Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan/Archive 1

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))

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 71.244.233.174 (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.

Lokesh 2000 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So many categories
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
--59.92.165.158 (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramanujam
"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."

This meeting with Ramanujam does not seem to fit in the career section. Seems more like trivia. Myaoon (talk)


 * 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) [edit] advik'-

'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. - (202.68.89.4 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)

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 81.107.150.246 (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: IPs should be warned, and probably blocked if they persist in mis-spelling his name. --Presearch (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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


 * Thanks Srungarapu (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna
Does the Bharat Ratna have postnominal letters? I don't believe that any awards in the Indian honours system have postnominal letters at all. - (203.211.72.248 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

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 24.40.204.111 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Start-class
I may assume that the article is no longer "Start-class"? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead
I have shortened the lead. The lead should summarise the article, and be neutral. The previous lead did not "adequately summarize Dr Radhakrishnan's contribution", but give a WP:PEACOCK description: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other. He wrote authoritative exegeses of India's religious and philosophical literature for the English-speaking world." - This is WP:PEACOCK, its not sourced in the article itself, and does not fit with the criticism Radhakrishnan has received.
 * "Radhakrishnan was awarded the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award in India, in 1954. Among the many other honours he received were the British Knight Bachelor in 1931 and honorary membership of the Order of Merit (1963), but ceased to use the title "Sir" after India attained independence.[2] Dr Radhakrishnan believed that "teachers should be the best minds in the country". Since 1962, his birthday is celebrated in India as Teachers' Day on 5 September.[3] He was also awarded the Templeton Prize in 1975 in recognition of the fact that "his accessible writings underscored his country’s religious heritage and sought to convey a universal reality of God that embraced love and wisdom for all people".[4]" - This is not a summary, this is an extended summary, which was summarised in the article by a bullet-list. I've moved this part into the article, where it belongs.


 * My shortened lead was reverted by User:Marchoctober with this edit, providing two sources for the statement "One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other. He wrote authoritative exegeses of India's religious and philosophical literature for the English-speaking world".
 * siasat.com, Past presidents of India - This is a copy of the Wikipedia-article;
 * "The philosophical Journey: An interactive approach" - This source only says "He was not only a great scholar but a statesman as well, for he was president of India from 1962 to 1967." That's not exactly paraphrased by the removed statement.
 * My argument of WP:PEACOCK has not been answered, nor the fact that the lead is supposed to give a summary, and not such an extensive overview of awards. For these reasons, I've shortened the lead again, and quoted "The philosophical Journey" correct. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And removing sourced content with the explanation "restoring deleted information" is unacceptable. "Providing sources to unsourced content" also does not exactly account for the removal of sourced info. Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * When the article has been in this form for several years you cannot change it without consensus, first restore the article to its original form and discuss here for consensus, once you have seen more users participate and they agree to make changes then you are welcome to make changes. Moreover I have provided sources which say the exact words that are present on this article. Marchoctober (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia-policies; it's inherent to Wikipedia that articles are being edited. If you've got a problem, provide arguments and proper sources.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do have a problem if the lead contains this particular information which is well sourced ? You edits reflect a motive to show the personality in less light, add more to the criticism section on the article, you have found sources for that but, you cannot find sources for the statements which are positive, you either delete them giving unreasonable reasons or give the citation required template.
 * I do not agree that these are peacock terms ' These are the personality's qualities, and they are also reflected by multiple sources - which are provided, deletion is unacceptable.
 * Marchoctober (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Only one source; the other is a copy of Wikipedia. And this one source does not support the statement. Also, being called a "great scholar" by one source is not suffiecient reason to provide an extensive overview of all his awards in the lead, nor to deleten sourced info.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Qwyrxian Requesting intervention about User: Joshua Jonathan's edits, Please see this first the information was removed because he said that words used to describe are peacock words click here, I have restored the content providing sources which use the exact words as on the article and these words have been on the article for couple of years ? He undoes my edits and gives me a warning template when I have provided sources, so I in turn gave him a warning template and reverted them back. Marchoctober (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see this he says he adds notes but deletes information, also the citation needed tag was probably added by him as they are november tag,s later simply deletes information.

Here he moves criticism section above awards and honors section so it is more visible, motive seems - show the personality in low light (my point of view)

