User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2019

Discussion about Dhammakaya Movement
You might want to weigh in this discussion about the Dhammakaya Movement. Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * JJ, if you have some time, could you look at the sources on the role of magic/amulets in Dhammakaya movement temples. According to this source (page 19-20), the Dhammakaya's publications repeatedly reinforce the belief in the fruits of merit-making and amulets by "reproducing stories of a miraculous survival after a severe car accident, an unexplainable recovery from malignant cancer and incredible success in business after making merit". The Dhammakaya organization does use and claim amultes and miracles, per Rachelle Scott's Nirvana for Sale book (see her pages 2–3, 7, 13–14, 70, 118–120, etc), much like you find in other Theravada communities. Our article, however, leaves one with the impression that Dhammakaya opposes magic, superstition, etc... which is far from what the scholarly sources are stating. Yes, it is true, as Justin McDaniel summarizes it, that Luang Por Dhammajayo (of Wat Phra Dhammakaya temple) said decades ago there was no need for "elaborate Buddhist ritual, protective magic, fortune telling, and the tools, images and money that went toward them" (page 111, 2nd para). Yet, it is also true that, in practice and for a long time, Dhammakaya publications have extensively used amulets, miracles etc to press donors for funds (make merit). See Scott's book, Mackenzie's book, this and pretty much any WP:RS on this. We need to balance these two realities / sides. Your review and feedback, if you have time and interest, could help improve the Dhammakaya movement-related articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I reworded the lead and main text a bit. You both are welcome to check and improve the article and WPD article further if you have time and interest. The original version, one before my first edit to the Dhammakaya movement article, is here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive contributions, Joshua, in Dhammakaya Movement. Much appreciated.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ~Thanks; you're welcome. My pleasure. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya meditation
JJ: Given your studies on jhana / vipassana meditation, your review of the sources and summary in DM's samatha and vipassana jhana sections would help. I will try to summarize Newell and other sources as I find time. Your critical review and rewording where appropriate would be most welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC) (ps): The few lines before and one below this table make no sense (some typos/missing text?). The Mackenzie source has a decent description on pp. 102–104, as does Newell on pp. 238–241. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Waarvan acte'; I'll keep it in mind. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just started checking MacKenzie p.102-103, but it's a tough read; to me, the description of the inner bodies is esoteric jargon, of which I can't make sense. I suspect it only makes sense in the context of the Dhammakaya movement:
 * Also typical:
 * Yet,
 * So, the "sphere of samadhi or mental concentration" precedes the appearance of the inner bodies, which "broadly correspond [...] to the four jhanas," yet this sphere is also samadhi? I wouldn't take MacKenzie to serious on this; it looks more like those inner bodies are a technique of visualizations. Dhyana, ultimately, or originaly, is not a concentration-practice, but a mindfulness-equanimity practice, as the Burmese also somehow seem to have intuited. All of this Dhammakaya-meditation method seems to be no more than the second step of jhana-practice: concentration. Compare with Tibetan deity yoga: visualisations (generation stage) give way to sunyata (completion stage).
 * Well, this will take some more time of study and contemplation. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the "sphere of samadhi or mental concentration" precedes the appearance of the inner bodies, which "broadly correspond [...] to the four jhanas," yet this sphere is also samadhi? I wouldn't take MacKenzie to serious on this; it looks more like those inner bodies are a technique of visualizations. Dhyana, ultimately, or originaly, is not a concentration-practice, but a mindfulness-equanimity practice, as the Burmese also somehow seem to have intuited. All of this Dhammakaya-meditation method seems to be no more than the second step of jhana-practice: concentration. Compare with Tibetan deity yoga: visualisations (generation stage) give way to sunyata (completion stage).
 * Well, this will take some more time of study and contemplation. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this will take some more time of study and contemplation. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Bedankt JJ. The issue is not as much with Mackenzie or Newell or other scholars. The Dhammakaya's formulation is what it is, some outsiders might find it internally inconsistent or difficult to follow (e.g. their samadhi concept). It is quite unlike the historic formulation of jhana in Theravada or Mahayana or early Buddhism. Those who belong to the Dhammakaya movement have their own feelings / view. We sense similar issues in the meditative system rationalization in some modernistic Jain, Hindu and Neo-spirituality spin-offs. You are right about the Dhammakaya jhana's similarities with some Tibetan formulations. Our challenge is, of course, to summarize the mainstream scholarship with compassion for the Dhammakaya movement followers and the different scholars. I am back from holidays and will try to find time to re-read the 20+ Dhammakaya WP:RS on my desk, then summarize. Your check, review and revisions would be most welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shree Kshetra Trimbakeshwar Shiva Temple (January 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shree Kshetra Trimbakeshwar Shiva Temple and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shree Kshetra Trimbakeshwar Shiva Temple, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shree_Kshetra_Trimbakeshwar_Shiva_Temple Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shree_Kshetra_Trimbakeshwar_Shiva_Temple reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, but I didn't submit this draft. It was fine is userspace, I think. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization question
Hey JJ, I was reading up on the latest lit on the Indus Valley Civilization here. I have 2 questions,
 * 1) do you think the current academic content we have on the Saraswati being home to large number of Indus sites correct?
 * 2) If that is the case, hypothetically, will the IVC be renamed in the next 40-50 years?
 * 3) Also, I saw it on Scroll, an Indian newspaper, state that most modern-day Indians, 60%, are descended of Indus Valley people. Obviously, I do not want to use Scroll, but was wondering if you know any academic work which fact-checks it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC))
 * , if you know anything about the above inquiry, let me know. Thanks! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC))


 * welcome to the riddle of Indian origins!
 * McIntosh is from 2008; that's quite some time ago.
 * The Sarasvati? Or the paleochannels of the Ghaggar-Hakra fluvial system? I guess the number is correct, but I also recall that the number is so high because the GH dried-up, while the Indus kept flowing, covering remains with mud. Given the controversy regarding "Sarasvati," I don't expect that international scholars will follow their Indian colleagues on renaming the civilisation to "Sarasvati civilisation"; the alterbative, "Harappan Civilisation," is credible, though.
 * Regarding Scroll.in, you mean ? I don't see the number of 60%; it also wouldn't be correct. They may mean that 60% of the Indian DNA is derived from the IVC; all Indians are related to IVC-people. See also Razib KHan (jan.18, 2018), The Dravidianization of India, for interesting additional comments, especially this one (emphasis mine):
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Just so I can learn wikipolicy:
 * Given the controversy regarding Sarasvati, I don't expect that international scholars will follow their Indian colleagues on renaming the civilisation to Sarasvati civilisation: Do we as editors put an equal emphasis to Indian authors to their international counterparts or international authors are emphasized on IVC article? And Indian authors are discounted per wikipolicy?
 * Is there any peer-reviewed article or books which state most modern-Indians have large amount of IVC DNA? If so, do you know any? And do you think we should add it in the IVC article? I want to make sure, because this info to the article will cause fireworks, and I am going to tread very, very carefully.
 * (Highpeaks35 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC))
 * (Highpeaks35 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC))


 * No, Indian authors are not disqualified oer Wiki-policy; what is discounted is WP:FRINGE theories, non-WP:RS, and nationalistic "theories" which want to glorify India's Vedic past. Ironically, the main proponents of those theories include Danio, Frawley and Elst, all Europeans...
 * Narasimhan 2018! Already mentioned in the IVC-article: Indus Valley Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot :
 * Should Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation be mentioned in the lead? Will that be valid? Or wait until more lit is available?
 * Should the new DNA finding of modern people of the Indian subcontinent be mentioned in the lead? Or wait until more lit is available?
 * Making sure I don't cause any problem in that article. :) (Highpeaks35 (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, "Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation" should not be mentioned in the lead; that's a designation used by people with a political and/or nationalistic agenda;
 * And no, the DNA-findings are not to be mentioned in the lead (yet); that will take a couple of years, and more studies.
 * Did you get the 60%-number from Tony Joseph? review of his book. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

My input:
 * If the term "Indus-Sarasvati Civilization" or variant has been mentioned in good quality secondary sources, as coming from a certain section of Indian scholars, I think it can be mentioned in the lead. It should be attributed to the Indian scholars concerned but not stated as a fact.
 * Regarding "Sarasvati", I think there is a fair consensus that the river the Vedic people called "Sarasvati" is the same as Ghaggar-Hakra. But there is no consensus on how big the river was in the Vedic times. The problem with calling it "Sarasvati" is that people start imagining all kinds of things. So, we don't use that term. The Hindu nationalists are wrong to believe that all references to "Sarasvati" in the Rigveda refer to this same river.
 * The statement "most modern-day Indians, 60%, are descended of Indus Valley people" too vague to be ruled either right or wrong. The IVC did not span the whole of India. And there were no "IVC people", anthropologically speaking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and California is bubbling with these same debates! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with calling it "Sarasvati" is that people start imagining all kinds of things. So, we don't use that term, is that a good way to write history? Shouldn't accuracy be most important. It is now clear, Indus is not the only spot this civilization existed. The GH also played a role (regardless of how bigger or smaller). I know this scholarship is recent, so if you guys have any good works, let me know. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC))
 * I's quite simple: Sarasvati = Veda's; to use this term is to suggest that the IVC/Harappan civilisation was Vedic. Maybe post-IVC people introduced the memories of a grand, but dried-up river, into the Aryan tribes, but the IVC was not Aryan. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not writing "history". We are writing an encyclopedia, and that means we present the scholarly consensus, not our own viewpoints.
 * The fact that Sarasvati is Ghaggar-Hakra is hardly new. It has been there for at least a century. But the use of the term "Sarasvati" for Ghaggar-Hakra is recent, and is limited to a small number of scholars.
 * The fact that the IVC was also spread along the Ghaggar-Hakra has also been there for a century. Nothing new here.
 * And, JJ, I don't see the identification of Sarasvati = Veda in the scholarly treatments. So, let us not worry about it. It is just muddying waters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * do you think Parpola statement, per the trimmed version here should be mentioned in the IVC article? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Parpola already is mentioned in the IVC-article. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Here the author mentions there are 500 major sites in GH and 100 in the Indus, however, as you mentioned above, some believe it is due to the river drying up, but that is somewhat speculative. However, my main concern is, which group of scholars do we trust. It seems like a group of scholars are adamant on GH having more sites, with physical evidence, while others (many non-Asians) are speculating that the Indus River sites were destroyed by river and human activity, while nature helped GH sites survive. Also, there is claims ASI is exaggerating by some mainly non-Asian scholars. Who do we trust? How can we verify? If not using ASI? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Hey, furthering our convo, I made some edits here regarding the IVC. Can you proofread it for accuracy and any grammar related issues? Kindly let me know if there are any questions or concerns you might have. Look forward to working with you. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Also, took out some stuff that was unreferenced since 2016. If you find the citations (I did not), please put them back. Thanks buddy for working with me on this. Appreciate it. Looking forward to your improvements and edits. Happy editing. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

Please make these posts on Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation. Posting on a user's talk page and feigning chumminess is nowhere on Wikipedia a strategy for gaining consensus for bogus edits. Go to Talk:IVC. Can't you see. JJ is not even responding. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

New edits in IVC
Hey, can you review my IVC edits here for neutrality or any errors. Will greatly appreciate it. Sorry for bothering you. Want to be transparent. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC))
 * I was already taking a look. I will, but later. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Again, I do not want to be a bother. But, I am tired of dealing with FF's attitude and POV. Rather have a neutral individual like you proofread my work than having an edit war with FF and his rude and arrogant Eurocentric POV . (Highpeaks35 (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

IVC undo
Why did you undo my removal of unsourced content here? Please explain which parts you disagreed. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC))
 * It's not a matter of content, but of behviour. See my message at your talkpage. Take care, and restrain yourself. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

George L. Hart, Ananku and the South Indian caste system
Happy New Year, JJ.

