Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 6

Sub-articles

There are many articles on WP relating to Krishnamurti. Two of the main ones would seem to be: Jiddu Krishnamurti bibliography and List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti. These have been put to good use in this main article, as links in a Further Reading section, which obviates the need to spell out a list of publications here.

There could also be scope for an Early years of Jiddu Krishnamurti sub-article based on material recently trimmed from this main article.

Comments? Other suggestions for sub-articles? Johnfos (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the two links that you refer to - they're now in See Also, which I think is probably more correct. There were (and probably still are) some non-functioning links which relate to a point before those two articles were forked.

Where would you envisage an "Early life" fork ending? Although I can see room to summarise the Family background/childhood section which I have just fettled, there was a lot of stuff removed that doesn't (IMO) warrant inclusion in even a more detailed forked version.

If there is very little merit in the current Influence and Criticism sections, although they are the recommended layout for an article about philosophy/religion etc. If there is merit in a trimmed version of what replaced it (the Afterword section of recent days) then that might be a candidate for a separate article. I always worry about these things, though: it is easy to fall into the traps of OR and SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. Now that you've made those changes, there actually isn't much that would warrant inclusion in a sub-article. Johnfos (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall impression

Following recent edits and merges, this article is really looking quite good now. My only suggestions relate to reducing the long quotions in the "Recurrent themes" section, and replacing them with prose where possible. And reducing the number and length of footnotes which provide additional detail not in the main text. Both of these aspects as they stand would seem to be out of keeping with usual WP style. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I am working through one section a day (-ish) and it is turning out to be mostly a reduction of the footnotes. Sunray and yourself have followed through with various amendments, which is A Good Thing^TM. There is much useful finesse-ing in the 2011 version of last week but it was overkill and indeed the Aug 2009 version to which it was reverted also has a lot of bumpf in the footnotes. We need to draw a line and hopefully will do so.

When this process is over I do think that it is necessary to review each citation. This is not because I doubt the veracity but because with all the chopping & changing it is possible that something may now be wrongly sourced. Easy to fix, where those sources are readily available. And, of course, the NY PUblic Library people appear to have the means to assist in that effort where the sources are less readily available. I have done some on-the-fly checks where I had doubts in reducing the multiple sources combined in one ref ... but I have not and cannot check every single entry. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised Family/childhood section

I have pretty much reinstated chunks of the Nov 2011 Family/childhood section in preference to the Aug 2009. I've trimmed some of the text and severely pruned the notes attached to it. Examples of content removed include:

• if someone wants to read more about the Theosophical Society then they can go to that article; and
• the lengthy note about discrepancies in d.o.b. doesn't matter for the purposes of en-Wikipedia. Issues relating to the Hindu calendar and self-admitted mistakes by biographers etc are trivial.

I have just used a short cite format for now. I am happy to go with whatever may be the preferred format. It is no big deal to knock citations into shape, although I'd rather standardise at the outset. - Sitush (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone else wants to do it, I'll work on the Discovery section later today (0711 here, but have be awake for nearly 24h, so off for a kip soon). - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you have done with the Family/childhood section and also with standardising citations from the outset. By all means go ahead with the Discovery section. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for your efforts... Johnfos (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Phase 2 done (Discovery) The article length has hardly changed, yet we're incorporated some relevant info from the 2011 version. It might help if someone follows behind me and sees if there is any additional verbosity/trivia that could go. (I think that Sunray might have done that a few hours ago but have not yet really checked). Alas, the bumpf about the bond with his brother seems clearly to be significant in K's deveopment - the content reads rather "twee" until you get to the denouement, then it all makes sense. More tomorrow. Again, feel free to step in. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Phase 3 now done (Growing up). Same issues as previously but nb that perhaps the biggest single item removed that was in the body rather than the notes was the statement "In this period he apparently enjoyed reading parts of the Old Testament, and was impressed by some of the Western classics, especially works by Shelley, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche.[c 4] He also had, since childhood, considerable observational and mechanical skills, being able to correctly disassemble and reassemble complicated machinery.[c 5]." This is because if you read the (very lengthy) notes for this then it becomes apparent that reading had little impact on him in the long run and, allegedly, he forgot most of what he had read. I understand that there is an argument related to how he was erudite given that he ended up reading mostly thrillers & detective novels etc but, honestly, if someone is that interested in the issue then they'll have the source books anyway. Similarly, the mechanical aptitude etc simply does not figure in the story - who cares, then? We have to draw lines somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys have really taken an axe to this article that I find very disturbing. Though the article was perhaps long winded in some sections, I don't like what you are doing to it either. A lot of the 2009 stuff that you have put back had since been removed after long discussions. You are sort of acting like a gang of vandals, blissfully cutting away at scholarship, and not to the good. Hopefully someone is going to end this madness and revert what you have done. I gave this article a good rating a couple of months ago, but would not do so now. I don't understand how a bunch of amateurs have managed to take over the article. It's very sad. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

