Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 4

Major re-edit in Wikipedia sandbox

I have loaded an extensively edited version of the page in the Sandbox. Note that this version is STILL INCOMPLETE. Please let me know what you think. (sandbox gets cleaned out every 12 hours) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.210.47 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved the edit to article. All quotes in "recurrent Themes" copied to Wikiquote. Article STILL INCOMPLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its great. I like the expansions you made in the middle years section and the cuts in the themes section. The new parts about how the talks were received by his audiences, the inclusion of some of his "themes" into the main text and the strategic yet sparing use of quotes are good additions. I have thought for quite awhile that the article needed to include some personal observations of his demeanor by associates and in my opinion you have made good choices. The Williams book has lots of interesting material so I am in favor of including it as a reference.Sach.b (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In the same spirit, please contribute. The one thing that I wonder about is whether all the disjointed K quotes give an overall, consistent picture of his message and its evolving expression, and whether myself or anyone else is qualified to do so. There's the "Core of the Teaching" etc mentioned in the text, but this quote and others are not something that a person who's never heard of Krishnamurti can understand easily. Not to be cheeky, but I think I may know what K felt, as far as his message is concerned, I feel like I'm trying to use language that is precise to describe something that has neither precision nor language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is a least a very good start on attempting to give some flavor of how his message evolved, how he saw this happening as the speaker, and how others saw it. You seem well qualified to me in handling this material. I also like the inclusion of his sense of no one having "got it" and the school not having produced a transformed person in the footnote. I wonder if that information should not be in the main text somewhere in the interest of balance. Sach.b (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel so, then do move the relevant info in the main text. K had more to say in that occasion, he basically said that the schools were just turning out careerists who would be corrupted by the rat race. Just like any other school. Another thing: I probably overstepped when I included his answer to the "lack of compassion" criticism (in the Afterword) in the main text. It appears a bit defensive. I think his answer should be in a footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As per Sach b's suggestion, moved K's answer to question re:effectiveness of schools to main text. Also moved K's answer to criticism re:lack of compassion to footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This section is opened, per WP:NPOV, to address the apparent NPOV issues someone has found with this article. The person who originally placed the NPOV tag should have opened a section to state their neutrality concerns and to suggest improvements to the article to achieve a more neutral point of view. I don't see issues with neutrality in the article. Please explain, succinctly, what the neutrality issues are. Do the perceived neutrality issues apply to the entire article or just a section or sections? If they apply to a single section, then please change this topic heading to make it clear which section the NPOV dispute is about. If you find there are NPOV issues with more than one section, then please open another talk page heading for discussion of that section of the article and tag just that section or sections of the article. Thank you. Calicocat (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respond. What is the NPOV dispute with this article? Is the whole article in dispute, or just sections of it? Please look at WP:NPOV. Thank you. Calicocat (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know who added the NPOV tag. In my opinion there is no longer a dispute, being that the person who was making slanted edits has stopped their participation. Sach.b (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos ??

I think that the insertion of a small number of photos would enhance the article and all of the work that has been put into it, especially by user 65..... My question is, at what point are older photos that have been previously published in periodicals or as postcards, etc., considered to be in the public domain, and can we use them in the article if they are considered as being in the public domain? If they are, I have some material that could be incorporated. Sach.b (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be good to have photos of K. in his middle and later years. 92.28.122.207 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be different policies in different jurisdictions, that's why non-US versions of Wikipedia seem to incorporate material that is not dated enough to be in the public domain in the US. The best would be to find material declared copyright-free by the owner, like the online content of jkrishnamurti.org, for example. Btw, I don't know if this covers the images of K that appear in that website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not very much public domain material about K on the wiki commons site. But It states there that images from 1923 and prior are in the public domain. Material from Great Britain prior to 1957 may also be in the public domain. Also some material from the 20's may also be in the public domain if the copyrights were not renewed. It looks like that may be the case with the periodicals because I have seen that there are reprints for some of them available on amazon.com published by sources other than the K foundations. Sach.b (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Template:Cite_web format for jkrishnamurti.org material.

In the following example from the article text the citation links to context view, and the "quote" field of the template is used as well:

"Ommen, Netherlands, 25 July 1936". J.Krishnamurti Online Serial No. 360725. Krishnamurti Foundations. Para 12. Retrieved 2010-03-09. Is the comprehension of truth a question of choice involving the study of various theories, arguments, and logical conclusions which demand only intellectual effort? Will this way lead us anywhere? Perhaps to intellectual argumentation, but a man who is suffering desires to know and, to him, concepts and theories are utterly useless. Or is there another way, a choiceless perception?

Comments? Do you suggest any changes? Do any of the fields have wrong info in your opinion? The objective is to make citations comply with Wikipedia practices re: WP:GA as much as possible.

I checked most of them and they seem correct with the exception of - on the nature of the enquiring mind in the Seventh Public Talk at Saanen, July 24, 1971: - I believe the years are inconsistent, is it 1977 in the text of JK online? I think the citations look good. Also I only just noticed how much info you have added to the references - it really enhances the article. I just have not had the time recently to contribute. Sach.b (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I corrected the date. Basically I wanted to know whether the mechanics of the template are correct. In the example above, in the "work" field of the template I use "J. Krishnamurti Online" (the name of the project/website) and also add the Serial No. of the document as given by the website in the "Document Information" page, such as for the above example, Serial No. 360725: jkrishnamurti.org Doc Info. In the "publisher" field of the template I use "Krishnamurti Foundations" since they jointly publish the "work" (jkrishnamurti.org). I think these are correct?

I will also propose splitting the article, what do you think?

I looked at their guidelines and I think it's acceptable. Sorry for the delaySach.b (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving invisible commentary re:anarchy from article page.

An editor (IP 167.1.146.100) has made the following invisible commentary to justify the change of one word:

"changed 'anarchy' to 'disorder' since anarchy in a general sense does not mean disorder, just means lack of authority, which is what Krishnamurti advocated, the oxford definition only refers to disorder in a political sense, and that too can be argued to be a misleading definition"

Please DO NOT DO THIS. The article is already too long. If you feel you have to provide a lengthy explanation do it in THIS page. As for the argument itself, K mentions "anarchy" 3 times in the particular talk: anarchy. So maybe the use of the word "anarchy" was justified? But I have no problem with subbing "disorder" for "anarchy". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.25.144 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildbot

Removed bot-generated templates that were generated by erroneous flagging.65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed outdated wildbot info. Link was apparently fixed.96.224.7.58 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article? And formatting.

