Jump to content

Talk:The First and Last Freedom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.243.247.14 (talk) at 15:24, 25 January 2023 (→‎Revision 1135569984: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Literature / Eastern / Contemporary Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophical literature
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
Taskforce icon
Contemporary philosophy

Some sources describe this as K's first published book, rather than the second as described in the article. Please verify which is correct. --Blainster 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, it seems whether First and Last Freedom is considered K's first book depends on whether At the Feet of the Master was actually written by K or his mentor, C.W. Leadbeater. --Blainster 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The First and Last Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The First and Last Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The First and Last Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

|via= removal from select sources

An editor removed this parameter from the following references:

  • Heshusius, Lous (April 1994). "Freeing Ourselves from Objectivity: Managing Subjectivity or Turning toward a Participatory Mode of Consciousness?". Educational Researcher. 23 (3). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association: 15–22. doi:10.3102/0013189X023003015. eISSN 1935-102X – via SAGE journals. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kang, Chris (June 2003). "A psychospiritual integration frame of reference for occupational therapy. Part 1: Conceptual foundations". Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 50 (2). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing: 92–103. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1630.2003.00358.x. eISSN 1440-1630 – via Wiley Online Library. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kelman, Harold (January 1956). "Life history as therapy: Part II; On being aware". The American Journal of Psychoanalysis. 16 (1). New York: Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis: 68–78. doi:10.1007/bf01873714. ISSN 0002-9548 – via Springer Link. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kennedy, Tina (2001). "'I Too of the Wild Hills': Experience, Meaning, and Place". Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. 63. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press: 9–24. doi:10.1353/pcg.2001.0019. ISSN 0066-9628 – via Project MUSE. Presidential Address delivered to the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 63rd Annual Meeting, Areata, California, September 16, 2000 {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).

According to Template:Cite journal § Publisher,

via: Name of the content deliverer (if different from publisher). via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail. It may be used when the content deliverer presents the source in a format other than the original (e.g. NewsBank), when the URL provided does not make clear the identity of the deliverer, where no URL or DOI is available (EBSCO), or if the deliverer requests attribution. See the access level parameters to display access restrictions.

In all the references above, the content deliverer is different from the publisher, and the accessible format is different from the (print) original. Note |doi= is a digital identifier/registration system, and has nothing to do with the (digital) format of the content. Removing |via= from these references reduces accuracy, may confuse readers, and may not reflect formatting changes properly. The editor's changes have been reverted with a link to this discussion. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of revision 1043724175

The good faith revision above was reverted, (this diff). The diff concerns an element (|quote=) of the following citation:

{{cite web|ref={{sfnref|KFT|n.d.}}|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no byline.-->|date=n.d.|url=https://www.kfoundation.org.uk/acatalog/NEW_BOOKS.html|title=New Books|department=Online Shop|website=Krishnamurti Foundation Trust|at=§{{nbsp}}First and Last Freedom, The (New Edition)|location=[[Bramdean]]|access-date=2017-08-27|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6ghXpTxEm|url-status=dead|archive-date=2016-04-11|quote=KFT Online Shop ©2002{{en dash}}2015 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust|via=[[WebCite]]}}.

When the citation was inserted, it supported the following wikitext claim, under section § Reception

{{as of|2015|alt=As of {{circa|2015}},}} according to a Krishnamurti Foundation, ''The First and Last Freedom'' had "sold more copies than any other Krishnamurti book.{{"-}}{{sfn|KFT|n.d.|ps=none}}

The citation in question is both a primary source, and lands on a point-of-sale webpage. It is also dated, as it refers to the then current catalog/inventory of the sales page. The primary source is proper in this case, as the wikitext claim directly refers to it: the info claimed as true was part of the description/sales blurb of a book then sold at the site. To avoid a link to a POS page the (then) current sales page was preemptively archived, and the citation used since the beginning the archive rather than the live page. Also the POS page obviously includes info that may change, another archive reason. To prove the claim's date ("As of 2015") the copyright notice of the archived page was quoted. Notice the copyright range ending in "2015". 65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@65.88.88.69: The copyright notice isn't a reliable indication of what that note was written. It applies to the whole page or website, and sometimes such footers are simply updated automatically every year. -- Beland (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, how do you indicate that the info was current and true at that date, absent any other dating? It is not perfect obviously. I will try to update the wikitext with a better source. However the point made in the wikitext is important: that the book in question was at the time the author's biggest seller. 24.103.101.218 (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@24.103.101.218: Hi, I'm not sure if you're the same person as 65.88.88.69? You may wish to sign up for an account to avoid message confusion and to keep your IP address private. If the claim isn't dated, then there's no reason to expect that it actually was true as of 2015, if that text might have been written in 2012. Normally we use the access date for undated content or just don't use the source at all since lack of publication date is sign that it might not be reliable or current. You can see in the history of the page at archive.org that it was indeed making the claim in 2015, so if you want to keep the claim, we could rephrase and say:
As of 2015, the Krishnamurti Foundation web site said that The First and Last Freedom had "sold more copies than any other Krishnamurti book".
-- Beland (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest responding to the argument, and not the person, which is immaterial. The argument being that when a static date is used ("as of 2015") a contemporaneous (static) source is required. Archives obviously are static. And the copyright notice of the archived page satisfies the claimed date. Is there a better way to do this? I do not know. I will look for it and replace if found, I don't care for such fancy workarounds even though I inserted it in the first place. By the way, there is more than one "Krishnamurti Foundation". Your last edit needs to be disambiguated or the previous wording restored. 50.74.165.98 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in question was replaced with a reference note and link to a Wayback Machine archived page. Hopefully this proves the wikitext claim as well as a proper full citation. Everything is open to revision. 65.88.88.75 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, the date added to the claim is 2020, even though the web site said the same thing in 2016, and there's no indication that the author of the material re-checked sales figures to see if they had changed. The previous copyright notice said 2002-2015, so is it possible this text was written in 2002 and was based on sales figures from 1999? The claim as written is also now a bit puzzling. Readers are left wondering what does it mean a Krishnamurti Foundation? It should specify which one...I'm not sure how they are disambiguated? Given the lack of citations to objective sales figures, it's also possible this source is simply saying this is a best-selling book in order to sell more of them, which would be in the commercial interest of the source. Given all the questions about who and when and reliability, I've just removed this claim from the article. It didn't seem all that important, and if it is important, we should find a more reliable source for it.
Knowing who is who does matter to the conversation. If I am simply disagreeing with one other editor without coming to consensus, I will often find a third editor to give another opinion. If, however, there are four different editors who all disagree with me, unless they are being unreasonable I wouldn't bother seeking out more input. -- Beland (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have it backwards. This is not a case of disagreeing with an editor, but disagreeing with an opinion. Opinions don't become more valuable because more editors hold them, and popularity doesn't equal correctness or factuality. And articles should be factual. Apart from that, the claim in question is an important one, as the entity that has copyright for this author's books singles this one title as the most popular. Notice that the wikitext makes it clear that this is a related-entity-claim ("according to") and provides factual proof of its existence. The wikitext does not take a position on whether the claim is true, only that the claim is notable. Taking into account your objections, I will try to reinsert the information with a snapshot from 2021. Since this is an online store, an archived version with dead links to purchasing is the appropriate source (the seller makes the same claim in the current version of the store). One point that you have overlooked, is that the specific Foundation is mentioned in the relevant note (KFT, the Krishnamurti Foundation Trust). 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After poking around, I have corrected the attribution so it now says "the Krishnamurti Foundation", which is both more grammatically correct and links to an article that explains the relationship with the author. -- Beland (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edit to a Wayback Machine citation

I'm afraid this diff [1] is unconstructive, for the same reasoning explained at Talk:Krishnamurti's Notebook, where a similar citation was discussed. 24.193.37.214 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the contentious reference w. an existing reference edited to reflect the replaced ref's proof of related wikitext (part of this diff). Hopefully this satisfies user:Beland's concerns. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 1135569984

Notice that this involves removal of http-only links in inline short citations ({{harv}}). The links pointed to pages of a source that is no longer loading because of low security. Readers cannot therefore verify the inline cite following the link. There is no copyvio-free other online source available. The non-loading links are therefore clutter. The revision by User:Mako001 will be reverted. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can safely load a http only site. If it isnt loading due to "low security" that is due to your browser settings, not the website. Stop distuptively removing valid links to valid sources. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I practically wrote this article I am intimately familiar with what its valid sources are. I also want readers to verify my input, and not send them on a wild-goose chase. I first inserted these links. I have tried to load the legacy website in 4 browsers and 5 operating systems, desktop and mobile. It is just not coming up, since the restrictions are not client-based. Readers can verify by hard copy. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried changing the browser settings to allow it to load http only sites perhaps? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also, read Wikipedia:Link rot, completely. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not applicable to verifying wikitext. WP:V takes precedence, and if the link is rotten the citation is worthless in this respect. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, anywhere, says that about dead links. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert the edit again, and if you disagree then I believe WP:DR should be applied regarding the issue. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the links stayed up was because I was trying configurations. But I am not prepared to put reader instructions on how to disable default security settings just so they can verify through a convenience link. I don't believe in leaving stale or useless information visible in articles. That is disruptive. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not at the WP:DR stage here.
Whether a link works or not isn't actually relevant here. You do not remove links without replacement, dead or not. If you consider them dead, tag them with {{dead link}}, and someone else may be able to revive them. There is nothing in WP:V that says (or even implies) that all links must be accessible using default browser security settings. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done for tonight. I'll be back later. I may feel like quoting exactly what policies apply here at that point. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V explicitly states that wikitext must verify. The inline short cite gives the relevant page number. A legal version of that page was available online but is not now, and the particular link is not coming back. Apart from the fact that leaving the unfit link adds nothing to verification, it gives a false impression of legitimacy. I have been editing Wikipedia for decades; the idea that "some other editor will fix it" never works. In the meantime, garbage accumulates. The {{dead link}} has enough formatting problems anyway. The most I can do as a compromise is to comment-out the unfit links and add the page to some maintenance category. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_First_and_Last_Freedom&oldid=1135580286"