You have posted in the discussion for the "Revised Family/childhood section", so I take it that your comments are confined to this one section. Please be constructive. Exactly what improvements do you propose for this section? Johnfos (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My comments are addressed to the article in general, but I particularly noticed that someone has removed a lot of interesting details about K which makes the article more engaging and interesting. Example: Removing the info (as above) about K's reading tastes and his being able to disassemble complicated machinery. Repeat: this kind of material adds character to the article. What do you guys think you are doing exactly, coming in like politically correct vigilantes? You reverted back to the wrong starting point and now you are just making random cuts. You do not appear to have much expertise about your subject matter. The article should be reverted back to before you began this mission. I am tempted to do it myself. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We condense, and in the ideal article provide not merely sources but also some pointers to further reading where an interested person can dig deeper into a subject. Neither K's reading tastes nor his mechanical aptitude are relevant to what he did in life. In the former case, he read classics etc for a while as a young man but said himelf that he forgot all that he had read and confined himself to cheap thrillers etc thereafter. Lutyens etc do not seem to suggest that the early reading influenced later actions or thoughts, so it is pure padding. In the case of the mechanical stuff, so what? The article never referred to the aptitude after the point to which you refer - padding, again. You want to read a full-blown biography? Check out the list. Lutyens, in particular, seems to have been infatuated with her topic & therefore provides all sorts of trivial detail; great if you like that sort of thing, but not encyclopedic. - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd barely posted this and you reinserted some overblown comments about the poverty of his childhood. Since even the version of the article from the start of this month made no substantive reference to poverty thereafter, it is irrelevant: it is colour, but irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the best "good" articles on this site are called that because they have not been stripped of character and color by editors who approach as you do. And thanks for reverting me three times already, BTW the same thing you complained about to a previous editor. I find your edits to be dry and tasteless, so if this is a matter of aesthetics, so be it. Repeat, the poverty of his childhood is relevant because it tells about HIM and what he overcame. Please don't strip him of his humanity. This is very disappointing.Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Twice, I have reverted you, not thrice. We do not deal in emotion here, nor can I see that he "overcame" anything: his position in life was certainly very different after he became involved with the Theosophists but that was scarcely down to his own efforts. He didn't choose what he was born into and nor did he choose what he became, or so it seems.

I've written a few GA-class articles. My style may not appeal to you but at present this one is not even GA and never will be unless it is fine-tuned in the manner that we are currently attempting. Focus is a key consideration. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And so what if poverty is not subsequently mentioned? Its a relevant detail of his childhood and is ONE sentence in the article. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

It is emotive and irrelevant, especially in the form that it was presented. You could as easily say, "As a child he lived in poverty", although I still do not see the point because the article does already mention that there was financial need, viz. father taking post-retirement job because he was "of limited means". Now, if you want to swap one for the other in some way then maybe that is ok - I'll have a think about it. It would be dead easy if we could show that, for example, his father gave him up to the guardianship of Besant in exchange for money or because he could not afford to keep the lad. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is his early poverty irrelevant? Its a fact of his life. He did overcome an impoverished and in some respects brutal childhood. Why are you so quick to revert? Sach.b (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is emotive and irrelevant? It's a fact. Are you the editor in chief here? No one else can make changes now?Sach.b (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just moved your response timestamped 05:07 for chronological sequence - hope you do not mind. No, any can edit provided that they comply with the policies and guidelines. I think that perhaps you are getting a little "het up". Maybe have a cup of tea and wait for some others to comment here? There is no rush about this. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh Heh, but you seemed in quite a "rush" to revert my restoration of the article. Sach.b (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I used the consensus and BRD points for that. Your reinstatement of info was clearly contrary to consensus expressed in this very section to which you had earlier contributed. There was no excuse for it. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sach.b, I don't understand why this level of detail about his poverty needs to be included. As Sitush says, the family's financial need is quite clear from the information already contained in the article. There was consensus on this page that the article was far too long. Some editors are attempting to re-write it giving due emphasis to the important features of his life. It does not seem advisable to add details that are not needed. Have I missed something here? If so, please explain. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've explained that in my view you are taking the color and the character out of the article in favor of being clinical. That's what I think, sorry. And the same goes for the user's reversion of the sentence about other women besides Annie Besant. There WERE other important women in his life. Why break up the flow of the article? You know, many editors here have come and gone over the past few years, with many thinking that they are going to fix it once and for all. Writing is still an art which involves quality as well as faithfulness to factuality. Obviously I'm outnumbered right now so what I think is not going to matter. But why do you want to take out a detail that illustrates his impoverished condition? It's one sentence that gives the child some humanity and makes him more real to the reader. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Here we deal in facts, not emotion. It necessitates a certain style of writing. It is as simple as that. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And its a fact that they were in poor physical condition when they arrived at the TS compound, not just an emotional or sentimental detail, though it adds human interest to his story. The statement of their physical condition illustrates the point better than saying that the family was in poor economic straits. Why are you being so resistant and not even addressing my points about the tone and human interest of his story? Why don't you wait for someone else to weigh in for a change? Your approach may not be the best one in this case.Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

