User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2020

Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, list

You made a mistake

After we came to a consensus, another user changed what we had established by consensus regarding the scholars that still support traditional attributions. I merely restored what we agreed upon, and you made a mistake by endorsing new revisions not agreed by the consensus... --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right; my aplogies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at dispute resolution noticeboard regarding not being neutral or objective. The discussion is about the topic Zen. Thank you. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AN Notification

Hi,

A user has raised a discussion that is presumably mostly about yourself. It's currently on WP:AN, but may get moved to WP:ANI at some stage. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi - just FYI, I moved it to ANI, which seems the more appropriate venue. Courtesy ping to Nosebagbear. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear and Girth Summit: thanks for notyfying me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ref order

Hi - hope you didn't take that the wrong way, I was just joking really. When I started going through GA reviews, multiple reviewers picked up on my ref ordering, and I guess I trained myself to look for it - it jumps out at me now. (That said, I am pedantic enough to have just gone over and reordered them...). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Tacitus on Christ

Hey, I just thought I'd give you a heads up - the Christ mythicists have started a discussion Tacitus on Christ#Scholarly consensus? Yes, amongst believers!. Our friend Paul Siebert is already discussing changing Wikipedia rules so that sources he view as "theologians" don't count.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh my... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

See also here: [1].--Ermenrich (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

East_Mountain_Teaching

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

untitled

sigh. sigh. SIGH. Puduḫepa 17:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. WP:COMPETENCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Thanks!
	For your work on this page. Puduḫepa 00:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kushan Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Huns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Personal comments"

Hi Joshua Jonathan! In case you want to collapse the latest overflow of wisdom by that SPA as "Personal comments", feel free to collapse my answers to that individual as well (my dumb, violation of WP:DFTT LOL). –Austronesier (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Your anti-Iranian attitude

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.

---

You are attacking me eveywhere just because I mention recent peer reviewed academic sources about Indo-European origin in Iran, please stop this offensive behavior. I hope it doesn't relate to racism. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Have you ever considered, MojtabaShahmiri, that the problem might be your overly pro-Iranian attitude? How does it compute that someone pointing out you are using WP:OR to argue that Indo-Europeans all come from ancient Iran (the population of which has no doubt changed substantially since 2000 BC) is motivated by racism?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

As you read in my User page, I am an academic historian from Iran, specialist in the history of western Iran from the 3rd to 1st millennium BC. And as you read in this talk page: Talk:Mycenaean_Greece I myself believe Iranian culture in the northwest of Iran dates back to about the 8th century BC and in 2,000 BC the ancestors of Iranians were probably somewhere in the Central Asia. In fact I also believe those who lived in Iran in 2,000 BC were different people. According to you link, the phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Are David Reich's works and the Journal of Indo-European Studies NOT reliable published sources?! The problem seems to be just about European or Middle Eastern origin of Indo-Europeans and it can be certainly related to racism. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2020 (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.

"Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1. Since you had some involvement with the Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Near Eastern model

Near_East: The Near East is a Eurocentric geographical term which roughly encompasses a transcontinental region comprising Western Asia, Turkey (both Anatolia and East Thrace), and Egypt (which is mostly located in North Africa).

Whould you please tell me what "Near Eastern model" means about Proto-Indo-European homeland? The Caucasus is certainly not in the Near East. The problem seems to be about the geography, if not Iranophobia! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: here we go again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I-E Migrations - current discussion

I checked your comment about ‘proposed migrations’ being ‘subtle pov-pushing’ because I wondered whether you were accusing me of this, and I couldn’t remember whether I had added ‘proposed’. I found that you added the word ‘proposed’ on 20 May 2019 at 19:55. [[2]] You then changed it to ‘as proposed by contemporary scholarship’ on 2 June 2019 at 19:15. [[3]] I did not think that you were pushing any pov when you did this, rather, that you were trying to come up with a compromise wording which would satisfy all parties. I appreciated your efforts, and I can understand that you now wish to have these words deleted. Obviously, I would prefer to keep them. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: apologies; I thought "proposed" was added to deflate the value of the Indo-Aryan migration theory; I guess it was a gesture toward the OoI-proponents. My compliments for your effort to go into the details. Anyway, in the light of the recent developments in aDNA-research, I don't mind removing "proposed" et cetera, but you're right, including the term is also okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Is everything OK?

I hope you are OK and not under duress being made to make pro-Ole Nydahl edits like some editors have been in the past. If you have found yourself in a cult and need help perhaps you should contact the cult education network. Or help may be available elsewhere. I hope you get the help you need if you do. You can see the red flags of Ole Nydahl and Diamoind Way here: [4]

86.188.14.152 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@86.188.14.152: don't worry; I'm solidly based in a humanistic version of Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your article creation. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Krakkos submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Joshua Jonathan to be Editor of the Week for his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Throughout more than eight years of service, Joshua Jonathan has made more than 70,000 edits to the project and created a large number of quality articles.[5][6] He has significantly contributed towards improving Wikipedia's coverage of the history and cultures of southern, eastern and central Asia, particularly the important subjects Buddhism and Hinduism. He has played a decisive role in ensuring that Wikipedia is kept up to date with the newest developments in the research of the archaeological history of Eurasia, and in the protection of our articles on this controversial subject from being tainted with fringe theories. Joshua Jonathan is truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia and a worthy candidate for the Editor of the Week award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

The Dharma Wheel

Joshua Jonathan

Editor of the Week for the week beginning January 26, 2020

8 years of editing with 70,000 edits and many quality articles. Improves WP's coverage of the history and cultures of southern, eastern and central Asia. Protects articles in controversial subjects from being tainted with fringe theories.

