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)

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)

Note: I have restored the above thread "Further editing" --> "To split or not to split," as it has not been dealt with and is currently under discussion (see Sections "Proposed approach" and "Length," below). Sunray (talk) 05:42, 2 November 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)

I think that it would be wise to request an RfC about this proposal. Sunray (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Imo, the only thing needing review here is your continuing, disruptive behavior. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive in attempting to talk about article improvements. Sunray (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed approach

This section is intended to be a compilation of actions needed to improve this article, based on views and discussion on this page. I will begin by suggesting a few steps we can take to address concerns raised. Concerns include: article length, length of notes section, need to place greater emphasis on his teachings and impact, layout (use of non-standard article headings), quality standards, etc. Here are some suggestions. Please feel free to add additional issues that need attention or comment on the order of doing things.

1. Condense particularly long sections
2. Remove non-essential elements, e.g., extensive quotations from Krishnamurti or other details of history less about him and more about the Theosophical Society
3. Review headings, re-order as needed using standard layout
4. Determine sections to be moved to separate articles or sub articles, with reference to guideline for summary style
5. Write summaries for these sections in the main article
6. Create sub articles; move content to related articles
7. Review/reduce notes section
8. Edit according to Good article criteria and/or Featured article criteria
9. Submit for assessment

It is important that we bear in mind that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Thus major changes to the article should be based on discussion and general agreement. Sunray (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

First you need to change your approach. You have repeatedly tried to manipulate this page and the discussion about the article. Everything you say has to be examined in light of your prior actions. You have shown that you are just not the person to be trusted into "approaching" anything. This new section, which rehashes all your previous unfounded arguments, and includes more patronizing platitudes about consensus, is a further example. Your behavior and your approach hasn't changed. As long as that is the case, there's no sense imo in going further. As for the details, no, there's no consensus about your proposals. A number of editors are working daily as volunteers and have been for almost 3 years, to improve the article where improvement is actually, specifically, needed. Reread the discussions above, and the archived ones. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to stick to content? If you have concerns with my behaviour, this is not the place to deal with it. As the statement at the top of the page says, this page is for discussing improvements to the article. I hope to get comments from editors who want to work on that. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not with you. Imo, your actions disqualify you from contributing any positive developmnt. As was remarked in the section above, "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?" That is still the case. This supposedly "new" section is proof. As was also remarked above, there are several previous threads that beg (for some time now) your unambiguous responses, being that you are so anxious to, you know, "discuss improvements". Some replies directed to you may have been archived by the bot, by all means start with those. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, you are trying to manipulate the page and the discussion by again censoring other editors and editing their comments (in the section above). I undid the improper editing yet again. This is another tactic of yours, before starting a new section dealing with the same indefensible issues: first you try to appear innocent by improperly editing the page. I mean, that's not even funny anymore. I don't think you belong here at all. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate, in case somebody new to this page comes to this section: the whole discussion and "proposals" is a thinly veiled attempt by a user who has improperly manipulated this page and the discussions here. There have been no issues raised as legitimate concerns; the said user, Sunray, has some opinions that s/he tries to portray as "issues" in order to make the article less complete and less neutral. The article has been recieving high ratings from readers (those that count), consistent number of views, and is constantly updated. Sunray's opinions have been replied to or addressed. Considering that this whole discussion was started by possible sockpuppets impinges on its viability. Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was deeply concerned when I first read this, but I decided to leave it for awhile as I was upset by the personal attack. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is civility. My attempt, on this page, has been to engage other editors to discuss ways of improving the article. Concerns have been raised about the article. Specifically, the length of the article is of concern to several editors This is now the longest non-list article in Wikipedia (35th longest overall). There has been discussion of the problems associated with the article's length and ways of dealing with that. In particular I have suggested the use of summary style. All suggestions have been rejected by 65.88.88.xxx. This seems to me to be a clear case of WP:OWN. Sunray (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Length