Some interesting edits here. Need to be cleaned up. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Bronkhorst has been rewriting the book on Hinduism. Two books so far, each of them with loads of new information. Here is a tidbit:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * it did, didn't it, creating the caste-system? Compare with the late Roman Empire, in which occupations became hereditary, in response to a structural economic crisis. But Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan is irrelevant for Hart. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By "Vedic society" here, Bronkhorst means the religion (the sacrificial cult) of the Vedic society. It was killed by the Magadhan empire for Bronkhorst, because its emperors believed in Jainism and Buddhism and gave a cold shoulder to Brahmanism. It got revived as what we call "Hinduism" after the decline of the Mauryas. So, here we have the death of one religion and the birth of another.
 * As for the caste system of the Vedic society, we really don't have any clue what it was. The varnas were only ritual ranks and had no role in the society. The jatis were not universal. (Not every one had a jati.) There were occupational identities but no linkage with anything like "caste". (Note: Brahmana and Kshatriya were all three: they were varnas, jatis as well as occupational identities. But all the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas put together were no more than 5% of the population. What about the remaining 95%?)
 * I am increasingly looking at the Andhra society analysed by Cynthia Talbot for understanding caste. There, other than the Brahmins and Komatis, there were no other castes even up to about 1500 AD. And, the Andhras were integrated into the post-Vedic society to the extent that even the Greeks and the Romans knew about them. So, I don't think Andhra can be regarded as an outlier. We need to take seriously the idea that the caste system was invented during the Gupta empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moorjani (2013)?... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Caste System originated during Gupta dynasty: Study. There's a theory that the Gupta Empire declined due to the decline of the Roman Empire. See my comment above. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Occupations becoming hereditary would have had a much earlier origin in India. But what happened during the Gupta period was the writing of Dharmashastras, which invented the varna-sankara theory. The theory said that the various castes arose as a result of mixed marriages. If a Brahmin man married a Kshatriya woman, then the offspring would be of some other third caste, inferior to both the parents! The effect of this on the populace is easy to imagine. Basically, people stopped marrying out of caste.
 * The spread of the ideology might have happened after the Gupta empire ended. Then there was political fragmentation, many small states and new ruling clans, all of which needed legitimation. They achieved it by heavily patronising the Brahmins, giving them large gifts and land grants. Brahminism went through the roof. The remote Bhinmal, at the edge of a desert, had 45,000 Brahmins, if we are to go by the contemporary texts. The Gurjara-Pratiharas never called themselves Gurjaras, but their enemies insisted on calling them "Gurjaras". So, this period, which is variously called "late classical period" or "early medieval period", is probably when the chickens came home to roost. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * So, why was Shankara, a saivite, a Brahmin? Did he 'smuggle' non-orthodox religiosity into the orthodox camp? One Dutch writer called Shankara's system the victory of indigenous Indian religion over Aryan religion. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a loaded question, and I don't know what you are really asking. Shankara was a Brahmin by birth (jati), by his varna as well as his occupation. Saivite has nothing to do with it. As for his religiosity, Shanakara never claimed that he was doing anything new. He was only interpreting, or perhaps systematising, what was aleady known. The Dutch writer doesn't know his head from his tail.
 * But in terms of the trajectory of Hinduism, he was returning what I called the "new religion" (or the "reinvented" religion) back to its Vedic roots. But, if I am right, the new religion never had any Vedic roots, only lip service. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is some very useful info from the early 20th century. In Champaran, where Gandhi launched his first satyagraha, landlord (Bhumihar) Brahmins were 5%, other Brahmins were 7.9%, and Rajputs were 7.6%, altogether about 20%. This is a lot higher than I was expecting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vedic caste system
I think the Satyakama Jabala story gives us some idea of the caste system at that time. The question posed, "what family are you?" quizzes the birth. (I suspect that the English translation "family" probably refers to Sanskrit kulam, a highly understudied concept.) After the boy answered he didn't know, the teacher concluded he must be a Brahmin because he spoke the truth. This indicates the mixing of the varna and jati identity of Brahminhood, but it is the varna (identified by speaking of truth) that triumphed.

Notice also that the boy never interpreted "family" to mean the mother's family. Women didn't have any caste. That makes any idea of endogamy impossible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * K: In the original text, the boy does! He mentions his mom and what his mom told him. It is more complicated, more interesting. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Bronkhorst's challenge
I urge the due careful read and attribution of these sources. Johannes Bronkhorst's publication, the one you mention above, are primary sources and he admits this. Page 1 of his Buddhism in the Shadow of the Brahmanism, for example, states,
 * Quote: "Buddhism, we are often told, was a reaction against Vedic Brahmanism. Vedic Brahmanism is the religion that finds expression in the Veda, an immense corpus of texts. Vedic Brahmanism, we are made to understand, is much older than Buddhism and was indeed the dominant religion in northern India, including the area in which Buddhism arose. I do not share this opinion. I do not deny that many Vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when the Buddha was born. However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against Brahmanical thought and culture."

According to Bronkhorst, and we must always attribute his views to him in wikipedia articles, Buddha likely lived about 100 years – give or take a few decades – later than the 480 BCE suggested previously by many Western scholars. There never was a Vedic religion, in his view, and Brahmanism came from the northwest after the Buddha had already died. The Magadha kings did not convert from or reject Brahmanism but knew only of Jainism and Buddhism because that is what was there (Vedic ideas came into that region later), according to Bronkhorst. And so on. Bronkhorst has many such thought-provoking proposals, some of which dismiss the conventional, long-held stereotypes / assumptions / premises / views about Jainism, Buddhism and Brahmanism / Hinduism. I have all his publications in my library, some in draft form before BRILL/etc published them, and can try to share parts of them as you improve articles that interest you. I like Johannes' innovative premises, and above all his questioning of old premises that tend to have zero physical / archaeological / epigraphical / solid evidence behind them. Some old ideas that have been used to browbeat the Buddhists, Hindus and Jains are merely cherrypicked and contested interpretation of one phrase out of thousands that express views and ideas entirely different. From helping build the Wikipedia perspective, I have already cited Bronkhorst, with attribution, in some South Asia and Southeast Asia articles, back in 2017. But, please remember that Bronkhorst's views are far from being the mainstream yet. He is an RS, and deserves to be cited with due attribution. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

K: In case you haven't, please see Bronkhorst papers related to Kashmir, Panini, Chandra, Bhartrihari, Chandragupta Maurya, etc as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ambedkar
Do you think the long quote in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Opposition_to_Aryan_invasion_theory can be removed or moved to Who Were the Shudras?. I think excessive quotes invite more quotes ... JimRenge (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * yes. Paraphrasing and shortening. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor pushing "John Marshall"
See here. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverting Edits with Twinkle
Dear ,

On 5.Feb.2019 I made 3 edits to the article of Swami Satyananda Saraswati which you have reverted using Twinkle, without taking into account my edit summaries.

Acording to the terms of use of Twinkle: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." My edits of 5.Feb.2019 were good-faith changes, with an appropriate edit summary and they were reverted with your Wikipedia:Twinkle without an appropriate summary.

For the reasons set below (which were also implied in my edit summaries of 5.Feb.2019) I consider that the defaming text I removed was using non-neutral languange (see also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and was based on unreliable sources according to wiki rules (pls. see brief analysis below).

In my first edit I made reference for violation of wiki rules WP:NOTRELIABLE WP:NEWSORG WP:SELFPUBLISH and in my second edit I made reference to the edit of senior User:Mdann52, who had intervened on 6.June.2016, cleaning the article of similar content, in response to a letter of mine to info-en-v@wikimedia.org in April 2016, regarding vandalism of the said page. So my edits are not a matter of WP:CENSOR as you wrote in your edit summary, but rather a matter of reliability of sources.

The sources used to support the text in the section entitled "Australian Royal Commission inquiry into abuse of children" are either obsolete newspaper articles (# 19,20,22 in the current version) dating back to 2014, expressing views that rely on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion, or testimonies, while reference # 21 (current version) is a self-published private web publication, which lacks any form of neutrality, is based on testimonies as the mere sources and expresses the opinion of the author. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

Please also note that a testimony is not a reliable source. It is just that, a personal testimony.

As the above brief analysis shows that there has been a clear violations of WP:NOTRELIABLE WP:NEWSORG WP:SELFPUBLISH, I would like to kindly ask you to remove the content of the "Australian Royal Commission inquiry into abuse of children"

user:Sankgeo 07:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * To be continued at Talk:Satyananda Saraswati. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How to become a Zen master listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to become a Zen master. Since you had some involvement with the How to become a Zen master redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing Demographics Section in Lingayatism
Hi JJ

I am a new user, I might have edited the article improperly. Could you guide me in the process?

Regarding the subsection Demographics under Lingayatism, It's as hard to define and mark Lingayats as it is to mark Hindus. It consists of tens of endogamous castes who do not inter marry or socialise because of the different socio-economic conditions.

Census figures in Karnataka, Maharastra themselves will show you varying % of Lingayats due to the reason because many of these castes follow Lingayat culture and vegetarianism but during identification those who have affirmative action benefits enlist themselves as their caste fellowmen, while those relatively richer castes enlist themselves as Lingayats or Veerashaivas.

MN SRINIVAS, the sociologist lists Lingayats as a Dominant caste(numerical power and economic power) however his is a parochial view. Social dissuasions or political discussions, Lingayats mean the 'dominant castes' and not a dominant caste. So the rich castes professing vegetarianism in Karnataka region have tended to inter-marry and hence there is increasing identification of Lingayat as a caste. However there is a deep split between so called forward castes of Lingayatism and backward castes. This manifested into the Lingayat-Veerashaiva rivalry. Again these 2 terms are vague - Lingayat and Veerashaivas are just political notions, castes will jump on to their bandwagon as time progresses and political divisions take place.

I request you to delete the section. I will run the content through you with relevant citations and get your approval before re-posting?

