|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on September 5, 2008, September 5, 2009, and September 5, 2010.|
 The criticism section
The criticism section seems to have an agenda, and seems selective. I feel that either this should be discussed at length (after all, the validity of criticism should also be considered...or else this could become an exercise in mudslinging without reason)...or the criticism section should be removed. The primary issues here are: 1. If S. Radhakrishnan wrongly asserted universality of a certain philosophy, how does that compare with other similar scholars who have asserted universality of other philosophies. 2. If Radhakrishnan actively discriminated against Muslims, this aspect should be fleshed out in some detail. The way it is written seems like disgruntled opinion, rather than a valid criticism.
 Sarvepalli or Sarvapalli?
A google search returns 72,500 pages for Sarvepalli and 545 pages for Sarvapalli (some of these seem to be derived from wikipedia!!). The article name spells it as Sarvepalli, but the first sentence and the photo caption spell it as Sarvapalli. I hv put this on the talk page to see if I'd get any plausible explanation. A cursory check for vandalism doesn't seem to suggest any, though I may be wrong. wd change all entries to Sarvepalli after a week if I don't get any responses. --Gurubrahma 11:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I Myself am related to him and his last name was spelled Sarvepalli
Gurubrahma,it is very good that you have mentioned about this President of India's knighthood. - (Aidan Work 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
 His work...
A most ridiculous link citing the opinion of ISCKON fanatics regarding the works of Dr. Radhakrishnan's work was given in the page. I have removed it and contend that it be so. Do give your opinions.-- Chinmaya
 Reversion of "edit on 22 December by User:Ashwin S"
 Teachers’ Day
India celebrates "Teachers’ day" on the birthday of S. Radhakrishanan who was a famous teacher and philosopher.
Whether Dr. Radhakrishanan was the most famous teacher of the time or was it so because he could be President of India?
I always wondered as to why "Teachers' day" was celebrated in schools while Radhkrishanan taught in University, never in any school.
Hence, either Teachers’ Day should be celebrated in the University or a teacher of school should have been searched if traditional 'Guru Puja' on 'Ashadhi Purnima' was not supposed to be secular for that though that would have been ideal as Vyas was the best teacher who made a series of disciples which continued his teaching as Vedas and Puranas relevant even today. I am surprised as to how Radhakrishanan himself had not pointed out this!
In the historical era too Chankya was a teacher par excellence and Charaka and Sushruta in their branch of science. Even among teachers of modern age, probably Du Rezio’s fame as a nationalist teacher at Calcutta or Bal Gangadahar Tilak or Master Surya Sen would have been ideal.
Nobody celebrated Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s birthday though he was the first President. Maybe because Nehru did not like him.
Dr. Radhakrishanan’s contribution was in philosophy yet for Philosopher’s day Shankaracharya or Vachaspait’s remembrance would have been ideal.
Dr. Dhanakar Thakur firstname.lastname@example.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dhanakar Thakur (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was a cosmopolitan and do we need to catogorize him as tamil, telegu or kannada. I believe every state in south india lay their claim for his legacy. Lets not do the same here in wikipedia.. I have added the category people from karnataka.... But I realized that there already exists a tamil and telegu tag... so what to do? since he has spent many years in delhi we can also see a tag... people from delhi... Any thoughts --Aravind Parvatikar 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, it doesn't matter if he fits in more categories. For example, Babur could be taken as an Indian king as well as a persian. However, there is a subtle difference between categories such as Tamil people, Telugu people and People of Karnataka. The first two talk more of their language rather than region where as the Karnataka category doesn't talk of language. So, I may fall under people of Karnataka, though I may not be able to speak Kannada. btw, there is nothing in the Radhakrishnan article to suggest that he spent time in Karnataka. Either such information to indicate his connections with Karnataka may be added or the category may be removed, if deemed inappropriate. --Gurubrahma 10:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on my readings I understand he was a Tamil Iyer, Sarvepalli was a common Iyer firstname in the the early 20th century in the Madras Presidency.Thus calling him a Telugu is dishonest unless there is undeniable proof of this.References are also required - Udayadithyavarman
On the same theme, why is the transliteration of his name in telugu in particular, especially as the article mentions nothing about his telugu connections?
The fact that he has signed his name as 'Radhakrishnaiah' goes to prove he is telugu. Why would his son claim to be a niyogi bramhin[a distinctly telugu subdivision] if he were not Telugu? Therefore calling him a Tamilian is an unfair move. Mr Udayadithyavarman, could you please share with us these 'readings'? - Saratchandra kasivajjala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 Telugu vs Tamil
The Telugu vs Tamil contention over Radhakrishnan's origins seems to flare up every now and then, with edits from IPs switching claims back and forth. This is tiresome and tends to destabilize the page. It seems desirable to get this issue reliably sourced and fully stabilized, if possible. To that end, I have obtained a hardcopy of the following source:
- Iswara Dutt (1966). "The Man & His Evolution." In: Iswara Dutt, Kunduri (Ed.) (1966). Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan; a study of the president of India. New Delhi: Popular Book Services. p. 87-118. OCLC 414173. OCLC 758752902
It contains the following statement (published 1966, during Radhakrishnan's lifetime) (page 105-106):
- There are still some people who ask, innocently or cantankerously, whether our President is Telugu or Tamil. In extenuation... it may well be conceded that his name initially occasions a little confusion. The last letter 'N' in his name has, doubtless, pronounced Tamil bearings, but they are all effectively obliterated by his surname 'Sarvepalli' – the name of the place from which the family originally hailed. For, while liberty can be taken with the names of persons, by being turned or twisted according to one's fancy, there is nothing that can be done [BEGIN P. 106] about surnames which have a heriditary [sic] survival. So let it once for all be established that Radhakrishna, in spite of being Radhakrishnan, is a cent per cent Andhra, (firmly free from the fear of any devaluation)! It would, however, be handsome to acknowledge that he is essentially a product of composite Madras – indeed, of the finest vintage.
If this can be regarded as a reliable source, then it would seem that the Telugu attribution is correct (Disclosure: I am non-Indian and have no stake in this contentiousness). That corresponds to what is currently claimed in the article, although it is attributed to "Telugu One", which does not seem a neutral source. Can we regard this book as more neutral, and add it as an additional and perhaps preferable source for the attribution of Telugu ethnicity? It seems to me it could also be useful to cite it in a sentence or two explaining the "sources of confusion" about his ethnicity, as explained in the above passage as due to his name.
 'Sir' has to be included at the beginning of his name.
As he was knighted before independence,'Sir' has to be added before his name. - (220.127.116.11 08:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
From what I have read, he stopped using 'Sir' once India gained independence. Instead he used Dr. I believe he didn't use Sir as a sign of India's independence from the UK. Since he didn't use it, it should not be added to his name. In general, when it comes to someone's name, the form to be used is the one the person uses (used). It should, of course, be noted that he was knighted in his biography, but if he didn't use 'Sir', then we shouldn't. Fanra 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Replaced "Sir" title with "Dr."Myaoon (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- First, academic titles should not be used on Wikipedia, so "Dr" should be deleted. Second, he presumably used "Sir" before Indian independence. Should we not use it because he may or may not later have stopped using it? I don't think so. He lived the majority of his life before Indian independence; why should we only focus on the parts of his life after that event? The fact he didn't use his title at some period does not mean it shouldn't be listed in-line, as it was his formal style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 Disputed tag
I noticed that this article is marked with a tag that its neutrality or factuality is disputed, however there is no discussion on the talk page specifying the particular objections. Can someone familiar with the article history, clarify what the main issues are, or else remove the tag ? Thanks. Abecedare 05:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 Family Links
My family supposedly claims to be related to both Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and the later President R. Venkataraman. Apparently, Radhakrishnan's mother and Venkataraman's mother were sisters. Is this true and was Radhakrishnan in any way related to R. Venkataraman? If it is, I think it should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You should be looking for that on familytree.com or something :D
 Personal Life
There is no information about at what age and when Radha Krishnan got married and whom he was married to. I think this is important to be put in this article.
 So many categories
- The large number of categories is a consequence of the article being of interest to many wikiprojects and workgroups. Since the cats. serve a useful bookkeeping purpose and are listed only on the talk page, they are not of much concern. Abecedare (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"In 1914 Radhakrishnan met the mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan. Srinivasa was leaving for Cambridge for studies and had come to seek Radhakrishnan's blessings because a goddess came in his dream and told him to do so before undertaking the trip. The two never met again."
- Agreed. There is no indication that the solitary meeting had a lasting impact on either men. It is interesting trivia, but trivia nevertheless and can be safely removed. (It is also unsourced, but even adding a reference won't enhance its importance.) Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
'''Bold text==Missing information: what did he do when he was president?== What did he do when he was president? This information in not in the article. Did he just leave the population in poverty and continued to write about philosophy and religion? Andries (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Is it normal to have so many categories here.Civilizededucation (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The large number of categories is a consequence of the article being of interest to many wikiprojects and workgroups. Since the cats. serve a useful bookkeeping purpose and are listed only on the talk page, they are not of much concern. Abecedare (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)  advik-
 the knighthood
Radhakrishnan was an important figure of Indian struggle for independence (as well as being a brilliant scholar). After India achieved independence he never used the title 'Sir' but always Dr. Using the title 'Sir' is therefore both contrary to his wishes and shows inappropriate deference to those foreign conquerers against whom India waged a bitter struggle to achieve her liberation 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 Teacher's Day - where to put the apostrophe?
Should this be "Teachers' Day" (as in the title of the WP article on the day worldwide)? I presume this day in India is to celebrate all teachers, not just Radhakrishnan. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 Making clear that Radhakrishnan has final "n"
There seems to be a sporadic but continued effort by some IPs to mis-spell his name as "Radhakrishna" or in other ways rather than "Radhakrishnan". Please help revert these IP changes so that the page can be properly maintained without a single editor (e.g., myself) being placed at risk for edit warring. To make it perfectly transparent why the name is spelled "Radhakrishnan" (at least in English, which is the language of this Wikipedia), consider these two Google book searches:
- Books authored by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan: "about 16,000" on 20 Oct 2011: VERIFY
- Books authored by Sarvepalli Radhakrishna (without n): 0 on 20 Oct 2011: VERIFY
- FYI: The IP that repeated changed the spelling of Radhakrishnan's name - a form of "blatantly disruptive editing" - was indeed blocked (administrative discussion, notice for 48 hour block). Please revert such behavior in the future, or consider filing a notice to generate more blocks on disrupters. --Presearch (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is not about number of search results google is returning. Since Sir Radhakrishna is from Telugu family his name should be spelled as Radhakrishna not Radhakrishnan( which is a Tamil name). I think somebody has made a mistake and it has been continued till now. I believe this issue should be taken seriously and resolved ASAP.--Srungarapu —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC).
- The "somebody" who made what you call the "mistake" is obviously Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan himself, since he approved the "n" spelling in his byline in every book that he published in English beginning in the early part of the 20th century, for over 60 years. According to you, he was misguided in how he spelled his own name, and you know better. Please give us all a break! -- Presearch (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)nduwfoif3
 The criticism section
The criticism section seems to have an agenda, and seems selective. I feel that either this should be discussed at length (after all, the validity of criticism should also be considered...or else this could become an exercise in mudslinging without reason)...or the criticism section should be removed. The primary issues here are: 1. If S. Radhakrishnan wrongly asserted universality of a certain philosophy, how does that compare with other similar scholars who have asserted universality of other philosophies. 2. If Radhakrishnan actively discriminated against Muslims, this aspect should be fleshed out in some detail. The way it is written seems like disgruntled opinion, rather than a valid criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)