Talk:Bharat Bhushan (academic)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I made some changes. Pls consider those --Devgurera (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The current version is okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

There appears to be a definite conflict of interest here, with an attempt to use Wikipedia for publicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

yes indeed. I changed some of the language. You cannot claim "first" for anything unless there is a 3rd party independent reliable source that says so.

And being on the editorial board of a journal, or -- usually--chairman of a conference, is usually considered not worth mentioning in a WP article.

What is needed, is a chronological account of his career in a section called "Biography" or "Academic Career". We need the name date and university of each of his undergraduate and graduate degrees, the names of his positions in chronological order, and a list with full names and dates of visiting professorships, not those that are just lectureships. The worked at section needs clarification at dates. His university CV is a sufficient source for these, but it needs to be explicitly given.

In counting then umber of papers, we want the number of peer-reviewedpapers in journals. We do not normally include or even mention conference papers or chapters in collected works. In listing the citations, the key factor is not total number of h-factor, but the number of citations received for each of his most cited peer-reviewed papers, taken from Google Scholar or, better, ISI. for the rankings, give the exact numerical rank and the total number, such as: the 99th of the 100 people in ...

Every institution where he has held an appointment or received a degree must be linked the first time in appears; every journal name in the main section where we have an article must be linked. The fields or topics of his specialty should be linked, once only.

I'll be back in a day or so to finish. Unsupported statements are always removed from bios of living people. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in writing the helpful comments. We are in the process of including them. To start with, nanotribology term was used by Dr Bhushan for the first time. The fact has also been lately published in the chapter cited. A table each for professional experience, fellowships, and education has been included. RakeshBrown (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Stubbed

@Joe Roe: Thank you for your time and efforts to edit the article. I am not sure about the reason you chose to remove the content. Similar to many academic personalities pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Barthlott ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_J._Buehler), this page had important details for a professor. The professor is a well-respected person in the field of academia with more than 60k citations to his name (https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=dtvtjgsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate). I will request you to undo the content and help up shorten it, rather than removing it altogether. It is highly disrespectful. If you see closely, in past, other Wikipedia content editors had asked to include/remove the info that was out there.Devgurera (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved from my talk page. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Devgurera: There is no question that Bhushan is a distinguished academic, but the article itself was in a very poor state. I therefore don't think it is "disrespectful" of me to cut it back to something that can serve as the basis of a proper encyclopaedia article on this notable scientist.

The content I remove was problematic for several reasons:

1. We don't include long lists of publications, career history, etc. The article is a biography, not a CV.
2. We don't include citation statistics etc. drawn from primary source databases (WP:NOR)
3. Almost all the content was without a reference; as Bhushan is a living person, this is a significant concern.
4. Other statements were unduly promotional. Bhushan's accomplishment should speak for themselves, we don't need to embellish them.

These problems were pointed out by previous editors who added cleanup tags to the page. I have simply addressed those issues.

You will notice that the articles you linked to consist mostly of continuous prose describing the person's career in plain English, with citations to reliable sources. Any lists of publications or honours are short, selective and supplement the main text. That is how we write academic biographies on Wikipedia. If you want to write an article on Bhushan, follow that model. You can look at the list of creations on my user page for more examples. DGG also gave you some useful advice above.

Please do not restore any material unless it is supported by a reference and properly integrated into the text. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: The article has been removed from the stub category. Is this the right time to remove the stub from the talk page as well? RakeshBrown (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Profile Photo

@Joe Roe: The photos I am uploading are owned by Bharat Bhushan. Yes the photographer clicked it, but it was given to Bhushan with the rights to use it freely. Please stop removing the photo. Or tell me what is the solution to this issue Devgurera (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Devgurera:. The photographs are being deleted from Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate website from the English Wikipedia, so you are better off taking up this issue with the administrators there. I have already started a discussion about you at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Devgurera. But the short version is that, in the United States and most other countries, the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, not its subject, so Prof Bhushan does not have the right to release it under an appropriate license. More pertinently, you definitely don't own these photos, and yet you are uploading them claiming them as your own work.

The solution is that you stop editing this article when you clearly have a conflict of interest and are here to promote its subject. This is not a "profile", it is an independent encyclopaedia article. – Joe (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Clearly you are unaware of how ownership works. The fact is -- a photographer can give the rights of his/her photo to the person whom he/she clicked. So, now my question is how can I upload the photos, which are owned by Bhushan, according to your rules? Do you want him to upload? What is the solution to this problem? Let's act constructively. You want a good article and so do I. Instead of going on just deleting things, also tell me how can i fix it Devgurera (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not the one lying and saying that I "clicked" multiple photographs that I didn't, am I? (And then editing metadata to hide the evidence!) It's your responsibility to make sure that you have the right to release work when you upload it to Commons, not mine.

For the record, I don't have the ability to delete anything on Commons, nor do I set their rules. I and other editors nominated your uploads for deletion, and the administrators there agreed.