I have addressed your points, time and again over the last few hours. Someone else has come in and seems to take a similar line that it is unnecessary detail: it is not just me. Furthermore, you have said yourself that you recognise that yours is a minority viewpoint. "Human interest" is emotive, not relevant fact. I have absolutely no idea why you are persisting in this unless it is connected with the fact that some of the stuff that has been cut was inserted by you in 2008. It has survived for three years, which is probably in part because the article was so bloated that few could be bothered to read it through & pick up on this type of trivia. You have made 160 edits in total, across four pages. Those pages are this one, the article itself, the Rosalind Rajagopal article, and the talk page of an admin who protected this article in a manner that you disliked because it stopped the NY Library IPs (whom you admire) from continuing to add bloat here. I think it unlikely that you are going to "win" this point because it is clear that (a) you are an inexperienced contributor, and (b) you are fixated on this subject matter. Neither of those are bad things per se but unless you can find some policy-based reason for inclusion of this material then you are highly unlikely to sway people who are vastly more experienced over a very wide range of content. Maybe try expanding your horizons a bit? You'll soon pick up how things work if you get stuck in. Alternatively, you could develop this article on another platform or even a personal website: the content here is free to copy and modify as you so please. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually this article receive(ed)s many. many hits per month. You have a very patronizing tone as well after previously assuring that anyone can contribute here. I will continue to contribute to this article as I see fit and also hope to see the return of the New York Public library participant who seems to me to be more erudite on the subject of Krishnamurti than yourself in spite of the acknowledged problems with the article. BTW you have not addressed the point as to why this article now has to be written up as" dry as a bone" other than to satisfy some overly intellectual ideals that you are harboring about what constitutes a "good" article. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, I am wasting no more time going round in circles discussing this with you. I'd much rather go on improving things than deal with someone who is clearly not prepared to accept consensus. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. You responded to my query and before I even get to respond, you're packing up your tent. Sach.b, please bear in mind that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity, but it does require that we take all legitimate concerns into account. I would say that you have asked a reasonable question: How do we portray the colour of his life? That seems to be an argument for ensuring that the article is interesting and readable. I agree that it should be interesting. We also need to key an eye on criteria for good articles (see especially #s 1 & 3). I'm willing to work with you on this. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was responding to the wrong editor about the "packing it in" comment (which I've now struck). The rest of my remarks are in response to Sach.b. Sunray (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunray I appreciate your willingness to at least consider my point. To be honest I am a little bit in shock that another editor has suggested that I'm out of my league, I'm fixated, and that I should get my own page and play around with it on my own? Is this how consensus is built? It strikes me as a form of bullying, and all because I made a couple of reverts back to the previous version which has been in the works for years? I have worked on the article and been involved in the discussions for quite some time and the "tone" of K's childhood leading into the "discovery" was written that way for a reason- to provide continuity and context for his childhood and so with the reaction of some TS people to K's "scruffiness." I didn't even write all of it BTW. Now some bigwig editor is going to throw his weight around because he doesn't agree that the article should contain some tone and color and not "emote." What does that even mean anyway? He still hasn't explained satisfactorily. Some of the best articles here do give life to their subject and that's why they're "featured," isn't that so? Sitush is the new kid on the block here ,not me and not the NY library people. Not that he or anyone else can't make good contributions, of course, despite his inexperience with the K article. It would be very cynical to say that. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

I am wondering if there isn't an aversion to the mentioning of poverty in India and "lice" in this context as being shameful for a Brahmin? Is this somehow behind this debacle?Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

I've re-read that passage. While I agree that it is important to write an interesting article, I do think that it is a level of detail appropriate to a biography, but not an encyclopedia. I should like to add that you began this thread with a very broad-brush criticism of the recent editing. That may have gotten things off to a poor start. We have a long way to go to meld the best of both versions and it would be better to work collaboratively, IMO. Sunray (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with recent merge of 2009/2011 versions

I recently adjusted the "Life-altering" section, per previous discussions. This one was a bit tricky because my access to the principal relevant chapter from Lutyens is minimal, and the footnoting was horrendously complex. Indeed, so complex that it was sometimes difficult to work out what phrase in a footnote related to which source etc.

Anyway, I have had to put a temporary note in there, directing people to this page. The relevant paragraph is

These experiences were accompanied, or followed, by what was interchangeably described as presence, benediction, immensity, or sacredness, a state distinct from the process. This state, which was claimed to have been often felt by others present, would later, and increasingly, reoccur independently of the process. Krishnamurti regularly substituted the other or the otherness as shorthand description for this particular experience; also as a way of conveying the sense of impenetrability regarding this otherness, the strange sensibility it effected, and the unusual state of consciousness it precipitated, as described in his diaries and elsewhere.

In the 2011 version the full reference for this is: J. Krishnamurti 2003a, p. 2 (para. 9). Retrieved on 2011-07-19. "In the evening it was there: suddenly it was there, filling the room, a great sense of beauty, power and gentleness. Others noticed it." Entry of 18 June 1961; Lutyens, Mary (1976). "Foreword to the Original Edition". In (author) J. Krishnamurti 2003a, pp. v–vii. http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=27&chid=319. Retrieved 2011-07-19. The process is described as mainly a physical condition. The otherness is described as mainly occupying the realm of consciousness; other sources: M. Lutyens 2003a, pp. 226–227, 228, 230; M. Lutyens 2003b, pp. 8, 31, 62, 100, 137. Krishnamurti (and others who reputedly occasionally experienced it in his company) made clear that any attempt at personification of the otherness would be inconsistent with the actual experience. He also commented on the increasing, with time, intensity and frequency of his experiencing it.

If someone can work out how to include whatever is relevant in order to fix my placeholder cite then please do so. I am going to have a think also.