Recognized for

keeping WP up to date in the research of the archaeological history of Eurasia

Notable work(s)

Buddhism and Hinduism

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Nuts! Thanks, Krakkos. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you really believe that not even one month after you receive an award for tirelessly combatting fringe-theories on the archaeological history of Eurasia, your efforts are already being bombarded? How do you stay sane? BirdValiant (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the way it is. Fringe is fringe, and we all know it. Especially those we don't want to acknowledge it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical reliability of gospels

So you think this guy might be a sock? Any idea of who?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: same pov as GoogleMeNowPlease. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Typo

One more misleading edit like this, which is blatant pov-pushing, and I'll report you to ANI. Avdmoh (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Typo

One more misleading edit like this, which is blatant pov-pushing, and I'll report you to ANI. Avdmoh (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: could you take a look here? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Avdmoh: go ahead if you really think you have a case. But these threats are obviously retaliation for warnings on your talk page, and I'm still considering blocking you after looking at your edits and the warnings you've had. At this rate it's only a matter of time. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverting Edits to Dashavatara

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.

---

Hello Joshua,

It seems you reverted most of my edits to dashavatara, including to restore sections that were re-written because they contain false information, spelling mistakes, false links, etc. I am a little confused as to why? Carlduff (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2020 (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.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Resurrection appearances

Template:Resurrection appearances has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. PPEMES (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Fringe edits and possible sock

Hello, I got awareness of fringe edits by Hunan201p (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hunan201p) promotion racist ideas of “blonde haired and blue eyed” warriors in East Asia. His used references do not support these claims and only mention unknown origin in the case of the Xianbei. More fringe are his edits on blonde (hair) or Genghis Khan (also see talkpage). Rashid al-din did not say Genghis jad red heir, but wrote about Genghis reaction to the skin colour of his grandchild which was not reddish but swarty. I have included the direct quote and a link yesterday, but currently no one has reacted. I m writing you because you seem to be good editor and knowledgeable on Wikipedia rules. I think many edits of Hunan violate WP:SCIRS and WP:WEIGHT. Additionally some things about him remember me on the long term vandal Tirgil34 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Tirgil34). I mean blonde or red haired turks are his main target, as seemingly Hunan. Anyway l, someone should watch this user carefully. Best regards.38.121.43.208 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Josh. I would like to point out that the above user is likely WorldCreaterFighter, a notorious sockmaster, based on his edit history regarding me and various subjects WorldCreaterFighter is known to obsessively edit, such as Austroasiatic languages. Multiple active sockpuppet investigations involve his name as I type this. I have never used sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, ever. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Dashavatar

Hello, As given external link in dashavatar in "http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/avatars.htm", it is clearly mentioned that Vishnu-buddha avatar's mother name is Anjana, while Gautam Buddha is the son of Mayadevi, indicates. Gautama Buddha is not avatar of Vishnu.

"https://sreenivasaraos.com/2012/09/28/the-buddha-iconography-in-hindu-texts" - also mention that Vishnu-buddha avatar is son of Anjana.

See WP:RS. Please continue this dicussion at the Dashavatara talkpage. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan !

Hello Joshua ! This is Abhinav. Many years ago we had discussed Ambedkar's views on Buddhism. Its very unfortunate that it is still being misrepresented on Wikipedia. Since I am not willing to edit wikipedia, I thought you might have a look at this article in which Wikipedia article of Navayana is debunked. Anyway, I don't want you to edit ir for me. Just thought to show you the truth. Good luck sir ! https://buddhistgem.wordpress.com/2020/05/05/lies-about-navayana-on-wikipedia-the-buddhist-gem/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.216.142.72 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Query about Indian locomotive class

Hallo Sir, I have written this line Note-Before updating the information here anybody should check out the railways current official data first in the Source link then change the data Under the list of loco sheds of some Indian locomotive class articles where there is loco shed so, that anybody who wants to update the loco shed details will do that by seeing the official data in the Source link and then suddenly today this user:Field Marshal Aryan (talk) has removed that line and telling me that this line will confuse any body who will read the articles and prevent users from editing the loco shed details. Can you tell me that this line Note-Before updating the information here anybody should check out the railways current official data first in the Source link then change the data will confuse any body who will read the articles and prevent users from editing the loco shed details. If you think that this line will confuse any body who will read the articles and prevent users from editing the loco shed details, then you should tell me asap I will remove this line from all the Indian locomotive class articles where I have written. Can you confirm me quickly.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Good to see this article. Regards. -- Titodutta (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eurocentric view in Wikipedia, you probably should have been notified, although the editor did not name anyone specifically it isn't too hard to see who they were referring to. Heiro 05:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You have email. Heiro 06:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Nimbarka

Hello, regarding (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nimbarka&oldid=prev&diff=957542479) I actually created separate pages for the Nimbarka Sampradaya, its founder and its philosophy because the other Sampradayas - Sri, Brahma, Rudra have it like that. A sampradaya is technically a just list of Successors. So I thought it would be more consistent that way. Hope that clarifies. Thank you. -- Madhav kiran sodum (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yuga and Yuga Cycle

Joshua, if you have the time and inclination, could you take a look at recent extensive edits to these article by Jroberson108 (talk · contribs)? I happened to come across the user through their edits to Rama, which I found to be problematic. And although I haven't checked to see if the previous versions of the article was any better, the current Yuga article is based entirely on primary/fringe sources. Pinging @Redtigerxyz and Ms Sarah Welch: who too may knowledgeable about this subject-area and be able to help. Hope all of you are doing well and keeping safe. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Refspam?

