User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2016

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

May 2016 be peacefull...

Nalanda

Something seems off with the organization of this article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Greetings. My reverted edits to Ramakrishna should be reinstated on following grounds. If you disagree, let me know why. My edit made to Ramakrishna is constructive because if it was not so, Prabuddha Bharata which is published by Ramakrishna Mission would not have published the article "Advaita Vedanta and the Big Bang". The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems is a book with two editors. Cited article is one of the twelve chapters by different authors in the book. This chapter can be downloaded for free from ResearchGate. All twelve chapters are listed on the publishers web site. So this book is like a secondary source. References 9 in this article is like the primary source. V. H. Zaveri, Periodic relativity: basic framework of the theory. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. v.42, No.6, 1345--1374, (2010), doi: . Two editors of the Nova book looked at this article and then invited the author to contribute a chapter for Nova book. Therefore my edit to Ramakrishna is not unsourced. The original research is given in Ref.(9), therefore WP:OR does not apply. The material described in my edit is from following two books which are being published for more than 100 years now, with millions of copies sold. Therefore my edit is not WP:UNDUE. "Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master" by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda. "The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna." by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda. Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores.

References

Kingcircle (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Ramakrishna; to be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad faith edits

In my opinion following edits to Ramakrishna are not constructive and should be removed. These are not good faith edits.

In Psychoanalysis and sexuality: In 1995, Jeffrey J. Kripal argued in Kali's Child that the Ramakrishna Movement had manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement had published them in incomplete and bowdlerised editions (claiming among other things, hiding Ramakrishna's homoerotic tendencies), Narasingha Sil,[119] Jeffrey Kripal,[120] and Sudhir Kakar,[121] analyse Ramakrishna's mysticism and religious practices using psychoanalysis,[122] arguing that his mystical visions, refusal to comply with ritual copulation in Tantra, Madhura Bhava, and criticism of Kamini-Kanchana (women and gold) reflect homosexuality. Jeffrey Kripal's controversial[123] Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995) argued that Ramakrishna rejected Advaita Vedanta in favour of Shakti Tantra.[124] In this psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna's life, Kripal argued that Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were symptoms of repressed homoeroticism.[125] Kingcircle (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Ramakrishna; to be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Svarghese

Hi JJ, Please watch out for the author called "Svarghese, Alexander" [1]. He is not WP:HISTRS [2], just an enthusiast perhaps. But he seems to have produced an enormous amount of output. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's Varghese, by the way

Nalanda Edit War

Please see.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A vegan cupcake for you!

thanks for your restructuring work on the pantheism article :) Mangostaniko (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mangostaniko: thank you! That's a nice surprise! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Indian science

Found an interesting statement and an even more interesting citation [3]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that this astronomer, and/or his works, have repeatedly been used c.q. inerpreted in a 'pro-Vedic' way. Witzel commetd on this too, if I remember correct. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am noticing that all the articles on Indian astronomy and Indian science have been corrupted by the nationalists. If I read the books/journal papers, I get a totally different picture. Apparently, the earth was a "round disc" even in the Puranic times. If you believe Wikipedia, the Indians always knew that the earth was a sphere! - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Look at this gem: "The Hindu cosmology and timeline is considered by some the closest to modern scientific timelines[1]" (the opening line of Hindu cosmology)! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Corded Ware / Sintashta similarities

Hi Joshua, what exactly did you want to talk about? I quoted an excerpt from a study there, about genetic resemblances between Corded Ware and Sintashta. It is not certain whether Sintashta were an offshoot of Corded Ware or had a common ancestor, but authors hypothesized the former. Peter558 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peter558: it's amazing! Fascinating research on genetics, the last years. For talkpage stalkers: see diff. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Florian Blaschke: check-out that diff, and see also Nature 522 DNA data explosion lights up the Bronze Age, Human evolution: Ancient DNA steps into the language debate, and Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia]. Thanks Peter! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally amazing:

"Haak et al.1 and Allentoft et al.2 analysed ancient DNA taken from samples from across Europe and central Asia. Their data point to human migration from a steppe culture, the Yamnaya. They conclude that the Corded Ware culture of central Europe had ancestry from the Yamnaya. Allentoft et al. also show that the Afanasievo culture to the east is related to the Yamnaya, and that the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures had ancestry from the Corded Ware. Arrows indicate migrations — those from the Corded Ware reflect the evidence that people of this archaeological culture (or their relatives) were responsible for the spreading of Indo-European languages." ("Human evolution: Ancient DNA steps into the language debate")'