Gksampath (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Gksampath

Why I am a Hindu
is apparently the title of Shashi Tharoor's 17th book. Here is talk on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfRIu8t9Jbc Seems like a timely book. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lingayatism
Hi kind of your guidance. The whole point of Lingayat movement was to oppose the Hindu core beliefs. It's no different from Buddhism, Jainism etc.. But later are considered separate religion but not Lingayatism. Lingayats may worship Hindu Gods but so are jains and Buddhists in India, due to syncretism of beliefs. Confusions are due to the Veerahaivas, who are core Hindu believers trying to identify as Lingayats but rejecting Lingayatism beliefs for political gain, nothing more. I'll try to add information with latest sources, please correct me wrong and notify me. Finally I request you to direct this page to followers of Lingayatism known as Lingayats. Lingayats are the biggest community in Karnataka state of India and form significant population in neighbouring states. The page might help those looking for Lingayat community:. Aatoturk (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was a little bit quick with reverting you, but as I was working on a mobile phone, I was restricted in my means tp modify your edits. I'll take a closer look later. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you for your response. Directly adding to the lead section was actually my fault. Please consider directing this page to term Lingayat also, since this page has large information about Lingayats, who are followers of Lingayatism and this could be helpful for those searching community also. Hindu nationalists like RSS oppose minority status to any anti-stratification faith originated in India. Aatoturk (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

please instruct me, if I'm gone wrong in any editing in Wikipedia.Aatoturk (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Aatoturk: I concur with JJ's reverts. Please see the article's talk page and the archives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mind for a pint, mate?

 * three years? You must be kidding. No, I haven't forgotten you, and this 'old dog' is still active. How about the car; going into sales? ;) Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm trying to sell it in order to cover my Wikipedia editing expenses. ^^ Kidding, kidding. But here where I live, we need something more sturdy than some fancy compact exec. That's why I have my 4x4 diesel. And you know, they speak a lot of bad things about us diesel folks these days. But don't believe them, nothing of that's true. Or as President Trump would've put it, "that's false news". Actually, we are good and loving people; people with good old values and strong opinions, people whose neighbours still are friends among each other. ;) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of dharmakaya edit
If you read the explanation of my edit in the Dharmakaya article it explains that the removed section misrepresented what the source actually said. One can't just insert one's own opinions and add a misleading citation to give it the appearance of validity. In addition the writer seems uninformed about the difference between the Hindu creator called Brahma and the impersonal Absolute which is called by the similar name of Brahman. Finally, he says the Dalai Lama talks about sunyata when, in fact, he never mentions it. Please help me to restore it to accuracy. IndologyScholar2 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I meant the Dalai Lama didn't mention sunyata in the cited article. He talks about sunyata a lot. 😀 IndologyScholar2 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Christianity
Water soluble alkaloid. Live with it. Octavius88 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Mergers for Resurrection of Jesus and others
THe proper way would be to propose the 3-way merger on the article talk pages. I'd support it.PiCo (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * oaky; thanks. I'll leave it for the moment, though; enough merger-troubles recently, as you may have noticed. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Reassessment of article
Hello. Recently you made a reassessment on the Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus. Just want to know whether you use the criteria in the WikiProject here and here for the consistency of assessment? Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks; I've re-reassessed it. There was frustration from my side with the existence of three content-forks from Resurrection of Jesus, with basically the same text and info. Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus does not treat the main (naturalistic) explanantion for the resurrection-concept, except for two brief remarks on "visionary experiences." Frustrating. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It takes time to improve a Wikipedia article to a higher quality. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotes
Thank you for your kindness! Vdongold (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ramanuja
Don't you know that in our religion we don't compare a divine saint in this case Ramanuja to a mortal especially a non-Indian person who has not undergone purificatory Hindu rituals. This is a grave offence to our Hindu sentiments. Clarify your position on the matter. Why would you re-edit this with out being sensitive to our ancient belief systems? We Hindus find it blasphemous to compare a divine figure from the Hindu religious tradition to a mere mortal reformer. Blasphemous opinions nor graffiti constitute wikipedia's policies. What if a Christian saint was compared some African shaman? It's an unneeded comment. As I read, I see that you have a history of re-editing pages regarding Hindu people's faith. Let me guess it was to give "a voice to other views" specifically regarding divine figures of the Hindus.

19:29, 26 January 2014 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: Dharmacakra) KaustubhHareKrishna (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * familiarise yourself with our policies. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, nor do we WP:CENSOR. And we don't throw around ASPERSIONS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Rajiv Malhotra
... is waking up again. I wonder what is going on? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This must be it . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sheldon Pollock goes hip-hop? This is truly enlightening:
 * 'The people are led by the party; the party is lead by the polit-buro; and the polit-buro is lead by the secretary-general'. In other words, the masses are dumb, how do we get them to follow us? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the Communist Party of India has only a politburo and a party. No masses, except may be in Kerala. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the Communist Party of India has only a politburo and a party. No masses, except may be in Kerala. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing pattern?
Hi. Could you take a look at edits of this user? You have already reverted some of their edits. See their edits on Andronovo culture, Turkic peoples, Bashkirs, Hazaras, Turkmens, Uyghurs, and Uzbeks. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)assuming that n
 * they're on the radar now of several editors; not sure yet what to make of it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Editing?
Hello, and thank you for your assistance. My removal of Baba Mohan Rama from the Dashavatara page was due to the reference leading to a temple of that figure, as well as not being a widely accepted or known figure, whereas the belief in Kalki is near universal. My thought was that a Baha'i of Hindu background, such as myself, might believe Baha'u'llah is the tenth avatar or that Muhammad is Kalki himself; this doesn't allow that I change the list to advertise my personal view. Can we not change Baba Mohan Ram (and perhaps others) to merely notes or smaller sections? (Jinabi (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC))
 * you're right; thanks for noticing. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Central Asia?
It seems to me to be a mistake to think of the Indo-Aryans as "Central Asian". It is better to think of them as "Russians", who used the inter-montane corridor to move south. The vast Kazhak plains didn't interest them. I have marked Shortugai in the map, which is the end of the corridor. After that, they didn't know where else to go. Their wheeled chariots took them to Afghanistan, which was no better than the Kazhakstan that they shunned. Only after they gave up their chariots and took to walking could they reach India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But the chariots were still there, in their minds and memory! After hking over the mountains, they build them again? But Russians? Yeah, well, in a sense - though Siberia only relatively recently became Russian. But that's an aside. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding merging of a page
Hi, why did you merge Nirguna Brahman to Para Brahman, is there any reason behind that. MRRaja001 (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * see diff: Merged to Para Brahman; synonymous terms. There was no substantial info whatsoever on that page, while the topic is broadly covered at Para Brahman. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * But both are different topics, Nirguana Brahman is one of the quality not one and the only one. Please keep them separate, so that someone can contribute to the topic, Thanks. MRRaja001 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
If you don't have knowledge of hinduesm you must not edit or write. you area vatican jewish stooge....

PRANN-DAIWAN (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * LOL! But anyway, go ahead.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Joshua, this is usually faster. JimRenge (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Indus wheels
Hi JJ, please check this kind of edits. The user has less than a dozen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Genetic research on the origins of India's population
Hey there! How would you feel about moving Genetic research on the origins of India's population to some other location, like maybe User:Joshua Jonathan/Genetic research on the origins of India's population or as a subpage of the India WikiProject or something? Pages in the Wikipedia namespace are supposed to be "administration pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia", so the large collection of literature on Indian population genetics seems a bit out of place. I just happened to stumble upon it today while searching for something related to the genetics WikiProject. If you have no objection, I'm happy to move it. Otherwise we could ask for more opinions somewhere (I guess MfD would be the right place, even though we're not considering deleting the page?)?... Anyway, hopefully you don't mind. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * fine with me. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Michael Witzel article
This is in response to your request to write on your Talk page.

I am glad that you will work on the revisions. By saying that “it is your bad”, I assume you have mostly written it. But do you have the judgment to read academic resumes? If you did, you will realize the hollowness of Michael Witzel’s record. Where are the scholarly notices of his work? Without those, he cannot be considered any better than a third-rate scholar.

The article on him just keeps on citing him, one after another. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? And the article merely lists his papers as, for example, in the paragraph starting with “Shorter papers provide analyses of important religious (2004) and literary …”, which is quite like the others. This is what casebooks for faculty going up for tenure read like! Even a young faculty will be embarrassed to just list papers without clearly explaining what the content is and what the claimed originality is.

He is a fringe scholar of mythology (see the reviews by Lincoln, Thompson and others) and a sloppy one of Indology (again see reviews). He has very few peer-reviewed journal articles and books. If he spent years doing his mythology work, why isn't his work discussed by scholars of mythology?

An entire section on his self-published article on the Indus Script (Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies was run by him) is most bizarre. He promoted it hard but it has been roundly rebutted by everyone. It doesn't deserve to be on his page because it not notable. Of course, a mention of it could go in the Indus Script page.

For the sake of quality on Wikipedia, the article should be severely shortened, the Indus Script section deleted, and a section on the severe criticism that he has received (as above) added. MurkhaHanta (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is in further response to your request to write on your Talk page regarding my edits to the same article. I have already opened a discussion on the subject's talk page so this can be discussed there. I look forward to hearing your thoughts there. LovaLova (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * There was no request to write on my talkpage, but to discuss issues at the Michael Witzel talkpage.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

New text of Krishnaism
Please check the created new text. Now, there's no a duplicate information with the article Vaishnavism. DayakSibiriak (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * could you please take a look there? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DayakSibiriak: I have reverted it back to the way Joshua Jonathan had redirected it, after checking Galvin Flood and other sources. On page 117, last 4 lines and thereafter Flood does mention Krsnaism. However, please note that Flood's discussion is within the context of Vaishnavism and its sub-traditions (it starts a few pages earlier). That is exactly how JJ structured the main article after a lot of work and per wikipedia guidelines. We want to avoid WP:CFORKs and POV-y content in multiple articles, when they cover the same essentially-related subject. There is no persuasive reason for creating forked stub articles, is there? It is better to explain the related ideas, their inter-relationships and the differences, for the reader in a cohesive way as JJ did. You are welcome to constructively revise and improve the Krishnaism section. JJ: those are my thoughts, but if you recent studies persuade you otherwise, I am fine with alternatives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ms Sarah Welch for the prompt verification. I just follower the idea of the editors of (also 2nd ed. 2005), in which there is a separate article. After all, Krishnaism is not identical to all Vaishnavism and cannot be reduced to any one sampradaya within it, but there is a group of traditions. So why not start with an article stub? Yes, we can write about this in the article Vaishnavism, but at the moment there everything is reduced only to individual sampradays. DayakSibiriak (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DayakSibiriak: The wikipedia article on Vaishnavism does not present Krishnaism in sampradaya context. I saw the Hardy article you mention. It too presents and weaves in the Vaishnavism context, plus content in the Krishna article. Volume 14 of the same encyclopedia has a large three-part article on Vaisnavism. Krsnaism is one of many sections in there (p. 9499 plus more on later pages). If you draft up an interesting article in your sandbox with extensive new material based on scholarly sources about Krsnaism, I am certain JJ will work with you on it. But, there is no point in having a stub article that forks out content found in other wikipedia articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift response and the effort, MSW! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, let be. DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Severe Editing of Moral Influence Theory of Atonement
Can you explain again your rationale on deleting the information on the origins of the Moral Influence theory with Augustine? Why not just add a section about modern skepticism about the origins of the theory in full? It seems information about the history of Eastern Christianity, information on conflict and criticism, etcetera have also been removed, which would have provided good context to the existing information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.200.177 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that my edit-summary was pretty clear: "see talk." Please read the talkpage, and discuss the topic there. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Mapping the origins
In this talk, around 3:00, David Anthony is criticising the "Mapping the origins" (2012) paper. Do we have this analysis anywhere on Wikipedia? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello
You put an Invalid ref number 27 on turkic peoples, anyway thanks for your great work.MeLoveGames (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Too fast, too tired?
   

So far I've seen more than 10 different editors cleaning up after your numerous edits to Christ myth theory. Making work for other people is not a good thing. At the very least, edit with a browser than has a spell checker active, and review before you hit "Publish Changes". I'm sure 'authentocity' would have been redlined.

Oh good, you are reviewing lately. Shenme (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Try a different tone, will you? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * glad you appreciate it! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow! That is an amazing job, JJ! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow that sounds cynical? Or am I too suspicious-minded now? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Seriously meant. But, perhaps, I am surprised there was nothing worth saving in those thousands and thousands of bytes! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Historical Vedic religion/Help
Hello Joshua, I have edited the article Historical Vedic religion and tried to correct it. There are/was several incorrect statements. As this is a controversial topic, I inform you as one of the major contributors of this article. Please, if you have time, can you take a look at the article? If necessary correct mistakes made by me. I think it is now better than before, but to be sure I wanted to let you know. Greetings.212.241.98.39 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 212.241.98.39: Some of your edits do not reflect the source(s). You are also making conclusions that the scholar is not. For example, Sayers states in his thesis and later publications that "The Aranyakas and Upanisads, philosophical reflections on the ritual, offer no new insight into the ancestral rites. These texts are little concerned with ancestor rites, and the latter works of this genre express a different soteriology based on reincarnation, a scheme that explicitly denies the acquisition of an enduring heaven through ritual". Sayers also discusses the post-Vedic texts such as the Kalpasutras, but those are not Vedic texts. Please see WP:OR and our other content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is King of troy and WP:SEEALSO. Jayjg (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by Nickm57
I appreciate your time looking into these cases. And I appreciate your interest in and public display of Buddhism. I have also worked on some articles with regard to this way of life. I've read your Buddhist message: 'Relax!' I agree that we should all take a deep breath and not be too upset by a difference opinion, which is why it would be against the open cooperative free spirit of wikipedia for nick to censor me simply because he does not agree with me.

Many people have thanked me for my edits. But there are for some reason some who seek to vandalize, harass, and revert me; simply because I write about things that does not conform to their point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view. They intend to ban me, and I need support. I have reached out to those who have appreciated my edits. Please do not let these bullies get their way and further censor the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse. I trust you as an admin. Thank you very much for your time and support on this. I really appreciate it. Alexkyoung (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Roots of the "History of Xinjiang"
75% of the text of History of Xinjiang was added by Milktaco, who also created 94,9% of Migration to Xinjiang,. I recommend reading the odd SPI, including the masters (Rajmaan) defense. JimRenge (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "bijzonder," as one would say in Dutch. Time to check what exactly they added. NB: the terrorism-part wasn't only undue, but also coatrack. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

History of Xinjiang
When you reverted that page, you reverted the edits of other users too. Those are not just my edits.

Second, we spent months improving the article. Please give an honest comparison of the two. The current one is better.

It has a better toc, it removed many grammatical mistakes, it fixed a lot of style, reorganized the content better. Another user even added the Ush rebellion. So many more links were added, as well as more citations.

If you want to propose specific feedback as to where the article can be improved, please state exactly where. Then I will be happy to help you and others improve it. Alexkyoung (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Read WP:OWN and WP:DONTGETIT. Talkpage-stalkers: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok I have read the points. I have already addressed these in my response on the page quite a while ago. But I will repeat my main points: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkyoung (talk • contribs) 29 june 2019 (UTC)


 * Please don't create new headers for each new reply; and sign your comments. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

on 'ownership'
I believe you would have to agree that on numerous occasions, from your talk page, to the history of xinjiang talk page, to the ANI; that I have consistently invited others to make their own contributions and non-reverting edits to the article. I never claimed ownership of the article, and the words that 'I will stick to my own' were misinterpreted. It was just a reference to how others like Citobun and Nick were stalking pages that I had recently editing. But no way was I trying to claim that I owned the article. I find such an accusation ridiculous, and I apologize as I never meant to come off that way. But in defense, please at least acknowledge that I have always invited others to make specific edits to the pages. Alexkyoung (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say: you didn't invite them; you commanded them, instructing not to touch your edits. Look, you're really in deep trouble now. Best thing to do, for now, is to let it rest, apologize, and come back later, and then first explain your edits. But it's probbaly already too late for you. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't say they weren't allowed to touch my edits. That seems like a gross misinterpretation, and frankly I was expecting better from an admin like you.Alexkyoung (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

'getting the point'
Ok I am listening to what you want. I have proposed one compromise on the ANI. I would like to collaborate on what steps should be taken next.Alexkyoung (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

on the existing tags
You restored the tags to the article, even after you and JimRenge edited the article extensively. Is there something more that can be done? Or should the tags just remain there?

Update: Ok I'm not sure what this silence treatment is about, but I think it's helpful to discuss. After all that's what Socrates would have promoted.

I read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove

and I'm guessing I should just wait for somebody else to fix any pov or or (if it exists), or for Darthkayak to elaborate more and then I can help fix. But if you're just going to remain silent, then I'm just guessing since I'm not the administrator here.

Anyways, I just want to say thanks for listening and editing off of the version I was advocating (which I won't say is 'my' version).

Alexkyoung (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I live in Holland; I woke up in the middle in the night, and started editing just to have some diversion before trying to get back to sleep. That's why I was silent after I reverted your removal. But let's continue this discussion at Talk:History of Xinjiang. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Larry Hurtado
Hi Joshua. On 10 June you edited Ascension of Jesus adding the following citation: Subsequently you added two references to. I checked the book publication date and have consequently changed the references from 2015 to 2005. I do note that Hurtado has published a lot of works, including one in 2015, so I just need to check with you that you intended the 2005 book, not an uncited work from 2015. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many accounts
Help! I have so many accounts that I can't figure out what account I am on. Why does Wikipedia make it so hard to operate multiple accounts? Take a lesson from gmail or something! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sharp! Yes, it's a bloody shame. Luckily, there's Wikialpha: no restrictions! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Shree Kshetra Trimbakeshwar Shiva Temple
Hello, Joshua Jonathan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shree Kshetra Trimbakeshwar Shiva Temple".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rollidan (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Caste system limits economic growth
Here is a very interesting passage I found buried in Greater India:

Quintessential European POV?

The editor who added this was also writing about Indians expanding into Southeast Asia. A symbol of "limited economic progress"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

History of Xinjiang
JimRenge (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect combination, did you ever try the arabic variant (add one crushed black/ripe cardamom seed per cup)? JimRenge (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Cardoman seed? No, that's completely unknown to me. I'll try! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of my friends drink their coffee regularly with cardamom, some dislike the taste, some feel that the adddition of cardamom helps to prevent coffee induced stomach irritability. It is sold in Asia shops and arabic food stores, cardamon powder is a waste of money. JimRenge (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw a documentary once, where an Ethiopian coffee grower flavored his coffee with ground garlic & ground black pepper.

Coffee with garlic – Ingredients (for 2 servings): 300 gammas [sic] of purified water 2 tablespoons of ground coffee 2 cloves of garlic sugar - to taste, or not to add at all black pepper and salt - quite a bit. --2db (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * you're a special person! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Questions about neo-Vedanta and such
Hi Joshua - I need to ask you some questions, so I can better understand and respond to your notes. I hope it's OK to do that here. If it's not OK, I can re-post in the Ramakrishna talk page. I'm not arguing anything here, just trying to understand your comments.

[1] Where is the dividing line between Vedanta and Neo-Vedanta? From what I've read, some consider RK as the leading edge of Neo-Vedanta, and others seem to report that it was Vivekananda's interpretation of RK that is considered neo-Vedanta.

[2] Here in the US, I've never heard of the word, "Daemonic". After some research, I found that it's a Latin word, but when I looked it up in several dictionaries, it says it's a variant spelling of demon, defined as "a: an evil spirit angels and demons. b: a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin the demons of drug and alcohol addiction confronting the demons of his childhood..." Perhaps the word is more common in other English speaking countries.

When I first read it, I thought it said, "...bring to the realm of Eastern energetics and realization the demonic [as in evil] celebration..." Is there a better word that doesn't have the demonic connotation and derivation?

[3] Regarding Kali's Child Revisited with the subtitle "Did Anyone Check the Translation?", that was a Xerox'd paper, written by Swami Tyagananda, that was handed out at the 2000 American Academy of Religion conference and published in the journal Evam. The book, Interpreting Ramakrishna with the subtitle, "Kali's Child Revisited" was published in 2010 and was written by Pr. Vrajaprana (a senior nun at the Santa Barbara Vedanta Convent) and Swami Tyagananda (the head of the Vedanta Society of Boston and Hindu Chaplin for MIT and Harvard). Interpreting... doesn't have as many citations as Kali's Child (given KC's controversies, it's not surprising), but the book does have many more citations than the original paper.

[4] How can I communicate my proposed edits, so we're not stepping on each other? Should I post changes here for comment? Or my talk page, or the RK talk page? I'm open to what ever works. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * good inquiry! I like your approach. Regarding your questions:
 * 1. Neo-Vedanta is a form of Vedanta, so no hard border. The question is more: what is Advaita Vedanta, what is Neo-Vedanta? But the phrase "neo-Vedanta" is somewhat pejorative,as is was created to differentiate classical Advaita (Shankara) from 'new' forms of Vedanta seemingly originating in the 19th century, under influence of western culture and colonialism. Actually, Shankara's "pure" AV became the 'standard only centuries later, and was influenced by other strands of thought, whereas NV seems to be older than the 19th century, reflecting a syncretistic trend that dates back several centuries. Regarding Ramakrishna, I know very little about him. His universalistic/syncretistic approach probably also has older roots (compare Guru Nak, or diff. It is this universalism/syncretism which was branded Advaita by Vivekananda, and neo-Advaita by Hacker.


 * 2. Daimon, not Demon.


 * 3. I see. Well, 15 citations. C. Olson:


 * 4. Just edit. When no one responds, fine. If someone responds, discuss.


 * PS: Aldous Huxley]... Also an important influence in the popularisation of Hindu Universalism, and mystical experience as the essence of religion (due to the usage of psycho-active substances. Great experiences, but what's the value of mystical experiences? Compassion is what really matters.).


 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 1. Thank you for this explanation. I was getting confused by the various uses of the term.


 * 2. Got it - I agree with the sense of the quote, just had a problem with that word.


 * 3. I have both books. I remember hearing about the controversy after KC came out. It's a controversy that's been going on since Freud: Is it appropriate to use Freudian Western psychology to analyze a 19th Century Indian mystic? Jung seemed to be more in touch with that realm. I don't much care one way or another - people can have their opinions. But, I think what provoked the writing of IR, were the outright misquotes and faulty translations. The review quote you provided was from from Olson, one of the scholars who was criticized in IR.