Any ideas on the following, since the article is big I propose:

1. Move content of "Some recurrent themes" to Wikiquote.

1a. Keep the subsection headings ("Meditation" etc) when moving to Wikiquote.

1b. Delete the commentary leading each subsection.

2. Split article.

2a. Combine sections "Selected publications" and "Reference" into a different article (list) per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

2b. Link to main per WP:Template:Main

2c. In new article, keep the same sections, and all comments.

3. Format all citations per Citation templates. Use

3a. Add shortened version for footnotes per:Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened_footnotes

3b. Keep all comments and other text now appearing in "Footnotes" section.

4. Format links per Wikipedia:Piped link to save space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that splitting the article is a good idea. I am sure that your other suggestions also make sense but I would have to study the mechanics in order to help you. Sach.b (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1: Moved most of "Some recurrent themes" to Wikiquote, did some formatting there. Kept the part on "Education", moving it to a ref. in what I think is an appropriate place in the article ("Middle Years" section). Hope you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look here: List of Jiddu Krishnamurti Works. I propose this as part of Point 2 above (article split). Btw, I invite you to contribute, not a complete list. Thank you. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Completed Point 2 above with split into List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti. Any comments or additions welcome. Help with proper formatting of citations and WP:CITESHORT for the article would be appreciated. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Implemented shortened footnotes with wikilinks and freehand references (WP:CITESHORT etc). Part of Point 3 above. Also I think that the "Wildbot" infobox above can be safely ignored. Bot runs wild? Thanks.65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note from an editor

I have been editing the page for the past few months, more or less single-handedly reshaping it. I tried to be as objective as possible, and to follow the Wikipedia guidelines/recommendations as far as I can understand them. I also tried to be both inclusive and balanced. That is I included biographical events or situations that one could reasonably conclude were significant (or at least, unusual) and factual, regardless of the resulting "color" they added to the subject. Based on the information available to me as of today, I have no more edits left. If I was to do more the result would probably be just (my) tinkering. The one thing I wasn't able to decide was whether/how to make new articles out of some of the sections (The Publications? The Recurrent Themes?) so that the article isn't so darn long. I guess someone else can worry about that. Thanks for reading, and by all means contribute to the article in the right spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You've done a good job. 92.27.203.233 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. One of my goals is for the article to attain WP:GA status. I was wondering whether citations could be represented according to WP:Citation_templates, but most of them are too embedded into the narrative of the footnotes or the article to make it an easy job. I did include a press release template today, as I think the item could be transient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Worth a mention that the makers of Zeitgeist make good use of his speeches and philosophy in the Zeitgeist movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.118.100 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is the List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti page where such info can be added. Preferably along with some text justifying it. There are thousands upon thousands of references to Krishnamurti in practically all available media, from all over the world, so not all can or should be included. That page can only act as a representative snapshot of the wide variety of sources. If your proposed entry has a measure of uniqueness: is it in a previously unlisted medium? or format? is it examining K under a previously unlisted viewpoint? is it presenting new info? or old info with new interpretation? are "partisan" opinions clearly delineated as such and their affiliations made clear? etc. etc. Basically entries that tend to use K as a "prop" or sideshow to promote or justify something - or someone - else should be expressly presented as such, or preferably avoided altogether, imo. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

re: Sloss book and affair between K and RRajagopal.

Since May 12, there have been three attempts to edit the article in order to throw doubt on the existence of an affair between K and Rosalind Rajagopal. The wording of the edits and comments is similar, although said edits appear from different sources: IP 64.78.x.x, IP 67.177.x.x and username VDevraj. The editor implies that since K or RR did not comment on it, the affair should not be presented as a fact. The absence of such comment is not proof of the editor's argument. Secondly, the book was published after K's death so he couldn't comment on it. Third, the affair was secret, why would there be public comments? The affair is not in dispute by those close to Krishnamurti, or the Foundations. This has been pointed out. Friends of K and Trustees of his Foundations knew of the affair since the 1970s. As footnoted in the article (KFA pamphlet of 1995) several trustees asked K questions in this regard. Some of the questions were very pointed (transcripts at the KFA). The trustees had been told by Krishnamurti himself about the affair.

And then there's Lutyens rebuttal bio (Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals), and I quote from the opening of Chapter 1:

"RS’s main accusation against Krishnamurti is that he had a physical relationship for many years with her mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, while maintaining 'a chaste image'. The physical relationship is not in dispute and should not come as a shock. It certainly did not surprise or shock me when K told me about it. I knew about his relationship with Rosalind before I wrote the last volume of my biography 2 but did not realize that Rosalind wanted her adultery broadcast to the world. I have always stressed that Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man." You can see it here: Lutyens

And there are a number of other sources etc etc. But what is the point? Some people just refuse to accept facts. But we can't be forever coming back to the same old nonsense just because facts threaten somebody's image of their favorite guy.65.88.88.126 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Another possible reference to this by physicist David Bohm, which I think is worth mentioning:
"One may wonder whether such a person as K claims to be is at all possible. But leaving this question aside there is overwhelming reason to doubt that he is what he claims to be." (page 327 Infinite Potential - The Life and Times of David Bohm; paperback edition Addison Wesley).
A review of this book on some theosophical society website also says: In the 1970s Bohm met Krishnamurti and became involved in his movement. They had many discussions, and Bohm became trustee of one of his schools. However, his confidence in Krishnamurti was dented after the latter's death, when it emerged that, although he advocated celibacy, he had kept a mistress who had several abortions. These revelations contributed to the mental crisis Bohm was passing through at that time.
--Immer in Bewegung (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article & footnotes make clear the parameters of their relationship (DB+JK). Bohm made several (later) observations that are problematic - the quote you point to being one of them. He knew K for decades; when exactly did the reason to doubt him become "overwhelming"? We're not talking about a starry-eyed "seeker" here. Or are we? Is the doubting Bohm right? Or the accepting one? I don't know. I think the article is balanced in that respect.