NB: I am a little concerned that there is SYNTH and OR going on, at least in this section. One pretty obvious example (therefore, I removed) was: "The above events, and subsequent occurrences of the process, were not revealed publicly until 1975, while Krishnamurti's descriptions of both the process and of the other were first published in 1976." There was a lengthy note attached but basically it appeared to be the opinion of the contributors that 1975 was the first public revelation, presumably based on their extensive reading of source material. That is not good enough support for the statement in WP, in my opinion. Unless Lutyens specifically says herself that she is revealing it for the first time (or someone subsequently acknowledges that), we should not say that which we did. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like synth. The paragraph seems accurate, but I agree that the sources in both versions are problematic. It shouldn't be too hard to re-write it slightly and source it to K's notebooks and Lutyens' commentary. I will have a go at that sometime later today (must sleep now). Sunray (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll hang off until you have had a go. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, something came up, causing a delay. I will get to it. In the meantime, by all means continue your work in other sections. Sunray (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No rush. I may not be making any complex contributions to this or any other article over the next few days. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've found a way to cover that material with appropriate sources. As I read through K's Notebook, I noted the amount of description he devoted to the otherness, so added some more detail on that from the Notebook and Lutyens' description of the state in her biography. While the process was a momentous event in 1922, over the years it abated somewhat and the otherness apparently (according to K and his biographer) became something of greater importance to him. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Progress

It is a week since I fettled the "Break with the past" section. I'll try to do the next two sections before the weekend is over. Sorry for the delay - got sidetracked. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've been occupied elsewhere also. Should be back to it by the weekend. Sunray (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just feel a bit bad for the NYPL people as there is stuff in the history that should be integrated. It looks possible that they have decided not to bother with ANI, which would be a sensible decision, but that does not alter the fact that there is some sort of reasonable compromise to be obtained between the 2009 and 2011 versions of the article. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the concerns raised on this page is the excessive reliance, in some sections, on quotations (particularly noticeable in the "Recurrent themes" section). I've begun to convert some of those quotes to summaries (e.g., "The World Crisis"). This is fairly easy, as K was, at times, a voluble speaker and writer who often repeated a point in various ways for emphasis.

I've almost completed a first pass through the article. The other thing that occurs to me as I get nearer the end is that the notes are fairly detailed. That might lend itself to creating as separate "Notes" section as a supplement to the references. That would mean separate "Note" and "Reference" footnotes. What do others think? Sunray (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Article protection

Is it still necessary for this article to be protected? It would seem to be no longer necessary. 79.79.251.27 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If we are still going to have multiple IPs operated by the same person who are active in reverting the article the semiprotection should be kept in place. It only takes five minutes to register an account. IPs can still offer their reasoning on the talk page even if protection is kept. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with EdJohnston that there are entirely reasonable ways for people to "get round" the semi-protection, although for some reason that I cannot understand there appears to be a reluctance to do so in the case of this article. I do apologise for my tardiness in following through on things related to merging the 2009 version with the worthwhile elements of things that were changed subsequent to that time. Sunray has gone through pretty much all of it but I am unsure whether that exercise involved picking through the voluminous notes - it is actually quite soul-destroying even working out how that lot was compiled. A classic case, in fact, of markup being taken to such an extreme that it makes things harder rather than easier to edit. Anyway, I really will try to get back on track. The sooner that we have some sort of stable version, the sooner there may be a real case for removing the protection. As things stand, removing the protection would liekly create a situation akin to trying to hit a moving target, especially given the indications that were made (but not, so far, followed through) by the NYPL group of contributors. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been no recent evidence of recent edit wars or sock-puppetry on this article. That is about 6 weeks ago. I repeat my request for the article to be unprotected and no, I do not live in NY. 79.79.251.44 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the absence is most likely the very fact that semi-protection is in place. I repeat my comment that you are welcome to register or to make an edit request here. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so paranoid about the NYPL user/users, anyway? They appear to know a lot more than you. Sach.b (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

Charles Webster Leadbeater

Please link "Charles Webster Leadbeater" since the article exists. Thank you --192.109.50.232 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. It was linked in the lead and I've added a link in the "Discovery" section. That seems consistent with the guideline on linking Sunray (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disappointing Editorial Policy on this Article

