Talk:Krishnamurti's Notebook

Archived citation

@24.193.37.21: Greetings! Are you the same person as User:68.173.76.118 and User:65.88.88.71? I'm not sure this message will reach you if your IP address is changing; you may wish to sign up for an account for ease of communication and to keep your IP addresses private. Anyway, regarding this revert and the similar revert on The First and Last Freedom: As the {{cite web}} documentation points out, when we're citing a saved copy of a web page like on archive.org, we use "archived-url" for the archive.org url and "url" for the original location, even if it's now generating an error. And we use what the original page says for "title" not what e.g. the Wayback Machine says. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response, I was not aware of this comment. The citation in question has been an issue before, I believe because of its rarity. What is cited is not an archived page. It is a repository utility page, a calendar view of certain archival data. It is used to support a date claim made in wikitext regarding the existence of an archived page. The title is the one given by the website the utility page (not the archived page) belongs to (the Wayback Machine). Compare it with citing a page of statistics related to a Wikipedia article. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"https://web.archive.org/web/20121115000000*/http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/" etc. is indeed a web page archived at archive.org, the same as millions of other archived web pages Wikipedia cites. The contents of that archived web page are indeed a calendar. It should use the {{cite web}} parameters in the same way as all other such citations. -- Beland (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What is cited is not an archived page. It is a Wayback Machine utility page like talk pages are for Wikipedia articles. In this case it is a series of dates that snapshots were taken by the crawler, presented in calendar form. It has nothing to do with archived pages. Also, it is not about "jkrishnamurti.org" but a specific webpage of a previous iteration of that site. Additionally, the "author" is not "R. Mc" whatever that means. Your edit verifies nothing, and is unrelated to wikitext. On the contrary, it removes verification of a pertinent wikitext claim. The edit must therefore be reverted. 24.193.37.214 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. It was a bit confusing because there are two levels of footnotes. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussed reference was removed, and {{webarchive}} was used instead, hopefully providing equivalent proof to wikitext, in this diff. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of excerpt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An edit to remove the book excerpt was reverted, in this diff. The excerpt provides context for otherwise abstruse descriptions. It therefore enhances reader understanding of the book and its contents and gives an idea of the book's tone. Being a brief excerpt, it is within WP:NFCCEG and MOS:QUOTE guidelines. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a lengthy excerpt in a standalone section - see WP:QUOTEFARM. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not an absolute criterion, as the section makes clear. See also just above it, WP:QUOTE#Recommended use. This is about terms with original meaning, on which the entire book rests on. Some idea of what they are about, quoted verbatim, is necessary. 65.88.88.93 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've seen that section, and it doesn't support the proposed addition. The use of a standalone section extracts the quotation from context, rather than providing it. And if we're saying this excerpt is what the entire book rests on, the fair-use claim becomes much weaker. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire section above the Excerpt section leads to it, by attempting to explain the context of the book as a whole, culminating in an example. So it does not extract anything, it completes the description/elaboration. It is an extant diary entry that covers the essence of the discussion above it, while it is also brief. The book doesn't rest on this quote or any other. As it is obvious from reading the article, it rests on certain experiences described in terms with uncommon meaning. They require an example. The special-purpose and perfectly legitimate section "Excerpt" wholly contains an excerpt. It follows both the letter and spirit of recommended uses of quotations. 68.174.121.16 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If that's what it's intending to do, it's not accomplishing that. Recommendations for use of quotations include avoiding having a section entirely comprised of quotation and interspersing quotation with explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Nikkimaria's removal of the excerpt. It does not provide any encyclopedic purpose that could not be similarly provided by a free equivalent (i.e., original prose summarizing the book). As the current article stands, it is not even clear that the excerpt serves any legitimate purpose besides being a decorative quote, and I certainly did not get the sense that it was the culmination of, or completing, the previous section. The excerpt should be removed per the non-free content criteria. DanCherek (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You could make that argument for any quote in Wikipedia. It is spurious. The quote should remain, per non-free content criteria, read the Policy section. Also, this is not a novel, historical work or academic treatise. The book describes experiences of a very unusual type. I challenge anyone to prove that it is more enlightening to the reader to remove that quote, or to "explain" these experiences in prose. Guidelines are just that, they are not policy. In this case, removal of the section reduces the article. I strongly disagree with Nikkimaria's removal of the excerpt. There are hundreds of thousands of poorly researched and poorly cited, non-NPOV articles in Wikipedia. This is not one of them. Instead of trying to find something wrong where there isn't, may I suggest you apply your efforts, and the legalistic arguments, where there is need. That would materially improve the project. 24.193.37.214 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to disagree, but at the moment it seems that consensus here is against you. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh not at all. I'm not disagreeing with anything. It seems the consensus expressed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as applied in the article, are against you. You simply have shown no cause for the edit, on the contrary. Since you seem to have a lot of time in your hands, I have a whole list of so-called "good articles" that really need a LOT of work. I will be glad to give you particulars. This is not a pun, or a joking matter btw. 69.193.135.254 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's lovely, but doesn't solve the issue here - which is that your interpretation of policy disagrees with that of the majority expressing a view here. You're welcome to start a formal RfC if you like, but in the interim, as I've said, consensus here does not support inclusion of the excerpt section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean that you need to start an RfC. I don't have to do anything because I see nothing wrong with the article absent your edit. While you're at it, you can include El Tatio, the FA for December 3rd. You don't object to 12+ images, some of whom do not nearly add anything? I mean WP:NOTGALLERY. In an article a bit over 100KB they add several megabytes of image data. Compare that to the excerpt, a single paragraph in a book of 300+ pages, and a fraction of the article's size. Not to mention the semantic value. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I meant you - see WP:ONUS. And if you have concerns about an article other than this one, I suggest you take that to the talk page of that article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really. You dispute a semantically significant quote that has stood for years. Your edit falls under WP:BRD, and you have shown no reason for removal. By all means, take the next step. You have been reverted with explanation several times already. This issue is trivial compared to the one pointed out in the so-called "feature article". I urge you to help the project by rectifying that article (and many other similar) instead of expending your energy here, where it is misplaced. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