The review at the Theosophical site has factual and conceptual errors that make it a bit unreliable. I've been editing this article for months and I know how hard is to come up with facts, but the mistakes in that review are ones that can be easily corrected. They didn't meet in the 1970s. There was no Krishnamurti "movement". Krishnamurti did not "keep a mistress" - he wasn't married. He did have a lover, but (technically) the adultery was on her part. Believe me, I've been looking EVERYWHERE to find actual quotes of Krishnamurti after 1932 (when the "affair" started) where he expressly and unequivocally "advocates celibacy". The only instances that come close had to do with talks and replies to (underage?) students at his schools (Brockwood). But even then he is not anti-sex, nor does he advocates celibacy as a "moral" choice but as a necessary one. Until somebody points to an actual, post-1932 quote from Krishnamurti about celibacy, the whole argument is not serious. And I think that Peat himself is uncertain whether the "revelations contributed to the mental crisis Bohm was passing through" or whether the mental crisis originated or amplified the effect of the revelations on Bohm. Thank you for your comments though, I do appreciate them, and feel free to elaborate further. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"The process" subject heading and emphasis.

1. Although wp:mos recommends avoidance of section headings starting with "The", I think this is justified here. "The process" is the name that K and others gave to specific, and very important events in his life. As such is as much a signifying term as the name of the Dutch capital ("The Hague") which wp:mos brings as an example of an exception. Elsewhere in the article, "the process" or "process", when used as the Krishnamurti-related term is enclosed in quotation marks to distinguish it from the dictionary word.

2. Emphasis: as I have noted in footnote to the "discovery" section in the article, I believe emphasis is appropriate (sometimes in addition to quotation marks, and in admitted contravention of wp:mos) to draw attention to significant terms, names, titles, events etc as used by Krishnamurti, associates and biographers. His biographers in many cases follow similar conventions. I feel this enhances the understanding of the reader.

Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

After further consideration, above were changed to reflect wp:mos, as originally edited by User:Anglicanus. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Controversial}} tag on this page

I think it is no longer justified. I suggest its removal. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why was it even tagged that at all? Let's get rid of it, I see no justification for it being there other than someone's POV push or agenda like that.Calicocat (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other comments or suggestions on this? 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I looked a little further and see that the list of controversial topics is packed with most theological traditions and so now I'm having second thoughts removing this article from the list and the notice from this page. J.K. is somewhat controversial I suppose and it wouldn't be correct to remove the notice from this page and have this article still be listed as a controversial article. After thinking about it a bit more, I really see no way in which the article is harmed by inclusion on that list. In fact, in may help to bring the article to the attention of other good editors. So, I guess I'm taking back my original statement and saying that I think it's harmless to have the article on the list and may, in fact, help improve it in the long run. Calicocat (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My question is, what exactly is the controversy here? Are any parts of the article in dispute? JK may or may not be controversial, it depends on how strongly differing opinions about him are held. By that measure, almost anything can be considered controversial. My concern is that the article itself be non-controversial. I think we can have a non-controversial article on, for example, religious cults, even though the topic may be inherently controversial. So, to ask again, what justifies at present this page's "controversial" tag? I'm asking with a view of resolving the controversy. Because I don't think that controversy (and the attendant conflict-induced publicity) is going to produce a good article. Imo, the proper care of editors will do that, usually after the noise has died down. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its better to remove it. There has not been a controversy for awhile and it may attract the wrong kind of attention.Sach.b (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to de-listing the article on the list of controversial articles. The tag should not, however, just be removed from this page, the article must also be de-listed on the page which lists controversial articles. Failure to do that would voilate wikiepdia guidelines. Calicocat (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both for your comments. I suggest waiting a few more days to see if anyone else wants to comment. To lessen controversy, and because I think it important (rounds the picture) I inserted info regarding K's return visits to the Theosophical Society. This had been a subject of dispute in this page in the past.65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Controversial" tag. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Krishnamurti's discourses:

Although J. Krishnamurti is worshipped in the esoteric circles, his discourse is that of the Western philosophy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaro Mernick (talk • contribs) 15:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2011/03/23 edits by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro

1. Precision: K met CWL specifically at Adyar
2. Precision: Leadbeater, though a leading and influential Theosophist had no official position in the Society at the time. It is not correct to call him one of "the then-leaders" which may be misunderstood as an official position.
3. Clarification: World Teacher a messianic entity. Rm "expected" as this is obvious from the context.
4. Clarity: moved a sentence in final para. for better context. Replaced "material" with "spoken and written works" to account for the fact of transcriptions.

Childhood

1. Precision: Added westernized rendition to Hindu calendar, in footnote.

Middle years

1. Clarification: wording in note re: process

Later years

1. Readability: wording in footnote re: non-existence of psychological time
2. Consistency: in note re: UN talks.

Afterword

1. New material: Added ref to Vernon's analysis of K's discussion style in footnote, in the paragraph about K criticism as vague + assertive.
2. Readability: Changed wording in paragraph of David Skitt commentaries.
3. Precision: footnote on immediate liberation (attention). Replaced "sudden" w. "unpremeditated". "Sudden" (although probably not incorrect from a 3rd-person standpoint) may be misunderstood as "lacking intent".

Several other minor grammar, syntax + readability edits.

65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding concerns

Use and interpretation of primary sources

It is not acceptable to base entire paragraphs around primary source interpretations without utilizing secondary sources to determine the proper weight and importance of biography information. Either the primary contributor(s) are not aware of this encyclopedic style or they have ignored it to push a singular POV. I will post subsequent examples for repair in this section as the problem is found throughout. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. And don't presume to know why other editors do what they do. Assume good faith. Thanks. 65.88.88.173 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote farming

The use of quotes in this article is excessive and out of place in many sections, with more than 20 block quotes and numerous one or two line quotes, many of which can either be removed, moved to footnotes per guidelines, or modified and shortened. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is being done presently. I think the remaining blockquotes are helpful as blockquotes as they reference some major points in the article. As for the remaining quotes in the body, it's debatable whether they should be moved. Thanks 65.88.88.173 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2011-03-29 edits by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro

1. rm paragraph with specific aspect (re: K and semantics). intro is for overall general summary only.

Middle

1. + substance of paragraph removed from intro (about semantics).

2. + sources in footnote

Late

1. + source in note re: M Lutyens experience of "other".