Marchoctober (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Marchoctober. To respond to your objections:
 * 1. this first the information was removed because he said that words used to describe are peacock words
 * A. The first source provided for the sentence "One of India's most influential scholars [...] for the English-speaking world" is obviously copied from Wikipedia; the second source only says "great scholar";
 * B. As mentioned before, an extensive overview ofhis awards, longer than the list in the article itself, is WP:UNDUE and WP:PEACOCK.
 * 2. click here, I have restored the content providing sources which use the exact words as on the article and these words have been on the article for couple of years ? - See 1.A and 1.B.
 * 3. Please see this he says he adds notes but deletes information, also the citation needed tag was probably added by him as they are november tag,s later simply deletes information. - The sentence "In his book An Idealist View of Life, he made a powerful case for the importance of intuitive thinking as opposed to purely intellectual forms of thought." was not removed, but moved downward. It's still in the article - and still unsourced.
 * 4. Here he moves criticism section above awards and honors section so it is more visible, motive seems - show the personality in low light (my point of view) - The Criticism-section criticises Rdhakrishnan's philosophy, so it should be in this section. You may not be aware of it, but there is quite some criticism on his philosophy.
 * Furthermore, your edits removed large parts of sourced info, without an explanation. That the article has been in this shape for years is no reason to keep it this way. And you may have noticed that I enlarged, actually wrote, the philosophy-section. Something which also wasn't done for all this years. Quite starnge, isn't it, for such an important philosopher? Looking forward to your replies.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My 2c: For articles that are not well-developed (like this one), it often happens that the lead is written to present a summary view of the subject rather than the (inadequate) article. The way to handle this is to improve the article, not diminish the lede. If there are sourcing or presentation issues, those should be handelable. Secondly awards and honors like the Bharat Ratna, knighthood, and Teacher's Day celebration definitely belong in the lede (less sure of the Templeton Prize), even if they are not expanded upon in the main text since they are important aspects of the subject. In short,the longer lede is IMO far superior to the shortened version. That does not mean that it cannot have issues, or be improved. Can we discuss specific suggestions on how the lede should be changed here? Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Reply by JJ: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other." - This is unsourced, and POV. Radhakrishnan has been criticised for his philosophy, as demonstrated in the Criticism-subsection. I think this does not belong in the lead.
 * "He wrote authoritative exegeses of India's religious and philosophical literature for the English-speaking world" - I've stated my objections before. The word "authoritative" is POV, again because of those criticism. Sharf: "What is curious is not that he should have placed his synthesis of Western and Indian philosophy in the service of an overtly apologetic and nationalist project, but that given this project he is nevertheles considered by many to be a credible 'native source' on the subject of Hindu traditionalism" (p.100) But that he was influential is undeniable.
 * A more accurate statement is "Radhakrishnan was one of India's most influential and honoured scholars on India's religious and philosophical tradition, offering a modern interpretation of them." This covers both previous sentences, in a more neutral way.
 * Instead of the extensive description of his awards, which belongs in the article itself (and which I did move into the article!), I propose: "Radhakrishnan was awarded several high awards, like the Bharat Ratna, the British Knight Bachelor, honorary membership of the Order of Merit, and the Templeton Prize." Details belong in the article, not in the lead, which summarizes the article.


 * I agree with you on the word "authoritative" and the need for additional sourcing (I'll try to look into that, but may take a few days), but don't see how Radhakrishnan's interpretation being critiqued by other scholars (that, after all, is what scholar's do!) is even an argument against the sentence "One of India's... terms of the other", which seems to be a concise description of SR's work. IMO it is better than the version you propose, which misses out on the important comparative aspect. The current version also subtly drops in the terms "East" and "West", which were a constant theme in SR's work, and unobtrusively informs the reader that SR's writings were in English (which would not be a priori obvious). That is some good writing that we should be emulating, not replacing.
 * As for the awards: the current version (perhaps with the Templeton moved) again is better written that the version you propose, which misses out on Teacher's Day and SR's rejection of the title "Sir". I do think the sentence "Dr Radhakrishnan believed..." should be excised though. But why would we want to replace "highest civilian award in India" etc with the less precise and more waesely "several high awards" and unnecessarily exclude the years?
 * Finally, as I mentioned before, the lede summarizes the important aspects of the subject, and not (necessarily) the article, and a three paragraph lede of the sort here is how a well-written lede should be. Am I missing something here? Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Abecedare; thanks for the reply! My responses:
 * The lead summarizes the article, not the subject or topic. Manual of Style/Lead section: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Also: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." All three parts of the sentence "One of India's most influential scholars [...] within the terms of the other" are unsourced; none of them is further explained in the article. Apparently he did not build a bridge, but wrote with a specific agenda, which has been called "nationalistic", emphasizing the supposed differences (see Hawley). How are the philosophical systems comprehensible, according to who? What is comparative about it, according to who? These questions are not covered in the article.
 * Good point about him writing in English, though it also raises the question: why did he do that, with which purpose?
 * Years could be added. The ceasing of the title "Sir" is not explained in the body of the article (but it is explained here), so to me it seems too much detail, which belongs in the article. It is that I copied this information from the lead into the article, otherwise the information in the lead would be more extensive than the information in the article.
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan, I stand by what I said about the purpose of the lede and can quote from WP:LEDE "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The problem here is with the article, and not the lede per se. And the solution is to better develop the article; not worsen the lede to match the poorly developed article.I am not sure how to sttle this impasse though. Any suggestions? I do agree with you that the lede needs to be verifiable, and will look for sources on the topic. But as I said above, it may take me a few days to get to it due to off-wiki and on-wiki obligations. (Btw the lede of the Hawley article itself backs up most/all of the wikipedia article lede including when it says, "...earned him the reputation of being a bridge-builder between India and the West." Frankly these broad and anodyne claims are not really controversial, although they can definitely be argued around the edges. But in any case I am sure there are better sources than IEP.) Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Some sources: Nor would it be possible to find a more excellent example of a living "bridge" between the East and the West than Professor Radhakrishnan. Steeped, as Radhakrishnan has been since his childhood, in the life, traditions,and philosophical heritage of his native India,he has also struck deep roots in Western philosophy, which he has been studying tirelessly ever since his undergraduate college-days in Madras Christian College, and in which he is as thoroughly at home as any Western philosopher. Beyong this: more than any living philosopher of East or West, Radhakrishnan has been devoting the major portion of his academic career as well as his voluminous writings to what has almost become the passion of his life, name that of bringing East and West together: by interpreting the great cultural tradition and spiritual insight of the East to the West on the one hand, and by helping the East, on the other hand, to realize that- not merely in science and technology, but also- in philosophical thought and speculation the East can still learn some important lessons from the West. As said above, he is a synthesizer of the old and new and of the East and West. He has justly been called the "philosophical bilinguist", a "bridge builder", and a "liason officer" between the East and the West. Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is widely acknowledged as the greatest living Indian philosopher. At the same timehe has contributed more powerfully than perhaps any other Asiatic to the immensely important undertaking of creating a synthesis between Eastern and Western thought. Radhakrishnan’s concern for experience and his extensive knowledge of the Western philosophical and literary traditions has earned him the reputation of being a bridge-builder between India and the West. He often appears to feel at home in the Indian as well as the Western philosophical contexts, and draws from both Western and Indian sources throughout his writing. Because of this, Radhakrishnan has been held up in academic circles as a representative of Hinduism to the West. His lengthy writing career and his many published works have been influential in shaping the West’s understanding of Hinduism, India, and the East. I have largely restricted myself to quoting from the prefaces/intro/lede of the cited works, to show that the topic is amongst the first that is brought up in reference to SR and is not just an isolated opinion. The blending, bridge-buidling, and, as some have argued, blurring, of the East West philosophical traditions is a defining feature of SR's writings and philosophy and something the article should include in the lede, and also expand upon in the main-text (eventually). Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is how Schillp introduces SR's work in the preface to ''The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:
 * In the same volume Charles Moore (a co-author of SR's and founder of Philosophy East and West) writes quoting C. E. M. Joad in part
 * And Lawrence Hyde begins his essay on Radhakrishnan's contribution to universal religion with:
 * As noted above, this is how Hawley describes SR in the lede of the IEP bio:

Reply by JJ - Hi Abecedare. I think your response shows a nice nuance, which (at least for me) shows a way to "settle this impasse": "He has justly been called", "widely acknowledged", "earned him the reputation": he is regarded by many as a bridgebuilder. That's different form "he is". On the matter of authoritativeness there are also other opinions:
 * "What is curious is not that he should have placed his synthesis of Western and Indian philosophy in the service of an overtly apologetic and nationalist project, but that given this project he is nevertheles considered by many to be a credible 'native source' on the subject of Hindu traditionalism" (Robert Sharf p.100)

So, I think that my sentence "Radhakrishnan was one of India's most influential and honoured scholars on India's religious and philosophical tradition, offering a modern interpretation of them."still better suits both the appraisal and the criticism. The criticism has been left out in this sentence (yes, an accommodation to the status he's got for many people), but the hagiographic undertones are also left out. Or, if I take the sentences which are now in the lead and edit them: (I found another book-reference ysterday which also mentions him together with other scholars, and justifies the statement "one of the best scholars"; unfortunately I didn't copy the link...) I just notice this "authoritative exegeses". That's a subtle one! His works, or some of them, are indeed exegeses, not objective scholarly studies, at least not all of them. That's a subtle nuance. To whom are they "authoritative"? It suggests "academical authoritative", while the exegetical works were authoritative for the Indian cause and for western spiritual seekers. You see, it's probably these nuances which trigger me. There's a very subtle rhetoric in it, and that's why I called it "peacock". His academical credentials are used to lend credibility to his political and spiritual views, and these are not uncontroversial. It's a kind of WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. It's clear that there are different opinions on him. I think these should be contextualized in the article, which means describing his academic career (covered, isn't it?), political career (could be enlarged), his philosophy (there's a start now), the contribution to India's independence, how his philosophical positions contributed to India's independence and helped to restore pride and self-confidence (hardly described) c.q his nationalism ( p.172-173 p.173 p.83), and the reception of his philosophical positions related to India's independence, whic have been very positive, but also very critical (merely described in critical notes now). I think that this link between India's independence and his philosophy is the crucial part: this is what he's admired for, this is also what he's been criticized for. Maybe the positive appraisal could be mentioned in a separate section on his influence, together with some of the criticism. Regarding the awards: I've added a break, separated the Teacher's Day from the awards. To my feeling, this is somewhat different form the academical awards (actually, it's important, but that's my feeling; education is very important). It makes the list shorter. I've integrated the extended info into the bullit-list, so the section is a whole now. I think that the sentence "in recognition of the fact that "his accessible writings underscored his country’s religious heritage and sought to convey a universal reality of God that embraced love and wisdom for all people"." should be removed from the lead. It's specific info which belongs in the article itself (and is also there); also, but that's my personal feeling, it's an awful sentence. And it gives undue weight to the Templeton Prize. I'd never heard of it. See Templeton Prize for some more examples of this kind of language, and for some critical remarks. Anyway, thanks for your balanced and friendly reply; I know I get a little heated in such discussions, so I appreciate the balance and calm brought in by people like you and Qwyrxian. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Regarded as one of India's best scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, his academic appointments included the King George V Chair of Mental and Moral Science at the University of Calcutta (1921–1932) and Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at University of Oxford (1936–1952). Radhakrishnan integrated western thought in his philosophy which perpetuated the classical Indian philosophies. He wrote highly acclaimed and influential, though not uncontroversial, exegeses of India's religious and philosophical literature for the English-speaking world."
 * PS: Here's where the contested sentences came in. Which means, thinking it over, that I'm changing my proposal:
 * "Regarded as one of India's best scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, his academic appointments included the King George V Chair of Mental and Moral Science at the University of Calcutta (1921–1932) and Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at University of Oxford (1936–1952). Radhakrishnan integrated western thought in his philosophy, which perpetuated the classical Indian philosophies, and made India's religious and philosophical tradition accessible for the English-speaking world."
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Universalism, communalism and Hindu nationalism
This is a very sensitive topic, which deserves a careful treatment and needs a context. The criticism of Mazumdar and Kaiwar has been contextualised by the introductory words of King (at least, I tried so), and Rinehart denies a straight connection between neo-Vedanta and radicalism:
 * ''But Rinehart also points out that it is
 * "...clear that there isn't a neat line of causation that leads from the philosophies of Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan to the agenda of [...] militant Hindus."