BRD is an essay; ONUS is policy. It's your opinion that I've shown no reason for removal; it's mine that you've shown no reason for retention. But at the moment the only other editor who's chimed in, DanCherek, has agreed with my position and not yours. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you not read my responses above? The excerpt is well within policy. The entire book info article provides the necessary context for such inclusion. Unless you think that the average reader can immediately understand what the author means by terms such as "otherness" or "process" and the way they are utilized. Do not remove the info. 3rd party arbitration is the next step. Let's take it from there. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You and Nikkimaria disagreed on the inclusion of the lengthy quote, then Njd-de and I provided additional outside opinions. At this point you are the only one repeatedly bludgeoning a discussion in which every other participant has disagreed with your view and consensus is strongly against you. DanCherek (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not a "lengthy quote". It is a fraction of the article, from a book of 300+ pages. Only Nikkimaria disagrees, and hers/his edit is purely cosmetic (per her/his ideas on aesthetics). Neither you or the other editor provided coherent pertinent arguments for the removal. We are having a discussion, there is no "bludgeoning". Let's go to arbitration! Btw, how did you ever find this discussion in the first place? 65.88.88.71 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Seconding Nikkimaria on the removal of the excerpt section. I find it to be excessive, and can't follow how it would provide context for otherwise abstruse descriptions. It's just a random quote, and Wikipedia does not need to provide a book preview feature like Google Books. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please state then why today's FA A Voyage Round the World is not considered a "book preview", seeing it is full of block quotes. Since (I assume) you are familiar with the article's subject, do you think the average reader would be better served without an example of an entry from a diary involving terms such as "otherness" and "process" used in a very unusual manner? Apart from the fact that book excerpts are often used in book info articles. Also, where were you all this time? I would love the input from other editors knowledgeable on the subject, who can look at the article as a whole. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Simple. Unlike A Voyage Round the World, Krishnamurti's Notebook is still in copyright and covered by the non-free content criteria policy. DanCherek (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh? this discussion has never been about copyvio but about presentation and semantic value/pertinence of quotes. So I suggest you revisit today's FA with this in mind. As has been stated above, the excerpt is well within fair use like untold others in Wikipedia. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