So, no "Out of India," but "Out of Europe." Can you believe it?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, basically at first "into Europe" (from Yamnaya to Corded Ware) and then "out of Europe" (from Corded Ware into Asia)! Who would have expected such back and forth migrations. I think archaeogenetics is still going to surprise us many times during the next years. Peter558 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I believe it. Allentoft et al. were cautious in stating this, whereas the man from Chicago jumped the gun. To infer ancestry they need to analyse the Y DNA and mtDNA, which they haven't done. So, for now, it is "out of Russia." - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: have a look at Sintashta: "Sintashta material culture also shows the influence of the late Abashevo culture, a collection of Corded Ware settlements in the forest steppe zone north of the Sintashta region that were also predominantly pastoralist." So, it's not completely new news, rather a confirmation of archaeological data. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

History of Buddhism

A user has been edit warring with me just for spite on the History of Buddhism. The individual was not even involved in this article, but decided to revert all my edits. this map has nothing to do with this article. The map is regarding the conflict between the Greeks and Sungas. Plus, that map is not even used in the Indo-Greek article. The map is clearly disputed and embellished. In addition, the map is about conflict, not religion or religious conflict. Someone please help. (2600:1001:B027:FF78:F1AA:964F:8E14:3D7 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

Hindu-Arabic numerals

Hi JJ, can you read through the section History_of_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system#Development_in_India, and let me know if it is clear and understandable? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a mathematician; so I lost track already at the first subsection. A few sentences set the tone:

• "The Indians are believed to have developed a high degree of mathematical sophistication during the Vedic period (1500–500 BCE)" - the Indians? And what is "a high degree of mathematical sophistication"?

• "While the numerals in texts and inscriptions used a named place-value notation, a more efficient notation might have been employed in calculations." - when, in which period? Already during Vedic times?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

NB: Smith & Karpinsky is from 1911. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, great comments! Can you keep going? You can read the Hindu-Arabic numerals and Hindu-Arabic numeral system for the background. Thanks a lot! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the interesting point in this discussion is this: it has often been claimed that Indians were uniquely placed to invent zero because shunya played an important part in their philosophy. The evidence says otherwise. Indians have been using a place-value notation for ages, even before they had zero. They just said that there was no digit in a particular place. The absence of a digit was what was called shunya. One might say the philosophy played a part in admitting shunya, but Babylonians were doing it too. It just seems like the natural thing to do. When Brahmagupta turned shunya into a number, he did it for mathematical reasons, not philosophical. - Kautilya3 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3/@JJ: It needs clean/up. While working on Yajna article, I was reading Kim Plofker (2009), Mathematics in India published by Princeton University Press. Her book is objective, includes quality translations from ancient manuscripts (related to Shulba and Shrauta), and a review of past scholarly work on dating and timeline. She discusses sunya and kha, and how it transitioned from place-holder to zero in Hindu/Buddhist/Jain literature in ancient era. And a lot more things. A good WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Kim Plofker was indeed my starting point. (Didn't notice we had an article on her.) The book is indeed quite good, though not perfect. I reworked the India section now, but it may be too terse and hard to understand. Helping to make it easier to read would be welcome. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

JJ no answer after long time ?

Hi JJ , I had put up some question in our previous dicussion here but did not get any replay from ? , also i found following write up of Sri Aurobindo on Ramana Maharshi.