The article is way too long for comfortable editing and loading, mostly because of its code rather than content. {{italic}} and {{em}} can simply be substituted by '' symbols, this removes several dozens of transcluded templates and kbytes of code. (I understand the difference between these 3 ways, but it is way too subtle for the vast majority of readers and overloads the article with code). {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} can be substituted by – and — with the same effect and consequences, but again fewer templates and less code. 290kb is way too long, and much further work is needed to make the article friendly to other editors and readers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion for templates and code is at #Article structure & load times. By the way, 290kb was too long for an online document circa 1990, and for browser-rendered docs around 2002. If you have any proof that length is an actual problem please bring it at the section mentioned. I have loaded the article without any problem in a variety of OSs and browsers both fixed and mobile.65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion with my terse comments, let me stress that I am grateful to you for keeping this well-written article. Please consider that the above "discussions" mostly consist of comments by one editor, who might enjoy fast connection to the wikipedia servers (I have a fast connection, but experience delays when dealing with the code even on a reasonably "modern" PC). As I understand, the templates we are discussing have a "light weight" and the main issue is the sheer byte length of the code, i.e., downloading and uploading it when editing/viewing. To understand where this may come out, consider a standard vandalism scenario: a vandal hits a few points across the article and hits "save" without bothering what happens next. A recent change patroller has to load the diff of the edit to evaluate it, and with the recent frequent server connection problems this could be slow even on a normally fast line. Experience shows that if loading takes more than, say, 0.5-1 minutes, many editors simply abandon the task. Slow loading + complex code (nesting templates) may easily destabilize the article. This is visible to everyone, whereas I strongly doubt many editors appreciate the difference between, e.g., the output of {{italic}}, {{em}} and '' commands. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this more informative response. The main concern of myself and others who have been following the article for the past few years has been to provide an accurate and complete account. The reader is the first concern. Secondly, to provide a uniform, intuitive, documented editing experience in this and related articles (which are being worked on as I write this). Although wiki markup cannot compete with html or pro variants such as sgml etc. it provides adequate standardization for the purpose. Notice I'm referring specifically to editing, which is basically a markup function, and not to contributing, which has to do with content. Wiki markup is also easy and I think more intuitive. I believe any random editor will understand what {{italic|this}} means faster that what ''this'' means. The {{em}} template has been used according to the MOS and Template:em guidelines for emphasis, and is there as an indication of non-trivial attribution. And also, the listing of templates at the bottom of the edit screen can lead you directly to documentation.

I think that section editing takes care of the raw byte uploading - there is very little need to edit the whole article (which in any case should be done on a text editor or word processor). It is also good to be serious as an editor: learn wiki editing. As it is also good to be serious as a contributor: learn your subject. And as a reader: if you are truly interested, find the time to go carefully through the article. After all it is a difficult and serious subject.

I appreciate the hypothetical vandal scenario, but I also trust some excellent change patrollers that are specifically concerned with the article: a number of frequent contributors and myself. Personally, I find the over-reliance on bots lazy and dangerous.

Thanks. 65.88.88.126 (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist: I agree with your efforts to clean up some of the code for this article. I would question your conclusion that "the above "discussions" mostly consist of comments by one editor, who might enjoy fast connection." First of all several editors have commented, but have been dismissed by IP 65.88.88.xxx. There are few who will to try to discuss issues in such an environment. Secondly, my concerns are not with the loading of the article, but with its quality. The length of an article is not usually correlated to its readability, which is, first and foremost, our prime task as editors. Sunray (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

i had expected you to come around again, after the bot had archived threads with the tiresome comments, to say nothing of the evidence of your wrong-doing here. guess i was partially wrong. you could have at least waited for some more sock puppets to drop by. fine, let's have the next tirade.65.88.88.214 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets? Until proven as sock puppets, all users who comment civilly are welcomed on article talk pages. Furthermore at least two of those who commented are long-time editors of Wikipedia. Once again, I request that you confine your comments to content, not the contributor. Would you be willing to do that? Sunray (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

did you learn that there is nothing civil about manipulating talk pages to ram in your opinion as you have done here? did you additionally learn that this behavior has nothing to do with content and everything to do with you? did you think that your unfortunate return was unexpected after the archiving of the threads with the probable evidence of sock puppets and with all the unanswered replies to your so-called "concerns"? no? ok. 65.88.88.214 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with comments by Materialscientist and Sunray. The article is way too long for comfortable editing and loading I agree with efforts to clean up some of the code. I am also concerned that the quality and readibility of the article has been adversely affected by article length. Where possible sub-articles should be split off, using WP:Summary style. Johnfos (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

such declarations of agreement or disagreement mean nothing if they are not backed by facts and reasoned argument. teh discussion has progressed past Materialscientists's comments. they have been replied to in this thread and the thread "Article size & load times" above, as well as the message box of info for editors. yes, there is an opposing side to this that you seem to ignore. don't just drop statements and then disappear; read EVERYTHING on this page, to inform yourself and give the bulk of your time to views opposite your own. after all you know YOUR opinions well. you don't have the time? sorry, then make time, or else let those who are seriously concerned about this do some work. this excludes Sunray. her/his manipulation of this page as documented in threads here and the logs is obvious and it basically amounts to vandalism. s/he has no response to arguments opposing him; therefore he resorts to manipulation, and has been in vain trying to muster support for her/his flimsy positions, latching on to every argument a third-party (like you or Materialscientist etc.) makes, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the replies to the arguments s/he puts forth (much like you did). i again respectfully ask you to carefully read EVERYTHING, and then present a proper argument. we'll be glad for anybody who is SERIOUS (that is, willing to devote attention, time, and resources) to join in. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Have added a "too long" tag which says exactly what the problem is, and what should be done about it. Johnfos (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

no, that's another declaration. where is the proof that the article is 1. hard to read and 2. hard to navigate? just because you slap a template does not prove anything. oh, and btw, article size is not a problem, and neither it is policy. this is a non-issue, as is your proposed solution. in the space of 2 comments you have already moved your target: first it was the markup you had problems with (code, templates, page load when editing etc). now it is readability and navigation. so what is it? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

i see that you are now using some of Sunray's language, describing the article as "bloated" (without any explanation) and repeating his edit summaries almost word for word. nice move! 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I pared back Fanny Crosby quite substantially a couple of months ago, including switching the citation style. I still pop in there and reduce a bit more as and when but it is c. half the size that once it was, with a concomitant relative ease of access. I am happy to do the same here if needed. Which it appears to be. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

abstractions such as "ease of access" don't mean anything. the article has a consistent number of views. it loads just fine in a bunch of platforms both fixed and mobile. it was getting consistently high marks when the feedback tool was active. it has over 200 watchers. what it doesn't have is justification for the continuing harrasment over non-issues such as size. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is overlong, it takes a minute or more to load at the moment here in the UK (20Mbps connection at my end, but of course it has to go through umpteen other places first), the detail could easily be split out as has been done for the bibliography and - if you want me to be brutally honest - it reads like an academic monograph of the type that might precede a PhD thesis. It is extremely well written and extremely well researched - but it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Well, not as I see it at any rate. It might be worth you reading consensus. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

it takes more than a minute to load? this is extraordinary for a 20mb connection and likely nothing to do with wikipedia - the "umpteen places" are most likely routing hops and cache servers and have nothing to do with this issue. did you even read the rest of this talk page? subsequent loads will almost always happen from the browser cache... so it is only the 1st load that may or may not be "more than a minute" - and that is not consistent. but let's humor this and say that it does indeed consistently take a minute to load. if you cannot wait a minute for anything, how can you acquire an informed opinion? this is not for dilettantes or cliff-notes "readers", it's a different kind of article. so be patient. as for the rest - more abstractions - what exactly is the "spirit" of wikipedia? what is wrong with "extremely well written and extremely well researched" articles, even if in your opinion read like monographs? do you see that this is incosistent with the rest of your arguments? as for the consensus, it has for a long time been the consensus of contributors and editors of this article that accurate completeness is the primary objective. the concensus of readers seems to indicate the same thing. as has been said many times before, people are more apt to comment on something they disagree with with, so the occasional argument about a non-issue like size may crop up, mainly from people who do drive-by reading or who are rigidly fixed on a guideline. i don't see anything in your argument or Johnfos' 1-sentence declarations that has sufficient merit. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not getting into the technicalities, and the systemic bias you show is poor form - what about the huge chunks of the world's population who are on really slow connections? I have not looked for the consensus because I understand that there has been some concern about socking here (no idea if there is any truth to it), so I thought it best to start over. Right now, there is consensus of sorts to amend the code style and there the option of forking is pretty much in the balance. Let's see what others say about both, especially those who are from places other than the 65.88.88.* range.

It is very easy to become protective of something that you have worked on for a long time and, yes, you can be proud of this article; but that does not mean that it is without fault. As a really minor point that I spotted, somewhere it says something like "his works are still available, including from major general and online retailers". The bit from "including" onwards can go - it serves no useful purpose as far as I can see. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

you are moving the target again. so now it's not about you, but some crying innocents. the "vast chunk" on slow connections have reduced online experience in general. the re is a vast swath of the internet that is slow for them. if you want to do something worthwhile, work towards giving them faster connections, not towards diminishing the online experience of everybody else, that is a form of censorship. the phrase you misread (typical) is "Many of his books as well as audio, video, and computer materials, remain available and are carried by major online and traditional retailers." availability does not necessarily mean commercial availability - that indicates a level of interest very different from being able to find his works in a library. it is good to stop and think about how to make the article precise, helpful and complete for the reader, don't you think? finally, stop disrupting the article with indiscriminate reverts. they are unjustified. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

for somebody with excruciatingly slow connection to this article you (and others) seem to have no problem reverting the full article (without justification). how does this fit in your argument? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take me to ANI or somwhere, please, if you feel that strongly about the revert. After reading WP:OWN, of course. All this technical bumpf is irrelevant here: the user experience is bad. In reverting you I had my entire editing experience locked up for far too long. I've had exactly this sort of technical twaddle thrown at me on other articles: in every case, consensus formed that the article be modified to improve speed/reduce length. We do not all live in the centre of a major US city etc, nor do we all have the latest, greatest piece of computing kit. Consensus for change re: length/complexity will form here, too, I pretty much guarantee it.

I did not misread anything, btw. I made it abundantly clear that I was paraphrasing. But since you raise the point, "major inline and traditional retailers" = commercial availability. It could be phrased better. I am no idiot, so if I do think it confusing and/or redundant then please accept that it may in fact be so. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

well first, you brought on this "technical bumpf" about it being slow. secondly, there is no reason to edit the whole article at once, that is why there's section editing. did you read my previous comments in the reply to Materialscientist? well please do. it is not my concern what has been "thrown at you" elsewhere. nothing is thrown at you here: it's called an opposing opinion. how do you know that i am using the latest and greatest computing equipment? i am not. you are in the minority among all the readers of this article. the article is not inordinately slow to load, and size is a non-issue. concensus about length and complexity has already been established. and again in your haste you misread my comment. "major online and traditional retailers" = commercial availability. that is what i was saying above. works just being available could mean a library, a museum or free. so the "major online and traditional retailers" was put in there to indicate the commercial interest. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the article to say "commercially available" or "available, including commercially". Take your pick, but the major online etc is not required. I suggest that you do not delay in replying because I think that you may shortly have a problem editing here. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