To add, the quote used is anything but random. It was chosen because it gives an idea of how the author experiences and describes these reputed experiences, it exemplifies the tone of the work, it is an extant entry, and it is brief. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw, I imagine you would be interested in today's (December 4th) FA (A Voyage Round the World). An orgy of quotations, and not all of them seem to be semantically significant. Your argument may find more traction there. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is the talk page to discuss this article. If you find fault with another article, take it up there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that since this seems to be an urgent issue for you, you could use your limited time where it will have more impact. 65.88.88.71 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You can include today's (December 6th) FA in your endeavor (1860 Boden Professor of Sanskrit election). I suppose you find the proliferation of block quotes in that article, apart from distracting, as having nothing to offer? 65.88.88.46 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, IP: this talk page is for this article. What policy/guidelines do you feel allow you to restore the excerpt section given that you have not achieved consensus for its inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of a novel argument. I practically authored the article, adding more than 80% of the info. The quote has been there for a very long time. All that time, neither you nor anybody else were around to offer a helping hand or any kind of input. It seems you are interested in articles about books, and/or articles about philosophy, and/or in page layout. There are far more egregious examples of usage of block quotes in many articles that need real attention. Unlike this article and this quote. In this discussion I pointed out 3 so-called FAs where you can help, yet you don't seem interested. Why? And why fixate on this article, that needs no fixing in this matter? 65.88.88.46 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Because I, and everyone else who's commented so far, disagrees that this article needs no fixing in this matter. Given that, what policy/guidelines support your revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting. The article has been getting less than 20 views a day on average. In the 15 years of its existence, in the talk page there has been 1 short discussion on a minor technical item, and that was recently. I guess there is some reason for the sudden discovery of the article and the sense that something must be wrong. In any case, discussion in improving the article and better representing the subject is always welcome. But this section doesn't seem to be part of such discussion. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Recap

To recap:

This is a book of 387 pages (full text edition, hardcover). The excerpt is a single paragraph of about 280 words.

The article word count (what the reader sees), excluding the infobox, is 3231. The excerpt, including the associated footnote, is 327, about one tenth.

This is one of the few extant diary entries that illustrates the tone of the work, the peculiar usage of common terms and provides some context for the article’s descriptions. This is a book information article.

• MOS:QUOTE, "Briief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

• WP:NFCCEG#Text

• WP:NOFULLTEXT#Fair use of copyrighted primary sources

• WP:NFC#CS

69.193.135.254 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: to provide some context, the quote was originally inserted in this diff, on 3 January 2011. Almost 11 years ago. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you think the section is appropriate. But again, everyone else who has commented so far disagrees with your interpretation. Your next step, if you want to retain a standalone excerpt section, is to pursue an RfC rather than continuing to revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

By all means, start an RfC, that will be fun! The claims made by the 3 people who suddenly dropped here are either inapplicable or ignore policy and guidelines. Whether such ignorance is maintained by 3 or 3000 is of no consequence. What alerted you to this article in the first place? 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw an article with an obvious problem. The others who have commented agree with me that it is a problem. You are not simply able to ignore that and continue to edit-war your preferred version in. If you want to keep the section, it's on you to start an RfC to get consensus for it. At the moment you simply do not have that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is imaginary. As the 1st post of this section makes clear there is nothing that forbids the quote. Whether some people don't agree for purely cosmetic reasons is hardly a reason to remove info with semantic value. If you feel otherwise, by all means start an RfC. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We've already established you feel there is no issue, but at the moment you haven't achieved consensus for your viewpoint, and as already explained it's on you to do so. Continuing to restore this content without that is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What has been established is that there is no basis for the removal. There can be no "consensus" of 3 people or 3000 people against policy and guidelines. You can start an RfC to change them in order to make the quote untenable. Until then, the article will follow existing policy & guidelines. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, NJD-DE, and I agree that it does not. Until you get consensus otherwise, you need to stop edit-warring this back in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I invite you to re-read the 1st post of this "Recap" section. What you need to know is there. And btw you may find that you need to stop edit-warring the quote out. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I've read it, and disagree with your interpretation. And as already noted, the onus for getting consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is satisfied by the 1st post of this section, and other posts proving the inclusion. Maybe you did not read them carefully? 69.203.140.37 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I read them. I've read every justification you've put forward to edit-war to retain the section, to dismiss the concerns of every other person in this discussion, to decline to raise an RfC or take any other step to attempt to gain consensus for inclusion, and even to decline to have a tag on the article drawing attention to this dispute. However, given that there is no policy or guideline that specifically states "The excerpt section on the article Krishnamurti's Notebook is appropriate", it's up to participants here to interpret our policies and guidelines and how to apply them here. You claim the quote is brief; others find it to be excessive. You claim it establishes context; others feel that having a standalone excerpt rather extracts it from context. You claim it is necessary to have this section in its present form to understand the work; others feel a different approach would work as well or better, and that the present approach seems decorative. What I haven't seen is any justification for your attitude that your personal interpretation is the only true version, and everyone else's read of these policies and guidelines is invalid. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if you read the appropriate guidelines and policy then point out where the non-compliance is. Which of the 10 points of WP:NFCCP is the quote violating and why? Why is WP:NFCCEG#Text non-applicable here? Why is WP:NFC#CS non-applicable? And why shouldn't MOS:QUOTE qualify such a quote? I don't claim it is brief, it is. The quote is 280 words out of a 390 page book. It is also a tenth of the visible to readers article (less if you add the invisible to readers stuff). The quote has been there for 10+ years and after over 50000 views total, nobody has remarked it excessive. This is definitely not "every other person". Lately, you, and then 2 others "discovered" a non-existent problem and refuse to follow the right procedure per WP:BRD. But there is more than this article: I am preparing a list of GAs that you 3 will find far more insulting to your taste, per your arguments. Since you guys seem so intent to fix this Wikipedia area, you will have a lot of work to do. And unlike here, it will be justifiable. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

