Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti

Interminably long and pointless biography of no relevance to K's impact, teaching nor legacy

An extraordinary amount of space and time is given over to even the most mundane events in this mans private life, and Biographers speculations into K's psychic inner states are cited as given facts. It reads as a biography discussing only the more paradoxical points of K's private life and pays little attention to his teachings or impact. I propose the biography section be abbreviated and consist of his Discovery and rearing for the coming world teacher, the dissolution, the shift in message and schedule of talks including public figures with the afterword and criticism section remaining as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GnogEsiw (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to answer this thread because I see it is been repeatedly used as an example of valid criticism. The originator also made the extra effort to put it on top. In my opinion, this only makes the glaring incosistencies more glaring. So as has been noted elsewhere on this page

The section heading. The reader seems to imply that a properly sized (according to?) and "non-pointless" bio should be "relevant" to the subject's impact etc. Apart from using vague terms, he basically asks for a shorter bio with what seems to me a less neutral position. The compound effect would be loss of objectivity.

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? Secondly, is there an implication that his private life is out of bounds? Strike two.

Then you have the misrepresentation: "Biographers speculations into K's psychic inner states are cited as given facts". That is false. All biographers' so-called "speculations" are presented properly as the biographer's (or their sources') own opinions. If you think the sources used in the article are not reliable or/and notable, why not provide some proof?

Finally, so how exactly does this reader want to repair the "interminable" length of the article? "I propose the biography section be abbreviated and consist of his Discovery and rearing for the coming world teacher, the dissolution, the shift in message and schedule of talks including public figures with the afterword and criticism section remaining as is." Is this even comprehensible? That's pretty much leaving the article intact.

I will not comment on the lack of other specifics, that I think is obvious.65.88.88.214 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree article needs a good amount of editing; half of the text is in references and bibliography rather than the article itself. I make no value judgement on the rest of your comment. 7daysahead (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, article size guidelines exclude footnotes and bibliographies (among other sections). Are you suggesting we should do away with sources and explanations to fit the article into someone's ideas about proper size? Some footnotes in this article are long. This is for info that is perhaps too detailed or directly relevant, but which nevertheless may still be helpful to readers. Especially in cases where linked Wikipedia pages are unsatisfactory, or the issue described is a bit obscure.65.88.88.214 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I was shocked to see what has happened to this article in the past two years. It has more than doubled in size, and as GnogEsiw observes, dwells on mundane events in K's life, with little attention to his teachings or impact. I'm not sure how to approach this, but I think that it needs to either be completely re-written, or reverted back to an earlier version (say, this one of 29 August, 2009). Sunray (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And where does the shock specifically lie? One indication is here: "It has more than doubled in size," So, long articles=bad articles? Not even the article size guidelines make that assertion, instead recommending articles to be judged on their merits.

Another: "as GnogEsiw observes, dwells on mundane events in K's life, with little attention to his teachings or impact." This, again asks for a non-neutral, hagiographical position. Does this mean that K should be treated as an exalted personage, incapable of going through mundanities?

And: "it needs to either be completely re-written, or reverted back to an earlier version (say, this one of 29 August, 2009)." Rewrite the whole article without providing a single specific? Edits don't happen in the abstract, they actually happen sentence by sentence. Also, why is the version you propose to revert to better? Does it have better/more sources? Is it using more objective language? Has it fewer errors? More proper layout? I definitely DON'T think so. 65.88.88.214 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is too long also. The subject sounds interesting. I'd like to know more. But I couldn't plow through this article. More people will read it (as opposed to starting to read it but giving up) if it is brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoveBoy (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

may i suggest then just reading the lead section. it's a good summary of the article. without irony or sarcasm i'd like to say, please come back for the full monty when your interest matches the time you have available and/or your attention span, it's not a big deal. the primary effort was to make the article complete, accurate and clear (these 3 are a single objective). personally i consider such an article more valuable than a more popular one that does not have these qualities. please believe me when i say that the errors, misrepresentations, and ommissions regarding the subject really surprized - this includes people who knew the subject well, scholarly works, reference sources etc. and then you have the believers and non-believers of various stripes who have a whole other agenda. so imagine the frontrunner in the US presidential election retiring because s/he thinks politics is a sham. or the dalai-lama to be, deciding when they reach adulthood, that tibetan buddhism is a fool's concern, and detrimental to tibet. or a certain, future king pre-emptively abdicating and turning against the idea of monarchy. etc. now in the case of krishnamurti, don't imagine it. perhaps you can see why this may require a longer explanation. that doesn't mean that the article is set. it's still a work in progress and all specific points raised will be addressed. thank you for reading as much as you could. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than having a ready response for any critical comment, 65.88.88.127, perhaps if you just tried listening. Each of these comments is by a user and is valid (because we are all equal here and everyone has a voice). Discussants on this talk page do not have to meet your criteria as to what constitutes a valid a comment. It is important not to fall into the problem of article ownership. I'm going to assume good faith about that, but I do hope you will be receptive to constructive criticism. Sunray (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