 * 4. Got it.


 * Regarding Aldous Huxley. He's one of my favorite authors, ever since first reading him in high school in the early 60s. The Dana Sawyer biography is the best, in terms of understanding his interest in Vedanta. Most of the other biographies think Huxley went off the rails when he got into Yoga. You said:


 * Also an important influence in the popularisation of Hindu Universalism, and mystical experience as the essence of religion (due to the usage of psycho-active substances. Great experiences, but what's the value of mystical experiences? Compassion is what really matters.).


 * Aldous Huxley first started looking into Vedanta in England in the mid-1930s. Huxley and Gerald Heard (author, lecturer, and BBC science commentator) came to the US in 1937 and settled in Los Angeles. Shortly after settling in, they both met and were initiated by Swami Prabhavananda at the Vedanta Society of Southern California. They both studied under the swami and lectured in the Hollywood and Santa Barbara Vedanta Temples. It was the universalism of Vedanta that Huxley was most attracted to, as it contained the foundations of the Perennial Philosophy, which he wrote about in the book with that name. It was published in 1945. He didn't take psychedelic drugs until 1953. The swami was against the drugs and said (paraphrasing), "a real spiritual experience changes your character, the drug experience does not." Huxley would agree with you that compassion is what really matters. World religion scholar Huston Smith, who was a friend of Huxley's said that at a lunch they were having Huxley said,


 * "It's a bit embarrassing... to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'Try to be a little kinder.'"
 * As quoted in Huston Smith, "Aldous Huxley--A Tribute," The Psychedelic Review, (1964) Vol I, No.3, (Aldous Huxley Memorial Issue), p. 264-5


 * Thanks again Ellis408 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * good to know that the druguse postdates the mystical interests. "Try to be a little kinder" to be a little kinder is a very nice quote. I once read that Freud, in his old age, answered the question "Herr doctor Freud, what's it all about?" with the short reply "lieben und arbeiten." And the Dalai Lama, with his dictum "my religion is kindness." Ah, and a T-shirt-quote I read today: "Do little things with great love." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Vedanta Society vs. Ramakrishna Movement
Hi Joshua, I was reviewing all the edits over the last few days, and one thing stuck. In a two places you refer to "the Vedanta Society" - as in, "According to the Vedanta society, this is expressed in Rig Veda..." and "...rendered by the Vedanta Society as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names" The whole paragraph is:


 * Ramakrishna's darśhana, or religious practice and worldview, contained elements of bhakti, Tantra and Vedanta. Ramakrishna emphasised God-realisation as the supreme goal of all living beings. He believed and practiced that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, all lead to God-realization. According to the Vedanta society, this is expressed in Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46, "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan,"[78] rendered by the Vedanta Society as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names."[79]

There is no central "Vedanta Society". In the United States, there are many Vedanta Societies, each incorporated as an independent organization, who invites a Swami of the Ramakrishna Order to be the spiritual head of the Society. A better way to express this is either the Ramakrishna Order or the Ramakrishna Movement.

Also the word "Darshana", as used here, is not a term used by the Vedanta Societies or the Ramakrishna Order, They use "Darshan" to mean soaking in the spiritual atmosphere of a holy person or place. I think Darshana may be a Buddhist term - but is inappropriate here. I would suggest this wording for the paragraph:


 * Ramakrishna's religious practice and worldview, contained elements of bhakti, Tantra and Vedanta. Ramakrishna emphasised God-realisation as the supreme goal of all living beings. He believed and practiced that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, all lead to God-realization. According to the Ramakrishna Order, this concept is expressed in the Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46, "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan,"[78] rendered by the Order as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names."[79]

I've got to reach out to someone who might know, if the "Truth is one; sages call it by various names." phrase is more historic than RK and the RK Order. For my money, "To what is One, sages give many a title" and "Truth is one; sages call it by various names." are just slight variations of an English translation from the original Sanskrit. Ellis408 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I also like this one: "practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellis408 (talk • contribs)

Truth is One...
You said to discuss if there's a disagreement about an edit. You edited my changes to the section that includes a reference to "Truth is One..." interpretation of a passage in in the Rig Veda. I posted a detailed response to you, including suggested wording changes. I left the discussion on the talk page for three days, and after no response from you even though you made edits to the Rk article during that time. I finally posted the changes, and you reverted them with no discussion. I'm disappointed, but will continue to press this issue. This is not just about translation, but interpretation. Please just Google "Truth is One" and see the hundreds of religious organizations who cite this translation and interpretation. To not accept this POV is just pushing a different POV, specifically a belief that all religions do not lead to God realization. The Ramakrishna Order, and the hundreds of other religious organizations who utilize.their interpretation to communicate their philosophy. If needed I can create a list of those organizations, but it shouldn't be necessary. Please discuss. Ellis408 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * sorry, I hadn't read your post yet. Nevertheless, if hundreds of organisations interpret a text in s pecific way, then it's still that: interpretation. The whole notion of "God-realization" post-dates this Vedic text. And if ypu don't provide sources, there's no way to discuss your edit in a substantial way. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, apology accepted. I really wish we had discussed the issue here, before you changed my edit - as I think, in the end, you'll see what I'm saying and why - and I believe you'll agree. I think there are four general issues I have with your notes in regards to "Truth is One...". I write this here, on your talk page, as I see this as a discussion between you and me, but if you feel it's possibly useful for others, feel free to re-post on the RK talk page.


 * Cultural issues of commonly used phrases
 * Translations and meaning
 * Arguing about the validity of another person's belief
 * Translation and meaning of Mandala 1, on Wikipedia


 * The cultural issues at work here is that the phrase, "Truth is One, Sages call it by various names (and the multiple minor variations of it), is so wide spread here in the US (and I believe other English speaking countries), that I'm surprised this has come up at all. I Googled, "truth is one" rig veda google books, and got over 114,000 results - most of them on-target, though with variations of the second part of the phrase, i.e. "Truth is one but wise men know it as many", etc. You said you were unfamiliar with this issue, when we started this discussion. Perhaps you should read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism#Hinduism Wiki's article on Hinduism's pluralism.Here's a passage from a general description of Hinduism, from a group that is not affiliated with the Ramakrishna Movement:


 * The worldview of pluralism is not just applicable to Hindus, but to all members of this universal family. Accordingly, Hinduism acknowledges not just the possibility, but also the existence of more than one path (religion) or way of relating to Truth (God). This true, unadulterated pluralism is captured in the ancient Sanskrit hymn:


 * Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti
 * Truth is one, the wise call it by many names. Source: Hindu American Foundation.


 * Here in the US, you see this phrase displayed in hundreds of meditation studios, Yoga studios, UU Churches, etc. You said, "Truth is One, sages call it by various names" may be widespread, nervertheless it's not the same as "To what is One, sages give many a title." Two issues about this - you're arguing against the translation and meaning that millions of Hindus and spiritual seekers of all faiths, translate this verse into English with the meaning that all paths, religions, spiritual practices, lead to the ultimate God, Ground of All Existence, The Source, or in Sanskrit, Brahman. Secondly, WP recognizes the existence and use of Common Knowledge:


 * Common knowledge is knowledge that is known by everyone or nearly everyone, usually with reference to the community in which the term is used.


 * Regarding the translation and meaning: this sub-section of the Ramakrishna article is not the place to argue either. This paragraph describes what Ramakrishna believed and practiced. In the edit I proposed, it is correct and factual. To argue against the translation and meaning is to argue against what millions of people believe and is central to their faith. I understand that there are some Buddhist, Christians, and others who don't believe the translation and/or meaning as I've described it, but that's arguing for a particular personal belief against another person's personal belief. Putting in the edits I suggest is not arguing for any particular translation or meaning, but describes RK's beliefs and practices, that are based on the "Truth is One...", derived from the Rig Veda. Here is a quote from Swami Prabhavananda's Religion and Practice, which ties the translation and meaning to Ramakrishna directly:


 * Sri Ramakrishna demonstrated this truth in his own life. Stressing the mystic experience, in his unique approach to various religions, Ramakrishna harmonized the conflicting concepts of God. His method was pragmatic, for he accepted no path as valid until he himself had followed it and proved its efficacy. With simplicity and sincerity, Sri Ramakrishna applied the teachings and methods of the divergent Hindu sects and found that they all led to the same divine realization. But that was not enough for him. Mohammedanism was active in India, and Christianity was well known. He practiced the disciplines of these religions also and verified the statement of the ancient seers: 'Truth is one; sages call it by various names.' In Sri Ramakrishna's words: 'So many religions, so many paths to reach one and the same goal.'


 * Mandala 1 as defined in Wikipedia is as follows:


 * Hymns such as the above in Mandala 1 led scholars such as Max Muller to describe the theology of Vedic religion as a form of henotheism. Muller noted that the hymns of the Rigveda, the oldest scripture of Hinduism, mentions many deities, but praises them successively as the "one ultimate, supreme God", alternatively as "one supreme Goddess", thereby asserting that the essence of the deities was unitary (ekam), and the deities were nothing but pluralistic manifestations of the same concept of the divine (God).


 * The Vedic era conceptualization of the divine or the One, states Jeaneane Fowler, is more abstract than a monotheistic God, it the Reality behind and of the phenomenal universe, which it treats as "limitless, indescribable, absolute principle", thus the Vedic divine is something of a panentheism. In late Vedic era, with the start of Upanishadic age (~800-600 BCE), from the henotheistic, panentheistic concepts emerge the concepts which scholars variously call nondualism or monism, as well as forms of non-theism.


 * I'm traveling right now, but I have many reference books at home on Hinduism, Interfaith Gatherings (including the two-volume proceedings of the Parliament of the World's Religions of 1893, published at the time), Huxley's Perennial Philosophy, Prabhavananda's Spiritual Heritage of India Spiritual Heritage of India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Heritage_of_India_(book), which was used as a textbook in University level courses on religion and philosophy, and many others. But, I promise you there are hundreds of contemporary and historic citations of this same translation and this meaning. I hope you will revert to my edits, without me having to provide more research. Please let me know.


