Jump to content

Talk:C. N. R. Rao

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

Proposal to remove paragraph from controversies

[edit]

Hello, I believe that the first paragraph in the section titled "Controversies" needs to be removed, as it is unsubstantiated (the first 3 lines) and factually incorrect (the last 17 words of that paragraph). I am stating my reason(s) below:

In a scientific journal, the onus of including the date of receipt of an article lies with the Publisher of the journal. To attribute its omission to the author is erroneous and misleads the reader of the wiki page.

Please note that the said journals published Errata in their May 1987 issues mentioning that the date(s) of receipt of the articles were not printed in the journals due to their oversight [1,2]. Thus, the authors are absolutely in the clear. The first three lines of that paragraph are thus trying to wilfully mislead the wiki reader into thinking that the authors are somehow responsible. This is incorrect.

Secondly, in a few instances, the said journals have indeed published papers of other authors without dates of receipt, during the same time period [3,4], negating the claim made in the last 17 words of that first paragraph.

In view of the above, may I request you to delete the first paragraph in the Controversies section? Thank you.

1. [1]

2. [2]

3. M.A. Ramaswamy, "Recent Developments in Transonic Flow-Part II-Experimental", Current Science, February 5, 1987, Vol. 56, (3), 109; [3]

4. K.L. Chopra and G.B. Reddy, Pramana-J. Phys., Vol. 27, Nos. 1 &2, July & August 1986, 193-217; [4]

Thank you, Vikas dlx (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backed up by the source. Removing. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for removing one sentence from Controversies Section:

[edit]

The previous version contained the following sentence at the end of the section: "This incident also sparked widespread debate on why a senior scientist should be a communicating author when that person has little personal involvement with the paper."

I removed it as it (i) did not have any citation (ii) makes the so-called debate as the central theme and not the person in the Wikipedia entry (C.N.R. Rao).

Thanks Vikas dlx (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is Abdul Kalam a scientist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.54.246 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Awards--add year

[edit]

Hi, can you make following edits:

(1) PADMA VIBHUSHAN was awarded in 1985 by then president of India. It is incorrectly written as 2013 (2) PADMA SHRI was awarded in 1974 by then president of India. No year written. (3) Barath Ratna announced and will be awarded. For the above edits, the source is http://www.jncasr.ac.in/cnrrao/awards.html

In the introduction: grammar of "He is the authored around 1,500 research papers and 45 scientific books." This needs to be edited to "He authored around 1,500 research papers and 45 scientific books." The citation for this statement should be changed to http://www.jncasr.ac.in/cnrrao/research.html

Thanks

Rajkancherla (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To be reliable a source must be independent of the subject. Can you find an independent source for this information? The grammar error has already been corrected. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Another source for those years is Wikipedia pages: For Padma Shri- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Shri_Awards_%281970%E2%80%931979%29 which cites http://india.gov.in/myindia/padmashri_awards_list1.php For Padma Bushan- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Vibhushan which cites http://india.gov.in/myindia/padmavibhushan_awards_list1.php

I think those are reliable sources. Thanks 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkancherla (talk • contribs)

Contribution section needed

[edit]

The section about contribution is needed. I have no issues if controversy section remains there as it is property referenced. But we don't have contribution section and have a big controversy section. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNR Rao Sir is the fourth indian to achieve Bharat Ratna Award in field of Science.

[edit]

Nobel Laureate and physicist CV Raman who was given the Bharat Ratna award in 1954; civil engineer M. Visvesvarayya in 1955 and most recently aeronautical engineer APJ Abdul Kalam in 1997, and then CNR Rao Sir.

Please make above changes. He is the fourth scientist to get Bharat Ratna Award.

Source1 : http://www.ndtv.com/article/people/bharat-ratna-awardee-cnr-rao-the-scientist-who-finds-computers-distracting-446963

Source2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visvesvaraya

Thanks, Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.iitian (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Year correction in profile section

[edit]

Bharat Ratna Year should be (2013) under profile section Karthik 07:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

[edit]

In this page regarding Prof.C.N.R. Rao it is mentioned that he is the fourth scientist to receive the Bharat Ratna award after C.V. Raman, Visvesvaraya and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam but it is not true as Visvesvaraya was not a scientist but a civil engineer and Diwan of Mysore. So, Prof.C.N.R. Rao is the third scientist after C.V. Raman and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam to receive this award. Here is a link to confirm this: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cnr-rao-sachin-receive-bharat-ratna/article5652196.ece?homepage=true

The link is from a famous Indian newspaper The Hindu which claims him to be the third scientist to receive this award. Timeisaforce (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks. -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

[edit]

MARLOW MEDAL for outstanding contributions to Physical Chemistry, Faraday Society, England (1967).

CENTENNIAL FOREIGN FELLOWSHIP of the American Chemical Society (1976).

THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY (LONDON) MEDAL for outstanding contributions to Solid State Chemistry (1981).

HEVROVSKY GOLD MEDAL, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (1989).

HONORARY FELLOWSHIP, The Royal Society of Chemistry, London (1989).

BLACKETT LECTURESHIP, The Royal Society, London (1991).

ALBERT EINSTEIN GOLD MEDAL, UNESCO, Paris (1996).

LINNETT VISITING PROFESSORSHIP, University of Cambridge (1998).

CENTENARY LECTURESHIP AND MEDAL, Royal Society of Chemistry, London (2000).

HUGHES MEDAL for Physical Sciences, The Royal Society, London (2000).

OFFICIER DE L’ORDRE DES PALMES ACADEMIQUES, France (2002).

ORDER OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT, GRAND-CROSS, President of Brazil (2002).

GAUSS PROFESSORSHIP, The Academy of Sciences, Gottingen, Germany (2003).

SOMIYA AWARD of the International Union of Materials Research Society (IUMRS) (2004).

THE DAN DAVID PRIZE for Science in the Future Dimension in the field of materials science (2005).

CHEMICAL PIONEER, American Institute of Chemists, USA (2005).

CHEVALIER DE LA LÉGION D’HONNEUR by the President of the French Republic (2005).

HONORARY FELLOWSHIP, Institute of Physics, London (2006).

NIKKEI ASIA PRIZE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION from Japan (2008).

ORDER OF FRIENDSHIP, by the President of Russia (2009 .

THE ROYAL MEDAL (THE QUEEN’S MEDAL), by the Royal Society, London, U.K (2009).

THE AUGUST-WILHELM-VON-HOFFMANN MEDAL for outstanding contributions to chemistry by the German Chemical Society (2010).

A.D. LITTLE LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010).

ERNESTO ILLY TRIESTE SCIENCE PRIZE (2011) for materials research.

ALBERT EINSTEIN PROFESSOR of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and

2012 AWARD FOR INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE COOPERATION, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2012).

Platinum Medal of Indian Association of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (August 2018).


(b) National BHATNAGAR PRIZE in Chemical Sciences, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India (1968).

PADMA SHRI, National honour bestowed by the President of India (1974)

S.N. BOSE MEDAL for Physical Sciences, Indian National Science Academy (1980).

PADMA VIBHUSHAN, National honour bestowed by the President of India (1985).

MEGHNAD SAHA MEDAL, Indian National Science Academy (1990).

GOLDEN JUBILEE PRIZE in Physical Sciences, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, India (1991).

KARNATAKA RATNA, Highest honour of the State of Karnataka (2001).

INDIA SCIENCE AWARD (2004), First recipient of the highest scientific recognition of the Government of India.

DHIRUBHAI AMBANI LIFE-TIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR INNOVATION (2011).

BHARAT RATNA (Jewel of India), highest civilian award (2014).


Pronty123456 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph from controversies should not remove at least wiki has courage to speak truth

[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaukinn (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]


This article reads like a vanity profile

[edit]

Although this article is of a real person who likely significant in the sphere of Indian science and his field of chemistry, the tone of this article is problematic. It is overly focused on the large number of papers, books and awards bestowed upon Rao with little attention to the real scientific impact of his work. It is irrelevant how many papers an individual has published, this has no bearing on the quality of the work or the status of the individual. The real measure of noteworthiness is the impact of the research output (which may only come from a handful of papers in most scientist's careers). Almost no effort is made to explain the significants of the science with the majority of the article focused on irrelevant (repeated) details like the factoid that he has written 1500 papers which would make a paper every 13.9 days, does anybody write with this prolificacy? These things aside, the real purpose of the article should be to highlight the actual research and not awards and honorary degrees.

The references are also a problem, being very region centric. Someone with the significance implied by this article would expect to have a broad spectrum of references from a global spread of sources. Science is the ultimate global profession and no-one with any weight would expect to have a wikipedia article from such an apparently narrow base of references. These need to be found from a spread of more than mostly newspaper articles too. Why is a Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences medal referenced but a medal from THE Royal Society medal unreferenced?