Its very unfortunate that this article is now being overseen by someone who apparently has no familiarity with the criticism that has been directed to Krishnamurti. Instead readers are apparently to be subjected to a dumb-downed version of his work and life. The result of this will be a diminished understanding for the general reader. Unless you (Sitush) explain the reason for the removal of legitimate critical content, I will make a complaint to the appropriate "authorities" for this site. Its obvious that there is a knee jerk tendency on your part to revert anything that former and long standing editors of this article choose to contribute. Please explain why you have removed legitimate critical content pertaining to Krishnamurti's work. The criticism section was not bloated, in fact it is a necessary part of the article that will give his work the respect that it deserves. Sach.b (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore may I observe that no one from your cohort has done a thing to re-vamp the criticism section since you reverted the article? As it stands in your revision, there has not been any serious attempt at covering critical opinion. No one has done a thing on the article (except for some vandalism) for quite some time indicating that your interest had waned; that is until you noticed that a well written part of the article had been restored.Sach.b (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no "cohort". Nor is a single person "overseeing" the article and I strongly suggest that you take a read of WP:NPA before you unwittingly dig a deeper hole. If you want to write an monograph on Krishnamurti then no-one is stopping you, but consensus here has been that this is an inappropriate place. You are welcome to test that consensus but to reinstate items without first discussing is not on. I have no idea what you intend by "will give his work the respect that it deserves", but it does sound rather as if you may not be neutral with regard to JK. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated, your knee jerk reaction is not constructive. You still have not addressed the specific and accurate content which I reinstated. It is the criticism section and not a "monograph". Might that be because you aren't informed about the accuracy of the content? Your only reason for reverting would appear to be a grudge against the former article. Since I only reinstated a worthwhile section of the article(and your threats notwithstanding), your argument does not hold any water. Now since you have rapidly reverted it twice, it would appear that you are disallowing and blocking any further editing on the section because of an ill-considered grudge. Sach.b (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Relax, read up on K, and have a cup of tea. Thanks. Sach.b (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Patronising people is a pretty sure way to end up in trouble. How do you know that I haven't read up on Krishnamurti, for example? Why is following consensus a "knee jerk reaction"? You reinstated 14,166 bytes to an article that had a length prior to reinstatement of 77,494. That is, you increased the size of the article by nearly 20% in one hit by adding information that had previously been removed per consensus. If you want to reinstate, particularly on such a scale, then it is for you to read the history and to justify your reasons. They will have to be good ones because the whole idea of "criticism" sections is problematic and often discouraged. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

An essay that is pro-criticism sections can be found at WP:CRIT. Please note that it is an essay, not policy or guideline. I am not sure which bit of it you would wish to rely on but there are several possibles. Can you really justify something like 25% of this article being "criticism"? It seems a lot to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush what is the size limit that you have placed on the article? Do you consider the other sections to be complete already? Another issue about "criticism" since you raised it: the original plan for the article was to combine the influence and criticism sections. Since you have reverted me so rapidly I have not had a chance to work on that possibility. I am not happy with the influence section and was going to do some more work on that. But now I feel that anything I do in that direction, including keeping what was good about the criticism section, will be reverted simply because I was a participant in the former article. I find your allegations of patronization ironic, a bit like the pot calling the kettle black given your previous statements to me and others. If you don't like it, sorry. That's how I see it. Sach.b (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is late here and tomorrow I will be off to do some real life work that will consume the weekend. I still find your responses to be unnecessarily personal. I think that this is the first time that I have said this, and it is not something that I particularly take pleasure in saying, but you have < 200 contributions and I have > 60,000, mostly in subject areas that are contentious (Indian caste articles etc). I am not always right, but the odds are that I am dealing with things in a more correct manner than you are. Please ponder on that in my absence. Feel free to work upon anything that does not already have a consensus. If it does have a consensus then I would advise you to raise the issues here first. And note that consensus is not a majority: it is a difficult concept, but at its core lies a propensity of arguments in one or other direction that are based on policy. Policy itself is subject to consensus, and that is where it gets tricky.

To be honest, you are diving into a complex article with a recent history that is also complex. You are welcome to do so but the chances of you getting things right are somewhat less than might apply if you were editing many of the near-4 million other articles here. I wish you well, and can assure you that I have no particular opinion regarding JK and indeed only know of him as a consequence of this article existing. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are the newcomer to this article and not the people you have banished. Your pre-occupation with the size of the article is concerning, yet not defined as you still have not answered my question about what you consider as the appropriate size and why. With your 60,000 edits I suppose your message is that the rest of us should sit back and accept your questionable pronouncements and judgements.Sach.b (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sach.b there is no point in making personal attacks. Just stick to discussion of content related issues, please. You are saying that there is not enough criticism of K, right? I think that the best way to deal with that is to propose the addition of specific information. Please don't simply reinsert material that was formerly removed from the article, unless there is agreement here that there are important facts in it that need to be added. There is no way this article should return to its former bloated state. So make your case and please avoid personal remarks. Sunray (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back later to address this in more detail. However, why aren't you concerned about the patronizing personal remarks made by the head editor about his vastly superior level of experience and condescending advice to go and work on another article? Please don't put your two cents worth in just to shore him up. The very same remark about having a cup of tea was made by him a couple of months ago, and obviously his own tactics when used on him are defined as patronization and personal attacks. No one has touched the criticism section and as far as I can see, all of the work done here by you people has consisted of editing of the previous article. If one of you had edited from the previous criticism section, I would bet that no one would have made a move to revert. All of a sudden you are descending like flies because a former editor is back. Yet no one touched the theosophical vandalism perpetrated by some other user in the interim because of waning interest in the project. Sach.b (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you are casting aspersions. There is no "head editor" and there is no vendetta against you. Whether or not the edits that you refer to count as vandalism is debatable. We all have other things going on, both in our real and wikipedia lives. The reason why your edit caught my eye and I looked at it almost immediately is because of the sheer size of the thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright Sitush. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. However it does appear to me that you are acting as the de facto head editor. In addition I would like to point out that there was valid and valuable content in what you reverted. Also, I was not the original author of it. Sach.b (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Making the same sort of accusations and repeating yourself etc is not letting bygones be bygones. If you really think that there is an ownership issue here then feel free to report me at WP:ANI or whatever. Of course, it could just be that I am around more often than some other people are ... - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Sitush. Letting bygones be bygones does not have to mean that I agree with whatever you say and vice versa. Thanks Sach.b (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have restored U. G. Krishnamurti's criticism of Jiddu Krishnamurti because U.G spent quite a lot of time with Jiddu Krishnamurti and was familiar with his teachings, so much so that he is considered by some to be a disciple of JK.[1] Moreover, lot of followers of JK such as David Bohm (who is cited here) went to U.G. with similar questions, acknowledging the similarity of the two in terms of stature and philosophy.[2] U.G. had a lot to say about Jiddu Krishnamurti but, this quote of U.G. is particularly pertinent to the article and IMO completes the article since, it criticizes JK's use of vague abstractions and his inability to provide satisfactory answers to questions.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