 * In conclusion, the section describes what Ramakrishna practiced and believed. It is not about the accuracy of the translation or the interpretation of the Rig Veda's meaning, or even about how popular this phrase and meaning are. It's just a description of what he believed and the basis of his belief. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quotes on the historicity of Jesus


The article Quotes on the historicity of Jesus has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of quotations. This type of directory belongs at Wikiquote."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

English Usage - Meaning of Attend and Attended
Hi Joshua, Just FYI - I noticed a week ago in an article someone used the word attend to mean bring something to someone's attention. I corrected that. I noticed you used it on the RK talk page in response to my comments, "I attended you to William A. Graham". Here are some examples of the correct use of attend and attended: You attended a class last year, or you will attend a play tomorrow. If you attend to a person, you are offering a personal service, as in, "I attended to the needs of Mr. Smith by serving him a cup of tea." It would be proper English to say, "I referred you to William A. Graham.", or "I pointed you to William A. Graham." or "I introduced you to William A. Graham." Hope this is helpful. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * sweet memeries of Corinne, who also pointed out my grammatical errors. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Stop your pov-pushing, and respect Wikipedia-policies. For the talkpage-stalkers: see Talk:Richard Carrier. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

BLPSPS - please self revert
I do not want to escalate this - but this resotred a wordpress blog, not by the BLP subject, to a BLP article. This is a redline WP:BLPSPS violation and is actionable under the DS regime - kindly self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the blog; that should suffice. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. You left larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/the-mythic-jesus-last-hurrah/. There are issues with other sources there as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed that one too. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And left a few sources publishdd well before - in some cases a decade before - Carrier's work - who clearly can not be referring to Carrier.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The Way
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page The Way. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Only add a " red link " if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references


 * I did not find any mention of "The Way" in either of the articles that you linked to. Leschnei (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Early Jewish Christians referred to themselves as 'The Way'. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't go anywhere, but if you're referreng to a Wikidata page, Wikipedia disambiguation pages don't disambiguate Wikidata. I'm not questioning the accuracy of what you say, only the technicality that it needs to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. If a reader is interested in reading about 'The Way' as it relates to religion, it does them no good to send them to to Jewish Christian or Christianity in the 1st century since it's not mentioned there! Leschnei (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain further to me; both pages clearly state Early Jewish Christians referred to themselves as 'The Way'. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see; it's not the title of the page, but a piece of informatin within the page. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Robert M. Price
Looking over the Robert M. Price article, there is no mention of the reception of his theories. Given how much effort has been put into documenting scholars responses to Richard Carrier, this strikes me as strange. Ehrman certainly talks about him quite a lot.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably due to the difference in tone of Price. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Truth is One
See Ramakrishna

Hi Joshua, As I was cleaning up my browsers, I came across the reference of William A. Graham, you gave for the Rig Veda quote regarding "Truth is One..." Your note reads as follows:


 * Samhita 1.164.46: "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.".[5] Compare William A. Graham, who states that "the one" in verse 1.164.46 refers to Vāc, goddess of speech.[6]

But, when I was reading the reference further, it seems to support my view that the statement of Truth in the Rig Veda and the goddess Vac is, in fact, a reference to Brahman, the Ground of All Existence, the Godhead, or however it is expressed:


 * Veda 10.114.8, "As far as brahman extends so far does Vac" (visthitam tavati vak), as follows: "wherever there is brahman, there is Vac, wherever Vac, there  is brahman".  is what is meant.20  Brahman itself apparently meant originally, in the Rg Veda, the "formulation" of the sacred utterance of truth, or magical word of power, by the inspired poet who, as one capable of such formulation, was known as a brahmana. Later, in the texts of the Brahmanas and Upanishads, brahman came to refer to the ritual word of power and  even the very  ground of truth, or ultimate reality itself (and brahmana to both the text that bore the Vedic formulation of truth and the priest who preserved the textual word)21.

In ancient and modern Sanatana Dharma, the gods are aspects of Brahman. Saraswati, goddess of music and learning; Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth and purity, etc. As world religion scholar, Huston Smith, said in his Hartley film about Hinduism, "350 million deities sounds like polytheism gone haywire, until you learn that nothing exists except Brahman."

I'm OK with the text of the section, I just think your note should change to reflect that "Truth is One, Sages call it by various names", does refer to Brahman, though personified though the goddess Vac, who is the aspect of Brahman that gives voice to the Truth.

Also, in two places I replaced Ekam with Brahman, as Ekam is from a slightly different tradition than mainstream Sanatana Dharma. From the Ekam page:


 * Ekam is the Sanskrit for "one, single, solitary" (neuter gender), as a noun meaning "unity". In spirituality, it refers to a concept of monism akin to that of Brahman in Advaita philosophy and Smarta theology.

Ekam may be akin to Brahman, but in this context, I think it proper to use Brahman. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * see WP:OR; you're using another verse to interpret verse 1.164.46. Sat may refer, somehow, to Brahman; but "ékam" is a quality of sat. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, Sorry to push back on this again. The word Ekam does not exist in Ramakrishna literature - it does not appear in the Gospel of Ramakrishna, and I've never heard of the word until I ran across your use of it. The Ramakrishna movement originated in Northeast India in Bengal. Ekam is a word used in the Ayyavazhi tradition, which originated in South India. "Ekam (Tamil: ஏகம், "the supreme oneness") is the term used in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of the religion of Ayyavazhi,"


 * Please revert Ekam to Brahman, which is the word used by Ramakrishna and the movement to mean the One. For instance, Ramakrishna is quoted in the Gospel, "Krishna is none other than Satchidananda, the Indivisible  Brahman." To use the word Ekam in this article would be like using Buddhist terminology to describe a concept in an article on Christianity. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see verse 1.164.46 again, from which comes the phrase "Truth is One": "ékaṃ sád." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, I understand Ekam is used in the original Sanskrit verse. But, it's an archaic word, not in use within the RK Order or Movement. It is in use in a different tradition. There is a word that is more precisely what RK meant and what his biographers and followers used: Brahman. That is the word used repeatedly in the Gospel and other books of the order. Why use a word that is not used within the tradition, which is the subject of the article? Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * well, they refer to it with "Truth is One," so they definitely use it. If "one" is not a translation of "ekam," then what? Ramakrishna adored a personal God, in various appearances, not an impersonal Absolute. "Brahman" is neo-Vedanta, and would refer to sat. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, I'm afraid we're talking past each other. I'm not saying the word "Ekam" in Sanskrit doesn't exist for RK Vedanta, I'm saying that when they translate it to English, they would not use the word they are translating from. For instance, this is correct English:


 * The motto for the United States in Latin is "E pluribus unum", translated in English as "Out of many, one".


 * It would not be proper English usage to say:


 * The motto for the United States in Latin is "E pluribus unum", translated in English as "Out of many, unum".


 * The word Ekam is in the original Sanskrit, but when rendering for the Wiki reader into English, you would not use the word Ekam, but rather use a common word, within the particular Tradition, which means the same thing. In this case, Brahman. Further, the use of the word Ekam is still currently used in the Ayyavazhi tradition, but not in the RK tradition, or other Vedantic traditions that I know of.


 * Regarding RK and Brahman, over and over, Ramakrishna's opening question when meeting a new person would be, "Do you believe in God with form or God without form?" He would instruct the new person in either path, depending on their preference. RK acknowledged and often talked about both the formless God, Brahman, and God with form, whatever form the devotee was attracted to, and encouraged followers to embrace either path, though he did warn that the formless path was more difficult. He did not reject the impersonal or Brahman, and he often used the word Brahman to describe the "One" without a second. Have you read the Gospel of Ramakrishna?. In the Spiritual Heritage of India, a University-level textbook written by Swami Prabhavananda, it refers to Radhakrishnan's treatment of the "One" of the Rig Veda this way, in his book Indian Philosophy, Vol 1 :


 * "...so remote from resemblance to anything human that no longer will they refer to him as 'he' or 'him', but only as TAD EKAM - in English, THAT."


 * "THAT" is not very helpful to let people know what is meant without supporting text, but it does refer to the the concept of the "Godhead", "Ground of All Being", "The Source" - more appropriately stated, within traditional Vedanta and in the RK tradition, as "Brahman" - the one-word label of the concept of the "One".


 * "Sat" is one aspect of Brahman in traditional Vedanta - as in SatChitAnanda, Existence, Knowledge, Bliss = Brahman. There are certain words in Sanskrit that have become known and used in everyday English: Yoga, Guru, Karma, etc. Brahman is known in English as the Undivided Being, beyond duality. Ekam is not known in English usage at all. Our goal in editing must be to communicate meaning, using the vocabulary the will best convey that meaning and properly used in the context being stated.


 * Also, Brahman is not neo-Vedanta (as you seem to use it), as shown here. It dates back to the Vedas: "Brahman is a concept present in Vedic Samhitas, the oldest layer of the Vedas dated to the 2nd millennium BCE." (Source: Barbara Holdrege (1995), Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791416402, page 29) For example,


 * The Ṛcs are limited (parimita),
 * The Samans are limited,
 * And the Yajuses are limited,
 * But of the Word Brahman, there is no end.


 * Please accept this as correct. I'm not pushing a POV, just dealing with words and their meaning, in English, for English readers. I was still editing this, when you added your comment below. Please read the complete statement. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"Ekam" is translated as "one"; it is "sat," Brahman, the multiplicity of gods, which are names for the one reality/being. You are interpreting texts. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, I'm sorry, but I've lost track of where "Ekam" shows up in the article or notes. Please point me to it. Also, I added to my note above, after you added your last reply - so you might have missed something I was saying. To sum up, Ekam does, in fact, literally translate to the "One", but to communicate meaning, we have to provide more than literal translations of a single word, and often the meaning is revealed in following lines in a verse. That is not interpretation, but a fuller meaning expressed by the original author. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Ekam" shows up in "Truth is One." Reading Graham again; contrary to what I argued before, sat seems to be an adjective to ekam. And ekam, vac, is indeed equated with Brahman in later Vedic texts. I've added info to the note; nevertheless, ekam should still link Ekam, as that is the original word. And note that "Truth is One" is a different translation from Graham's, who gives "the One Real": 'vac is the only real' (everlasting, never changing) existent; in later terms, 'Brahman is the only real'. Those texts are ambiguous; limiting "one" to "Brahman" conceils this ambihuity. any thoughts here?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, It's all good by me. Thanks for the help. Just for my own information, what's all this about neo-Vedanta? Is it a pejorative, as originally intended, or something else. How would you define and apply it. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * neo-Vedanta is complicated. Yes, the term has a pejorative connotation, but Hacker misunderstood it, somehow. He compared Vivekananda's presentation of (Advaita) Vedanta with the "pure" Advaita Vedanta of Shankara, and dismissed "neo"-Vedanta as a deviation. But Shankara acquired his position as the 'father' of AV only centuries later; and the 'broader' Advaita Vedanta developed further after his times. When Shankara came to be celebrated as the founder of AV, somewhere in the 12th-14th century if I remember correct, AV wasn't limited anymore to a 'pure' scholarly approach; it also incorporated 'yogic Advaita', and become a sort of 'unifying philosophy/ideology'. Some sort of Hindu universalism. Vivekananda was acquainted with Hindu sources which Hacker didn't know about; the 'pure Vedanta' he envisioned was a colonial (mis)understanding of a Hindu-ideal portrayal. Complicated. Anyway, "Truth is One," c.q. "Reality is One," c.q. "Reality is undivided," whatever, somehow neatly summarizes an Indian universalistic trend: there's only one reality; people can have intuitions of this oneness, but use different names to communicate it. But Reality/Reality-intuition itself is experience, phenomenological reality; words are a finger pointing to the moon, but not That. Et cetera. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hindu vs Vedanta vs Sanatana Dharma
Hi Joshua, I suppose it's pushing against the tide to try and interject that the words Hindu and Hinduism were introduced by outsiders from India, who labeled the people east of the Indus river, Hindus (no matter what Religion they practiced). It's kind of a leftover from colonial times. The real name of the ancient religion of India is Sanatana Dharma, but who knows that label? Ellis408 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sanatana Dharma is preferred by more 'conservative' and 'nationalistic' 'Hindus'; the WP:COMMONNAME is 'HInduism'. And labelling Ramakrishna as a 'Vedantin' doesn't do right to his practices and worldview. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Indian religions
Portal:Indian religions, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian religions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Indian religions during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for concurring about the portal. As I mentioned, I think that at least most portals are useless, but there are portal advocates (who get annoyed at being called portalistas or the portal platoon) who defend them enthusiastically.  I don't know why, so I think that they must see some mystical value to portals, perhaps as portals to enlightenment or wisdom.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Article on Rajiv Malhotra
Hi Jonathan,You reverted my contributions in the article Rajiv Malhotra where I put his youtube channels links saying it was already given in external link.But it is not given in the external link for sure. So apparently you reverted my edits without checking the links.