Joshua, I was going to revert the recent addition of links to this webpage to various wikipedia articles, when I noticed that you had made subsequent edits on some of these pages cleaning-up the addition. I have no idea what exactly the linked essay is, and couldn't find anything about its provenance or its supposed authors. I think it is refspam but posting here before removal, in case I have missed something that establishes the webpage's reliability as a source. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I had the impression that the intentions are good, though politicised. The info an sich is not bad, except that the roots of the Indo-Aryan can be traced back even further in time & geographically, and the Vedas say closr to nothing about a migration. But indeed, no idea who the autjors are, or what this website is. No objections to removal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. I didn't want to guess at if/what you might want to retain of your clean-up of the IPs' edits, so I simply reverted to the version before the dubious ref was added. In case you wish to re-add the text with better sourcing or redo any of the other related changes you made (eg, at Vedic period), please go ahead. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kind words

Thanks for your kind words. Jaykul72 (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure. Too much violence in this world; we people need each other. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My rant: Vedas are the national history of India and the world. They have a collection of oldest knowledge ever recorded by humans either orally or otherwise. Vasudaiva Kutumbakam is an old old Indian saying which means we the earthlings are a family. Somewhere the whole humanity has benefited by the tradition of peace and orientation towards scientific inquiry. No less than Carl Sagan has been a believer of vedic cosmology. Just in case, if you are unaware of the Indian texts please see here. My rant is not a narrow sectarian view on superiority of Brahmanism. Just as you take pride in your country's history, monuments, texts, I take in mine. Based on our limited interaction, certainly your contributions towards Hinduism page are very much appreciated by me, I see some replusion (ex: wendy doniger edit) from you towards attributing what is due to people from our nation. May I ask you, is there a reason behind it? Jaykul72 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Aboriginal stories record natural events which happened 10,000 years ago, bypassing the Vedas several millennia. But alas, that's an aside. And ask Dalits about the tradition of peace; they surely have other experiences. Dutch history is quite limited, reaching back to the 16th century when the Netherlands became independent. Prior to that time, it's useless to speak of a specific Dutch history. And we have a grim tradition of elite dominance, slavery, and colonial suppression; even when we were liberated from the Nazis, we went to war against Indonesia. These facts are acknowledged nowadays, but the extent of the cruelties committed by the Dutch is hardly known here.

Regarding Doniger: as every other experienced editor contributing to India-related articles, I've had my share of not-too-pleasant interactions with nationalistic pov-pushers, which has made me cautious of anything resembling the behavior and edits of those editors. I hope that explains, though in the case of Doniger it's also basic Wikipedia-policies: Doniger is WP:RS, period. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I respect your views. Sincere thanks for your contributions. Jaykul72 (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please do not undo my edits without consensus WP:CONS while the discussion is in progress on talk page as you have done previously on [Vedas Talk Page]. You have previously engaged in forcefully moving my edits with several references to notes without my consent [Vedas#Arbitrary_break_#2] diff [[7]]. I have asked for a third opinion on your undoing my edits. I will have to raise this with WP:ANI. Jaykul72 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead; be aware of my explanation at Talk:Vedas#nodding head a vedic practice?: you did a mass-revert diff diff, remove a lot of indo from WP:RS because you object to three words from another WP:RS. Purely disruptive editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not disruptive editing, it is undoing a forceful edit while the discussion is on in the talk page diff [[8]] Jaykul72 (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is: you removed a lot of other info from WP:RS; that's disruptive. You could have sufficed with adding a {{disputed}} tag for those specific three words - which, again, are from WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether the WP:RS is fringe WP:FRINGE and is being provided undue weight WP:UNDUE was under discussion on talk page. While in your previous forceful movement of my edits diff [[9]], again without waiting for consensus WP:CONS unilaterally you chose to move my edits to notes section [Rath] & [I-Tsing], in response to this when I do undoing of your edits, you call them WP:DISRUPTIVE? Jaykul72 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, copy-editing content is quite different from removing a large amount of sourced info. I explained why I moved this info into notes: Rath's comment on the mnemotic devices is a repetition; Staal's comment is unnecesary, just like the full I-Tsing quote. You, as far as I can tell, moved the specific info on "nodding the head" to a note because you object to it. I don't object to Rath and I-Tsing an sich; I object to the undue weight they are given. I have even added additional information on the mnemonic devices, including physical movements, thereby providing further context, and provided a link to Shiksha; that's usefull.

Remember that Wikipedia presents and summarizes what WP:RS state. If you dispute the factual accuracy of WP:RS, you have to do better than invoking WP:FRINGE. At least you could provide some sources which show that "nodding the head" as a support of memorisation is at odds with the mainstream view on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether a good faith edit is unnecessary or repetition is under the discussion, was there a consensus on it in the talk page before you chose to forcefully move them to notes? Jaykul72 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you explain your objections? See WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and WP:QUOTEFARM. You're missing opportunities to improve this article, instead insisting on adding quotes which seem to reinforce the unique status of the Vedas. That's not what Wikipedia is for.

And the way Rath and I-Tsing are presented in this article is also not an excuse to remove large amounts of sourced info; again, there is a difference between copy-editing an article to improve it, and removing large amounts of info from WP:RS because you personally disagree with three words from another WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting expansion and update edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Literature.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Resurrection appearances template

Hi. I don't want to come across as overly critical, but I'm puzzled by your decision to only link directly Template:Resurrection appearances (to link to a template is unusual itself) rather than transclude it in an article. And then, although it can only be viewed by visiting the template page, and it is the only item on the page, you have chosen to collapse it? You are hiding the template and ensuring that almost nobody actually sees it (it receives on average only 7 views a day); that is a shame because it's a comprehensive informative table. If you want to have it collapsed then perhaps you can include it in Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus? I'm not going to revert your edit.--Hazhk (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

To be continued at Template talk:Resurrection appearances#Collapsible table. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help.... can you guide me on this issue?