'Influenced' section under image

I'm not sure if the 'influenced' list under the image is really relevant but am hesitant to remove it without a second opinion. 79.79.248.42 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There would need to be references to substantiate the entries on the list and I cannot see being able to support many of these names. I agree with removing it. Sunray (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Have removed 'influenced' list as unreferenced and not really relevant. Have removed 'influenced by' as I would read that as that they were a source of his inspiration which they were not. 79.79.248.57 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone has added citations which justify several of the "influenced." However, I've once again removed mention of the Dalai Lama and Osho. The Dalai Lama is said to have enjoyed K's company. That does not equate to "influence." In Osho's case, they never met, but did correspond. Osho criticised K, but there is no evidence in the citation that K influenced Osho. Sunray (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The citations link to commercials sites entirely irrelevant to the subject. I'll edit them out myself if I can.

- gadi guy (gadiguy@gmail.com)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.201.218 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 

Query on Article Length Issues

No One has clarified for me why my revision of former material was greeted with alarm due to the length it added. I made a quick perusal of some Wikipedia featured articles, ie, supposedly the best articles on the site. Their lengths are as follows: Darwin: 124,045; Tagore: 113,458; Tolkien: 117,726; Brad Pitt: 97,517; David Bowie: 101,929; Oppenheimer: 108,149; L. Ron Hubbard: 143,219. This was just a quick survey that took me ten minutes to do. Sure, the former article was of a prodigious length at 280,000 or so, but on the other hand, adding or re-instating more content is not going to ruin the article or make it unwieldy compared to some of the ones I just looked at. So who is determining what these limits are and why? Now you are perhaps going too far in the opposite direction by sacrificing quality for brevity. Sach.b (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question about who is determining the limits regarding the article is basic to Wikipedia policy and practice: Article editors determine content. The policy that governs this is: WP:CON. The Talk page guidelines give further direction. Editors are also guided by content policies. Thousands of kb were devoted to the discussion of this issue, over several weeks (see Archives 5 & 6). Eight editors expressed their opinion during that time. The consensus was clear: the article was far too long, overly devoted to detail, and not in keeping with criteria by which good articles are judged. One anonymous editor (i.e., you) steadfastly maintained a point of view throughout this discussion and it seems that you are still having difficulty accepting the consensus opinion. That is unfortunate, but there is not much other editors can do about it, accept to hope that from here on out you will attempt to edit collaboratively, in accordance with talk page guidelines. Sunray (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been absent due to an unexpected situation. The anonymous user you are talking about is not me. I have only been posting under the user name sach.b. In my opinion the above does not answer my question. I already said that I agreed that the article was too long. That does not mean that more of the former content can't be brought back in again strategically. BTW I see that hardly anything has been done on this article since my last visit which further underscores my point about the prejudicial attitude that has taken over the editing of this piece. Sach.b (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it means that (a) people have other things to do; and (b) the thing is likely not as problematic as once it was. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The birth date continues to be removed, re-added, removed. Let's gather what we know and update the article accordingly.

A birth month, "May 1895", does not seem to be the most correct information available. We know more than that, and yes there's a matter of dispute, but rather than leave it empty we can simply use the best available information, correct?

Also, shouldn't the "The date of birth of Jiddu Krishnamurti is a matter of dispute." NOT be in the article? This is the kind of topic best suited for this Talk page rather than on the actual article. We could call into dispute birth dates of ANY historic figure, and those discussions are fine, but let's not clutter the article. People come to the article to learn about Kiddu Krishnamurti, not learn about wikipedia authors disputing details of his birthdate.

After doing a bit of research there seems to be two typically quoted birth dates, May 11, 1895 and May 12, 1895 ... so there appears to be a minor dispute, but switching to a birth month seems rather arbitrary. The various biographies list the date as May 11, 1895. The references to May 12 seem to be from less than reputable astrology wikis (and were probably copied from here). I'm going to update his birthday with an appropriate reference to the jkrishnamurti.org biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not correct, simple as that. The article body explains and when in doubt we need to reflect all reliable points of view, not pick or choose one. I suggest that you read WP:BRD and WP:NPOV ... and desist from reinstating your preference. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not reflecting all points of view, you're simply removing the date. And you're asserting yourself rather than make any substantiated claim. Which of my claims is incorrect? Several reliable sources agree to May 11, 1895 as the date of birth, there's other sources that claim May 12, 1895, and of course there's a general issue about record keeping - but again, that applies to every historic figure ever. Please read WP:BRD yourself, in particular these points,

• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once.
• BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas.

It cuts both ways, please discuss the edits as they are clearly in dispute, rather than do the exact thing you're telling me not to do.