are you trolling for my responses? instead of telling me what to do, making presumptuous statements and unproven insinuations, you should maybe check your behavior. as noted elsewhere on this talk page, your attitude and actions are far from constructive. in the meantime, in this thread and others, there are older posts that beg your clear, unambiguous, specific responses. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good God! This is the first time I've checked this page since writing my humble above criticism. It's now 2:00 in the AM here and I'll address only a few points before hitting the sack because they're easy to handle. First, how petty of you to dismiss my critique and conclude that exerted any "extra effort" because it happens to exist at the top of the page. This is pure ad hominem argument. I could leave the point right there, but I'll take it one step further and be perfectly honest with you about an embarrassing fact. That is, I've never contributed to any wikipedia article nor discussion. In short, I really don't know what I'm doing!! Given my admitted ignorance, how on earth could I have known were the placement of it would be? I honestly was expecting it to be on the bottom. Secondly, you stated, "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?" Your problem is the exclusionary properties inherent in the word "only." Well, I'm sorry that you feel the need to quibble with a single word in order to dismiss the main thrust of the statement, which is (whether you agree or not) that your article is mundane and spends an undue amount on paradoxical points in his life that are of no real relevance. In my opinion, this only makes the glaring pettiness being used to support your intentions, more glaring. For example, the reference to Helen Knothe, bouts of bronchitis, early speaking style, his short stay at Cudappah, that his parents were second cousins, disappointment of Leadbeater and the Theosophists with the world teacher project, is beyond superfluous and reaches quite boldly and proudly into the highest peaks of what is unnecessary information. I'm glad you're so proud and eager to make us all aware of the knowledge you've accrued, but you've composed an extensively long hagiography. Not an encyclopedic article. Or perhaps it truly is of vital importance in an encyclopedic entry on Krishnamurti that his recurring bouts of malaria be made known. Lastly, before I hit the sack, as to my comment that biographers speculations were cited as facts. You must understand, that critique was made back in April and it's now almost September. The citation that I was referring to has since been deleted and I'll not reintroduce it for reasons that I'm sure you're aware of already. If you like, I'll argue the point more tomorrow sometime after I've consulted with the administration and trustees of KFA. Also, and I make a full admission here, I'll need to familiarize myself with wikipedia guidelines. I'm so sorry my comment appeared at the top of the page. I should have spent more time composing it. Goodnight.

Link disambiguation

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Continued unjustified insertion of templates

One editor is inserting the Template:Multiple issues to the article. According to this template's documentation, Usage: "Using all of the codes in the full syntax listing below is usually not required. Include only those parameters directly relevant to the issues of the particular article or section, and at the minimum, use at least two parameters; otherwise, use a single issue template instead." This has not been done.

Similarly, with the Template:Cleanup-reorganize. There has been no justification or explanation why the article needs this template, other than the editor's generalized opinions. The template can be inserted once it is minimally justified: why does the article need more than "small scale copy editing"? (from the usage section of the template).

Repeated attempts to have the editor explain his disruptive behavior are met with vague generalities and non-specific calls to follow this or that guideline. Thanks 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reorganized the template, listing the issues as parameters. Each of the issues has been raised on this page, dating back to April, 2011. Instead of collaborating, or even attempting to understand what other users are saying, 65.88.88.126 has rejected, out of hand, each of the comments made (to date, four users have commented) and seems to be acting as if s/he owns the article. Please leave the "multiple issues" template in the article until issues identified have been addressed. Sunray (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

every so-called "issue" that has been raised we responded to. it's time to stop using generalities and stop making mountains out of mole hills. be specific. every time you have posted on this page you got a detailed response. so, again be specific. we will see whether the template you inserted (in which you combined a previous template not originally inserted by you, how nice) will gain traction. in the meantime present proof that our attitude over the article (and several related others) is one of ownership and not stewardship. or, stop making accusations of ownership. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have responded--by caviling over minutiae. The basic stance you have taken has been one of rejection of all comments made by other users. There has been no hint of willingness to listen or collaborate. The policy on article ownership refers to "single editor ownership" and describes an editor who "... continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages revert wars." Demonstrably, you have done each of these. Would you be willing to change your approach?