no, that's not enough either. anyone with an ebay or google marketplace account and paypal access can call themselves an "online merchant". it has to be clarified that these retailers are not amateurs or fly-by-night operators. your proposed edit will leave the article less complete and less encyclopedic. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Who cares what the standing of the retailer etc is? Apart from you and yours (the "we" to whom you keep referring). It is a ridiculous pedantry. I am beginning to wonder if you might be too close to this subject matter. That does not stop you contributing to it, of course, but sometimes you need to distance yourself in order to see just how trivial things can be. In any event, I am not responding further to this point. It was intended as a minor example of improvement but you are literally arguing over three or four words. The issue will most likely will go away via the proposed revert (even if some is then reinstated, per Sunray's suggestion). There is an element of human nature involved in this: the more you argue in this vein, then the more likely it is that I'll simply not bother doing what I promised (ie: reviewing the diff) & simply decide to agree with the proposal. You can wear someone down with intransigence or you can reinforce their self-belief: I'm not the sort of person who gets worn down. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

you are the one who started on this "ridiculous pedantry" in your [20:26, 2 November 2011] comment. you picked on this "minor point". it was explained to you why the phrase is there, because every single word contributed to this article has been examined and justified according to the situation as it presented itself at the time. so after a few comments back and forth, the best you could come up with was a difference of literally 2 words: "major online". guess what, there's a reason for that too, however trivial you may think it is. so respond to the reasoning, and stop trying to divine what my motivations are and what sort of person i am. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Four editors have now expressed concerns, in this thread, about the need to streamline this article. All agree with Materialscientist's edits as being helpful in that regard. Materialscientist has explained the reasons for the change, and Sitush has confirmed the loading problem. In addition, Johnfos has expressed concerns with the length of the article presenting readability problems, as have Steven Walling (in an earlier thread) several other users on this page and I. I am very tired of the allegations that 65.88.88.127 continues to make against me, and other editors, which are unwelcome, abusive and contrary to Wikipedia behavioral policies. However I will pursue that in places other than this thread.

The net result of this discussion is that there is consensus to approve Materialscientist's changes. All editors now need to respect those changes. Sunray (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

there is absolutely no consensus regarding the above. all readers' comments mentioned above have been replied to, with ample reasoning given regarding the state of the page as worked on according to the infox "Information for Editors" at the top of the page. all the evidence is right here on this talk page. there is no sufficient or compelling reason to disrupt the article, other than the fact that Sunray, who has abused this page repeatedly, has some unspecified problem with it, even after all the detailed replies. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus. The problem is your ownership. Now, I suggest that you drop this particular stick because it will go nowhere. I've seen this type of situation before and yours is a perfectly understandable response, but in every case it has ended with consensus to make quite substantial changes. This is no different, but if you want to appeal to a higher place then WP:DRN might be the one. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

this is "no particular stick". you have not justified your proposed changes, and you constantly evade specifics. the talk about "consensus" is meaningless. but as you mention, this has moved imo beyond the parameters of this talk page. so it will be pursued elsewhere. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been presented by 65.88.88.127 that would, in any way affect the consensus for the changes. Sunray (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to revert back to August 2009 version

It is clear that simple splitting of this article using WP:SS is not going to overcome some of the central problems associated with this very bloated and long-winded article. There is a considerable amount of very detailed historical material that simply needs to be deleted, not just split off, and this reflects the views of several editors above. For example, Sunray has said:

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)

I support Sunray's suggestion of reversion to 29 August 2009, as this would remove the worst excesses of the current version, and cut down the length consdierably in a way that would make the article more encyclopedic. Johnfos (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1. where, in your opinion, are the "worst excesses"? 2. where, in your opinion, is the article non-encyclopedic? 3. why, in your opinion, is this older version of the article better and more conforming to wikipedia than the current one? in accordance with wikipedia policies on conduct and civility, i expect your answer. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I need some time to compare the diff. Is that ok? I am talking a few days here, not a couple of hours. This is not a subject area regarding which I have a lot of knowledge but any opinion from me would be on policy/guideline grounds. There is no doubt that the article is at present bloated etc but there is the risk of losing some good stuff while throwing out the bad. Sure, it is still there in the history & can be retrieved, but it is a cost/benefit thing: is it more realistic to revert or to remove & then reinstate anything of merit. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no worries, Sitush. I appreciate that you have some experience in these matters and that you are willing to look at this. Perhaps I should have said using the August 2009 version as the basis for the new article. Obviously we don't want to throw out any good material. Johnfos (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