Maybe there's a larger style or content guide that I'm missing, but is "May 1895" really the most accurate information we know about a birthdate? If the record keeping is as bad as is claimed in the article (again, text that should probably be in this Talk page) then can you even claim "May", would it make sense to just list "1895"? And if you're willing to allow some guesswork (that is, probably in May, most probably May 11 or May 12) then why does your guesswork only include a Month.

How do other ambiguous birthdates get resolved? Removing them entirely seems less useful than using the best possible evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwarnock (talk • contribs) 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You were bold in trying to add a specific date to a long-established phrasing; I reverted you and now we should discuss. What you are missing is WP:NPOV. Now revert your addition of the tag and go read some policies and guidelines. You are not going to bully me into submission when, yes, "May 1895" is indeed the best thing to say in the lead. Not that I care what happens on other articles but this situation is not unique. Neither is it uncommon for this article to suffer from the blinkered opinions and policy misreadings of pov-pushers. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The d.o.b. for Isaac Perrins is so uncertain that we do not even mention it in the lead. That is a Good Article. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it to 1895/1896 because, upon reflection, that is what the body says. You may not know the history but this article was horrendous until not too long ago and is still far from being where it should be. It was subject to a tag-team of anonymous contributors based at the New York Public Library who were intent on turning it into some sort of magnum opus on the subject until they were blocked. There is still a fair amount of dodgy stuff to be fixed but the d.o.b. thing is directly related to their research using the library's resources and it is one of the aspects that is worth retaining because it is clearly a moot point and clearly based on secondary sources. Williams seems to do a good job of explaining the complexities; Lutyens, of course, had vested interests. - Sitush (talk)

Hi Sitush, for reasons you've stated I agree with the 1895/1896 change (as it's at least consistent with the dispute thus far) and also would leave the dispute tag until more information is available -- otherwise it's inviting constant modifications. I don't believe the best resolution to this kind of dispute is to assume it's an insoluble problem -- this can be discussed and researched accordingly and hopefully consensus reached. And I hope you realize there's no attempt to bully you (at least not from me); quite the contrary I was going to ask if we could discuss without bully tactics nor snidely pointing me to WP:NPOV -- and to that claim, can you point out specifically what non-neutral POV I'm positing? Otherwise I feel you're approaching this with "do as I say not as I do" -- openly discussing is much better. Honestly, I'm not really sure what POV would be pushed by wanting clarification on a date of birth, but nevertheless I agree this article could use a lot of work (grammar and overall clumsy organization). This is energy better spent improving the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwarnock (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You were inserting a specific date when the body clearly indicated that there were contradictory dates. That is POV, giving undue weight to one viewpoint and it is not snide to say so. Given that there are different viewpoints from reliable sources, you are unlikely to see the clarification that you desire any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There seemed to have been somewhat of a consensus on May 11, 1895 -- the May 12th dates seemed to come from horoscope sources, I don't consider those reliable-- I mentioned this in the note on the edit, this is obviously not a POV. Either way, you've aggressively made your claim and brow-beat me into backing off, good luck with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwarnock (talk • contribs) 23:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not censor cited Criticism

Criticism is very important and removing it alone saying the article is long is wrong and is Censorship.122.178.198.206 (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Before, increasing the size of the article please build consensus here, like other editors have done before you. Lot of the content you added was also original research based upon primary sources, often citing Jiddu Krishnamurti himself as a source (ref #158 for instance).CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Identifying with the translucency of your consciousness

Jiddu Krishnamurti felt no one understood him. I felt I did. His key teaching was, "To be aware of inattention is attention." The mindfulness technique consists in identifying with the translucency of your own consciousness. When you feel that process of being aware is who you are, all tension passes away, all anxiety is gone. You stay at the level of "Is that so?" [The "So Deuska?" of the koan from "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones" by Nyogen Sasaki and Paul Reps.] This does work, but I doubt it is a genuine kind of awakening. It amounts to a sort of escape from the tension between contrary values and inconsistent priorities, which all modern people must face. An escape from choice by resting in pure openness. ````Rev. Jundo Gregory Gibbs, Oregon Buddhist Temple [Jodo Shinshu school] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jundo (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And how does this improve the article? This page is for discussions regarding that, not your opinions or random quotations of others. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

For reasons that I cannot understand, the citation style for this article appears to be undergoing a change to {{rp}}. It is ugly, it is impenetrable to new contributors and, worse, it appears not to have been discussed. As such, I will be reverting to the previous style. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugly? Impenetrable? Bit emotional don't you think? Patronising too. It's a wiki template for heaven's sake. It's also one about which you wrote "I like {{r}} but I rarely get to use it". Vacarme (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are referring to this thread. When you've been around a bit longer then you might understand why these issues matter so much. Especially if you then spend most of your time dealing with newcomers on "hot" topics. Your changes ignored consensus and WP:CITEVAR; they have been reverted accordingly. And {{r}} is not {{rp}}. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"One of the latest Hindu God", however clumsily phrased

Hello all.
For the Theosophical Society, Krishnamurti was indeed "One of the latest Hindu God" - he was the then latest avatar of Lord Krishna. See: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/encounter/krishnamurti/3523466#transcript
--Shirt58 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Teachings?

Would not a section summarizing his teachings make sense? 206.130.136.162 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Understood

"She also said that he was at such an "elevated" level that he was incapable of forming normal personal relationships."