I will be increasingly specific, but I will be looking for editors who wish to collaborate in improving this article. Will you be one? Sunray (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

well, then "demonstrate" where i have been "hostile", made "personal attacks", or engaged in "wars". specific, log-based instances that one can justify. don't just pick any revert without looking at its context nad present it as evidence. your constant insinuations and accusations without proof are uncivil. i have not "rejected" any comments. i put forth my pov against others'. that's what this page is for. you also seem to be hung up on collaboration. is that why wikipedia exists? to be a hobby for enthusiasts? or is it here to provide good info - the collaborative part is ancillary to that. in any case nobody is preventing anyone in editing. so by all means be specific on where the article needs further improvement. BUT follow the meticulous approach to notability, reliability and verifiability that has been taken to it in the past 2 years (style issues being secondary but by no means ignored). anything less will decrease the article. as its total views have NOT decreased during the last 2 years, and the complaints have been few (people are more vocal about their perceived dislikes) it's a fair assumption that this a tempest in a teapot. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

i can't answer for .126, but i just noticed that you changed the layout of this page, including the section title as originally created by .126. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT. this is not your talk page. if .126 thinks the templates you inserted are unjustified he has a right to say so, and you cannot censor him. you can respond properly. also, you removed text, again another editor's opinion. he has as much right to think your behavior disruptive as you have to believe he owns the article. i think you are the one to need some pointers. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored the section name and removed the personal attack tag. My opinion of finding Sunray's behavior disruptive was due to improper template insertion (no parameters) and as mentioned the repeated calls to justify all the various accusations. I also note that, not very cleverly, he accuses me of additionally removing the Template:Too long. I never removed that. His behavior, with all the false escalations of conflict (every day finding new faults, accusations of "ownership" without proof, leaving messages at the .126 talk page, and generally trying to build a non-existent case) is becoming increasingly intolerable. Thanks 65.88.88.126 (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

Having been occupied in other areas, I'm just now back to this. The issues identified by editors on this page, include the length of the article, the need to reorganize it with summary sections and the need for rewriting to adequately reflect Krishnamurti's unique contributions. Looking over the discussion, above, I think that editors of this article should work on finding a way to be collaborative. That will require respectful listening and refraining from personal remarks. Sunray (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

well, you could start with yourself, as (imo) you have been a main instigator. nothing has been "identified", except the length of the article. so ok, it's long ... and? this has been discussed above (at length) and nothing that has been said convinces me that this is an issue. as for the other stuff, we're still waiting for the specifics. btw, the editors of this article have been collaborating just fine. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

From your responses thus far on this page, nothing that has been said by other users has any validity whatsoever. What will you be willing to accept in the way of critical commentary? How could one begin to be able to enter into a dialogue with you? Sunray (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

why did you again start yet another section over the same issue? because it is the same discussion as above, it's not "multiple issues". i've noticed that when you don't want to respond you start another section or another thread within a section instead of continuing the discussion. so much for dialogue. how very convenient and transparent on your part.

so now you start yet another section rehashing the same non-issues that have been already been addressed several times. and again, as before, with misrepresentations, accusations, generalities, and platitudes. all this, and your improper editing of the layout of this page in order to conform with your opinions, make both your behavior and your objectives suspect. imo, you have shown you cannot be trusted, in general. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You continue making accusations. It is not helpful and I will not get into a dispute with you. This page is for discussion of article improvements. Would you be willing to stick to that? Sunray (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User improperly editing the layout of this talk page

this has been noted in #Continued unjustified insertion of templates. User:Sunray improperly edited the section heading and the contents starting here: 25 July 2011. the improper edits were reverted.
however a few days later he also edited #To split or not to split by improperly indenting another user's response. in effect User:Sunray made it appear that a 3rd party was responding to comments of ip 65.88.88.126, rather than generally commenting on the thread: the offending edit by User:Sunray is here: 27 July 2011.
please check the talk page history for more details. i want to point this out as this user's behavior has been in general manipulative and disruptive. any help on how to go about reporting this will be appreciated. (i'm not at all familiar with admin/complaint procedures). thanks. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored the improperly edited indentation. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sunray improperly removed this section (which describes her/his wrongdoing) as well, which i am now restoring. i think this is an admin issue now. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, it stays. I would welcome comments by an admin. You have been warned about personal attacks and ad hominem remarks, yet you continue. The essence of WP:NPA is stick to content, not the contributor. Raising legitimate concerns about the article does not constitute disruption. Please remove the statement "this user's behavior has been in general manipulative and disruptive." Sunray (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You don't get to decide whether a section or comment somebody else makes stays or not. This is not your user page. Following the manipulation both of the discussion and of this page to comply with your views, what can be reasonably expected of you as an editor? Afaic not neutrality, objectivity or forthrightness. I wonder whether you've used the same underhanded techniques in other pages you "identified" as problematic... aren't logs and time+date stamps great? In any case, yes, the imo single issue affecting this page (namely, your behavior) will have to be addressed. I'd rather be doing work here than having to waste my time in admin procedures, but I guess that's how it is. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)