of Hindu fanaticism."
"When I asked him if he had studied the Bhagavadgita, he said a few years ago he had spent several weeks reading it along with an abridged version of the Mahabharata. 'I read it not with any prejudiced notion but in the manner in which I approach great literature. There are many things in it which I consider great literature, but somehow I was not at all impressed with Krishna. In fact, I found the whole attitude expressed in the Bhagvadgita as simplistic. Chandra said: 'Arjuna raises again and again the question, "Why should I do this? Why should I kill my brothers and elders?" And Krishna says: "You haven't killed them. I have killed them already." "What is my resurrection?" "I am your resurrection." And Arjuna finally asks: "How can I be sure?" And then Krishna shows his great form. I found that scene obscene. I am sorry to use that strong word. It was a way of essentially coercing him to believe. So, I am afraid I was not moved by the Bhagvadgita.' 'In other words,' he continued, 'I can read the Bhagvadgita, recognize it as great literature, recognize that parts of it are wholly noble instructions to people. But I am unable to accept it as divine and as one commonly says—a testament directly of God—because I know, at least I think I know, the Bhagvadgita was written by man and to attribute it to anything more seems irrational.'"
(From: Kumar, Sanjay, "Chandra in Focus." In, Wali, K. C. (ed) 1997. Chandrasekhar: The Man Behind the Legend - Chandra Remembered. London: Imperial College Press. 223 pages. ISBN 1860940382. page 93. In I think it is pretty clear now that to call him only an "Hindu" is not an accurate description. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- To call him anything but atheistic seems absolutely inaccurate. I would like the reverter's opinion on these pieces if at all possible. Except that now the page is protected he'll probably ignore it again. Hornplease 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Chandra's atheism is not in question here. The question is chandra was born a hindu and thus it will be entirely accurate to call him a Hindu as such. A "hindu" can be religious or irreligious; but that doesnt make him anything less than a hindu. -Bharatveer 06:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to fly. Being born a Hindu doesn't brand you as one for the rest of your life. What if he has converted to Christianity? Would you have still called him a Hindu? I do understand that there is a notion that Hinduism is less a religion and more a way of life (Radhakrishnan, Zahaener, etc), but in the Wikipedia infobox they are not talking about the socio-cultural baggage of religion, but active religion as practised by someone. I am happy to have an RfC/Village Pump about this, since it will clarify the question for some others (like Nehru) who are being claimed for Hinduism. That is why my suggestion of "Atheist/Agnostic of Hindu heritage," or actually even more accurate: "Atheist/Agnostic of Hindu upbringing" is the most accurate characterization. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- But the main point for WP purposes is his answer as quoted above. He was asked, "Are you religious?" He didn't say, "I am a Hindu" or even "I am lapsed Hindu," but rather "I am an atheist." That is telling. If he had wanted to include Hinduism, he was smart and articulate enough to do so; but, he didn't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very simply, Hinduism is not an ethnicity. Hinduism is a religion, or at broadest, an affiliation. Unlike being Parsi or Jewish, there is no definable ethnic component to the religion. People born Hindu who convert to Islam or Christianity and state as much clearly are no longer Hindu; that extends to those who choose to stop believing in Hindu deities or the wisdom of the Vedas and thus choose to stop calling themselves Hindu.
- About 'of Hindu heritage', that is in the article. It should not be in the infobox, as then people will start going around adding "of X heritage" to every single infobox. That's not what its there for.Hornplease 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Curious why his dustup with Eddington is almost completely ignored (his career in England was essentially destroyed). Perhaps this is because Chandrasekhar completely ignores it in his autobiography. It is a fairly interesting (and revealing) episode in science history, however, and should get more space. 22.214.171.124 05:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The name Chandra
This article calls Chandrasekhar "Chandra" on numerous occasions, but doesn't explain whether this was an acceptable alternate version of his name, a nickname, or what. Serendipodous 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Changed "Chandrasekhar... is a common Tamil name." to "Chandrasekhar... is a common Hindu name." There is nothing Tamil about that particular name. Also, I wonder if this sentence is necessary at all. But let's leave it a that. Mahesh.c.shastry (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this the same Chandrasekhar...
...who, despite his initially simple upbringing, developed solutions to complex mathematical equations like x=1/√(1/√(1/√(... ? (Maybe this is a bogus example, but I think you get the drift...) Or is it a relative? I think I'm thinking of someone else (no, not Gauss, an Indian mathematician), actually... -- megA (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)