The methods described in the account [of Ramana Maharshi’s technique of self-realisation] are the well-established methods of Jnanayoga —(1) one-pointed concentration followed by thought-suspension, the method of distinguishing or finding out the true self by separating it from mind, life, body (this I have seen described by him [Brunton] more at length in another book) and coming to the pure I behind; this also can disappear into the Impersonal Self. The usual result is a merging in the Atman or Brahman—which is what one would suppose is meant by the Overself, for it is that which is the real Overself. This Brahman or Atman is everywhere, all is in it, it is in all, but it is in all not as an individual being in each but is the same in all. When the merging into the Overself is complete, there is no ego, no distinguishable I, or any formed separative person or personality. All is ek¯ak¯ara — an indivisible and undistinguishable Oneness either free from all formations or carrying all formations in it without being affected — for one can realise it in either way. There is a realisation in which beings are moving in the one Self and this Self is there stable in all beings; there is another more complete and thoroughgoing in which not only is it so but all are vividly realised as the Self, the Brahman, the Divine. In the former, it is possible to dismiss all beings as creations of Maya, leaving the one Self alone as true —in the other it is easier to regard them as real manifestations of the Self, not as illusions. But one can also regard all beings as souls, independent realities in an eternal Nature dependent upon the One Divine. These are the characteristic realisations of the Overself familiar to the Vedanta. But on the other hand you say that this Overself is realised by the Maharshi as lodged in the heart-centre, and it is described by Brunton as something concealed which when it manifests appears as the real Thinker, source of all action, but now guiding thought and action in the Truth. Now the first description applies to the Purusha in the heart, described by the Gita as the Ishwara situated in the heart and by the Upanishads as the Purusha Antaratma; the second could apply also to the mental Purusha, manomayah. pr¯an. a´sar¯ıra net ¯a of the Upanishads, the mental Being or Purusha who leads the life and the body. So your question is one which on the data I cannot easily answer. His Overself may be a combination of all these experiences, without any distinction being made or thought necessary between the various aspects. There are a thousand ways of approaching and realising the Divine and each way has its own experiences which have their own truth and stand really on a basis, one in essence but complex in aspects, common to all, but not expressed in the same way by all. There is not much use in discussing these variations; the important thing is to follow one’s own way well and thoroughly....

The Upanishads do not say that about the Atman — what they That is, the Upanishads do not say that the Atman is situated in the core of the heart. What they say about the Atman is that it is in all and all is in it, it is everywhere and all this universe is the Atman. What they speak of as situated in the deeper inner heart is the Purusha in the heart or Antaratman. This is in fact what we call the psychic being, caitya purus.a. The heart spoken of by the Upanishads corresponds with the physical cardiac centre; it is the padma of the Tantriks. As a subtle centre, cakra, .....

This possibility does not seem to be admitted in the Maharshi’s thought — he considers the Descent as superfluous and logically impossible. “The Divine is here, from where will He descend?” is his argument. But the Divine is everywhere, he is above as well as within, he has many habitats, many strings to his bow of Power, there are many levels of his dynamic Consciousness and each has its own light and force. He is not confined to his position in the heart or to the single cord of the psycho-spiritual ham¯ atrah. purus.o antar¯atm¯ a. realisation. He has also his supramental station above the heartcentre and mind-centres and can descend from there if He wants to do so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 January 2016‎

@Shrikanthv: long thread! I'll read it, and respond - later, after lunch! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So, I've read. Different experiences? Ramana Maharshi had his famous death-experience - an epileptic insult, I bet - when he was 16. He sensed 'a presence,' which didn't disappear, and which he "recognised" (or explained) as his core self, unchanging, undying. Apparently it was this notice of "unchanging, undying" which he also recognised in Advaita Vedanta. Quite different from Buddhism! Cinsider the following naturalistic approach: people have various experiences of what they call, or attribute as, the divine. "The divine" is not an objective truth or reality, but a subjective reality. But, the fact that "we" can "have" experiences and insights that are transcending our usual understanding is not a product of fantasy or intellect, but a possibility that's been given with our genetical and neurological make-up. Of course, you don't have to agree with this way of looking at "the transcendent," but it's how I tend to see it now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

JJ I agree on part related to fantasy / intellect & its also true until we know the divine in itself it will allways be subjective .. or figment of your own creation as buddhist would say Shrikanthv (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Vedanta

JJ, but your own personal view of Buddhism is actually more like Adi Shankara than Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: no kidding?!? Please explain; I'm intrigued! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I explained in my last email to you, to which you never replied.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I will; I'm still pondering on it (is that the correct term?). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Censorship of Aam Aadmi Sena

