Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti

Sloppy Editing

When changing/removing items in the article please consider the possible linkages, and how the article as a whole is affected. This is a long article with many sections and links both internal and external, and a certain style of presentation. Be thorough and take care your edits do not leave "orphan" (ie dead) or incoherent links and items! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.227 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Reverts Regarding Theosophy

Consensus was reached months ago regarding the inclusion of certain material which was slanting the article towards a theosophical perspective by an anonymous user, now apparently editing under a new IP number. The quote, which references the world teacher and the "Christ" was footnoted rather than being included in the main article. Sach.b (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i don't see any slant in a clarification made by krishnamurti, that depends on your pov. as far as i can see that the material has been part of the article for a long time and more than a year. trying to hide it in a footnote does not achieve anything. you are probably mistaking this for something else.

Right, it depends upon whether you have a theosophical agenda, which is why the remark was originally removed from the main article after a protracted edit war. Also, you are not supposed to go ahead and revert again before engaging in a discussion and you need to sign your replies. Sach.b (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

you are talking to the wrong person. i see that the consensus was in favor of keeping this clarification looking back two years. we also have no way to know whether krishnamurti had a theosophical agenda or not. that is again a pov. as long as the article is well sourced it can stay and it provides a good clarification to the modern k admirers who try to disown parts of history they dislike. that is the reason i reverted your footnote since you seemed to want to bury facts.

122.110.40.48 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote in "Break With The Past" Section

"You must become liberated not because of me but in spite of me." [Krishnamurti speaking at the annual Order of the Star Camp, Eerde (Ommen), Holland, June 30, 1927].[56]

My objections to the above: 1) It sticks out like a sore thumb and looks awkward. 2) It sounds Messianic and should be placed in context. The fact that it is from a 1927 Star camp and not the 1929 camp causes a break in continuity with the other material. 1929 is when he made the official break. 3) There's already enough (too much?) material in this section. Even more quotes should probably be taken out. What is the reason for keeping it? Sach.b (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with most of what you said. Noticed that somebody else also removed it, but anon user 65 has restored it again. I have no objection to the quote provided it is placed in the right context. I don't mind people adding quotes provided the added material adds more clarity. This one looks like a koan with no clue of the context in which Krishnamurti made this statement. 207.233.110.67 (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

There is continuing confusion regarding the birth date as yet another user has changed the date of birth. As explained in his official bio and it appears as a footnote in the article, the birth date according to the western calendar is May 12. Since this is the dating scheme followed by the article I think it should stay at that. In the brahmin calendar it was still the previous day (which in brahmin terms was not in "May", on the "11", or in the year "1895"). Also, he died sometime in the early hours of February 17. According to the brahmin calendar that could be the previous day, what in western terms would be the 16th. For consistency's sake, I undid the user's birthdate edit. Any other info/comment is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

UN

There is continuing dispute regarding Krishnamurti's talk at the UN, but it is not clear why. He was invited there by the Pacem in Terris chapter. As he says in the beginning of the talk, available both on video at Youtube and also on text as pointed at the relevant footnote, he was invited "...to speak on world peace beyond the 40th anniversary of the United Nations". At the end of the talk, the president of the Society presents him with the "1984 Peace Medal". The fact that the 1984 recipient of the Pacem in Terris Award is missing, maybe because Krishnamurti did not make an acceptance speech , and, as a previous editor noted, seems to ignore the presentation. The relevant portion starts at 6m58s of the video source posted. By the way, I don't understand why that reference was removed. The fact that he did not make an acceptance speech is not speculation. And if he did not formally accept the medal, he would not be in the listing of recipients. I ask that the "dubious" tag be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No responses yet, I see. Even if two "editors" were really quick to remove info+relevant links (Goethean and The Ringess) - and assign inappropriate tags (Goethean). The "dubious" tag is not justified, as user 216.194.22.57 inserted a PRIMARY source (video) of the event. A tag of "incomplete" or "non-specific" would be more appropriate, but only if you're lazy or can't be bothered with the article. If you actually care enough to edit, go through the offered source and see if it is valid, see if it can be presented better, don't take a blunt axe to it. This also goes for the removal of the Pacem in Terris link - 5 seconds of searching would have sufficed to recognize that the page does exist, another 5 to link it properly. The reason there was given as "removal of external link". And that is supposed to mean what? As for the award page, this is not offered as a citation (ie proof/source) but as information of what this award is about. There is no need of further proof when the verbatim transcript (linked in the footnote) contains all the relevant info, to say nothing of the later added video.

I am reinstating user's 216.194.22.57 edit with more specific info. I am also removing the unjustified tags. I'd like to say that I don't care at all for the UN info. I didn't put it there, and imo it is no more relevant than any other talk JK gave. Its appearance in the article strikes me as trying to portray the subject as something he said he abhorred - a celebrity or a VIP, an "achiever" to be honored, and it diminishes his message and the article by using up valuable real estate. But if it is to be removed, let it be removed because it is superfluous, not because it is false.

I wish Goethean and TheRingess all the best with their "editing" efforts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wasting your time. It is clear to me that user TheRingess does not understand the tentative nature of the word "seem". Any reasonable person, after watching the video, could easily conclude that Krishnamurti indeed "seems" to want to have nothing to do with this medal, which he immediately puts on the table, leaves it there, and proceeds to the exit. I doubt that anybody would conclude that it "seems" that Krishnamurti accepts the medal. Also if I may add, if such tentative commentary is to be expunged from a footnote in the article, then a whole lot of the article itself, including the majority of footnotes, should be re-written. Don't expect people who just delete things for dubious reasons (rather than doing the hard work of editing) to fix that issue. These double standards are what made me give up on this article and Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.82.44 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a multitude of problems with your comments, ranging from incivility to the use of primary materials which is specifically forbidden by Wikipedia policy. The entire UN episode is worded deceptively and should be removed. 208's thoughts on what JK "seems" to do in a Youtube video are not appropriate to this or any other Wikipedia article. I suggest that both of you familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policy and guidelines. — goethean ॐ 19:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the sentence in the intro about K receiving the peace award, except that it is not quite accurate. According to the info in the Australian transcript the meeting took place on April 11, 1985 [or April 17 according to Mary Lutyen's biography of K], which does fall within the timeframe of the UN 40th anniversary celebrations (the UN organizational conference began on April 25, 1945), but at that time he was still 89, a month short of his 90th birthday. The anon interpretive comments in the footnote are not appropriate because they constitute OR, as Goethean stated, but I think it is fine to leave the link to the You Tube video as a primary source. WP does not forbid use of primary sources, but a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims not interpretive claims. For what its worth (nothing), I think K put the medal on the table so he could shake hands. We could argue that ad infinitum and that is why such commentary is inappropriate. --Blainster (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the text is deceptive. By putting the text in the intro, it is implied that this was a major accomplishment of JK's. It was not. Saying that JK "spoke at the UN" implies that he spoke at an official UN event, without actually saying so. There is no citation verifying the text. Where are the UN records verifying this speech, this award, this organization? The citation for the text in the body of the article (#98) goes to krishnamurtiaustralia.org, which is not a reliable source. Google brings up very little or nothing which is not from Krishnamurti follower sites like krishnamurtiaustralia.org. The text should be immediately removed and should remain so until it can be written more accurately and reliable sources can be found to back up the claims. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, youtube videos which infringe on copyrights should not be linked to. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Google News search — goethean ॐ 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please. This is ridiculous. Is a news search on Google evidence that something did not happen? Why would anybody give credence to that when there's actual video of the event?

Wow. I didn't realize this would evolve like this. I linked the Youtube video as a primary source material, in order to give some clarity to the article claim. As was noted, primary sources are not only allowed by Wikipedia, they are encouraged (first-hand evidence etc etc). The video in question is NOT copyrighted, and further more it is LINKED rather than inserted, which weakens the false copyright claims even more.

Primary sources should be examined. If TheRingess and Goethean what bothered to do the simple editorial task (since they want to edit the article) they would have seen the evidence. This was at the UN, it was part of the 40th anniversary celebrations, the Pacem in Terris Society extended the invitation, other UN-related people were invited (mr. Miller and Ms Barrs), and so on. Most of this is in the introduction.

I also added the commentary because I thought it seemed JK just ignored the medal. It is customary to give a short speech of acceptance, or at least acknowledge the honor. He just left. I thought my comment was descriptive rather than interpretative, and as noted, purposefully tentative in the description. As another user has written, there's plenty of commentary in the article that seems much more interpretative than my comment. If it's gonna make everybody cry murder though, might as well leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.170 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)