List of refs

1. + refs for sources

65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Further split proposal

As the article is currently over 200 kilobytes, I propose a split. Most of K's quotes in the footnotes and the main article could be moved to sections in a "Jiddu Krishnamurti philosophy" page and then linked here. The footnoted descriptions of "radical mutation" and "immediate liberation" could also be moved there. The result would be a more bio-focused page. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is entirely to long. Users who come to this page seeking a general understanding of Krishnamurti's philosophy are definitely going to be overloaded with the amount of info contained herein. But, I say this knowing that I surely won't undertake the obvious mountain that is revising this entry. Sgcrooks (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(forgot to add)-> Additionally, if he is (obviously) notable enough to warrant such an extensive article than I believe it is easily recognizable that it should be broken up into further splits. (sorry for the double entry) Sgcrooks (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As you said, the revision or split decision is not going to be easy. A further difficulty is the fact that the bulk of this guy's life was basically his discources. It is hard to separate the two, so his bio should incorporate at least some of his philosophy. Any other comments from anyone will be appreciated. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've come to believe that a page called Jiddu Krishnamurti glossary would be a better idea. This philosophical glossary would contain terms that defined his discourse, the terms' evolution (if any) and the unique meaning he assigned them. Such as "meditation", "observation", "seeing what is", the singularity of goodness and love, etc. That way the bio could be shortened by just pointing to the appropriate terms in the "glossary" page. Comments welcome. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the text through for the second time, I

• 1. perceive his message as a purely existensialist message, this time not vs. the Church (Kierkegard) or God Himself (Nietzsche), but vs. Theosophy, and his rejection of organizing information indicates the deteriorating aspect of organizing total experiences ("existence"),
• 2. the article doesn't organize as other biographies on Wikipedia, but might better:

• the biography should be short and sketchy,
• tenets of his philosophy should be in separate articles, now if the philosophy is building on his biography then so be it, but the philosophy can then be split in a before-part and after-part

Just a suggestion, the other suggestion being WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. Regarding *1, there is quite a bit of literature comparing K's philosophy to existentialism, and more specifically Sartre's flavor. I listed one in List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti.

If you permit me though, I think that K appears to people who already "know" of some discipline or philosophy as the proverbial nail: to anyone in possession of the hammer of anarchy, buddhism, vedanta, existentialism, socialism, capitalism, hinduism, spirituality, information theory, psychoanalysis, etc. he's just the perfect nail. How could he not be? Lutyens wrote somewhere that when people would ask her what K is about, she wanted to snap back, "he is what you are about". And when he was asked in public about who he "really" was (oh boy) he asked the audience if they knew who they were. That makes people's heads hurt - better ruminate about Krishnamurti instead. It is for this reason that I think any page dedicated to his "philosophy" is just asking for trouble. Besides, how can you expound on a message that basically says that there's no utility in lingering on messages? He did that for 50+ years better than anyone I know. He was asked thousands of "clever", "deep", sycophantic, hostile, admiring, leading, innocent, idiotic, intelligent questions by thousands of people. If you have a question about K, he's probably considered it. People have tried mighty hard to find logical or conceptual flaws in his message, and from what I've seen noone has provided any proof of those, just opinions, moralizing, or beliefs. I'd like to know of such proof and post it, it would certainly spice up the page. If you think that you have a unique insight on him, good or bad, go for it, but prepare to be disappointed. Somebody may have written on it already, because in order to have a unique insight on him (or anyone) you probably must be unique yourself, and if that's the case why bother with K or anybody else? That's why I thought a glossary of the terms and their meanings would be better serving those who want to understand, and go beyond K.

Regarding *2, I believe it's too late now to shrink the biography, which I think is pretty much complete. I also think there are several aspects in his bio that are very rare and call for considerable explanation, hence the size. Any specific points you object to? Some of the philosophy-related quotes, especially those in footnotes could be moved to a new page, or/and point to jkrishnamurti.org.

Can you elaborate a bit on the way WP:BOLD could enhance or is lacking from the article? I see it as a non-interpretative biography.

Thank you again. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work, but there is a lot of extraneous verbiage that can be removed without changing the meaning. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started the most basic of cleanup, removing redundancy, fixing MOS issues, and cutting down on the excessive verbiage. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate anything you do to make the article more concise and in accord with MOS, as long as it doesn't affect the substance. My main concern has been completeness, precision and neutrality. I'm not a great writer. I did change two items in the introduction. My rationale for linking savior was the fact that people did expect him to be a savior in the religious sense (this may not be obvious to people from cultures without messianic movements/religions). However, he rejected the idea of saviors in any guise, religious or secular. This is a small issue but if you feel the link is redundant I have no problem. Thanks again. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, upon reading your comments Im a little concerned about exactly what kind of cuts you are planning to make. This article has been a long time in the making and I hope that you will discuss any major changes on this page before proceeding. Sach.b (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are concerned. Did my recent edits give you reason to be concerned? On what do you base this concern? Do you have reason to believe that basic article improvement, lead structure, and MOS compliance requires discussion or is best described as a "major change"? As far as the extraneous verbiage is concerned, the current article is 273,608 bytes and requires splitting and/or removal of extraneous material. Please remember, we are writing for the reader. I would hope that you would concern yourself with this issue. To begin with, I would like to point you in the direction WP:QUOTEFARM. This article has more than 20 blockquotes and numerous quotations, and that needs to be brought down to a manageable size. Some of the quotes are too long and can be trimmed to their essential points while others are probably not necessary at all and might suffice as a footnote. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Why the combative tone? The article averages over 1000 views a day, yet there have been very few concerns about its size or inclusion of quotes. My main thrust was to present a complete, accurate, neutral picture of the subject according to knowledge available today. I don't think that for an article of its size and type (see below) the number of quotes are excessive, and I carefully considered the Wikipedia guidelines re: lead sections relative to article size.

I appreciate the cleanup on your part, but as I said before, I don't believe that brevity trumps substance, clarity or completeness. Imo, some of your edits resulted in more ambiguous language and reintroduced fuzziness that had been previously dealt with. That certainly can't be helpful to the reader.

I tried to make use of Wikipedia's MOS as much as I could and I think the article is on the whole compliant. Last time I looked MOS was a guideline, not a requirement. MOS is also about style, and my main concern has been substance. Still if there are any specific points where MOS compliance is missing and would result in a better article, then they will have to be considered.

I don't understand this part of your edit summary:

"This article is sadly, in terrible shape and needs serious work"

????