What is going on here ? I added some information about a dissident group to the main article page of AAP, and along comes some guy, who deletes it. This is not "controversial" information. It is sourced to news reports. This is fact-based information. After my edit was deleted, I created a stub article, in hopes that that way the information can survive further acts of vandalism. And then the same guy, who vandalised the information on the main article page for AAP comes and flags my stub article for deletion. How does this make any sense ? You over look the vandalism acts to delete the information, but colour acts to defend the information as meriting discretionary sanctions ? In what parallel universe do I find myself in ? It was a starter article. If there are any questions about the subject matter, the first thing -- in the interest of making fact-based, sourced information more to Wikipedia's standards -- would be to expand the stub article, not delete it. What is going on here ? It seems rather fishy that there is a specific rule for Indian politics. That's a flag right there that Wikipedia is deleting information just because, why, it's too controversial ? Controversial to whom ? It's not conversion, because it is fact-based and sourced. So, Wikipedia's way of dealing with information one valdaliser (in the position of an editor) doesn't like is to automatically delete it ? And I get accused of being in a Twitter war by the vandaliser, just because I'm trying to protect the information from heavy-handed acts to delete/vandalise it ? Wow, what a way to defend free access to fact-based, sourced information. Maslowsneeds (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that is why you gave the edit-warring notice? Shrikantv pointed you to a policy, WP:NOTNEWS. Please read it. If you add content according to policies, it is unlikely to be deleted. If it still gets deleted, please discuss it on the article's talk page, as recommended by WP:BRD. - Kautilya3 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So, this user, Shrikanthv, can take acts to each of delete information from the main AAP page (where it most likely belonged as part of the whole and within the context of the main article) and to mark for deletion the stub article, and these acts will still stand ? Just because the information may be embarrassing to AAP is not a subjective standard to delete information, especially when the information I was adding was noteworthy and newsworthy. Help me understand this, here, because the logic of this process escapes me. Maslowsneeds (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maslowsneeds: the removed piece of info, at first sight, does not look controversial to me. But of course, there is a context to it. And given this context, you should indeed have discussed this after you were reverted, instead of creating a new article. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are implying that talking something out on a Talk page with a user, Shrikanthv, with a demonstrated agenda to delete sourced and fact-based information, is going to help keep information that fleshes out understanding of controversies involving AAP. But Shrikanthv has already taken acts to delete this information. I hear you and I thank you for being objective about this information. But what process does Wikipedia have to disallow acts by users from deleting/marking for deletion information like this ? The stub article is already marked for deletion, the damage has been done. I will try to add some information tonight, to fluff the stub article with substantive supplemental information, but obviously there's a surreptitious effort here on the part of Shrikanthv to delete information he or she subjectively thinks is embarrassing or offensive. I guess I could just wait and let you see Shrikanthv further vandalise the stub article or, else, he or she will come and deface your talk page, because, undoubtedly, these will be his or her next predictable acts in 3-2-1-.... Maslowsneeds (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Shrikanthv yes, indeed, discuss it with Shrikanthv at the talkpage of AAP. Other editors will join, like Sitush. If the result of the discussion is not to include it, then you can use WP:RfC. If the result then is still negative for you, just accept it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about WP:RfC. I don't know how to use the Request for Comments thing, I will try to figure it out. Thank you. Maslowsneeds (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

​Hello,

CIS-A2K is going to organize an edit-a-thon between 25 and 31 January this year. The aim of this edit-a-thon is creating and improving Geographical Indications in India related articles.

We welcome all of you to join this edit-a-thon.
Please see the event and add your name as a participant: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Events/Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

Feel free to ask if you have question(s).
Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Gerald James Larson

Hi JJ, Am I correct in assuming that Gerald James Larson is a scholar of Hinduism? Is he the one that coined the Neo-Hinduism term, or was it already in existence? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected the redirect. The term is older; see Neo-Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good review there. But Larson's use of "Neo-Hinduism" seems broader than what is indicated there, i.e., going beyond Vedanta. To Larson, even Gandhi was a neo-Hindu and India's secularism is a neo-Hindu idea. We might need a separate article on Neo-Hinduism. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote:

"Although we find India's Agony over Religion a book of lasting value and interest, we are troubled by its main thesis: that the dominant feature of India's political culture is a comprehensive neo-Hinduism. Larson argues that neo-Hinduism constitutes the "civil religion" of India's national elites, from Nehruvian secular humanists committed to a "scientific temper," to old and new Gandhians, to the deeply Hindu, Muslim-excluding sangh pariwar (the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh [RSS], Vishva Hindu Parishad [VHP], and Bharatiya Jamata Party [BJP])." - Susanne and Llyod Rudolph [4]