As you may recall, I am new to Wikipedia. Still figuring things out. My edit ( 12:19, 12 June 2020 diff hist +1,894‎ Gospel of Mark ‎ →‎Setting: Adding An analysis of the socio-theological context at the time of Mark's writing current) seems to have disappeared. Seemingly, without a trace. I don't see any indication that it was reversed. I did not receive any notification. Obviously, I am missing something. Can you clarify this for me Thanks A19470822 (talk)

@A19470822: User:Epinoia explained it to you on your talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I just can't follow all of that and am too unfamiliar with the subject. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: never mind, I understand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rigvedic quotes on homosexuality

Would you mind taking a look at the recent editing history of Hinduism and LGBT topics and Homosexuality in India, and giving your thoughts? Further context can be found on my talk page.Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark

I was just waiting around for the revision. If it had a meaning please explain better hun. LordAgincourt (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you please try to express yourself in an understandable way? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you forget you reverted my contribution so quickly just like i forgot what the point of the article was bcoz i couldnt follow it? LordAgincourt (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The last part sums it up. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Indian scholarly work

Hey Jonathan, it has come to my attention that you're attempting to attack Indian scholars, and when malicious characterizations are removed about these Indians (e.g, Subhash Kak), you're reverting them and letting these insulting remarks stay on their pages without giving any reasoning for why those characterizations are allowed to stay. If this keeps up, you will be reported for being a disruptive user. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being intentionally racist, so please do not continue to do this. :)

Racism or racist intentions when writing information about people or historical/scholarly topics are not allowed in Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeCheers321 (talk • contribs) june 24 (UTC)

Jhana

Jhana is not 'the training of the mind'; it is the result of that training. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@82.27.90.157: please use Talk:Dhyāna in Buddhism for discussions on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring (and possible POV-pushing) on Proto-Indo-European homeland

@Puduḫepa:, @Joshua Jonathan:, and @Doug Weller: Hello. There is a fairly new editor on Proto-Indo-European homeland who has recently made an addition with a very long string of refs on the Armenian hypothesis (in the main hypotheses section, meant to support the statement that the Steppe hypothesis is "strongly debated" by new evidence). To me, this addition seems somewhat undue and redundant given the fact that the hypothesis is already represented duly in that same section of the article and elsewhere in the article in other relevant sections. I addition, the new editor's many refs contained several that were either already represented, not WP:RS (e.g. blogs and journalism), or in some cases did not even support the Armenian/Southern hypothesis or discuss it. I reverted their addition explaining this in the edit notes, but they simply reinstated their edit with the note that it was "relevant", having seemingly ignored my explanations. I reverted them again asking them not to edit war (and to read my explanations and take objections to the Talk page), but they reistated their edit again with bery few changes (again largely igniring what I had explained). They seem to be edit warring and it looks like it may be a case of POV-pushing. It would be helpful and aporeciated to get your opinion regarding this Thank you and much appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the page's history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Proto-Indo-European_homeland Skllagyook (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: it would be better to ping us at the talkpage of that page; anyway, it's also on my watchlist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I will continue the discussion there. Skllagyook (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CV and WP:PA

Be aware that your insulting and offensive language in the talk page of proto-indo-European homeland has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Please do not repeat that and follow the regulations mentioned in the title of this message. Thank you. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Copy-right violations? Where? Ah, you meant WP:CIV. For the talkpage-stalkers: take a look Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:CIV and WP:PA; Monty Python would love it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rigveda

Hi Joshua, hope your doing well. I was thinking to divide the translation and interpretation of Rig veda to Western and Eastern Authors as this would bring about most comprehensive outlook, would like to take up western part? Shrikanthv (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The map of Brahminism

Very interesting data here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Brahminism? I'd say, Muslim-influences. Aryavarta was in the Ganges-plain, not the Indus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean to say they became vegetarian to distiguish themselves from Muslims? That is in fact what Brahminism is! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I never understood this bullshit connection between vegetarianism and Brahminism that leads to idiots organising idiotic things like Beef parties. A poor animal loses their life for no real reason. Reactionary nonsense like that only further radicalises the other side. Only Brahmin were allowed to gain literacy back then. Should we encourage people to be illiterate and organise illiteracy parties to protest against Brahminism now? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 09:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean that vegetarianism iz highest in western India. That may coincide with Muslim influences, fof whatever reason. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I had a Brahmin room mate once, who told me he doesn't mind us eating meat at all. It is all part of evolution! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop your Buddhust POV pushing

In Advaita Vedanta you are clearly pushing POV to show Maya and Mayavada to be the same.

Then there is no diff between the two

CEASE AND DESIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Solomon Jeyaraj (talk • contribs) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Solomon Jeyaraj: don't threaten me, and use Talk:Advaita Vedanta when you have a serious concern evolving from WP:RS. Your objections against the term māyāvāda are misplaced; see Talk:Advaita Vedanta#Mayavadins. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism edit

Hi, u redid my edit of hinduism when I do not understand why, I clearly wrote major things about hinduism and a new major vedant as well as major 18-20th century central ideas to hinduism, and you undid my revision, if you had a problem with it you could have contact me then I would have removed certain parts that you did not like. I also citied the information Tilakny (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss at the Hinduism talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi I did not do disruptive writing I don't know why u redoing everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilakny (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan vedanta

Hi why have u edited the Swaminarayan darshan on vedanta when it was accepted by many people. It is a separate vedanta. Tilakny (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And not mentioned as a main tradition by WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sadhu bhadreshdas has written Sanskrit texts on it and has been accepted by Kashi scholars as a separate vedanta, so please do not remove it Tilakny (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be hating on Swaminarayanism due to your recent edits so please be neutral in that article Tilakny (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No I don't hate Swaminarayanism; I'm curious what it is. What I don't like is blind adoration and religion-driven pov-ushing. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Rig Veda

Copied to Talk:Rigveda#Tilak on Veda antiquity; to be continued there.