my comment above on this thread applies here too. expecting your reply with specific examples. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am away this weekend but will take a copy of the diff with me (wild Wales, crap internet access). Ping me early next week if I have not responded. I doubt that a few more days makes much difference to the present situation but, obviously, if consensus forms anyway then Just Do It.^TM - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Johnfos is right when he says it is going to be much easier to go back to the 2009 version to begin with. However, despite the inordinate length, there has been considerable good work done since then. The other idea that has gained some tractionon this page is the use of summary style. I suggest we combine the two approaches: First reverting to the 2009 version, then taking the current version and creating subarticles with the content and writing summary sections for the main article. Comments? Sunray (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

well ofcourse there is no "consensus". not from those who actually worked on the article for the past 2+ years. as it has been repeatedly commented here, you are the last person to be trusted with editing anything at all. as for your pre-arranged "consensus" with Sitush and Johnfos, that's another story altogether. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I will pretend that I do not know what it is you are accusing me of doing. Nonetheless, please do not do it here - take it to WP:ANI, WP:SPI or wherever you choose. If you make another unsubstantiated and indeed ridiculous accusation like this then I'll escalate the issue myself. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ofcourse we are going to bring this to others' attention. this is not a threat, it is what anyone who worked on something for over 2 years would be expected to do. we have to present a proper case so that will take a little time. i can assure anybody that the case will be as meticulous, verifiable, and properly documented, as our work on the article has been, and will cover all the bases. in the meantime, you can prove your good faith by replying to my comment on the previous thread (regarding "major online retailers"). feel free to also reply to my questions to Johnfos. that's what the policies on conduct and civility require. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever used WP:Twinkle? I can file a SPI inside five minutes with that thing. OTOH, if you take it to ANI then remember WP:TLDR. I'm not sure why that piece of advice came into my head ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

we don't really need your advice. the above and other comment's overall tone is one of the things that has to be addressed. i am not going to further respond to this, however i do expect some answers to my questions to Johnfos (you may answer them too) on this thread. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Four other editors (Materialscientist, Sunray, Johnfos, and Sitush) made it clear that this edit was an appropriate way to reduce article loading problems due to its bloated size. You unilaterally reverted this eight times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) and no doubt would have continued if an admin hadn't stepped in. If you think you're entitled to behave that way because you've been working on this article extensively for two years, you have WP:Ownership issues and need to re-think what the policies on conduct and civility require. Acknowledging the inappropriateness of those actions to your fellow editors here would be a good start. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

i will respond to this once since you are new and just dropped in. "we" are myself and two other people who edit this article and about a dozen other pages related to it. we also regularly search wikipedia for any other references to Krishnamurti that include errors or misrepresentations and correct those. our editing takes place solely from New York Public Library ips, usually 65.88.88.126/127 but also .46 .173 .200 or .214. according to WP:BRD the original edit by Materialscientist was reverted with explanation: the new thread #Article structure & load times. a discussion with Materialscientist ensued (here: #Length) where we pointed out that the code Materialscientist was refering to was lightweight with no discernible real-world difference to load times. and that was that. until Sunray (not an editor of this page) intervened (again). take the time to read this talk page to get some insight on Sunray's actions (or wait for our ANI report). then see if the attitude towards this article is one of WP:OWN or WP:OAS. the other readers (not editors) mentioned (Sitush and Johnfos) just came here to support Sunray. Johnfos reactivated this thread and his edit summary on a rv was identical to Sunray's. Sitush's position is another moving target, without any acknowledgement of the merits of the responses. basically they're trying to railroad unjustifiable changes and rather clumsily provoked the edit war. first be informed: read everything on this page. your attitude in this first posting of yours is not civil. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I did read the page before commenting above; your response indicates you still believe you were justified in unilaterally reverting four other editors. I'm sorry, but discussing it on the talk page while you continue to repeatedly revert (eight times total) is inappropriate unless you are reverting vandalism or a WP:BLP violation. You can try to blame Material Scientist, Sunray, Johnfos, and Sitush for "clumsily provoking" an edit war but in the end, you are the one who edit warred and edit warring is de facto uncivil behavior. You may disagree, but the admin who protected the page to prevent further warring on your part made the right call. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

if you had paid attention you would have seen that we never accused Materialscientist of provoking a war or anything else - we were in the middle of discussion when Sunray intervened. let's end this here, please. you are more than welcome to comment on our ANI complaint when it is submitted. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrative comments of a bystander:

• This page is reserved for discussions aiming to improve the relevant article(s). Please take any personal matters elsewhere.
• Length is an issue here, which can't be resolved by coding, but requires changes in content. I hope the anonymous editors realize that and help (or take initiative) in this matter. There are several general approaches: (i) split some sections into subarticles, (ii) streamline the bibliography and notes, which I think are too detailed, (iii) various intermediate solutions. Materialscientist (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

so please explain where the issue with length is? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now compared the proposed 2009 version to that of today. The earlier version does indeed look like a good (although imperfect) starting point and, yes, summary style is the way to go. Determining what to reinstate from the many contributions since that date will be tricky but definitely worth the effort. As Materialscientist points out, the notes etc are excessive and many of those can probably stay out of the revised article. They'll still be there in the history and, of course, because of CC-BY-SA there is nothing to stop someone grabbing the lot and displaying the present version on some other website. I admire the scholarship but Wikipedia is not an appropriate medium for such depth of detail. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

notice the incosistencies and ambiguity in this comment. the same reader had commented above that the article as it stands is "extremely well written" and "extremely well researched" [Sitush, 19:36, 2 November 2011]. it follows that to make the article better you have to make even more well written and even more well researched edits. but no. for some unspecified reasons, a random version from the past is "imperfect" but "good as a starting point"? why exactly pick that version? a starting point towards what? a version like the present one? and why is this "worth the effort"? what is it to be achieved here? 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. There is no inconsistency. It is too long, regardless of how well written/researched it may be. The 2009 version is imperfect but a decent starting point for fixing the issues. You really do need to get over this ownership issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

length is no issue at all. as for the continuing accusations of ownership, you will have all the opportunity to provide proof in the appropriate forum. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of infobox that is no longer applicable

Since Johnfos has reverted the article back to the 2009 version, the infobox that had been added by 65.88.88.127 no longer applies to the current article. As it would be confusing to a reader who isn't aware of recent developments, I don't see a rationale for it being there. Comments? Sunray (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the infobox. No matter which version of the page we have, I can't see that an infobox like that is helpful. It just engenders feelings of ownership in the person who wrote it. Thankfully, now, activity on the page is being opened up to new editors and new ideas, which I think is very healthy. This page has gone too far in the wrong direction for too long. Johnfos (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting point

As Sitush has said, the "earlier version does indeed look like a good (although imperfect) starting point" for resolving the issues with this article. Have now taken the WP:Bold step of reverting to 29 August 2009, to see what this would look like. Obviously we don't want to lose any good material so this can be judiciously added back in, or put in a sub-article. I think one obvious sub-article could be Early years of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Johnfos (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I support this approach. Sunray (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is in the middle of a dispute, yet User:Johnfos goes against all wikipedia notions of good conduct and civility by this major restructuring of the article, removing 2/3 of the raw size and over that in body text. while refusing to acknowledge opposing opinions, answer questions posed to him (example in #Proposal to revert back to August 2009 version) or engage in meaningful discussion. this is not an example of WP:OWN?!? this edit of his is not bold; it is provocative and arrogant. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So are you going to discuss the proposal or attack other editors? Sunray (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)