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I am beginning to agree with "Neo-Hindu" used as a label, suggesting novelty and innovation. On the other hand, "Neo-Hinduism," which is almost seen as a new religion (and a symmetric combination of old Hinduism and Western ideas, or even predominantly Western ideas couched in a Hindu language) is a much more radical viewpoint, and naturally offensive to its adherents. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: critics may be correct that the terms "neo-Vedanta" and "neo-Hinduism" are value-loaden. And I have to admit that Vivekananda is fascinating, with his inclusion of social activism within his ideas. Alas, "innovation" is nothing new; see John McRay's Seeing through Zen. It's only when people try to present the new as old, and battle over it, that it becomes, well, a battle. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to distinguish between the two senses (which always seems to happen with Hinduism for some reason). (1) "Neo-Hindu" as a label, and "Neo-Hinduism" as their ism. This seems acceptable to me. (2) "Neo-Hinduism" as a religion and "Neo-Hindus" as its followers. This seems much more questionable and perhaps value-laden. RM probably doesn't see these distinctions. But I am more interested in the first view, which seems to be Larson's view. Even though it has been rubbished by the reviewers, it seems to have merits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirect request

Sir please can u redirect the article Hum to Tere Aashiq Hain to Hum To Tere Aashiq Hain. User:MarathiPaulPadtePudhe —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@MarathiPaulPadtePudhe: sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much sir. MarathiPaulPadtePudhe (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Psychology of Religion paragraph

Hello Joshua Jonathan! Many thanks for your contact and helpful links following my first Wikipedia contribution attempt. Could you explain why you deleted the paragraph I contributed to this page? I am doing my best to learn the ways of Wikipedia as expediently as possible and am assuming that it was because, in my bewilderment, I had not yet included citations. Any further guidance would be greatly appreciated as I find my way around. Kind regards, RMOxtoby (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Aum Shirikyo article

Why do you revert changes? I removed absurdities and added valuable info. What specifically is what you object to and why. Could you write to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The text you removed was sourced; the text you added was unsourced. I get the impression you're involved with this organisation, which is WP:COI. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but for example I could source with Chinese sources to your articles on Buddhism and I don't do that cause quality of those sources is dubious. While you effectively maintain that dubious sources justify quoting in the article text as long as there are some sources (and people do not work for Aum Shinrikyo, if I understood you correctly). For instance, you insist that KGB arrested own employee who is also an Aum Member, that karma is to be written with an 'h': kharma (harm-a, as from 'harm'), that Aum member hijacked a plane, and credible sources state that all is untrue. You seem to be interested in Buddhism, have you any idea why people do not edit your articles with sources from China state newspapers? Cause they are full of allegations and fakes. (Although in Russia they put these Chinese propaganda texts and quoted them in corresponding articles on people like Dalai Lama, as if - "criticisms" - and that is a problem). Did you check on each of these allegations? Just one link to the source is enough? Go check, its all been proven untrue. How am i supposed to be 'involved' with Aum? This is my real name, you could check what I am involved with really with Google. Are you a Buddhist? Are you involved with Buddhism? Then why do you edit articles on its teachings? Let the Chinese do it. Go ahead, check. Are you lazy to google? Yuri Kozharov (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cult-link-unclear-in-hijack-of-Japan-plane-3143553.php

This is particularly on why the plane passage is a made up fake. Lets not revert the meaningful edits. I specifically remove made up stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As for today, the edit I performed stands, no reverts. Thank you. Could you help in another matter? On Russian wiki in the article on Aum Shinrikyo (no, I am not actually 'involved with the organization', this particular one) article claims, with source for such claim the newspaper article (1995) that the group is "in terrorist organizations list" in Russia. Now, I know it is not and checked with reliable source, a government body that maintains such lists, the FSB (Federal Security Service, formerly the KGB). Admins lecture me on how this is irrelevant, and before I requested mediation did not engage in Talks even, but appealed to Administrators with request to block me. Now, as to the edit, removal of the word 'Russia' in passage on 'on terrorist orgs list', continue to appear as if they do not understand me and saying I "do not understand" and avoid discussion, which the mediators suggested we have, in talks. Yet on own Talk pages both these several people discussed me in words like "hey, thats our old mate", "i suggest permanent block, so that not to torture cats" and "nothing will turn out of him IMO"... I have the impression that they are active opponents of minority religious groups and dissenters of any form, and to them I am 'defending the cult'. They also referred the admins to Warning I recently got in the US wiki, seems to be of importance in Russia, and issued me 3 warnings etc. In English wiki the matter is resolved, but the Russian continue to defend what amounts to a very bad quality article, which however seem incidentally has tons of links and which has even grammar and style-related unresolved problems. Could you look in the matter? And discuss the issue as what counts as primary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs

My knowledge of Russia is nihil, so I can't help you there. I can only say: don't push it. If the page is rubbish anyway, let it be. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Smarta Tradition page

Please see Smarta Tradition pageVictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I've seen the message; will read & answer in detail later. Please remind me if I forget. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I added some refs Here.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

New Thought page

HI Joshua! I saw the edits you made to the New Thought page. The other editor was definitely over zealous in adding the external links, but would you mind if I added the wikilink for Universal Foundation for Better Living back in? It's an off-shoot of Unity, and vey small but definitely New Thought. It has its own Wikipedia page. Please let me know if you think this is a good idea.