My edits on Rigveda have been reverted diff although they are fact based and based on authentic and proper references. The reason cited was they are not "constructive". I saw this talk thread and wanted to provide my 2 cents. ga11 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC) That was the message I left at your talkpage; I reverted diff your Rigveda-edits because those authors are WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Can you explain how Tilak is a fringe author? Almost all sources on Rigveda page are from books by various authors but they ate considered reliable sources. What makes Tilak and his books different from them? ga11 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Regular scholarship doesn't use astrological speculations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Tilak's work is not astrological. It is astronomical. Big difference. Astronomical data is fact-based abd verifiable. Please do not make such assumptions and confuse astronomy with astrology. ga11 (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the correction; doesn't change a bit about the reliability. Tilak is not accepted as WP:RS at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) I have read WP:RS but I don't see why Tilak is not accepted as RS. Can you elaborate?ga11 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC) You added However, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in his Orion: Or Researches Into The Antiquity Of The Vedas has concluded that the date of composition of Rigveda dates at least as fat back as 6000-4000 BC based on his astronomical research into the position of the constellation Orion. Source: Tilak, Bal Gangadhar (June 2, 2008). Orion: Or Researches Into The Antiquity Of The Vedas. Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 978-1436556910., first published 1893. 6000-4000 BCE is completely at odds with the scholarly estimates; astronomy is not an accepted methodoly. At 6000 BCE the Yamnaya-cture didn't even exist yet, let alone the Shintashta culture, even less the Indo-Aryans. Tilak's opinions simply are irrelevant for the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC) These are your personal opinions that astronomy is not an accepted methodology (which is simply incorrect and unscientific because astronomy is an established science all over the world), and this or that culture was not present at a certain time. Wikipedia is not a page for personal opinions but simply to state all objective facts and findings, whether you personally believe them or not. Kindly do not bring personal opinions into this and let me know specifically what Wikipedia rule disqualifies Tilak as RS?ga11 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Well, it's not an accepted methodology in philology. And Tilak's ideas are completely at odds with mainstream scholarship. It's an alternative discourse you're partaking in. @Doug Weller, Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93: can one of enlighten this editor? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC) I understand that it may not be a mainstream at this time. In which case, why can't we put it under a separate heading that states "Alternative timelines" or something? I and others too can add to it from many other references which I can provide. Objective facts and findings still have a place on Wikipedia especially in discussing such ancient texts whose date of origin has always been under dispute as stated on the Rigveda page itself. ga11 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Anything to do with the past requires WP:HISTRS. Moreover, if Tilak proposed a theory, it counts as a WP:PRIMARY source. We can't use it without validation from WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Here are just a couple that refer to and add to Tilak's work: 1.Aryavartic Home by Pavgee, Narayan Bhavanrao 2. World Vedic Heritage: A History Of Histories (2 Volume Set) By P. N. Oak by P. N. Oak ga11 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC) @Gauri a11: please don't date something 2008 that was written in the 19th century. But this is all sheer fringe. We could use sources such as this university press book[10][which says "On the basis of astronomical statements in the Vedas, Tilak concluded that the Aryan ancestors of the Vedic writers had lived in an Arctic home in interglacial times between 10,000 and 8000 b.c., enjoying a degree of civilization superior to that of both the Stone and the Bronze Ages. Owing to the destruction of their homeland by the onset of the last Ice Age, the Aryans had migrated southward and roamed over northern Europe and Asia in search of lands suitable for new settlement in the period 8000-5000 b.c. Tilak believed that many Vedic hymns could be traced to the early part of the period between 5000 and 3000 b.c., when the Aryan bards had not yet forgotten the traditions of their former Arctic home." But I can't see enough of the book to find out what the author says about that, so we'd need to see that first. Pavgee is even worse, he thinks that the language and culture of the Greeks and Romans were derived from the Vedas of this so-called "Arctic home."[11] And Oak - well, see P. N. Oak. Useless as a source. You also don't seem to accept that we can't use self-published books. Joshua, how about transferring this to the article's talk page? Doug Weller talk 14:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RSN

Please see [12]. JimRenge (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DONTGETIT seems to apply; maybe we should consider requesting a topic-ban... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hey. We have never met. Nice to meet you. I am not looking to undo any of you're edits but had a question. You added this to the intro paragraph of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya section:

In the 20th century it split-up into various dominations, the largest being the BAPS.[2] Due to the commentarial work of Bhadreshdas Swami, Swaminarayan's teachings were recognized as a separate school of Vedanta by the Shri Kashi Vidvat Parishad in 2017[3][4] and by the 17th World Sanskrit Conference in 2018.[5][6][7]

Should it be at the bottom of that intro or further in the article? That section seems to high level overview the Founders creation of the faith and some key mile stones leading up to his passing. Not sure if events after his passing fit in the intro. It seems to encompass events during is lifespan and the above line seems centuries after. Just felt like it was out of place. Don't want to undo you're changes so figure id ask here and let you handle it to avoid overlap. Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: nice meeting you too. Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article; as I have moved the various subtraditions upwards to the history section, it seems to me that this info should be in the start of the lead. Also, for an outsider, it's convenient to know that the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is not one school, but consists of various subtraditions. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree and you edited it as I was making this comment so please disregard. You did remove the lekh from the intro as well. There is a huge thing in the talk page and now raised to the dispute boards around the lekhs inclusion in the page under scriptures fyi. Its an ongoing discussion. I had raised a couple points around how the page is narrated heavily from one branch within the faith. Almost 90% of images originate from one branch and don't diversely represent the faith. I don't think my months long effort for those changes overlap with what you are doing but figure id just throw it out there. You did refer to Baps as the biggest denomination in the intro. Not sure if the wording should be adjusted since it was founded a century after the origin of the faith and after another 2 branches in the faith. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: I've added the lekh back into the lead; I trust it's important (outsiders probably will be riddled, but soit). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks dude for the clarification and insight. Do I remove this from you're talk page now or archive it or just leave it? Kbhatt22 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: it's fine to leave it here; you're welcome. One question: where can I find more info on the role of lekh versus spiritual succession? It has got to do with the institution of the BAPS, I guess? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see: Prof. Dave, Reappraisal of the 'Lekh', in New Dimensions of Indology (1997):