Noone has to read the entire article. I think the intro offers the main points in brief and a reader can stop there having gotten a very general picture of K's life and message. On the other hand, these are not easily summarized. His life was pretty unique in many respects, surrounded often by controversy, intense publicity, and extraodinary claims and events. There have been a lot of errors, misrepresentations, and (especially) omissions in this and other widely available sources. So, I'm sorry. If one wants to learn about Krishnamurti past the Introduction, they just have to make an effort. The subject, being unusual, difficult, and imo not fully or properly presented by many sources, cannot be scaled down into cliff notes just because people don't have the time. If you're interested, you'll have to find the time. There was a lot of work done in fact-checking, cross-verifying, and evaluation of sources from a number of people, in order to present salient facts as facts and salient opinions as opinions - as much as possible - and there may be errors still (even today, an error was found in the caption of the group photo - the second or third time the photo or its caption had to be edited). Also, reading the talk archives, there has been a lot of debate, some interesting, some ridiculous, about the article and its subject. I wanted to specifically address as many points as possible of the debate about Krishnamurti both in this talk page and elsewhere. That is one of the reasons for the abundance of sources, notes, and quotes. Every statement in the article should be supported. Being that his message is both striking and elusive, longer quotes or expositions are unavoidable, and references to the central concepts he introduced are called for. We can't just throw K terms like "choiceless awareness" or the singularity of consiousness out there like lobbing grenades, and expect people to know what is meant - it trivializes and minimizes the subject. How do you describe major concepts such as the "ending of thought" or the "non-existence of psychological time" in a sentence or two? K himself for decades tooled with the proper language to do so. Am I satisfied with the article in this respect? No, not at all, but I think that a good balance between brevity and clarity has been found, more or less objectively and neutrally. The debate about K and his message still rages, and apparently it is a serious matter of importance to many people. Hopefully the article's completeness appeals to them and is a help, along with its painstakingly achieved accuracy, precision and neutrality, which are still no. 1 for me. Until a page on his philosophy is created, with similar aspects of neutrality, accuracy and completeness, I don't think it is wise to reduce the current page.

Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand, every SPA (an account that only works on one article or subject) has made the exact same comments and arguments you have made above. I've heard this response so many times now, I could have composed it myself. I'm not being combative at all, it's just that once you've heard a SPA defend their work as you have done, not once, not twice, but over and over again, year after year, there comes a point where you have to say, no, no, I'm sorry, but we write articles for the reader, in an encyclopedic style, not hagiographies at the behest of editorial preference that ignores virtually every policy and guideline, and seeks to declare that the article is perfect and finished before the real work has even begun. You did not address my single solitary example I offered, nor do I expect you ever will. The roadblock to improving this article lies not with other editors, but with the primary contributors who, whether because of special interest or prideful ignorance, refuse to abide by the simple standards that make this place work. You and others have made your obstructionism known and understood. Now you need to move out of the way and let others fix the problem you created. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact you've heard similar arguments before has nothing to do with this article. There has to be an examination of the article on its own merits.

Requirements are different from guidelines. The former are followed as far as I can tell, and if not, they will be. The latter (guidelines) are followed only when they don't diminish the article. There is no requirement for articles to be below a certain size (Wikipedia:Article size). The concern you raised, if I'm not mistaken, is about the size of the lead section and the number of quotes. I attempted to answer these above, so don't say I didn't. But let me repeat: according to wikipedia guidelines, for articles over 30k the lead section is proposed to max at 4 paras. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Length). The article's lead section was very close to that. As far as the quotes are concerned you can see in the page you listed (WP:QUOTEFARM) this is also a guideline.

You talk a big game:

What in your opinion makes the article "unencyclopedic"?

How in your opinion does the article "ignore every policy and guideline"?

Where in your opinion did I declare the article "perfect"? (and obviously, it is not finished either, it's still being edited).

Where in your opinion is the "hagiography"?

Where in your opinion is the obstructionism?

Where in this case do you see "special interest or prideful ignorance"?

Which problem that, in your opinion, I have created, must be fixed?

What (in your opinion again) "real work" will begin when I have gotten out of he way? (as opposed to the phoney work you imply I was doing)

And finally, again what do you mean by this comment in your edit summary: "This article is sadly, in terrible shape and needs serious work"?

That's a whole lot of opinions and accusations without any supporting evidence.

In contrast to your opinions, the article is extensively supported by proper sources, and I believe it uses neutral language/representation throughout. Again, while some wording/grammar/syntax changes you recently made were helpful, others, in your haste to reduce the article, resulted in diminished clarity. See "2011/03/23 edits by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)" below, in "Introduction". The edits referred to there are mostly about reintroducing precision you edited out. So how did you help the reader? A small thing, but indicative of your reductions, was the removal of the wiktionary link for wikt:tutelage and of the wikilink for savior. "Tutelage" is an unusual word that has a very specific meaning and is exactly applicable here. You have to allow for readers who are not aware of the word or who may confuse it with "tutoring". The wiktionary link can help, and they can come right back. That helps the reader. As for "savior" I mentioned previously that some readers may misunderstand the religious significance of the term in this case. Small things, but done with the reader in mind. For all your talk about the reader, your edits sacrificed clarity and precision for misapplied brevity. It doesn't bode well.

The article as of today has 188 followers and gets over 1000 views a day, yet considering its size and complexity, little or no complaints have been voiced since I took over editing following an administrative action almost a year and a half ago. Since that time I have responded to all reasonable concerns raised. You have to support your many opinions about the article with specifics before your accusations can be taken seriously.

Personally I have no problem at all with submitting the article to full editorial/administrative review.

Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am here as an editor providing a review, along with all the other editors who have reviewed it. Looking through this discussion and the previous discussions in the archives, I see a pattern of ignoring the concerns that have been repeatedly raised, as you have done above. You have not addressed any of my concerns whatsoever, but continue to distract from them. The article does not work as an encyclopedic biography and will need to be modified. I'm afraid you are way too close to the subject to be neutral on this matter, and your responses to these and other concerns have been met with non-responses which is not acceptable. I will most certainly be providing further comments on this matter and I will also be submitting this article to peer review and to various noticeboards as it is not compliant with basic policy and guidelines. Again, we write for the reader; Wikipedia is not repository for hagiographies written by adoring fans and people who have a COI with the subject. Your comments reveal that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what we do here, and you will continue to ignore any and all concerns. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. FIrst of all, why did you change the layout of the talk page? You are not allowed to just go ahead and do that. I created the section "Further split proposal". If you want a section named "Outstanding concerns", don't incorporate the section I started in it without asking. In the past 18 months, I and others have edited the article mainly from two New York Public Library dynamically allocated IP addresses: 65.88.88.127 (research divsion) or 65.88.88.126 (central/branch division). I have also done a very few edits from other Library addresses. (65.88.88.x or 65.88.x.x and I think 10.x.x.x).