I hope I have been careful enough. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: I've added the info on communalism, because it makes clearer what the link is between neo-Vedanta and nationalism. It shows the "logic at work", and makes it more comprehensible. It is also a recurrent theme in debates on nationalism: the striving towards a (perceived) unity, and the consequences for people who do not exactly adhere to this unity. It explains why the 'grand narrative' of Hinduism is so important; it also explains the counter-nationalism of other groups. It also explains, at least to me, why India-related topics are so sensitive at Wikipedia, and get so heated. I hope my reasons for addignt his information is clear; it's not meant to hurt anybody, but to provide context and to aid the understanding of the complexity of ceontemporary Indian culture, society and religion. Best regards to verybody,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * PS2: I've added an extra note, to provide a wider context to the combination of "colonialism, nationalism, religion and nation-building". Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Review comments
I haven'tyet read the current version in detail, but here some comments on a quick review:
 * 1) The current version (while significantly improved in terms of coverage thanks to Jonathan's efforts) is still sub-par in terms of balance, mainly because the main texts on SR's philosophy have not been used as sources. The philosophy section, for example, seems to be entirely sourced to the IEP biography, which while fine is hardly the best available source.
 * 2) Also many of the Notes in the article are extraneous commentary not directly related to SR, and should be simply replaced by a wikilink to the related article (where the analysis can be merged, if warranted). For example, Note 7 about Wilber's philosophy and related Malhotra's commentary on the sources Wilber acknowledges is on-wiki synthesis, since no source has been cited that links these to SR's writings. And while I suspect that given the 1000s of papers written by/about SR, a source could possibly be found linking him and Wilber, this (and especially Malhotra's quote) is another example of the article's unbalanced nature. Similarly the following commentary, while well-intentioned (and, not even necessarily wrong) is misplaced in this article and tends to make it read more like a personal essay than a general purpose encyclopedic article:

Note that the above observations are not intentioned as a criticism in the sense of why-were-these-edits-made?, but as a review that will hopefully help improve the article further. I intend to chip in myself at some point but will be busy with on-wiki/off-wiki (vacation!) pursuits till at least next week, and probably the new year. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A further comment on the sources: unless my computer search is failing me, several sources cited in the article don't even seem to mention SR, example Sweetman (cited 7 times!), Sharf 1998, Sharf 1995 etc. If such sources and associated content are excluded from the article, it will likely be less unbalanced and better focused on the central subject (ie, Radhkrishnan and his work), especially since there is absolutely no shortage of sources in this area (to be clear, not proposing this as a general "rule"; just a editorial suggestion) Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Very good comments, thank you. I'll have to think them over, but they are good. Thanks.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sharf (1998) p.272-273:
 * ''"For example, the notion that personal experience constitutes the heart of the Hindu tradition originated with the prolific philosopher and statesman Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975). Like his European and American predecessors, Radhakrishnan argued that ‘if philosophy of religion is to become scientific, it must become empirical and found itself on religious experience’ (1937, p. 84), 272 R.H. SHARF and ‘it is not true religion unless it ceases to be a traditional view and becomes personal experience’ (1937, p. 88). Thus in a single stroke Radhakrishnan could associate true religion with both personal experience and the empirical method. Radhakrishnan did not stop there, however, but went on to place the rhetoric of experience in the service of Hindu nationalism. He argued that if ‘experience is the soul of religion,’ then Hinduism is closest to that soul precisely because it is not historical, but based directly on the ‘inward life of spirit’ (1937, pp. 89, 90).
 * Radhakrishnan’s intellectual debt to the West is no secret. Although he was educated in India, he was steeped in Western philosophical and religious thought from an early age, and his specific interest in experience can be traced directly to the works of William James (1842–1910), Francis Herbert Bradley (1846–1924), Henri Bergson (1859–1941), and Baron F. von Hügel (1852–1925), among others (Halbfass, 1988, p. 398). Radhakrishnan held numerous academic posts in India and England, including the Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics at Oxford, and his writings are filled with appreciative references to a variety of American and European thinkers popular at the time, from Evelyn Underhill (1850–1941) to Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). What is curious is not that he should have placed his synthesis of Western and Indian philosophy in the service of an overtly apologetic and nationalist project, but that given this project he is nevertheless considered by many to be a credible ‘native source’ on the subject of traditional Hinduism."
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead (continued)
I've added a new header, because the thread becomes very long.


 * It's been a couple of weeks now; I've changed the lead, which still reflects Radhakrishnan's accomplishments, but in a more down-to-earth way.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not acceptable because the content is sourced and I think it should be presented as is and this has been here for a long time. Marchoctober (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This one source of yours only says "He was not only a great scholar but a statesman as well, for he was president of India from 1962 to 1967." This does not support the rest of the sentence. I've remarked on this before, to which you did not reply. And my change was also sourced.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even worse: isbn 9781478414780 is a study guide to William F. Lawhead (2009), THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY, AN INTERACTIVE APPROACH, FIFTH EDITION, isbn 978-0-07-353587-6. The Study Guide doesn't even contain the word "Radhakrishnan". The full quote in Lawhead (p.382) is:
 * "Radhakrishnan (1888–1975) was born in south India and became one of the most frequently read Indian philosophers in the Western world. Besides holding teaching positions at various Indian universities, he served as a professor of Eastern religions and ethics at Oxford University. He was not only a great scholar but a statesman as well, for he was president of India from 1962 to 1967."
 * So, besides being uncarefull in your reference, it also does not cover the sentences in the lead. I've corrected your reference, corrected the info in accordance with Lawhead, and corrected info in accordance with King, Hacker, Fort and Hawley. I've paraphrased the Templeton Foundation-quote, whch was too long for the lead (and selective), to include the "non-agression", and shortened the prior quote to its essence, namely "conveying "love and wisdom for all people."". The full quote is in a note (which was also removed by marchoctober).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment: The current lede to the article is pretty unbalanced and poorly written: The previous version of the lede, while certainly improvable, was superior to the current version in my opinion and easily verifiable as shown by the quotations I listed above. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It over-emphasizes Advaita Vedanta based on sources on the latter topic, rather than consulting sources on the subject of article itself and looking at what aspects of SR's work they say was the most significant. It also under-emphasizes the integrative aspects of SR's work. (Note: this is not to say that SR didn't promote Vedantic philosophy; my claim is that the coverage in the lede is unbalanced, not that it is unverifiable)
 * 2) Claims like "best scholar " and using quotes for easily paraphrase-able text such as "became one of the most frequently read Indian philosophers in the Western world." is just poor writing. The paragraph breaks also seem to be arbitrary and ill-thought.


