Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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 I exerted any "extra effort" because it happens to exist at the top of the page. That is pure ad hominem. 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 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.--GnogEsiw (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (edit: How do I sign this?)

You protest too much. Clicking on the "new section" tab automatically places your section at the bottom. Clicking on "edit" tab automatically places your (unsectioned) edits at the top, above whatever banners and template messages exist. Apparently you knew enough to do neither. So before we continue with what looks like a splendid discussion, how did your brand new, properly formatted section, appear at the top? Just curious. 65.88.88.200 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, in all earnestness, I simply don't know what you're talking about? I just don't. I can't prove it, nor can you prove the contrary. Look, its embarrassing that I don't know what you're talking about. Computer techs make fun of my illiteracy and girls point their fingers and laugh. In fact, my last girlfriend left me for an employee of Best Buy's Geek Squad. Now, you may wish to dispute this, but I tell you that I'm stupid. Stupid I tell you!! STUPID!! In fact, can I just delete my above critique and turn this over to someone with a brain? Or has it already been saved on someone's hard drive wishing to further the edit war here? When I recently started to re-follow this page I noticed that the discussion was deleted one day and then magically reappeared the next. I mean, I'm obviously wrong. My "intentional" placement of my comment at the top is proof. Okay, sarcasm aside, I don't know if you were serious when you made the "splendid discussion" comment, but if you were and would like to discuss something of relevance, I'm open. (late edit) You're probably right that clicking new section places it at the bottom. I must have done something to move it on accident. I noticed that when I clicked the "sign your posts" thing, it wanted to redirect me away from the page. Perhaps, and this is a habit of mine when I see messages like that, perhaps I got a message like that in April, copied my comment so that I don't accidentally delete it, clicked to navigate away from the page and then came back and pasted it at that top not knowing what I was doing. But, I really don't know. GnogEsiw (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize for your level of computer literacy, GnogEsiw. I've yet to meet anyone on these pages without technical limitations of some sort and we can all learn. What matters here is constructive comments related to the article. As I said above, we are all equal here. While on the one hand you may be learning to sign your posts, on the other you may have something instructive to say about the article. I happen to agree with what you said at the top of this section and I note that several others have made similar comments on this page. There are a number of things we can do to improve the article. At the top of the page is a box that lists some of the most important Wikipedia policies that govern discussion on talk pages. It will be important that we all keep these in mind in our discussions. I'm glad you have taken the time to comment here. I hope you will stick around. Sunray (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole thread maybe bogus and a complete waste of time. It is the sole contribution of the originator (User:GnogEsiw) to Wikipedia. It also includes the single contribution of User:CoveBoy. I suspect sock- or meatpuppetry. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL The contributors proposition: "This whole thread maybe bogus and a complete waste of time." His supportive argumentation for why: "It is the sole contribution of the originator." Well, that's case closed. He also says that he suspects meat-puppetry.

Do you have something to say, Mr. IContributeOften?GnogEsiw (talk) 01:46, 23 September 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)

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)

I'm afraid I had to return to this, as Sunray continues to try to censor others and manipulate the page. His disruptive behavior continues, and again his whitewash had to be reverted. Just before he started the new section, he again edited other's comments here (it seems to be part of his m.o.). 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that sockpuppet accounts (see top section "Interminably long... etc" above) seem to have been involved in this discussion of issues related to these templates, I think it's high time that some specifics are put forth in place of unsupported generalities such as "rewrite the entire article", "fix the layout" etc. The next phase of presentation (involving use of citation templates, single-edition refs, separate text-and-ref, re-checking of sources etc) is being prepared now and should be in place within the next couple of weeks. The "multiple issues" template has been up for months; no specific issues have been identified since then. It won't stay there forever without justification. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

removed. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Master-Krishnamurti.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Master-Krishnamurti.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)