Finally it includes a lot of unimportant (from an encyclopaedic perspective) details, like: how much he earned in his first appointed position after his PhD; what his wife and son do for a job (if they have merit they would have articles in their own right) and membership and honours from a range of organisations that might go on a CV but not in an encyclopaedia. A full two paragraphs are dedicated to his actual achievements (in science) maybe that should be the only thing in this article along with his essential qualifications and maybe a mention of his Royal Society medals? Fincle (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I have added the citation for the Royal Society Medal as well as some others. However, I beg to disagree with your view that the two paragraphs noting Rao's achievements and the mention about the Royal Society medals are the only points worthy of mention in the article. He is the winner of the highest, the second highest and the fourth highest Indian civilian awards and the highest Indian award in the science and technology category and those facts are of no less importance. The Royal Society medal is just one of the several notable honours the scientist has received and singling it out as the only worthwhile honour is stretching things a bit too far. A biographical article in an encyclopedia should try to be comprehensive and the subject's career, contributions, achievements, personal life and legacy are vital components for it to be comprehensive. A good example is the article on Albert Einstein, a Good Article and a former featured article, which details his personal life and marriages, his travels and later life.--jojo@nthony (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your comment, I think you make a good point. Rao is a significant individual within the sphere of Indian and global inorganic chemistry and listing a large range of awards from various places makes sense. The conundrum is deciding which should bear mentioning, I know this sounds harsh but honorary degrees probably demand so much attention (they generally hold little significance as they are awarded often to sports people and others so what does it really mean to get one?) but that depends on where they come from. Its probably better just to list them all as it is too hard to decide. I guess this is why we have a Talk section.
The problem still stands that the article is still a bit inverted. Rao's professional life should be the key point of the article and should feature more than a couple of sentences compared to the personal bio and awards. A personal bio doesn't need to read as a sequential series of events (at least in such a short article), I would suggest it follow a more logical structure based on points that emphasise the just how remarkable Rao is: The fact that he had finished up his PhD by age 24, his rapid accent in academia, and interestingly his unconventional early education outside the standard education system. This isn't in chronological order, but might places things in order of importance to the reader. Some of the info in the Bio is superfluous to this and actually gets in the way: "He was ten years old, and his father rewarded him with four annas (twenty-five paisa)" is a nice anecdotal fact but doesn't contribute much to the picture of his unconventional early education juxtaposed against his stella career progress (this is genuinely interesting in understanding his intellectual journey to the top of Inidan and global science). There is growing evidence that differentiation in the success of scientific careers is not well predicted by very early years but just after PhD which would suggest that the really important career stuff starts just after this. Usually this is how science wiki bios are set out with early education details only added to help people understand why that individual was different and interesting. The Albert Einstein bio is mostly about what happened after his early life, this is a much smaller article so its harder to compact down but the point still remains that career should be the main emphasis. Fincle (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


An additional point, the Controversies section is problematic in its language. Using the word 'accused' seems overly aggressive (not sure if that is the right adjective) but it should probably read 'alleged' which is a more neutral term. 'Alleged' is also a better term as it usually doesn't imply assumed guilt, at lease in legal contexts. Most news reporting uses alleged as it is code for the fact that accusations have been made but they have not been tested and concluded in a court of law. This should be changed in the article.

The offer for withdrawal and then editors letting it stay as it is doesn't seem to resolve whether the offending plagiarised sentences were removed. The sequence of events is important. So it got through peer review, was then found to have a small portion copied from somewhere else, was the offending material left in in the end? Or was a edited version then reposted? Its not clear here.

Also the quote: "These sentences were part of the introduction of the paper, which was written by our student, that neither of us (namely, the senior authors, Rao and Krupanidhi) paid attention to", is left hanging there. Senior researchers are responsible for conduct of their students and as authors they hold equal responsibility for the content. Ending the paragraph with a 'I didn't read it' defence seems odd, maybe those two paragraphs should be merged with criticisms for passing responsibility down the line moved up from the bottom of the second paragraph.

This kind of highlights my problem with this article; at the moment the article reads like a 'he-said-she-said' account with a chronological narrative. Like a good news story it should start with key facts at the top (like where Rao is now) and work down from there.Fincle (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fincle: Thanks for the comments, Mate. I was not actually defending the article, which, I feel, leaves a lot of room for improvement and needs quite a bit of overhauling. With the wealth of references it has, and with some concerted effort, the article could become a good one. I felt some of the honours Rao received were being trivialized; may be I read you wrong. If our discussion here inspires someone to copy edit and develop the article further to a better level, the purpose is served. Cheers Mate!! --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is disgrace, it looks at self-written vanity article, or an article written by a partisan henchmen. I am not aware of the actual controversies, but just the tone of the article tells me there is something seriously wrong here

Rao has been subject of an allegation due to negligence of his MS Eng student Leela Srinivas (...) He was still given doctoral degrees with gold medal honours by JNCASR India for the bravery accorded for spoiling one of independence India's Jewel Chemist Now Leela Srinivas is Assistant Professor in Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mumbai or Bombay, which is shame to the country's administration and his recruitment at one of the top institutitute in India gave insight into worst academic recruitment practices without following proper norms and procedures

No respected editor would allow such tone and text. The text is written as pure propaganda. I do not know the issue here, but it is the tone of the article that bothers me -- it is counter-productive, as many people might just conclude from this text that Mr. Rao is a guy who has lots of unchecked power, and lots of people are dependent or afraid of him. Dedikul (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

[edit]

hi i'm a student of "Universidad de Guadalajara", and i want translate this text to spanish language, so i request the permission to do.

Brancool999 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brancool999: You don't need permission to translate it. If you want to contribute to the spanish langauge version, it is here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._N._R._Rao RudolfRed (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C. N. R. Rao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C. N. R. Rao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on C. N. R. Rao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on C. N. R. Rao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

[edit]
Rakvoggu (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Palagarism and other cobtraversies on Prof C N R Rao are fraud things.

Prof C N R Rao is the first recipent of Pltinum Medal Of Indian Association of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.'Bold text

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

[edit]
Rakvoggu (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Palagarism and other cobtraversies on Prof C N R Rao are fraud things.

Prof C N R Rao is the first recipent of Pltinum Medal Of Indian Association of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Award function date will be announced at later stage.'Bold text

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C._N._R._Rao&oldid=1209968586"