2. I was the first to raise the issue of splitting the article, before I created the section "Further split proposal". Prior to that, I had split the article into Jiddu Krishnamurti, Jiddu Krishnamurti bibliography and List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti. This was done after careful consideration and a lot of work, not in haste. I had also proposed for quotes to be moved to footnotes and/or trimmed, and invited comments and suggestions. Two people (not editors of the page) did agree that the article should be split further, but offered no concrete suggestions. The consensus seemed to be that it was not going to be easy to do. So as far as my behavior is concerned, what you say above is both untrue and non-sensical.

3. The problem here is your attitude, which is uncivil, combative and accusatory. I ask you again to give evidence in support of all your various opinions and stop the personal attacks and unfounded acccusations. Also, do you actually read my responses?

4. While you're at it, how did you arrive at your opinion of COI? Also, what does the phrase "Your comments reveal that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what we do here, and you will continue to ignore any and all concerns"? Who is "we"? Which comments of mine are you referring to? Which concerns have I ignored? Again I was the one to raise the issue of splitting originally, but splitting is not an end in itself and cannot be allowed to damage the article.

Thanks 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The accusation that the article is a hagiography is really hilarious. We have been working on making sure that it is NOT that for a long time. Most of the work has been done by 65.88.88.126. But if you looked through the archives you would see that there have been several confrontations with would be hagiographers. I'm sorry but that statement from you makes me suspect that you don't have a sufficient understanding of the subject. Please back up your criticisms with specific examples. Sach.b (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: adding Template:American English here

Since the article has been written in American English as far as I can tell, with all respect to other dialect speakers, I propose to add the Template:American English here, as a guide to future editors and for consistency. All comments welcome. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Are all the italics necessary?

The process, for example, is incessantly italicized which makes one think the article is a polemic rather than an encyclopedia piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for reading the article and for your feedback. there are two reasons for italics in the article.

1. per wp:mos, for some foreign terms that are not widely used (eg in toto), and also for novel terms with specific meaning. these usually are preceded by "so-called" or "called" or "named" (eg so-called Great White Brotherhood).

2. for emphasis either added or in the original. the added emphasis in the vast majority of cases concerns terms that have very specific meaning, that is maybe unique to the article. process is one of those. what is meant by the italicized process is different from the common term, which is also used in the article. similarly in other K-specific terms like observer, seeing etc. K used common terms with very uncommon meanings. we thought these should be italicized to distinguish K-specific philosophic concepts.

there's an effort to comply with wp:mos, but only when it doesn't interfere with readers' understanding. however nothing is written in the stone. ANY reasonable recommendation and contribution that enhance the article is welcome. thanks 65.88.88.126 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

to add, please let me know if my response is unsatisfactory. what would you de-emphasize in the article and why? we can proceed from there. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some words could be without italics or in quotes. Also, descriptions of his philosophical ideas could be in plain text? I'll make same changes, and we'll see if there's any objections. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Person infobox: suggestions for "Known for" entry.

Edited the entry into something that I think is less positional and more descriptive: "Uniquely expressed philosophy interrelating unconditional psychological freedom, radical individual and social change, the nature of the mind, holistic education ans creativity". Too verbose? Any single-sentence suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

though correct, the entry doesn't really reflect what he was best known for: claims of being a messiah and his repudiation. edited it in. also a more generic description w. fewer words. more suggestions welcome. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: on subheadings

Would like to hear your comments on the (non-sectioned) subheadings as inserted today. Open to all suggestions. The subheadings can hopefully increase readability and provide editors with help towards further splitting the article. Please respond with your opinion of today's subdivision, including changes that you'd like to make or/and whether the subheadings should remain. Thanks. 65.88.88.173 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

made some wording changes for neutrality + accuracy. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article should observe standards for section headings. The proliferation of non-sectioned subheadings adds little of value to the article, IMO. Sunray (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Further editing

As has been discussed previously, and following other comments.

An effort will be made to make the article tighter and more concise. Details of no important or direct bearing to be removed. However, anything pertaining to K especially if related to other issues will remain. Example: his love life (Helen Knothe, etc) and attitudes towards sex (they changed). Both of these became subjects of controversy and were used by people to praise or accuse. Another example: his frequent illnesses, which some have claimed explains the "process", etc. etc.

In the notes, most of K's quotations and paraphrased analysis can be safely removed, as there are full-text pointers and links in place (JKO etc).

Layout to be simplified with an "Early years" section which will include all the "early" parts as subsections.

Will try to source from a single edition in all works referenced. This will pave the way for the use of standardized citation templates, which do not allow distinguishing editions in an efficient manner.

Any decisions on splitting to be based on the article as it will look after the above take place. Please feel free to comment and add your own ideas. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the edited text be finalized and published first. Sourcing from a single edition (esp. Lutyens) and adding citation templates may take a long time. For the latter, I'd go with some version of template:sfn. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As indicated above, removed information that thought too detailed, not directly relevant, or easily found elsewhere. (esp. JKO). Also layout changes. The article size was reduced by approx. 14000 bytes (278k to 264k bytes). There's also an unsupervised bot (Xlinkbot) that's running interference by trying too hard. All comments wellcome. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At 264 kB the article is waaaay too long. Please review guidelines for article size. More importantly, as per comments at the top of this page, the article does not do justice to K's impact and legacy. Apparently that gets lost in the verbiage. Sunray (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been mentioned over and over, article size guidelines are just that, guidelines. It is not a required policy, and each article has to be considered on its own merits. Secondly, this is a bio. It's not here to do "justice" to anyone or anything, nor is it a thesis (ie structured opinion) of anyone's impact or legacy. The point is to present pertinent biographical facts (including their presumed repercussions) in a neutral manner, as concisely as possible. If concise in this case means material that clocks in at 500 kbytes, so be it. If it means 500 bytes, so be it again. If the problem is the level of detail, by all means point out specific items that you think are superfluous, and let's have a discussion on those. We're open to anything. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, which seem reasonable and thus give me hope that we will be able to solve this matter. I will first respond briefly to each of your points:

1. You observe that this is a guideline, not policy. I agree, however, a guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." There are two qualifiers to that: a) It should be treated with common sense, and b) there may be occasional exceptions (i.e., if a guideline were to prevent an editor from improving Wikipedia).[1] So it is a generally excepted standard.
2. You point out that this is a bio and that there is a need to "present pertinent biographical facts... in a neutral manner, as concisely as possible." I couldn't agree more.
3. You say that "if concise means material that clocks in at 500 kbytes, so be it..." I am not in agreement with this statement. WP:SIZE sets out a number of concerns with over-sized articles and suggests ways of dealing with that.
4. You ask me to point out specific items that I think are superfluous. That is just it. I don't see anything that is superfluous and that suggests a way forward.