Also he has more than 160k subscribers(silver play button) and 13M views in those channels.So it is worth mentioning in the infobox and not in the external link.Hope this clears your confusion. What do you say?A Seeker of Truth (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)--A Seeker of Truth (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of previous contribution
You deleted my last contribution (regarding Andronovo culture) with references to Asko Parpola (2017) and Shubleya et al. (2019) and replaced them by previous references to Witzel (two papers) and Parpola (2015) and Narasimhan et al. (2018). Within your sources I did not find ANY reference to dating of Andronovo, except in Parpola (2015) which mentions the "outdated" beginning around 2000 BC, but you anyway quote it as having 1800 BC, on the other hand Narasimhan et al (2018) do not mention any dating for Andronovo neither. If my contribution is going to be replaced, it should be by a better quoting. --Lic. Carlos (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indian religions portal


A tag has been placed on Category:Indian religions portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mycenaean Greece
Might I ask you to keep an eye on Mycenaean Greece, as I only occasionally edit Wikipedia? The 2019 consensus across multiple fields is pretty damn clear that the Mycenaeans and their language/culture descended from the intrusion of a population descending from the original Proto-Indo-Europeans into the mainland of what is today Greece; I have made a handful of sourced edits making that clear. Another editor, who rather reminds me of a banned one prone to socking, quite clearly wants to pretend that none of this ever happened. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put it on my watchlist. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Turkic people and Hunan201p
Hey, the last edits of Hunan are pure POv pushing, as he deleted a sentence which is a direct quote from the reference. This: “However, western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities.” is written in the reference and he deleted it saying it is not in the reference. Maybe he can not read... could you please reinsert it? Thank you!213.142.96.62 (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Genetics Wars
Just FYI since I see you've been following the dispute, I've asked Doug Weller to look into the Turkic/East Asian genetics wars currently raging here, see User talk:Doug Weller.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Poor Doug Weller... what a job! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think most of the genetics info is in violation of WP:SCIRS requirement that human genetics only be sourced to review articles, so probably most of the areas they're edit-warring over should just be deleted.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Christianity in the 1st century
Hi, a section entitled "Rejection of Jewish Christianity" was recently deleted from the article Christianity in the 1st century - I remember that there was an article entitled "Split of Christianity and Judaism" which was merged to another article - was this part of that merge? Can you remember? It may be that "Split of Christianity and Judaism" was merged to Early Christianity, I can't recall - it may be that the "Rejection of Jewish Christianity" section did not belong in "Christianity in the 1st century", but I didn't want the information from the "Split of Christianity and Judaism" article to be lost - just wondering if you remember what went on to be sure the material is preserved - Epinoia (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * it''s still part of Jewish Christian. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - ok, thanks - Epinoia (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

IVC and two papers
JJ, I saw your comments in the threads on Talk:Indo-Aryan migration. I hope you also saw the latest update by Narasimhan &....& Reich with supplement published by Science in September 2019. Unfortunately, the non-specialist reporters of the Indian media (newspapers and magazines) generally seem to lack the care and competence in reporting these findings. Their op-ed and news articles are neither accurate nor RS, each side betraying their bias. The journals papers are RS, but primary and best "quoted exact". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Smithsonian magazine on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * yes, we noted the reports. Worse, we noted the source of those mis-informed reports, namely Shinde. Must be almost unprecedented, publishing results and interpretations, and then straight away rejecting your own interpretations, instead offering a fringe theory which is not supported by those results. Had he dared to write an article with those results but his own "interpretation," it would never have been published by anu reputed journal. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have short memory, JJ. It is not unprecedented. The Deccan College people have always done it. Shinde's former boss, who is retired now, also used to do the same thing. Every time they published paper, they used to come out and give press conferences saying that they had disproved the 'Aryan invasion theory'. The only difference this time is that this Shinde guy didn't seem to realize how blatant his dissimulation is. The Deccan College didn't get into this game out of scientific curiosity. They got into it solely to disprove the 'Aryan invasion theory'. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Best to ignore these press conferences as well as the reporters who spin or otherwise exercise their rights to free speech through op-eds. The peer-reviewed papers themselves provide some notable statements. For example, from the Science paper (highlights added):
 * "This suggests that the archaeologically documented spread of a shared package of plants and animal domesticates from diverse locations across this region was accompanied by bidirectional spread of people and mixture with the local groups they encountered."
 * "People of the BMAC were not a major source of ancestry for South Asians."
 * "AHG- and Iranian farmer–related groups were in contact well before [5400 to 3700 BCE) the time of the mature IVC at ∼2600 to 1900 BCE, as might be expected if the ancestry gradient was a major feature of a group that was living in the Indus Valley during the IVC."
 * Ancestry clines in Eurasia established after the advent of farming. [...] It is unlikely that the Indo-European languages spoken in South Asia today originate from the spread of farming from West Asia.
 * In particular, the fact that they [ASI, south Indians, Dravidians] harbor substantial Iranian farmer–related ancestry (via the Indus Periphery Cline) disproves earlier suggestions that the ASI might not have any ancestry related to West Eurasians.
 * Box 2 provides a particularly useful summary for wikipedia articles purposes. There and elsewhere the paper notes that the IVC cline had a pivotal role in the formation of both ASI (south) and ANI (north) groups, and both formed from IVC people admixing with groups to the north and east. The ANI and ASI groups emerged between 2000 and 1000 BCE. That resonates with Witzel and others on the dating of the Vedas, but it also means that the ASI and ANI groups probably worked together or influenced the other rather than tried to enslave or wipe out the other. The South Indians and East Indians (Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Andhra) may have had more contributions and deserve more credit for the Vedic and early Indian literature than what was proposed in the 19th-century in the colonial mold. If we accept the bidirectional mobility argument in this Science paper, then the ancient Indians must have known about and used writing scripts long before 300 BCE, as Bronkhorst as well as Goody suggest. I also concur with the following note in the Science paper: "the Steppe origin for South Asia's Indo-European language is more likely" and "results provide evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia" given the findings therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I can imagine that IVC-stories about a mighty Sarasvati-river were included in then Vedic poems and rituals. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Undeciphered is the IVC script. We do not know any IVC-stories or anything about IVC-stories. But your hypothesis makes sense: there must have been legends, myths and cultural knowledge that was borrowed and/or preserved from IVC into the early Vedic texts. The mighty Sarasvati-river story may or may not have IVC roots. Some notable statements from the Cell peer-reviewed paper by Vasant Shinde..et al...David Reich:
 * The individual [IVC genome] was from a population that is the largest source of ancestry for South Asians (no mass migrations overwhelmed the IVC or post-IVC populations; no extinction of IVC by floods or famine or invader's disease; Wheeler hypothesis was wrong; the non-IVC influence is smaller but significant in both ANI and ASI)
 * Iranian-related ancestry in South Asia split from Iranian plateau lineages >12,000 years ago
 * First farmers of the Fertile Crescent contributed little to no ancestry to later South Asians. [...] [The findings] contradict the hypothesis that the shared ancestry between early Iranians and South Asians reflects a large-scale spread of western Iranian farmers east.
 * These individuals [including the IVC] had little if any Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today. (Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry contribution arrived after IVC.)

These papers are worth a read. Anything from these papers into wikipedia articles should strictly follow our WP:Primary "exact quote" guidelines because there is much room to introduce OR and biased-interpretation/POV otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard... Regarding the early split: when did they enter India? They were not western Iranian farmers. From Indus Valley Civilisation:


 * So, those Iranian-farmer related people may have lived in north-west India for a long time, without mixing with the AASI. Or they may have entered there at ca. 7000 BCE. Who knows? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * JJ: The "western Iranian farmers" phrase is in the Cell peer-reviewed paper. The related sentence above containing that phrase is an exact quote. Your 7000 BCE comments makes sense, maybe the opposite hypothesis too. Best we stick with the sources, as you often say!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Brahmi_script
This is regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_script. You have reverted my change citing "dispute" as reason. The objections raised here is political one. I have give valid references and the conclusion that earliest brahmi script dated to 6th century is based on archaeological evidences. FYI the materials with script were tested by foreign labs. Let us not suppress the FACT and keep the wikipedia up to date.

Regards Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin7013 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Best to keep all the discussion in one place, preferably one article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

GaneshB
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarize 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 the 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. Thank you. GaneshB — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaneshB (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * could anyone of you indef this editor rightaway for disruptive editing and harassment? See their contributions, and their mass-reverts of my edits. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look later today but, on the face of it, it doesn't look like they're here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC).

Early Christianity: Etymology
Hi, sorry to hear about your recent harassment, but I do question if the blog cited in the Etymology section of Early Christianity is a reliable source, per WP:BLOGS - it is anonymous and does not cite any reliable secondary sources - also, the blog itself states, "Please don’t believe anything that a man says or writes. That includes everything written in this Blog!" - it might be a good idea to remove this particular reference as an unreliable source - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved it into a note; it's just a nice piece of further reading, to give more info. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Huineng_script
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng Could see lots of gaps in wiki's description of Huineng. Many translated verses are not aligned with the original text. Believe you have reverted all changes citing 'not constructive' - would appreciate if you could support with any proof on your conviction. Changes made are based on the original text in Chinese. Please note that Shenhui was not the successor of Huineng. Interesting to find out where you get that from? Many thanks for your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.20.119 (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See McRae (2003), Seeing Through Zen. See p.68 for Shenhui's (questionable) position within Hongren's lineage. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Uttarakanda
Today, I found to my horros that the Encyclopedia Britannica states that, according to "Ramayana", Takshasila was founded by Bharata's son Taksha. Upon investigation, it turns out that it is in the Uttarakanda. When I was a child, everybody seemed to know that the Uttarakanda was a concoction. But now everybody seems to assume that it is a part of Ramayana. This needs some genuine clarification. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Was Hindu religion invented in the 20th century?
Divya Dwivedi (video clip) is the talk of the town. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose she means the 20th century is when people transitioned from "we are Hindus" to "we are followers of Hinduism"? So "Hindu" became secondary and "Hinduism" the primary? And that Gandhi had a lot to with that transition?
 * I admit this question never occurred to me. What do we know about "Hinduism" (as a label) prior to the 20th century? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The full debate is here. She amplifies more at around 34:00. I suppose she is depending on D. N. Jha. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

CfD Buddhist philosophers
See here.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 19:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

New article: Gospel of Mark (intertextuality)
FYI, I made a new copy pasta article: Gospel of Mark (intertextuality), from an open journal article by W. S. Vorster  per WP:COPYPASTE policy to copy from open license. --2db (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Your unwarranted reversions to simple grammar correction
Instead of simply reverting grammar edits to Buddhism it would be more constructive if you could engage with the reason the edits were made. The sentences are ungrammatical: you have adjectives where nouns should be and the result simply does not make sense. I am not concerned about the precise facts here, only that they be understood readily. If you care about the article, you should be concerned by that too. Rollo (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the facts, and the change you made was factual incorrect, as explained in the edit-summary. Being driven by primal reactions and impulses is dukkha, unsatisfactody; dukkha is not a name for the drive, but fof the results. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Indian religions portals has been nominated for discussion
Category:Indian religions portals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute
Hi Joshua,

I would like to resolve a current dispute with you, concerning your comments to me on the Rig Veda talk page. Although it is in my nature to be blunt and direct, I'll try to soften my language and explain the issue from my perpective.