BRD is an essay rather than a "right procedure", and not one that supports your actions besides. Similarly problems that may exist on other articles are not justification for keeping the section here. At the moment, every other person who has expressed an opinion disagrees with you on your interpretation of NFCC: the same encyclopedic purpose could be served without the present Excerpt section, the section is longer than would be needed if properly integrated and explained, and as currently presented it does not support contextual significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if BRD is an essay or not. WP administrators have used essays with far less weight as justification of their actions. Similar "problems", and in a larger scale, do exist in other articles, FAs & GAs with many, many more views than this one. Yet no-one has thought to raise the "issues" that you raise here. Why is that? Maybe you should rectify this, because otherwise one may think that you are singling this article for reasons that have nothing to do with the so-called "issues". I do not "interpret" NFCC, I ask you to show where inclusion of the quote constitutes a violation of the policy. The section in question is properly integrated with the one preceding it and provides the proper context for uncommon use of terms related to a subjective experience. You can try, and fail, to "explain" them in many ways (some idea of the difficulty is summarized by the previous section), and you still will need a comprehensive quote to provide context and tone. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The section in question is properly integrated with the one preceding it and provides the proper context for uncommon use of terms related to a subjective experience. is your interpretation. But it's not one shared by anyone who has so far chosen to comment. Unless and until that changes, you cannot continue to claim you have consensus for including the disputed section. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Drmies:: There are clear cut policies involved here, listed in several posts, which 3 editors, and now you, overlook. All concerns raised have been answered. Neither is a quote from a book, in an article about said book, "minutiae". As WP:CONSENSUS clearly states, consensus does not override policy. How did you WP:DETCON here anyway? By taking votes? 50.74.21.22 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I do thank you for the correction. (At the heart of this is that you claim policy dictates you are right; I don't see that and neither does anyone else. You are welcome to challenge this--you can do so at ANI, I suppose.) Drmies (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies:: Well, a nice start would be to address my questions. You see, the editor involved did not ask for a 3rd opinion at the proper forum, or engage in proper dispute resolution. He came to you, personally. So I have to assume that he knows you as some sort of an expert on the subject. I also assume that you read the entire discussion above and followed all the links the various parties used to support their positions. It should therefore be very easy to point out 1. where I have not answered the concerns raised. 2. where the inclusion of the quote violates policy (one of the charges). 3. where it is "too long" (another charge). 4. where it does not add to the understanding of the subject & lacks context (a 3rd charge). I know you can point these out as these must be what swayed your decision. It was certainly not a head-count, was it? 71.105.141.131 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Or they knew me as a fair and levelheaded administrator. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies:: And who might "they" be? Are they exempt from normal DR procedure? As for your record as admin, that is not an issue, except you seem eager to make it so. If you insist, it can be examined later. But you have not answered the questions again. Can we do that first? The least one would expect from a fair and levelheaded admin. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have to ping again since your talk page is open to admins only. Can I again ask you to provide more transparency for the rationale of your decision? Editor Nikkimaria alerted you @ 18:38 regarding this dispute, and you removed the information from the article @ 19:23. I will assume that you immediately noticed the editor's complaint and went at it, assimilating all the available info, finally taking the quote out 45 minutes later (without engaging at all in the discussion). Compared to the speed of that action your reticense to comment on the questions I raised on my posts above seems curious, does it not? 71.247.146.98 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

HTML entities

See Talk:The First and Last Freedom#Typographic edits. -- Beland (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)