 * I see your point about sources on Radhakrishnan himslef, but it's not clear to me what's superior about the following statements:
 * "Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."
 * "He wrote authoritative exegeses"
 * Both statements are unsourced, and not threated in the article. The "bridges" are sourcable indeed, but twhere's the source that he was a bridgebuilder because he showed "how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other"?
 * Radhakrishnan: his life and ideas looks like a good source.
 * The quotation-marks were used because this is exactly what the source used by marchoctober says.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have written about the East-West bridge statement above, and cited sources. Not sure what you means by, "where's the source that he was a bridgebuilder because he showed ..." IMO that statemnt is fair summary/representation/paraphrase of the sources I cited above (see for example the Schillp essay I have quoted from above), and can be further improved if needed. And in terms of writing style, we should be aiming to better summarize such content rather than just quoting detached snippets from the cited sources or trying to quote/paraphrase sources sentence-by-sentence. (Ideally, quotations of snippets should be limited to instances when we wish to include some particularly enlightening or interesting turn of phrase, attributed opinion, or for controversial claims.)
 * As I have stated before I agree with you about the use of "authoritative".
 * By the way, the main article should talk more about integrative aspect of SR's work since that is what sources on the subject do. I haven't taken a look at the main article text in detail, but will add some preliminary observations in a separate section. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ:
 * Schillp does not say that Radhakrishnan showed "how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other". The whole sentence consists of three parts, which together also form a kind of synthesis:
 * "(1) One of India's most influential scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, (2) Radhakrishnan built a bridge between the East and the West (3) by showing how the philosophical systems of each tradition are comprehensible within the terms of the other."
 * The sentence suggests that his philosophy is widely accepted in academic circles as being representative of India's religious and philosophical heritage. And that's the problematic part. It's clear that Radhakrishnan had a good reputation as a scholar; it's also clear that his philosophy has been widely criticised as not being an accurate representation.
 * I think you're correct about expanding the article on "integrative aspect of SR's work". Unfortunately, my knowledge in that respect is very limited; how's yours?


 * Reply by marchoctober:
 * The source which is stated above as inadequate was not properly scanned, I present it below once again so it clearly mentions shows the content without any difficulty of searching:
 * Study-guide
 * [http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2010/September/engpdf/1-4.pdf
 * http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2010/September/engpdf/september%202010.pdf