While Kbhatt22 has mentioned the few lines in Williams (2018) to show that the Lekh is accepted by two branches, the most authoritative scholarly source I found on this topic was by a Prof. Dave - where he wrote a ten page chapter focused solely on the Lekh titled “Reappraisal of the ‘Lekh’” in New Dimensions of Indology (1997). In it he states that the Lekh is “the constitution of the acarya parampara” laying out the legal distribution of property and rights of the two acharyas. Thus, it is “considered an important document” for the Nar-Narayan and Laxmi-Narayan branches. However, he notes that the “Swaminarayan Gadi of Maninagar...totally reject the ‘Lekh’” and BAPS, Anoopam Mission, Yogi Divine Society, Gunatit Samaj, etc. consider it only an “administrative document” that has no “philosophical importance”. The majority of the rest of chapter is focused on how the Lekh submitted by the Nar-Narayan and Laxmi-Narayan branches to the court are not the same documents, raising questions about the validity and historicity of the document itself. But the point I got from this source is that the Lekh is not accepted as a scripture by the majority of the branches of the Sampradaya, and the two branches that do accept it see it primarily as a legal document about splitting property and rights between two cousins.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Their is a lot of back and forth around it. It seems from my research that many of the major branches acknowledge it but interpret it differently. Here is a good starting point o the dispute outlining some key take aways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Possible_Statement_by_Moderator

That maybe too much of a read but here is a quote I found that outlines the lekh in the best way:

The original Ahmedabad and Vadtal dioceses value the Lekh, where as those groups that emphasis the authority of the sadhus over the acharya and different lineages of gurus downplay or ignore the lekh as simply an administrative document for temporary application and not as sacred scripture. Baps emphasizes the Swamini Vato, which contains the sayings of Gunatitanand.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/ODdqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=lekh

A Moderator is trying to guide this months long discussion for a simple addition so I am just letting that process play out. Hopefully it isn't a vote based resolution and the merit of the content is reviewed. Thankfully got a good moderator. Hope that helped :) Kbhatt22 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey again. Would you have any issue with some changes to the pages intro? It seems the intro introduces the offshoots, then the older branches and then comes back to ideology from the off shoots. Should that second paragraphs flow be chronological for clarity? I think you have made some great changes to let new readers to the content get a better understanding of things. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mr. JJ. Hope all is well. What are your thoughts on updating the second paragraph you had done to the Swaminarayan Sampraday page to this:

In the 20th century, due to "different interpretations of authentic successorship," the sampradaya split-up into various denominations. All groups regard Swaminarayan as God but differ in their theology and the religious leadership they accept. The Vadtal Gadi and Ahmedabad Gadi, established in 1826, are the oldest institutions, with a hereditary leadership which appoints acharyas, as prescribed in a document titled the ‘Lekh’. The BAPS, founded in 1907, venerates "a lineage of akṣaragurus, or living gurus, [which] has been retroactively traced back to Gunatitanand Swami."

References

Really small changes but I basically added dates for the referenced branches to help establish chronological order and took out the "largest" claim since it wasn't in the source and felt odd in the opening. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: I guess that would be okay. Apologies for not responding to yout post about the images; I'm involved at the moment with at least five different discussions; I'm trying to take it one by one now. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all. I just appreciate the feedback, guidance, and direction. I won't make any image changes until you've had time to review. No rush. Thanks again!! Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your support! Kevpopz (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration

What’s your objection to a paragraph Riseley, as the originator of the ethnographic / racial theory of an Aryan invasion / elite replacement in South-Asia, given the next several dozen are arguing, for or against the conclusions of his publications? A.j.roberts (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#Rare science. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

2020-09-24

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Indo-Aryan migration, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please reflect on WP:TONE, and WP:RS, and review your repeated, insertion of: “By the 1880s, his ideas had been "hijacked" by racist ethnologists.” A.j.roberts (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please Answer

Please explain how stating papers published in Science Journal and the Smithsonian Mag violates NOPV and the statement that is upheld today "Scholars have rejected his theories on these topics in entirety, and his writings have been heavily criticized." is compliant with policy?

I have provided sources citing that the "THEORY" stated is in question. I did not remove the previous statement. Why are newer evidences being rejected? Please explain in detail and cite all the sources in contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapanchaudhary (talk • contribs) 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fot the TPS: diff and User talk:Tapanchaudhary#Welcome. @Tapanchaudhary: please discuss at Talk:Subhash Kak#Please Answer, not here. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday

Hello,

I wanted to reach out to clarify a few things. The Swaminarayan Sampraday is a mess with devotees pushing a heavy agenda and it feels like any tweak and there is a dispute. The title of that page is obviously wrong as the sampraday is made up of two dioceses and BAPS was founded almost 80 years later. I don't even want to argue whether it should me called Swaminarayan Movement or Hinduusm or something else with each broken off sect's independent theology. Here are three examples were it is so blatantly biased:

1. Under Mandir tradition section there is no mention of the acharayas even though they have direct meticulous commands from Swaminarayan to be involved in the Mandir. The BAPS devotees have gone out of there way to include Akshar Darshan or ideal devotee terms and phrases in any opportunity but not once include this guys. They cannot dispute primary sources of Swaminarayan himself stating in every single book of his time that the acharays are the only successors of him and they are in charge of the Mandir.

2. Metaphysics and Moksha section, the article is written in a way to mislead readers that the akshar guru is the correct theology when only BAPS states that. The primary sources again would be the texts from swaminarayans time that say otherwise. It needs to be clearly labeled.

3. Ekantik dharma section states the tilak is a u-shaped saffron-colored symbol made of sandalwood, symbolizing God’s feet, and the chandlo is a red symbol made of kumkum, symbolizing God’s ideal devotee....thought the williams source states in page 93 that is only a BAPS ideology. How is this even passable as neutral? One user called a pictures swap as non-neutral the other day because it included the acharayas with the sadhus and swaminarayn. If that is not a dead giveaway that they may be a BAPS devotee, then I am going crazy....