Here's my proposal: The guideline suggests a rule of thumb for splitting articles: Between 60-100 KB: "Almost certainly should be divided." At 246, this article is in the super-heavyweight category and a great candidate for article splitting. If you would agree to work on this, we could go through and determine sections or subsections that could become separate articles. That would enable use of summary style for those sections in the article. Would you be willing to work on that? Sunray (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just published what I think were the remaining fixes (bad links, typos, etc). Also formatted all footnotes for proper presentation [source. quote];[source. quote] etc. This will make footnotes easier to integrate in a shortened ref scheme.

When the major overhaul of this article started almost 2 years ago we took care not to remove info put in good faith, even if it was not directly relevant. As the article grew, the irrelevant info was gradually removed. However, as a result some sources appear in different editions. This was the sole reason for the freehand wikicite referencing. We would like to source everything from single editions. Then we could apply proper citation templates to all sources. Then link to shortened refs, either sfn or some harv iteration. AFTER this is done, and the article is fully compliant, the article can be split.

It has to be recognized that splitting a bio is an editorial decision, and frought with subjective evaluation. We are talking about making decisions that WILL color the article no matter what. NO matter what concensus is established, the split point will be basically POV.

Other than that, we're ready to help. I hope you are too. 65.88.88.46 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that you have worked long and hard on the article and have made many improvements. BTW, I note that you use the first person plural. Would you be willing to say how many are included in the "we"?

Now that your work is nearing a measure of completeness, it may be useful to bring some standards to bear. I see that the article is rated as "B" class. So, perhaps one might look at improving it further. I am pleased to read that you are open to splitting the article. While there is surely some editorial judgement involved in such decisions, fortunately there are precedents we can look at. Also, there are various projects and noticeboards that could provide advice. Before venturing further, though, would be able to explain why you don't have a user account? Sunray (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

there's more than 1 person using these 65.88.88.x ips for this. there's no need to have an account, it's just more overhead. also not sure whether 2 people can edit using the same account at the same time. as for the splitting: it will interrupt the reading flow, this is about someone's life which is a continuous affair, not a compartmentalized representation of a discipline, a critical assessment, a philosophy, etc.

irrespective of all this, the splitting guideline is shaky. there's 3 reasons given:

1. to fit into a wikipedia criterion of "average attention span". this is one of the most unintelligent criteria in wikipedia, and more so since the methodology used to arrive at average span measurement is debatable and non-rigorous. secondly, imo the rationalization is wrong: if people are interested in a subject thay should just pay the required amount of attention. some things just cannot be instant or easily digestible. trying to fit the subject into debatable criteria of average attention span is putting the cart before the horse.
2. some people have slow connections, and page loadtimes are too long. these peoples' online experience as a whole is slow. i don't see why a special case should be made for a subset of their online experience (ie their wikipedia experience). this can veer into censorship: if some people cannot comfortably experience x amount of info, then no-one else should.
3. some people use devices such as pdas, handheld computers etc, and may have trouble with the page. then don't. again, if one is interested, find the time and/or the appropriate device. or find a superficial, cliffnotes-type version suitable for dilettantes elsewhere. i thought this is an encyclopedia, and it can't be all things to all people (that's a wikipedia principle btw). the understanding of a subject is unrelated to the amount of time one has available and summaries suffer from lack of clarity. the end result: a long article can potentially complete your understanding at the expense of time. a short article can potentially complete in the time you have available at the expense of understanding. you figure out what is more important.

65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is o.k. with you, I will reply later regarding the question of a user account on the user talk page, since this page is primarily for discussion of the article (I know I was the one to raise it here first--I will explain why I think it is important there). The second part of your answer questions whether one should split the article. I will address that in a new section, below. Sunray (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To split or not to split

You chose to debate the merits of WP:SIZE, 65.88.88.126. Fair enough, here's my perspective on this:

1. The guideline on article size states: "Readability is still the key criterion."[2] Other editors have raised questions about article readability, one calling it "interminably long" (see section above).
2. The Krishnamurti article is 48th on the list of longest articles in Wikipedia. Most of the other top 100 longest articles are lists. There are three other biographies in the top 100 longest articles: Fanny Crosby (31st), Larry Norman (44th) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (99th). All three articles are tagged as being problematic, i.e., “too long” (Crosby & von Ribbentrop), or having “multiple issues” (Norman).
3. To look at it another way: Wikipedia has a mechanism for assessing the quality articles (see WP:ASSESS). This article is rated "B" Class. There are three higher classes. Until an article reaches "A" class, it is not considered "complete." It should be noted that the three articles referred to in #2 are rated "C", "C" and "C/B", respectively.
4. The next higher class to shoot for is "good article" (GA) class. Please take a look at the GA criteria, noting especially 3(b).

If you read the above and still remain doubtful about splitting the article, we could initiate a request for comment to get community input. Sunray (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming a fruitless discussion about non-issues. We can't be throwing around terms like "readability" without offering specific offending examples. Where are specific examples we can work on? Article size by itself doesn't constitute a criterion. It is also dubious, as enumerated in the parent section. In addition the wikipedia article on Readability is practically useless as a guide in this, as it is basically a rough description of theoretical/scholarly approaches.

There was a complaint by a reader (not an editor): "Interminably long and pointless biography of no relevance to K's impact, teaching nor legacy". The heading is POV. The reader seems to imply that a "terminably long" and "non-pointless" bio would be "relevant" to the subject's impact etc. Apart from using vague terms, he basically asks for the bio to take a position and to do "justice". That's not what this is about. Also, the post is contradictory: "the most mundane events in this mans private life" and next sentence "discussing only the more paradoxical points of K's private life". Well, which one is it? Mundane or paradoxical? Then you have the misrepresentation: "Biographers speculations into K's psychic inner states are cited as given facts". That's untrue. All biographers' "speculations" are presented properly and are documented. If his biographers (most of them knew him intimately) cannot offer inormation and insight on his life who can? The author of this POV? These are some of the reasons we didn't bother to respond to the comment.

Personally, I don't care if the article is the longest in Wikipedia. Does it do the job?

It would be nice for the article to be rated better, but that is another non-issue. It's not written for the benefit of Wikipedians. The criterion was this: that somebody who does not know Krishnamurti from Mickey Mouse, and is interested to know, should come away by having as much as possible, a complete, concise, objective representation of his life as far as common knowledge circa 2011 is concerned. Thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you think this a fruitless discussion. I also think that you miss the point of the comment about it being an "interminably long and pointless biography..." The author of the comment makes it clear that he is referring to "K's impact, teaching [and] legacy." He also is clear that he does not think that the current draft adequately covers these aspects of K's life. As far as I know, this is very much the goal of a biography in Wikipedia. So you ask the question: Does [the biography] do the job?" My short answer is: no it does not. Sunray (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

be specific about where the problems are in your opinion. expand your "short answer". generalities and POV don't count. other things that don't count: hagiographical or hypercritical opinions and calls for similar non-neutral positions. it is not enough to say that the article doesn't cover "K's impact, teaching [and] legacy." you have to say where and why. then what you say will be given due consideration. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a case of article ownership on the part of 65.88.88.126. I have tried to raise issues and suggest that we work collaboratively to resolve them. Every comment I've made has been rejected by 65.88.88.126. Here are the problems that have been identified so far:

1. A user has said that the biography "pays little attention to his teachings or impact." I agree with that. The article in its current form gives no sense of K's importance. One gets lost in the verbiage.
2. The same user has called the article "interminably long." At over 250 kB, I strongly agree, and have provided extensive commentary about that and suggested that the article be split into subarticles and rewritten using summary style.
3. Another user states that the article needs "a good amount of editing," and says "half of the text is in references and bibliography."
4. I have raised the problem of non-standard subheadings.

Anyone reading this talk page will readily see problems that other users have identified about the article. Please do not remove the "multiple issues" "very long" and "cleanup-reorganize" templates. They are necessary to alert other editors to potential problems. I intend to post a detailed summary of changes I see as needed to improve this article. Sunray (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't raise any issue, you mentioned article size, and this we have commented on extensively. That is not an "issue" but a matter of opinion and a guideline that may or may not be followed. IF it is to be followed, you need to be clear why the article at its present size does NOT properly represent the subject. Same goes for the so-called "non-standard subheadings". Again, that is not an issue (the whole MOS is a guideline, which btw we've tried to follow wherever we can). A few of the subheadings are long. One starts with "The" because it refers to "The work". These again are not requirements, however any recommendations will be considered.

"The article in its current form gives no sense of K's importance." This is a bio, and you still want to turn it into a position paper. Whose "sense of K's importance" shall we follow? Yours? The reader's you keep mentioning whose one comment on this page was contradictory and barely comprehensible? (this was noted in this page). The article throughout (esp. in "Afterword"), and in the footnotes, describes as much as can be objectively documented, the impact he had. There's been a big effort not to give undue weight to any opinion of so-called "importance" and "impact". NPOV, unlike article size, is a requirement, not a guideline.

So what if half the text is in footnotes and bibliography? Are you suggesting we should do away with sources and explanations to fit the article to someone's ideas about proper size?

I removed the templates you reinserted as I don't see any justification for them. Justify them here (not with generalities, vague comments, and POV) and then reinsert them. Thanks 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents: I strongly support efforts to clean up this article by...

• condensing particularly long sections
• removing non-essential elements, like extensive quotations from Krishnamurti or other details of history less about him and more about Theosophical Society
• splitting some long sections into their own articles
• moving content to related articles

This is an encyclopedia -- a very general overview of a topic meant to be a basic introduction to the subject -- not a complete line-by-line biography that is book-length. To be frank, this article is filled with all kinds of cruft that is not necessary. Steven Walling 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For an article that gets over 1000 views a day on average, has as of today almost 200 watchers, and also as of today is rated above average by users, I would suggest you're in the minority regarding complaints. I will attempt an answer to your points:

(condensing particularly long sections) And by that you mean...?? What's a particularly long section? What can be condensed? Let's move away from impressions, even "strong" ones, and make concrete suggestions.

(removing non-essential elements, like extensive quotations from Krishnamurti or other details of history less about him and more about Theosophical Society) His life was his work. He spoke around the world for 75 years, probably the longest anyone in history has done so, and possibly again to more people in more places around the world than anyone else (as of now). Well, what the hell was he saying?! The article should have at least some major quotes or descriptions of major themes. That I think is appropriate for a bio like this. There is one footnote solely devoted to the Theosophical Society. This is to give the reader a help, especially since the related articles are very poorly written. The whole Theosophy connection was a fundamental part of his early life. All kinds of unusual things and explanations were taking place, and these have to be seen vis-a-vis his later life, which was quite different.

(splitting some long sections into their own articles) And how exactly do you do that without breaking the flow? This is a bio, not an easily compartmentalized discipline, philosophy, or scientific exposition. As has been noted previously, any such split will be essentially POV, irrespective of concensus.

(moving content to related articles) Ditto.

(This is an encyclopedia -- a very general overview of a topic meant to be a basic introduction to the subject -- not a complete line-by-line biography that is book-length.) Personally, I've seen print encyclopedias with longer biographies, never mind online ones. Also, your definition would disqualify a pretty large number of Wikipedia articles, I think. As a general statement, its merits can be debated. Whether this should apply here can be debated too. Again I direct you to comments against the importance of article size we've made on this page.

(To be frank, this article is filled with all kinds of cruft that is not necessary) Thank you for your frankness, your opinion is noted. Now, please be factually based as well as opinionated. Enumerate the "cruft".

Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Template:sfn

Template:sfn, and esp. Template:sfnm are promising as shortref replacement of wikicite in the article. BUT: They have a pretty limited set of arguments (at least as far as I can tell) which may require to forcibly truncate the footnotes. Not cool. Template:harvnb although not as elegant (needs ref tags) may be more flexible. One recommendation: edit "List of References" according to Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year where appropriate. Still, the multiple-edition sourcing has to be addressed 1st. 65.88.88.214 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do you find the full list of args for sfn/sfnm? I can't seem to find any info. There is a list of args for harv but it is not clear if it the full one. Can all Citation/core args be passed to harvnb? Thanks 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)