Marchoctober (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have placed the Templeton description as is and left it as a description in the awards section as it was already explained in the article once, removing the content from everywhere in the article and hiding it in a quote/note is unacceptable.
 * Marchoctober (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ:
 * Thanks for scanning the study-guide; that's kind. Unfortunately, those two sources are exact copies of the Wikipedia-article... Be aware: Wikipedia is widely (or wildly...) cited and copied. The Wikipedia-lead got changed to this specific text in 2007. Behura's article is from 2010; the Study Guide is from 2012. So, these sources are not WP:RS.
 * I suggest we start a separate thread on the Templeton-quote; otherwise we'll all get lost.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The publisher of one source is the Govt. of Orissa, which can be relied on. secondly it does not mention wikipedia as a source, it mentions multiple sources including several books but not wikipedia, so what you are saying - that it is copied from wikipedia is only your guess, you have prove what you speak, dont just speak please back yourself. But as hypothosis - lets suppose you are right. And assume these are copied from wiki, but the authors have agreed and published books and articles especially a source published by Govt. of Orissa has to be must have seriously taken into consideration whether this is right and this author has totally agreed upon the information and went to the next step of publishing it in his article. Infact there are multiple sources which has this same information, because all of them agree with this information. Please do not consider the everyone wrong and just yourself right. Hence this source can be used since it is a publication, no author would publish any info unless he is in approval and in agreement with the statement. If this source cannot be used then no other book can be used as a source because all of the books are printed because they are opinions of Authors or what the authors agree on ? Right ? Hence your argument is not strong, as long as there is a published source especially by some reputable source like Got. of Orissa the information can be put on the article. Also since this information is present on the article for so long it must be considered as information with which everyone agrees, you just cannot come out of the blue and present your idea as the one that has to be accepted by everyone. The general consensus is that even book Authors and publishers agree with that information which you have deleted.
 * Marchoctober (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oaky, we take it to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The fact that the Govt. of Orissa has published this doesn't mean a thing; I've even found once a case in which a professor cited Wikipedia, without providing references.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, we may do so, until then please restore this to its original form and pursue it further to Reliable noticeboard. Marchoctober (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No way. Unreliable is unreliable. The fact that someone copies info without providing a reference makes him inherently untrustworthy. This is plagiarism, a deadly sin in academic circles.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that previous discussions at WT:INB, Talk:Jayadeva etc have indicated that the reliability of these Govt of Orissa publications is petty suspect (sorry for not digging up the exact section links, but a simple archival search should bring up the discussions.). I haven't looked at what exactly the sources were being used to support, but for this article on a scholar/philosopher where there are so many better sources available, I don't see any need for using less than high-quality academic sources. Abecedare (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #2
Schillp looks fine to me, but then I would like to suggest to paraphrase him, instead of simply using him to reference the contested sentence. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * At second thought, I'm not sure. Schillp is from 1952; is that up-to-date? "Here is how Schillp introduces SR's work in the preface to Schillp (1952), The Philosophy of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan'':"
 * "Nor would it be possible to find a more excellent example of a living "bridge" between the East and the West than Professor Radhakrishnan. Steeped, as Radhakrishnan has been since his childhood, in the life, traditions,and philosophical heritage of his native India,he has also struck deep roots in Western philosophy, which he has been studying tirelessly ever since his undergraduate college-days in Madras Christian College, and in which he is as thoroughly at home as any Western philosopher. Beyond this: more than any living philosopher of East or West, Radhakrishnan has been devoting the major portion of his academic career as well as his voluminous writings to what has almost become the passion of his life, name that of bringing East and West together: by interpreting the great cultural tradition and spiritual insight of the East to the West on the one hand, and by helping the East, on the other hand, to realize that- not merely in science and technology, but also- in philosophical thought and speculation the East can still learn some important lessons from the West."
 * Schillp could be paraphrased something like this:
 * "Radhakrishnan tried to build a bridge between East and West and West, by interpreting the Eastern traditions for the West, and by showing the East what can be learnt from the West."
 * Hawley IEP bio:
 * "Radhakrishnan’s concern for experience and his extensive knowledge of the Western philosophical and literary traditions has earned him the reputation of being a bridge-builder between India and the West. He often appears to feel at home in the Indian as well as the Western philosophical contexts, and draws from both Western and Indian sources throughout his writing. Because of this, Radhakrishnan has been held up in academic circles as a representative of Hinduism to the West. His lengthy writing career and his many published works have been influential in shaping the West’s understanding of Hinduism, India, and the East."
 * This could be paraphrased as:
 * "Radhakrishnan earned a reputation asa bridge-builder between India and the West. He has been influential in shaping the West’s understanding of Hinduism, India, and the East."
 * Compare this to Sharf (1998) p.273:
 * "What is curious is not that he should have placed his synthesis of Western and Indian philosophy in the service of an overtly apologetic and nationalist project, but that given this project he is nevertheless considered by many to be a credible ‘native source’ on the subject of traditional Hinduism."
 * And Gavin Flood (1996) p.249:
 * "In his numerous books, such as "Eastern Religions and Western Thought" - a grand survey of western and Indian ideas - he seeks to reconcile western rationalism with Hinduism, presenting Hinduism as an essentially rationalistic and humanistic religious experience. This approach ignores the Hindu traditions of region and village - the pragmatic Hinduism of everyday ritual - or relegates such religious expressions to an 'irrational' past."
 * So, at least there are different opinions, and not an univocal accpetance of Radhakrishnan as a reliable source. Combined with Hawley this would give something rhetorical like this:
 * ''"Although his philosophy served an apologetic and nationalist project, and ignores important aspects of Hinduism, Radhakrishnan has been held up in academic circles as a representative of Hinduism to the West.
 * Not exactly attractive, is it? So I still would like to propose something like the following:
 * "Regarded as one of India's best scholars of comparative religion and philosophy, his academic appointments included the King George V Chair of Mental and Moral Science at the University of Calcutta (1921–1932) and Spalding Professor of Eastern Religion and Ethics at University of Oxford (1936–1952).


 * He defended Hinduism against "uninformed Western criticism", and earned a reputation as a bridge-builder between India and the West. He has been influential in shaping the West’s understanding of Hinduism, India, and the East. His metaphysics was grounded in Advaita Vedanta, reinterpreting this tradition for a contemporary understanding. "


 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Templeton prize
I've shortened the sentence again; it's really too long: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd shortened the quote because it is, to my taste, awkward prose, and hardly understandable: "sought to convey a universal reality of God that embraced love and wisdom for all people". I'm a good reader, I've had a good education, but I have to read this sentence three times to understand it. That alone yet is sufficient reason to paraphrase it.
 * This short sentence "advocating non-aggression and conveying "love and wisdom for all people"" relates to the conflicts between Indian and Pakistan; advocating nonp-agression in these conflicts is really great. Also, "conveying "love and wisdom for all people"" may be glibberish for some, but it points to an universal message, akin to Gandhi and Mandela. I provided the note so people can read what the whole text is.
 * By giving such a long paraphrase from the Templeton-foundation, this prize is given WP:UNDUE weight. The other awards are much more relevant, and probably much higher valued worldwide. The British awards are quite something, in atime when India was still a colony, and Indians had to fight for respect from the British. It shows the position he had. I think, but that's my impression, that by emphasizing the Templeton-prize so much, that you give the impression that anything that can be used to heighten Radhakrishnan's stature, will be used. And that's not necessary, and contraproductive; it raises doubts. You'll do a much better service to Radhakrishnan's legacy by not emphasizing the Templeton-prie too much.


 * You have mentioned above - you have deleted them as they are not according to your taste or that you do not understand the sentence because the words used are complex. I tend to disagree that these reasons are inadequate to convince me. I would emphasize here that articles are not meant for just the common reader, they are meant to attract the attention of a person of good intellectual caliber also. If all articles are written only in layman's terms then they will not attract any interest, the article has so much more which can be understood by a layman, especially I left the same information in the awards section in a more layman's terms manner. I think this approach would be a good balance, rather than doing how you mentioned. Marchoctober (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not only that it is a complex sentence, it's also swollen prose, which does not do justice to Radhakrishnan. Do you really think the Templeton-prize is so relevant? You could better try to find some information on those British awards: why were they given, what did it mean to the Indian self-consciousness? See Stanley Martin, ''The Order of Merit, 1902-2002: One Hundred Years of Honour, p.461-463. Or the teaching-positions Radhakrishnan had: what stature did those give to him? The full information indeed belongs in the body of the article, while the lead gives a summary.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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.


 * I really don't find so much "critical" with the criticism section myself, this should be looked thoroughly. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The older version was one-sided/decontextualised; thid thread was directed at that version.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan, so what you suggest? Title should be changed or something? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh no, not necessary. I already did change it. The main header is now "Influence", and "Criticism" was changed into "Criticism and context". And any-one who reads this thread now also has this explanation. I hope it suffices. Good morning/evening, by the way.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You too, and indeed, the section seems to have been balanced now. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

"Best scholar"
Sheldon Pollock : "Indeed, there have been no successors to any of the pre-independence generation of Sanskrit scholars, the sort who mastered their discipline and thought conceptually about it and wrote for an international audience: S. N. Dasgupta, S. K. De, Mysore Hiriyanna, P. V. Kane, S. Radhakrishnan, Venkata Raghavan, C. Kunhan Raja, V. S. Sukthankar, are the first in a long and distinguished list from across India." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, furthermore if there is more vandalism, I may request for a lock. And after all so many other freedom fighter's pages have been locked for ages. Only advanced users are allowed to edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's advanced - he's been around since 2005, using various accounts...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not a freedom fighter. I am a bona fide, recognised scholar of Indian religions. In 2009 I was invited to address the SSEASR (South and Southeast Asian Association for the Study of Culture and Religion), a regional conference of the IAHR (The International Association for the History of Religions) which is a directive of UNESCO. I was personally invited by Professor I Wayan Rai, the Rector of Institut Seni Indonesia; Dr Amarjiva Lochan, the President of SSEASR and Prof. I BG Yudha Triguna the Rector of Universitas Hindu Indonesia. My work in Buddhism (which has been described by Dr Tony Page, a leading scholar of the Maha Paranibbana Sutra as 'excellent') has been translated into Mandarin, Burmese and Thai. In 2003 I was asked to edit a book by the Abbot of Aruna Ratanagiri Monastery, Ajahn Munindo, which was published to acclaim in 2005. I walk the talk and know what I am talking about. You don't use words like 'best' in a scholarly article for an encyclopedia. Sheldon Pollack's article is not a scholarly monograph but a reflection on the dire state of Indological studies in India. Believe me, nobody loves and respects Dr Radhakrishnan more than I do. I am one of the original authors of this article. I have a copy of all Radhakrishnan's major works in my library. But I also know what the conventions of scholarly etiquette are. 'Best' is an unscholarly personal opinion. It is what wikipedia calls POV. It is not our job to issue such evaluations. Personally speaking, I not only regard Radhakrishnan as one of the most important scholars of comparative religion of the twentieth century, I regard him as one of the greatest human beings of the twentieth century - a model human being that we can all learn from. So please don't attribute motives to me that aren't there. Thank you. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great to know about you, but kindly don't change that he wasn't "one of the best" for the given category. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity
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 125.16.17.151 (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

hello mr.x .u said sarvepalli has signed his name as radhakrishnaih it proves u have totally wrong information. .... in all docu including his official docu he signed his name as radhakrishnan.... actually he is half tamil and half telugu since he is born and brought up in tamilnadu..... he exposes him as a tamil so he is using radhakrishnan in his sign and name in official documents. ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.62.106 (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

he is undoubtedly a telugu,i am not saying this just to flare up the controversy around his ethnicity.being a chittoor district native i have come across a lot of people of the previous generation(say,about 60 years old  or more who have no tamil connection but have manes ending with "an".also being said that he hails from tiruttani (which is adjoining to chittoor district),which has and had a large telugu population.people who used to live on the present day areas that form boundary between chittoor district and tamilnadu,had some sort of unsaid tradition in those days to have such names.his autographed fortrait more than suggests that he is telugu. as for some users views that he was cosmopolitan and not belonging to one state,what about he other presidents,whose articles had transliterations of their respective names in their mother tongues like n.sanjeeva reddy,mohd.hidayathullah,b.p.jatti,r.venkatraman etc.what about them? oh and yeah sarvepalli is a town in nellore district.--Mheashkkoram (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2013 (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: It contains the following statement (published 1966, during Radhakrishnan's lifetime) (page 105-106):
 * Iswara Dutt (1966). "The Man & His Evolution." In:
 * 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.

What do people think? -- Presearch (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (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 hey hiii listen its urgent i need to knw why radhakrishnan??? why not anyone else's bday 2 b d teachers day?? plz tell me as soon as psbl i need 2 deliver a speech @ 2 pm..... plz a humble request to you...... arun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.246.66 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't being President of India important?
It was just given as an aside under "political career" Same thing with being Vice president. While I know that the de facto top job in India is Prime Minister, The President is important too. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817094728/http://rashtrapatisachivalaya.gov.in/media_abroad.pdf to http://rashtrapatisachivalaya.gov.in/media_abroad.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth place
Chittoor District was formed only in 1911 and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in 1888.Further all sources state he was in Tiruttani. That was in Madras Presidency then
 * Radhakrishnan of India, Philosopher, Dead at 86 New York Times
 * eachers’ Day: 10 things to know about India’s ‘philosopher President’ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Hindustan Times
 * On Teachers' Day, remembering an educator The Hindu
 * Census India states that he was born in Tiruttani in North Arcot District .Part of North Arcot joined Chittoor District in 1911 .As per this page 20.
 * Radhakrishnan: a biography Pg 10 It states North Arcot district written by Sarvepalli Gopal Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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 dhanakarthakur@rediffmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dhanakar Thakur (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh nice Adwaith adhu (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy in the Plagiarism Criticism & not NPOV
There are currently two sections addressing the same purported plagiarism controversy on this page: one titled Controversy on Indian Philosophy book and the other titled Plagiarism controversy. The latter seems more appropriate but the former has some (what I take to be) questionable language and notes. The last sentence says "Then without any conclusion the court hushed up this sensational issue as Radhakrishnan's stature." This makes no sense to me. At the end of note 5, it reads "Probably Radhakrishnan thought that attack was the best defence!". This also seems a little too colorful & interpretative for a Wikipedia page to me.

As a side note: the page of Jadunath Sinha (whom Radhakrishnan allegedly plagiarized from) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadunath_Sinha - has some colorful doting language such as "Dr. Sinha being the most original philosopher of Hinduism and Indian philosophy, psychology, etc. is still revered by the students of philosophy" & the exact same content (including notes) as the Controversy on Indian Philosophy book. Could be coordinated editing, but it doesn't look like there are the same users listed on the edit history page (though this can easily be circumvented).

Just wanted to point this out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.206.254 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Combined the Redundant Sections & Fixed some improperly terminated quotes
I fixed some serious errors. A large number of references were omitted because some of the extended quotes lacked closing double curly-brackets. I added curly brackets at logical places in the text, but I worry that the quotes were corrupted. So, if a subject expert would review the quotes, it would be helpful. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Also, I combined the redundant plagiarism sections, as well as several duplicated references in them. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Questionable sources
I have removed all unreliable sources from this section since "Anandbazaar", "om-guru", "roundtable" are all obviously unreliable blogs. I used a scholarly source by SUNY Press instead. But I really cannot see any relevance of this section on the biographical page of Radhakrishnan. This was surely most important incident of Jadunath Sinha's life, but it has no importance on the life of Radhakrishnan. Books on Google Books also lack mention of this incident even after thousands of biographies have been dedicated to Radhakrishnan. The section was apparently added by sometime ago, otherwise it never existed before. Ping and also   who have been active on this page. Do you really see any importance in having a section about this incident for this page? Azuredivay (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll take a closer look at it later, but yes, the accusation of plagiarism seems relevant to me. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is one of the biggest academic scandals of his time and the biggest controversy in the life hence should be there. Further among the references you removed included Minor, Robert Neil (1987). Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography. SUNY Press. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-88706-554-5. Robert N. Minor, M.A., Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas is WP:RS and the Anandabazar Patrika as per this discussion is WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Anandabazar Patrika is WP:RS. I included information taken from the book (Radhakrishnan: His Life and Ideas), you mentioned. Try to write wikipedia article mentioning the facts written in all the reliable source. Read it and also try to take your point of view neutral. বাক্যবাগীশ (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:HISTRS. You must avoid using a newspaper for historical facts. Just because you could find a way around one source, it doesn't means you get excuse to restore all other unreliable sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor, Robert Neil (1987). Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography. SUNY Press. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-88706-554-5. Robert N. Minor, M.A., Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas is WP:HISTRS and actually published by the same publication SUNY Press as mentioned above and mentions this issue in great detail and why it is being removed .Further we are discussing a court case and it is not exactly history in that sense.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "a newspaper", not this book. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Azuredivay's edit removed content sourced by the  Minor, Robert Neil (1987). Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography. SUNY Press and also this Ref.Can it be restored.Please refer to pages 33-37 which deals with this issue in detail.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only Azuredivay's, also Aman.kumar.goel's. Not very constructive. I've restored that source, and removed the disputed sources; but I've also added additional info which is relevant for the context of the plagiarism-accusations. I hope we can leave this issue for now. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Which lawsuit was first?
I've added more info diff, from yet another OUP biography. So, who filed first? Radhakrishnan or Sinha? The sources contradict each other. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * [Reply by Pharaoh of the Wizards:]
 * Sinha filed the case first
 * Mentions clearly counter suit by Radhakrishnan (as per 37 Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography) Jadunath filed the case first.
 * DailyO published by India Today also states "Sinha demanded damages of Rs 20,000 from Radhakrishnan, at the Calcutta High Court, who defended his case by filing a libel suit against the plaintiff, with a counter-demand of Rs 1,00,000. Due to the heavy personal costs risked by both the parties, and due to the intervention of Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the case was settled out of court. There was no official judgment." here
 * Radhakrishnan: His Life and IdeasBy K. Satchidananda Murty, Ashok Vohr pg 33 states Sinha filed a case and the later in turn filed a libel.Brojendra Nath Seal did not want to get involved.
 * Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (Jadunath had a submitted a thesis to the University for the Premchand Roychand scholarship and his examiners were B N Seal and Radhakrishnan (he won the scholarship page 35 of Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography) and also The Dawn here .Jadunath's case was strong as his works aleady published.
 * It was Syama Prasad Mukherjee who mediated between them (page 37)(he became the VC of calcutta univeristy in 1934)
 * Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * These claims are exceptional and contradict the scholarly sources used here. See WP:HISTRS. Can you find better sources than mere news outlets for such an old matter? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not exceptional there is a source contradiction the Book written by Sarvepalli  Gopal (Radhakrishnan: a biography) in  page 118 states Radhakrishnan first filed the case and Jadunath promptly filed another. (Note  the author Sarvepalli  Gopal  is the brother of Radhakrishnan)
 * The other books Minor, Robert Neil (1987). Radhakrishnan: A Religious Biography in page 37 and  Radhakrishnan: His Life and IdeasBy K. Satchidananda Murty, Ashok Vohr in page 33 state Jadunath first the case  there is WP:HISTRS on both claims as rightly pointed out by Joshua Jonathan above both  sources contradict each other.On the question of who filed first?
 * Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the three sources, all of them published by University Presses, contradict each other on this issue. All of the "claims" above refer to these three sources, with some additional references which support these claims. Nothing WP:EXCEPTIONAL here indeed.
 * Pharaoh, it might be interesting to see if we can find some old sources on this subject, say news outlets from the time, to see what they state. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Radhakrishnan: His Life and Ideas by Murty & Vohra. p.33 (note 7) provides a quote from The Statesman, May 4, 1933; probably impossible to access, but still if someone has access to a paper archive somewhere?... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)