Talk:Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Asian Americans, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Asian Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
Peer review This article was externally reviewed on December 14, 2005 by Nature. No significant errors or major omissions were found.

Well, it doesn't seem very complete to me. It does not properly mention his physics. Thue | talk 15:08, 24 January 2006 (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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] Edit by the bellsouth.net anon

Someone using the IP address 205.152.9.38 (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Academic Advisor

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. --68.224.247.53 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Indian?

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)

He's Tamil and Indian.Bakaman 00:27, 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)

P.S He did hold Indian nationality from 1950-53अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 00:46, 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.[1] 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 ...

I think this should be the way for this article too.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 08:42, 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)

His birth place has got NOTHING to do with Republic of India. Whats your point? My source is the world map. Have a look sometime. --Unre4LITY 19:56, 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)

omg...omg...omg
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. 24.90.163.84 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)

[edit] Name

Name in tamil script should be added to the article (See: Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman)--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 08:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Madhu 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism Template

Is it clear that he was a Hindu, i.e. a practising Hindu? I kind of doubt it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:53, 11 February 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, what is the logic of the Hinduism template? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
OK, I guess, I didn't know what the template meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Text

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/b/Talk%7ESubrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar_616c.html"