Actually, "normal personal relationships" were a part of his talks. He said that as long as we think of concepts in our minds about love instead of just feeling it, and always think of self-interest or gain, we cannot love. That is just being dependant on each other for ourselves. Our own security. We commit psychological, verbal, even physical violence against each other and ourselves (drink, drugs, self-hate), and call that 'love'. Then what I have with my partner is not that word at all. You can keep the "normal personal relationship". I finally put into action what I heard from JK 6 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.213.51 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about J Krishnamurti's date of birth.

Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti's official biographer (he asked her personally if she would write his biography) explains in 'J. Krishnamurti: The Years Of Awakening. A Biography By Mary Lutyens' (copyright 1975, Mary Lutyens - her first of four biographical books about Krishnamurti) that Jiddu Krishnamurti-as a (Brahmin) Hindu-was born at 12.30am, 11th, May, 1895. In most western countries, this time would be considered as the May 12th, thirty minutes after midnight, but according to the astrological calendar of Hinduism, each day begins and ends at 4am (the earliest time of the year that the sun begins to rise in India). Therefore in the western world, we would say that Krishnamurti was born on May 12th at 12.30am, rather than May 11th at 12.30am. Incidentally, May 12th, 1895 was a Sunday. 03:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Endbelief (talk)

Perhaps but it is easier just to stick with the source. That said, I've often had doubts about our reliance on Lutyens and you've just given me another reason to doubt it. She was a hagiographer. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Epilepsy

Did someone ever consider the possibility that Jiddu Krishnamurti suffered from epilepsy? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not insist on placing a link to Epilepsy in this article, as it is speculative. I also removed the link to George Gurdjieff because there is no factual connection or correlation between the two men. The article needs verifiable historical content, up to date descriptions of the Krishnamurti schools, Centres and Foundations and a more comprehensive overview of Krishnamurti's teaching. A Miller (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Do some reading on temporal lobe epilepsy and neurotheology, and then read again Jiddu Krishnamurti#Life-altering experiences. The possibility is suggested by Radha Rajagopal Sloss in Lives in the Shadows. Mary Lutyens, in The Life And Death Of Krishnamurti, also mentions, and rejects, the possibility. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added this info to the note with the possible explanations for his "process," where it belongs. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Telugu name

@Titodutta: regarding this edit, which added the telugu-name of Jiddu Krishnamurti, do you what's the Wiki-policy on adding such info? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, WP:INDICSCRIPT is the answer: "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• You are correct. AFAIK, that's the consensus. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

@Masterpapa~enwiki: This is where you must post and discuss this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on my previous request: I was taken to this Template page, but the request-suggestion I wanted to make ( copied below ) is in reference to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti where there is a yellow table that mentions religious information ( Hinduism, Yoga, etc) associated to Jiddu Krishnamurti. The table itself is what I suggest should not be part of the article about Jiddu Krishnamurti. Thanks

My original request read: The table of information below the portrait (with header: "Part of a series on Hindu philosophy") should be removed because it is misleading and misinforming the audience. The man described in the article ( Jiddu Krishnamurti) was never part of any religion. His talks, books were never confined to any religion or philosophy. On the contrary, throughout his life he refused to be associated to any religion or philosophy. That is part of the essence of his work. He broadly clarifies that in his work. Any association to Hinduism, Hindu philosophies or Yoga is completely misleading the audience in relation with the life and work of Jiddu Krishnamurti." Masterpapa~enwiki (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Already done.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Have thoroughly sourced content to add.

Now have multiple primary sources for added content. How do I add? PRP797 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Start with reading WP:RS and WP:OR. Then, use <ref>source</ref>. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jiddu Krishnamurti. 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/20111109114350/http://mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/dharma/dharmabio.htm to http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/dharma/dharmabio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202071949/http://ereleases.com/pr/20040701001.html to http://www.ereleases.com/pr/20040701001.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Link disambiguation

I removed the boxes refering to ambiguous links as discovered by Wildbot, after fixing them (I hope). Thank you.

Vandalism

Somebody is trying to ruin this article. I previously added a significant amount of material in the "Influence" section. I am now viewing this article after a few months and that content is gone. I am not able to find it, but can someone please check and replace the content added by my previous account name, "Icantevennnnn". It was perfectly referenced and provided a better perspective. Someone, probably an indophobe, removed it and replaced with worse content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edirufksleidcao (talk • contribs) 13:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing section

The article is good in most ways but is missing a key section, namely a description of Krishnamurti's teachings. After all, this is the most important aspect of his life.Soler97 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

- Tad Boniecki

Good article

Good article guys. I’m glad it was fixed to say K was a speaker and writer. That’s what he wanted. He rejected being a philosopher Mr.K disciple (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Content

No offense but this article is pathetic. Substantial revision is needed to make it credible. A few obscure writers have been used as reference to cloud even simple facts such as his date of birth. An article on Krishnamurti without any reference to the sublime aspects of his teachings - the most sacred, otherness, benediction, nameless, eternal can only be described as shallow. Glaring errors about his role as the world teacher (which he never denied) are big bloopers. Almost every other website has a better write up. Onlyenquiry (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

reference missing - dead link?

The reference to the publications of Krishnamurti's conversations with David Bohm does not deleiver results. 2A02:A468:72C0:1:C86C:33EA:FAE:4564 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)