What is the resolution here? Can we break down the article by time period and then redirect them to the right sections? I know that will make it clear but the break off groups have to validate that their philosophy existed since the beginning though it requires only narrowly focusing on a few verse and ignoring entire scriptures I.E. Desk Lekh and tossing dozens of verses and chapters from the Shikshapatri, Vanchamrut and Satsangi Jeevan. At a certain point, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to decided who is right and wrong. Is it appropriate to include in this article that some of the subsects are in fact legally separate institutions per the williams book? Where would this fit?

Lastly, why is Swami Paramtattvadas book allowed to be used as a source on this article? He was ordained as a Hindu monk in 1992 by Pramukh Swami Maharaj from the BAPS sect...Am I missing something here or is that a clear violation of neutrality? Kevpopz (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that not only this article, but a lot of Swaminarayan/BAPS-related articles are full with(not too) subtle interpretations and misreadings. It's quite disheartening, once you start checking sources: where to start, knowing that correcting texts may result in another avalanche of responses? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A user is just undoing everything left and right and I sourced my edits correctly. Would you take a look at it please?Kevpopz (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As expected... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJ. Hope all is well. The last edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=980352933&oldid=980318178) just subtly removes or replaces a lot of sourced material. I would revert it but it just an endless circle at this point. It says see talk page for summary/rationale but there isn't anything for a summary or rationale behind the edits. Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Oop...he/she made the edit and then provided the rationale without any discussion. Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJ. Hope all is well. Thank you for continuing to monitor the NPOV for that page. I seem to not be allowed to edit but noticed the same image is now on the page 3 times. If you are able to edit, could you look at that. It appears twice in the Early History section and once in the scriptures section. Looks to be a blow out of the book cover image. Could probably just remove the duplicate in the early history section. Not sure who/how to be allowed to edit it myself. Thanks again!! Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: strange. The page is protected, but you should be able to edit it, I think. I'll take a look. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the rules when it created that edit request block on the talk page. I would need 500 edits to be in that group to be able to edit that page now. Which is fine. The protected status will expire before I reach that count haha. Thanks for taking a look. Appreciate it. Kbhatt22 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

500? That's quite a lot! Leaves only a few people to edit that page... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#extended Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

removal of my reference from two truths doctorine page

may i know the reason? Kyraa7 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kyraa7: yes: it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the 2t-doctrine. Further discussionplease at the 2t talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Varana System: Joshua Jonathan

Mr. Joshua Jonathan, I have written atleast 13 papers in top scientific Journal. You should know a introduction should have basic definition related to a topic. It should not use outdated or wrong information. I have corrected the varna system inroduction on the basis of work of modern scholar. 1. Manusmiriti has nothing to do Varna system (as it is a commentary only). So using it as source to define Varna system is meager attempt to misinform the the reader of page. 2. Gita and Mahabharat are far more authoritative than Manusmiriti, No historical writer of Manusmiriti is known. 3. Telling the name of predominant Indian figures (related to different Varnas) is important as it shatters wrong notion of it being a equivalent to caste system. 4. Old Introduction does not involve definition any Varna, neither gives definition of varna system.Which Should be clearly defined with the help of literature. 5. People has been thoroughly misinformed on the varna system due to old introduction. 6. I made it more authentic by adding modern/recent discoveries regarding this system.

It is much better if you verify my changes rather simply giving excesses in order to misinform the reader of page.

An Introduction can not a super short if we have to cover 5000 years of history and multiple view points in known and verified scriptures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MANGAL (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding findings of nature paper on Ghaggar Hakra been perennial removed.

Why did you revert the citation of Nature paper regarding identification of Ghaggar Hakkar with Saraswati ? Nature doesn't count in valid journals or what ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwajeet103 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you're pov-pushing, and engaging in WP:OR. The Gagghar-Hakra had dried-up by Vedic times; the Chatterjee-article does not argue otherwise. And it certainly doesn't say Identification with Rig Vedic Saraswati dates the Rig Veda to be strictly earlier than 2500BCE. That's your personal comment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Joshua. I am quoting the text from paper, "We establish that during 80-20 ka and 9-4.5 ka the river was perennial and was receiving sediments from the Higher and Lesser Himalayas. The latter phase can be attributed to the reactivation of the river by the distributaries of the Sutlej. This revived perennial condition of the Ghaggar, which can be correlated with the Saraswati, likely facilitated development of the early Harappan settlements along its banks. The timing of the eventual decline of the river, which led to the collapse of the civilization, approximately coincides with the commencement of the Meghalayan Stage". 4.5 ka translates to 2000 - 4500 = 2500 BCE. Atleast acknowledge this paper in the article. This is in contrast with earlier geologists study that Ghaggar Hakkra was no Himalayan fed. Whereas this paper is showing that the river was fed from Satluj which was fed from lower Himalayas.

Also, it needs to brought that dating of Rig Veda is not considered final. An unbiased article would acknowledge people who have used Saraswati identification to date Rig Veda.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwajeet103 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Sinha et al. (2020), in response to Chatterjee et al. (2019): "most workers have documented the cessation of large scale fluvial activity in NW India in early Holocene, thereby refuting the sustenance of the Harappan civilization by a large river." Note also that the scholarly consensus regarding the dating of the Rig Veda leaves no room for a dating prior to 2500 BCE. The Sintashta culture, where the roots of the Vedic culture lay, didn't even exist then. The Sarasvati River article does mention your WP:FRINGE theory; it's even in the lead. But note the alternative explanation: "According to Shaffer, the reason for the predominance of the Sarasvati in the Rigveda is the late Harappan (1900-1300 BCE) population shift eastwards to Haryana." Much more reasonable, and in line with the Hindutva talking-point that there was no hard break between Harappan and Late/post-Harappan times. The IVC-people carried their lore along with them, into the Vedic culture with which they merged. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Chariotrider555, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Chariotrider555 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination.