I have already given you my suggestion for how to move forward. It would be nice to have a good article on Bhushan, but it's inappropriate for you, his student, to write it. – Joe (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I uploaded a new photo stating that I did not click it https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bhushan.jpg . Let me know if this doesn't work and I will change what is required.

As I have said before, I am new to the Wikipedia rules. I am getting used to it. This previous conversation was not a pleasant one but I learned what is required. So can you be kind and support the newcomers instead of bossing around?

Also, strangers will not go and make an article about random people. People with some kind of connection to the subject will go and make efforts to make a page for them. So I respectfully will disagree to that. However, I do understand the fact that the article should be unbiased. Devgurera (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Since this is getting heated, I'll leave the newest photo for the Commons admins to decide on, but based on my previous experience, it's unlikely to survive long.

We will definitely have to disagree on whether people with connections to the subject should edit articles. I and the vast majority of the Wikipedia think this is fundamentally at odds with our goal of writing a neutral and reliable encyclopaedia. And I'm afraid regardless of what you think, complying with the community's expectations of COI editors is not optional. If it helps, my own academic supervisors all deserve good Wikipedia articles, and none of them have one. What "power" I have here (probably less than you think) doesn't change that. On the other hand, I have created dozens of articles on random people I don't know. Lots of editors do.

It's not my intention to boss you around, so apologies if that is how it's coming across. I'm only doing what I think is best to maintain the integrity of the encyclopaedia. However, if you feel like I'm discouraging you from editing this article, you're right: I am. – Joe (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding list of schools attended

@Joe Roe: Having a brief, direct list of schools attended by the personality is important. Other personalities ranging from people like Albert Einstein to Markus J. Buehler to Kate Calder have a list of schools attended by them, either in a bullet or a paragraph format. Please present the Wiki guidelines in which it is acceptable to write it. This page Wikipedia:Notability (academics) does not say anything about

Your comments on this also be valued @DGG: and @Chiswick Chap:, since you have been editors of this page at its earlier days. RakeshBrown (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For academics, we always add schools beginning with undergraduate college, including year and name for each degree. For the Ph.D, we include if possible the title of the thesis and , optionally, the name of the thesis advisor

We also always include the years, exact titles, departments, and institutions for each subsequent appointment of one year or longer, including post-docs.

If readily available, we add the name and location of the high school. And, as for anyone, we always include the birthplace and year if available.

In general , the official CV on the person's faculty web site is an acceptable source for all of this. They're plain facts. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: Thank you so much for clearing that out. I actually do appreciate you taking out time and doing this.

If you see the recent most edit which as been undone by @Joe Roe:, it contained the exact thing you said. The list of education had the year, the degrees's name, the institute properly linked to its respective Wiki page. I failed to understand why it was removed. Please undo the change by the @Joe Roe: RakeshBrown (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It needed re-formatting and I added some material as well. Some of it may parallel other sources, but lists of degrees and positions can not be expressed in significantly different ways. Now, Please add the sequence of univeristy positions in the same format as I did the list of degrees.

The reason why we discourage autobiographies is that they normally are written in an improper format and excessive detail, and it is easier for someone unaffiliated but who knows Wikipedia to just take the facts and write the article, than to do the amount of revision that was necessary here. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@RakeshBrown: I already explained that we need such details in prose, not a CV-like list, above. DGG has kindly taken the time to rewrite it, but generally speaking you shouldn't expect volunteer editors to clean up after you. Dealing with COI editing is quite a timesink for us. The least you can do is actually read and engage with what we are saying on this talk page. – Joe (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: As you suggested, I have refrained myself from editing and have been watching this all unfold carefully now. I see you have been removing important information from the article now. You removed a lot of things including the list of schools, removed the Bhushan's website from the infobox, and removed his editorial positions. Few of the edits were made by a senior editor, @DGG:. Respect other people's, or atleast other editor's contributions. Also, clearly, you failed to provide a proper format for writing the schools in, and were not even aware of it. You not even once gave people a proper format. Your only job is to come with a sword and remove the contents of the page which you "feel" is not right. You fail as an editor, you fail as a person. I strongly advice you to refrain yourself to use your immature, less aware tactics on editing wiki pages. If you find some text unsourced, give some time to the contributors instead of removing the content. If they fail to provide it then, by all means, remove the content. If any contributor add it back, you will mark it as vandalism. Wikipedia is not your's monopoly. Help the article grow instead of deleting stuff. And if you can't take time to edit articles, maybe it is time for you to step down. Also, I see you listed other contributors as linked to the subject--do you have any basis for that? By that logic any person editing an article should be listed as a potential connection to the subject--logic wins! Devgurera (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no "senior editor"; I'm just an editor who has dealt with a great many articles in this field. JoeRoe has also dealt with many articles in this field ; we probably do not always agree on content, but we generally do. Neither ofus is always right--one can not make thousands of edits and get every one of them perfect.

As both of us have said, WP strongly discourages autobiographies and coi editors in general. Nobody is a good judge on how best to present their career, and especially onot on how to present it in terms of the SWP guidelines. Nobody isa good judge for what changes to an article they are closely involved in are appropriate. Nobody with coi is a good judge of whether an article should be lengthened rather then shortened. In particular, nobody is a good judge how far to proceed with an argument involving their own work here.

It is a fair assumption that allautobiographical or coi earticles are intended to promote the subject's own activities. WP has a very great problem with preventing promotionalism. I personally, and I suppose Joe, treat it as much more serious than evaluating notability. Our normal procedure for basically promotional articles, or coi articles in general, is to remove the article altogether. Only if it can be quickly fixed and is clearly worth fixing do we keep it--and then only if someone is interested enough to do the work. Usually, the first step in fixing is to remove the more questionable material. It is not appropriate for someone to come here with a coi and complain about the way we deal with the article, because basically they really shouldn't have written it in the first place,but waited until someone who knew about their work thought it apppropriate to write an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Editorial board membership

Dr. Bhushan is listed as an Editorial Board Member for Drug Designing and Intellectual Properties International Journal. This fact is supported by the journal's own web page.

The journal "Drug Designing and Intellectual Properties International Journal" is a predatory open-access journal. Retraction Watch and the Center for Scientific Integrity are credible sources for these claims.

Participation in a predatory publishing enterprise is a notable aspect of an academic's career. Loren ipsum (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Loren ipsum: Those journals are well known for listing prominent academics on their 'editorial boards' without their knowledge or consent. They can't be considered a reliable source, especially not on a biography of a living person. – Joe (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Joe Roe. If an independent high-quality source verifies his involvement, we could certainly mention this detail. But otherwise we must be cautious and keep it out (per WP:BLP). Also, the opinion expressed in a watchdog blog is just that: an opinion from a well-intentioned but possibly biased advocacy group. Unless this opinion has been covered in other independent sources, it is irrelevant from an encyclopedic point of view (and undue weight in articles not about the journal itself). GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding awards

@Loren ipsum: @Joe Roe:

There should be a list of awards on a scientist's Wiki page. It is informative to the reader. Other scientists also have their awards listed on their pages. Examples include Wilhelm Barthlott and Markus J. Buehler.

Following is the list and source of the list is https://nlbb.engineering.osu.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2_page_bio_1.22.20.pdf

1980 ASME Henry Hess Award for the best original technical paper 1981 ASCE/AIME/ASME/IEEE/WSE Alfred Noble Prize for outstanding technical papers 1983 ASME Burt L. Newkirk Award for a notable contribution to the field of tribology 1983 University of Colorado George Norlin Award for attaining eminence in his field of endeavor 1985 University of Colorado Regents Distinguished Service Award 1985 IBM Corp. Invention Achievement Award 1986 Pi Tau Sigma & ASME Gustus L. Larson Memorial Award 1987 NASA Certificate of Appreciation for investigation of Space Shuttle Challenger Accident 1987 IBM Corp. Research Division Award for outstanding achievement 1990 IBM Corp. Outstanding Technical Achievement Award 1992 ASME Melville Medal, the highest ASME honor for the best current original paper 1997 ASME Board of Governors Award for valued services as Founding Chair of ISPS Division 2000 Pi Tau Sigma & ASME Charles R. Richards Memorial Award to recognize outstanding achievement 2004 ASME Robert Henry Thurston Lecture Award for pioneering research in nanotribology and nanomechanics 2005 The OSU Research News of the Year - Nature Inspires Nanotech, selected as the coolest science story 2014 STLE International Award for outstanding contributions to tribology and/or its related sciences 2015 BITS (Pilani) Distinguished Alumni Award to recognize and honor for bringing laurels to their alma mater 2015 Institution of Chemical Engineers (UK) Global Award for oil-water separation using durable green coatings 2015 Top Ten Science Stories of 2015 - Nanocoated- mesh for Oil-Water Separation 2016 Ohio State University - Scott Faculty Award for excellence in engineering education 2017 Ohio State University - Innovators Award for translation of research into new products and technologies 2018 ASME Dedicated Service Award for dedicated voluntary service to the society with effective leadership 2019 ASME ISPS Distinguished Institution Award for pioneering research & contributions to data storage industry

Devgurera (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

5 months and no response. I have added the awards and cited the source. Pls check. @Joe Roe: Devgurera (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been told all this before, but I will repeat it. There is nothing wrong with the inclusion of awards, but it should be:

1. Integrated with the text, not a long list – this is an encyclopaedic biography, not a CV
2. Supported by a reliable source – Bhushan's CV will do in a pinch, but really there should be a reference to a publication by the awarding body or a secondary source
3. Selective – major, notable honours are relevant to a biography; an exhaustive list with minor awards like "Top Ten Science Stories" or "OSU Research News of the Year" turns it yet again into a promotional pseudo-CV

Moreover, as an editor with a conflict of interest a history of problematic edits to this article, you should not be editing it directly. You can use the {{edit request}} template to suggest changes. Volunteers like myself are not obligated to respond to you; you have to be patient. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)