Your first comment about using primary sources conflicts with the primary sources article, which states:

""Secondary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "good" or "reliable" or "usable"."

When you asked for a secondary source, which was provided, your response was quite hostile (and somewhat personal) as well, e.g. 'Great, 1873. You forgive if I'm not impressed?', as well as essentially ignoring the source to instead accuse me of imitating or copying blogs. I do not understand why you responded this way, and so would like to be open-minded and discuss. Carlduff (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * it's obvioust, from ogher sources, that Muller had a Christian missionary agenda. Yet, that does not mean that his translation was unreliable. The source you presented does not state that Muller's translation was unreliable because of a Christian bias; it just says it wasn't a good translation. And 1873 is far outdated; it won't be considered to be WP:RS because of this date.
 * Regarding the "talking points": Wikipedia attracts nationalistic pov-pushers on a regular base. Adding anti-western info, repeating points of view circulating in the blogosphere, engaging in WP:OR and misinterpreting sources is quite common for this kind of editors. I've seen too much trouble caused by this kind of editors; your edits and arguments remind of this kind of editors.
 * Muller's Christiab bias is relevant, but has to be presented wit hin it's proper context, based on reliable sources, and witha fair assessment of the quality of his work. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Wikipedia attracts nationalistic pov-pushers on a regular base.' Ah, is this the reason for the deletions? OK, I get that. Why not just say this in the first place!? Crikey, I think I walked into a minefield without realising it; again, my concern was only about the reliability of the translation. I study the scriptures myself (which by the way, warn against identifying with nations, skin colour, or siding with any group, etc., so that sort of thing does not appeal to me). OK, resolved as far as I am concerned. Carlduff (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * well, the "nationalistic pov-pushers" are the reason for the strong responses; your suggestion that Muller's translations are unreliable due to a Christian bias without providing a reliable source is the reason for deletion, and the reason that I am reminded of this kind of editors. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WP DONTGETIT
Hi Joshua, There has been no consensus among editors, re. your references to DONTGETIT. I have made my point and you disagree. No one else has weighed in. That doesn't constitute a consensus. You still seem pretty hostile. Not sure what the problem is.

Mekinna1 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * See the RfC at the talkpage for other editors weighting in. I've explained what the problem is with your recent removals. The problem is your attempt to present Nydahl as more than what he is. For the talkpage-stalkers: Ole Nydahl. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Buddhism,_the_Fulfilment_of_Hinduism
Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User setting italics on many Yoga articles
Hi, I think you may not know that Gryffindor is setting italics for dozens of yoga articles (basically, every pose listed in Template:Asanas) which is a bit of a headache. His point of view is that these are foreign words because they came from Sanskrit; however, they are in wide use in English, and have mostly been so for nearly a century (since Tirumalai Krishnamacharya in the 1930s for many asana names), and in the case of terms like Yoga, Asana, Brahmin, Pranayama for much longer. This is getting to be a bit of a headache (disruptive editing), so I would be grateful for some more eyes on the situation. Maybe you and wouldn't mind keeping watch? I'm not asking for people to take "my side", whatever that is, but to join the discussion and deal with the matter rationally. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not good ath those grammar rules; I don't even remember all of the Dutch rules. But I appreciate your preciseness. I can't promise to keep an active eye, but when I meet those changes. I'll take a look and correct accordingly. And I'll put them on my watchlist. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. See also Talk:Prana for a choice example; I've just discovered that the term has been in English since 1785! I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yoga. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of personal letters in a biography of a living person
Hello Joshua, the use of personal letters in a biography of a living person, Ole Nydahl is not acceptable per WP:BLPSPS. I recommend to substitute Scherer´s self-published work(s) with Lewis, Todd (ed.); Scherer, Burkhard (author) (2014). Conversion, Devotion, and (Trans-)Mission Understanding Ole Nydahl. In Buddhists: Understanding Buddhism Through the Lives of Practitioners. Wiley. pp. 96–106. It is very similar to the self-published texts (available on the internet archive) and analyses some of these letters. JimRenge (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. I couldn't access that book, though, but I'll look at it again. I realize my behaviour in this issue is not very patient, or 'Buddhist', but I can't help getting annoyed by these 'mystifications' of Buddhism, and the status of teachers. Too much exxageration with respect to older generations of teachers; luckily, a lot more information has become available since the 1970s. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The book is here. Some aspects of this article and the discussions may be annoying but we have already seen this before. SPA´s, The Truth problem, WP:NOT, difficulties to understand or to follow basic policies and guidelines. In cases like this one, I tend to become increasingly cautious and formal. This includes uw´s and insisting on the use of high quality sources, which are often the key to conflict solution and a stable article. JimRenge (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So maybe there is no point in my jumping in here, as it seems that anything I say results in a heated reaction (or even if someone else says it and you think it was me) - but please if you can take a step back and engage in some dialogue I think we can reach some common ground. My intent is just to ensure that this person is treated fairly and to me it look like this article has been used as a means of attacking this guy. If the letters can't be used without first being quoted in someone else's article, then that's fine. I would just like to see the article have a more neutral tone and present more than just negative points of view. Mekinna1 (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Entertainment
Sometimes I see something amusing while editing, one editor specialized in trolling (claimed to be Jesus, converted his talk page into a redirect to Jimbo Wales and what not) copied other editors talk pages to his own talk page (show me a rule against it). Also learned about Sealioning and realized that it happened to me at least once on wp. :) JimRenge (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Joshua, I am not dead, this was just the guy from Berea college who loves death hoaxes (see ) and hate unfree labour/slavery .   JimRenge (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * a very sick kind of humor. All the best, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should ignore him but he needs some attention. I admit I was rather amused. JimRenge (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Parvati, Shiva and early Buddhism
JJ, in case you haven't seen the scholarly translations and secondary sources on Weber Manuscript and Spitzer Manuscript, you may want to. The Spitzer Manuscript has quite an interesting discussion on Dukkha and Four Noble Truths... this 2nd-century CE copy of an older Buddhist treatise debates how 4NT works or is supposed to work!, whether the steps of 4NT happen sequentially or is an all at once insight.

There is much more in these and related manuscripts, including historic Buddhist and Hindu doctrines, and surviving fragments of a debate on debate itself. These collections found in ancient monasteries of northwest China on the Silk Route include both early Hindu and Buddhist texts, such as a strota. I have started/bandaged these articles in a summary overview form for now, with a few key scholarly sources, but a lot more depth could be added to each. You and others are most welcome to review and expand them. It would be nice if someone could start articles on a few other notable Central Asian Indic and non-Indic manuscripts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Nice manuscripts, the climate in xinjiang is favorable to manuscript conservation. The term hybrid Pali-Sanskrit is unusual, I wonder what recent scholars think about it. See Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. JimRenge (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "barbarous mixture of Pali and Sanskrit", exact quote per page 22 (~ line 12). I hesitate in rewording it to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, for that is one of the coherent and much-used language in Buddhism. Some of those ancient scribes copied their portion of the treatises quite carelessly, or perhaps with creative freedom (blending transliteration, translation?). Other scribes were incredibly good, with beautiful handwriting. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "All at once," c.q. 'simultaneously, all together', that's typical Zen-doctrine, of course. I'm not up to ghe task of writing about such documents, but it is interesting stuff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference for History of early Christianity
A "Cite error: The named reference Harris was invoked but never defined (see the help page)" occurs in the History of early Christianity starting with this edit of yours. Please correct this. Thank you. JohnThorne (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * done; thank you for notifying. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi

Dhawangupta (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 

Iranian hypothesis
Please look at the talk page of Proto-Indo-European homeland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proto-Indo-European_homeland You said "Wang et al. is already mentioned in the paragraph above; and they speak of 'south of the Caucasus', not specifically Iran." What is the name of country which is located in the south of the Caucasus? Armenian is itself a Caucasian country and it says the Caucasus just served as a corridor. And in the paragraph above of it, David Reich also says present-day Iran or Armenia, isn't it a specific mention to Iran?! --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

History of India
Hi JJ, Hope you are enjoying your holidays! If you have time, can you look into these edits? There are a lot of junky citations and the content is quite dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like typical stuff for Fowler&fowler to combat. I've removed the line about Ancient India from the lead; it's redundant. The rest I can't judge. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, let us get to it after the holidays. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Dasiputra brahmanas
The talk of "Dasiputra Brahmanas" brought back the memory of Satyakama Jabala we were having some time ago:

undercut my argument saying that the boy also mentions mother's family. But I have checked the source cited on the page and there is no such thing.

I believe my argument that the Vedic caste system followed the male line is valid. Moreover, the fact that indigenous mtDNA predominates the Indian mtDNA means that all Indians are dasiputras. The caste had to necessarily follow the male line. Necessity is the mother of invention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * you linked page 122 vol. 1 of Deussen's work on Upanishads. I have both vol 1 and 2 on my shelf. On p. 122 is a summary of Chandogya's 4th khanda. But before making inappropriate accusations such as "there is no such thing", you should read beyond the summary, the other pages with actual details/translation of Sanskrit. Page 123 does mention the mother's family, see verse 2–4 etc. I do not understand how you are missing it? On your 2nd para... it comes across as your interpretation/OR, one with too much anachronistic projection. Most scholars who study Vedic texts disagree with that projection/interpretation if I understand you correctly. The term Brahmin meant something more and different in the Vedic age. The Buddha repeatedly calls Mahavira a Brahmin for example in the Buddhist canonical works, and he calls many others as Brahmins... whom contemporary scholars now classify as non-Hindus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The verses 3 and 4 also show both the mother and the son saying "I don't know what family you/I are from". The mother is not declaring what her family is, other than to turn herself into a "family". Is "family" supposed to mean gotram like somebody claimed on the Satyakama page?
 * It is also striking that her being a "maid-servant" means that she doesn't know who the father is. Everybody seems to be taking it as a normal course of affairs. In Puranas, you don't see such mores, much less in dharmashastras. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Checked for you. The Upanishad's manuscript has "विवत्स्यामिकिङ्गोत्रोन्वहमस्मीति", yes gotra it is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)