@Joshua Jonathan: I am planning to nominate Hinduism for WP:GA. Please comment on the idea.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: oh my. I'd expect it to fail; too much missing, I expect; and too long. If for one thing, I'm reminded of my childhood; there was this educational magazine at the primary school, and one time, it was dedicated to Hinduism. I remember the colorfull photo's of Hindu-deities, and the feel of vibration and multi-facettedness. The Wiki-article fails in communicating this feeling. But maybe that's inherent to an encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: So could you nominate it, as I haven't done any edits to the article yet. Or should I wait till I do so. I think it's better for you to do the honours. As much as I know, Hinduism was once a WP:FA, and after it was removed, nobody cared to nominate it even for WP:GA. It would be better if you could do it. Please comment.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: no, I have no desire to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Somebody suggested your username for help. Could you suggest someone else.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Map

Indo-European migrations

Hi Joshua Jonathan. I tried to formalize your map, and also tried to reconcile some of the date. Can you check and tell me what modifications would be necessary? I think Western Europe looks a bit weird as there are no arrows from the Steppes pointing to it... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: nice! You're right about western Europe; the Celts came there only a millennium later; I guess the map's not complete yet. Hiatus in my knowledge... Several dates are missing as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

BJP goes to the UN

Hi JJ, long time no talk!

"Calling out the “selectivity” at the United Nations in condemning acts of violence against religions, India has said the UN General Assembly has failed to acknowledge the rising hatred and violence against Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and underlined that the culture of peace cannot be only for “Abrahamic” religions.[13] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: most violence actually seems to be between Muslims, and then Muslim and western countries? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Fat chance that BJP can see such things! (Within India, it is the Hindus that are the current aggressors, driven of course by the BJP and the RSS and their affiliates.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Take a look

Please take a look at Talk:Hindu texts. I'll be quite disappointed if you don't have a similar reaction to my reaction, as expressed in my talk page comment. There's still work to be done in fixing the sidebar template, and I've run out of time for awhile, so perhaps someone else among knowledgeable editors can undertake the fix. Best regards --Presearch (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and support; I've now also fixed the sidebar Template:Hindu scriptures and texts, from which the Vedas and Upanishads and other scriptures had also been deleted back in July. The sidebar is embedded in what looks like a couple of hundred articles. It amazes me that in five months no-one noticed that the sidebar had been vandalized in such a major way. Therefore I'd definitely encourage you (and other seasoned editors) to put the sidebar too on your watchlist. Many thanks -- Presearch (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Vasant Shinde in bigger soup now

• Lipid residues in pottery from the Indus Civilisation in northwest India, Journal of Archaeological Science

The high proportions of cattle bones may suggest a cultural preference for beef consumption across Indus populations, supplemented by the consumption of mutton/lamb.

Some people having fun [14]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: you mean, like this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the trouble is that this wasn't even "Indus valley". It was Saraswati valley! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the Zen Yoga article

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.

---

Hi Joshua, sorry for calling your edits to the Zen Yoga article inexplicable. I'm not so familiar with the ways of wikipedia - I see now your explanation on the Talk page. I think your criticism of unsourced, WP:SPAM, WP:OR is a little over the top, but I do see your point about WP:UNDUE. It seems the term 'zen yoga' was never used before Master Oki (as referenced). Of course, people would have been doing yoga-like exercises in the Zen world for centuries before but they wouldn't have called them Zen Yoga. Probably Ki-ko or Do-In. You're right that Shinzan Roshi has distanced himself from the Rinzai establishment because of his dispute over funeral charges, but I don't see how that should affect anything that was written here. Also (as far as we know) Daizan Roshi was the first english-born person to become a master in the Rinzai tradition. There have been english-born masters in the Soto tradition, but not in Rinzai before.

We're going to try and re-write the article with your comments in mind. What we were trying to do was to present Zen yoga with a basis in Zen Buddhist practice, with reference to the teaching of the Buddha, that has credence and authenticity. I know many people these days use the term Zen Yoga to refer to their own 'brand' of yoga, without it having any grounding in actual Zen Buddhist practice.

Westmoquette (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2020 (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.

Regarding a page

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.

---

Hi Joshua Jonathan, You have completely changed what i wrote on Shiva page. May i know the reason. Because the quote which i added is explaining the process on how people started associating Shiva with Rudra. You have completely removed that sentence and added another sentence from that page. If you want you can add that too without removing this. May i know the reason for removing what i wrote. Thank you. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 09:52, 18 December 2020 (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.

Hindu Mythology reversion

Hi Joshua Jonathan, could you please elaborate the reasons for you to revert my changes in the Hindu Mythology page. The page is incorrectly mentioning the details of Hindu scriptures as Myths (fiction). These scriptures are not myths/fictions and as such naming such legendary details as myths is against true ethics of the history and truth. Please provide your reasons with clarity before I revert your changes as false! Thaejas (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thaejas: the topic of the article is Hindy mythology. There have been countless attempts to change "myth" into something else; this has been reverted also countless times. If you think "mythology" is incorrect, start the correct procedure to change this (which will fail); otherwise, if youcontinue with your pov-pushing you will certainly be sanctioned. And please, use the talkpage of Hindu mythology for further discussion. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Season's Greetings
	Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Why

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.

---

To answer the question you asked here. I would mention that the lead was written after long discussion per here by multiple experienced editors and probably you were there too. I was only restoring this edit. The lead was unilaterally modified recently on here with a dubious edit summary. This is why I restored established lead version.

Can you restore my edit? Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2020 (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.

Happy New Year, Joshua Jonathan!

Happy New Year!

Joshua Jonathan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR