Talk:The First and Last Freedom

2006 Q&A
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)


 * 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)

via removal from select sources
An editor removed this parameter from the following references: According to , 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)

Reverting of revision 1043724175
The good faith revision above was reverted, (this diff). The diff concerns an element (quote) of the following citation:

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Revert of edit to a Wayback Machine citation
I'm afraid this diff 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Diff


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * And also, read Link rot, completely. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Nothing, anywhere, says that about dead links. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 15:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * you very obviously did not read Link rot completely. If you had, you would've read WP:KDL. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 03:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. is disruptive. 67.243.247.14 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Read WP:KDL. The link can still be useful even if it doesn't currently verify the source. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 03:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you should not manually add pages to maintenance categories. Commenting out the links is not useful either. Just tag them with dead link. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 03:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that we are talking about a convenience page-link, a location in a source? The inline citation gives the page number and that is sufficient. There is no obligation to provide a link or to keep it if it is no longer working. The full citation (The First and Last Freedom) has the unfit link archived. It also uses the parameter unfit to specifically prevent readers from uselessly navigating to an inappropriate location. 24.103.91.82 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, since the second IP arrived, we now have consensus to leave that link out. I don't agree with it, but won't argue with it. Cheerio. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 06:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Book cover
IMO, the book cover does not meet the threshold of originality, and anyone should be able to upload it on Commons. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Typographic edits
This edit does not make sense to me; &amp;#160; is just as much an HTML entity as &amp;nbsp; is. If you wish to remove HTML entities like these, just use a regular space or no space at all. The HTML entities added in this edit are unnecessary; the raw brackets are rendered correctly. In general, we want to keep markup simple and readable. -- Beland (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The HTML/ASCII characters are expressly allowed in citation templates (and elsewhere) when special characters are inserted. The HTML entities are expressly discouraged per the metadata-pollution issue. When a hard space (&amp;#160;) is required (as in time/page etc. notation), and is manually inserted it has to be indicated to point out that it is not a regular (line-breaking) space. Similarly with the brackets (&amp;#91;, &amp;#93;) in a weblink that includes bracketed text. If not entered as ASCII they are misinterpreted when the parser renders the web-link, and the wikimarkup (closing bracket) is exposed, because it is next to the text's closing bracket. These are typical presentation fixes, there is nothing novel about them. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * &amp;#160; and &amp;nbsp; are both HTML entities, for exactly the same character. The latter is preferred because it is more readable. I have changed them to the named form. -- Beland (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the named one is polluting the citation's metadata and the the numerical ASCII equivalent doesn't. This has nothing to do with readability, readers will see white space in both cases. Editors of citations should know that the named tags must not be used in this case, per the documentation. Specially-formatted citations (and template parameter values in general) are markup, not text. Text-related grammar and syntax does not apply, unless the value is expressly a normal text string. 204.19.162.34 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to readability for editors, not for readers. I don't see any documentation that says numeric HTML entities are allowed in situations where named HTML entities are not allowed. I would expect both to either be allowed or disallowed. Can you point to a source for that assertion? -- Beland (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are also the editor who reverted similar changes on other articles at Special:diff/1194617064 and Special:diff/1194613804. Regarding the edit summaries on those reverts, I am the only one who runs moss and I am also the author. I currently don't spell-check references because there are too many proper nouns and too much non-English text there to make it a high priority, but some day I will. I do run the HTML entity check and other checks on nearly the entire wikitext (including references) because there are many changes that can and should be safely made there. I have started a quick discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 93 to clarify that numeric HTML entities are also prohibited in fields that contribute to COinS metadata. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard any objections to that clarification. Since both numeric and named HTML entities are disallowed from these template parameters, I have changed them to regular spaces for all three articles. Feel free to change to no-space if you think that would be better. -- Beland (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Special:diff/1195939637: Hi again, I'm afraid I don't understand your objection to using cite web within rfn. Your edit summary says not to "add full citations in footnotes, the article uses different format". But this is already a full footnote, isn't it? There is no other source that this footnote refers to in the References section. This change is not cosmetic in the sense of WP:COSMETICBOT, because the changes it makes are visible to readers. The problems I see with the footnote as it stands now are that 1.) it is not in a standard format so it probably seems weird to readers 2.) it can't be parsed by bots that maintain URL references, 3.) it lacks a link to the original URL, which is actually still live and should be cited instead of archive.org, and 4.) it uses unnecessary nobr and HTML entities, so it's a bit harder than necessary for editors to comprehend. I took a look at Featured articles to see what the best practice is for articles that use short citation style. The first one I found was Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. You can see it does actually use cite news for one of the footnotes appearing in the Notes section. If you want to use short footnotes consistently, you can add an entry to the References section and put a short reference to it in the Notes section. But the target in the References section should use a standard cite template as do the existing entries in that section. -- Beland (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)