Thanks! AnandaBliss (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@AnandaBliss: like this? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Just like that! Thanks so much! AnandaBliss (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting movement, the New Thought movemenent. Most people are probably unaware that New Age is much older than the 1960s. Ever heard about Neo-Vedanta? Or the Pizza effect? There's a long history of interplay between eastern and western religiosity and spirituality. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheldon Pollock

What problem do you have in letting the readers know about Pollock's criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G upadhyay (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Sheldon Pollock#Rajiv Malhotra. To summarize: it's WP:UNDUE, and your addition in the body of the article is a copyright violation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like RM is history. I can't find anything about this new Sanskrit book anywhere. Apparently nobody cares any more! - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The usual supporters do. I've started reading The Language of the Gods. SP's argument is straightforward: in the first millennium BCE, Sanskrit was a sacrificial and liturgical language. Only the three upper varnas were allowed to learn and use it; therefore, it was an in strument of exclusion. In the first millennium CE Sanskrit became a language for much more cultural expressions. In the second millennium CE, this role swindled, and by 1800, Sanskrit was virtually dead, only being used by a small minority for works without any originality. That's how simple it is. RM agitates against this presentation, without summarizing it in a clear way, as was to be expected. Much ado about nothing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the article, even other scholars note that Pollock attacks Sanskrit. This is well known.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheldon Pollock.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any mentioning of Pollock "attcking" Sanskrit. The only sentence that comes close to it is your insertion of Frazier's quote "Contributing to the hermeneutics of suspicion that has become influential in Hindu Studies". I've checked the source; she does not explain what this phrase means, nor do you in the Sheldon Polock article. It seems to be taken out of context, to suggext soem blameworthy behavior. Please provide a context for this specific quote; otherwise, let's not use it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah look, Google gives plenty of links on "Hermeneutics of suspicion". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It means scholars are suspicious about everything in Hinduism. It isn't complicated.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be plenty of material on this particular phrase; we're going to work it out together, okay (that is, after breakfast)? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheldon Pollock is not actually a historian, and we have to take his claims with a large grain of salt. In the first millennium BCE, Shudras had access to the Atharvaveda and variety of other texts. See User:Kautilya3/sandbox/History of the Indian caste system (draft). In the first millennium CE, the Puranas came into being, for which again every one had access. Sanskrit was used as a bridging language by the Indian dynasties, well into the second millennium. The Vijayanagara empire produced texts like Madhura Vijayam and Amukta Malyada. Its use declined only after the Turks introduced Persian as the lingua franca. But even in the Mughal times, the learning of Sanskrit flourished among the elites, probably on a smaller scale. (However, there was apparently a large-scale wordwide trend in using vernacular languages throughout the second millennium, which I found in another paper of Pollock's). - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambedkar on the Aryans

Hi JJ, I don't know if you have seen this paper by Arvind Sharma. Ambedkar seems to have been quite a genius. I couldn't quite stop reading it to the end. @VictoriaGrayson: you might like this too.

One thing that jumped out at me is the assertion that the so-called Dasyus had horses and chariots. But I can't find this mentioned anywhere else. Do you know anything about it? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If so, then they were not Indians but more 'western' people, in present-day Afghanistan, weren't they? Thanks; I'll read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ehm... wasn't this Arvind Sharma considered to be not completely WP:RS? The one who has also published on Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi, taking an insiders-perspective? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

His description of wat he calls "the Aryan invasion" is not very good. It was not an invasion (as he admits in a footnote), and the caste-system was not intriduced by those "invading" Aryans, but by their descends from the Kuru state, a thousand years later. Also, they were not "safeguarding" their social system; according to David Anthony, they were quite open to newcomers. Together they formed system of "insiders," sharing the same culture of hospitability. And of course, "the paradigm is" not "being increasingly contested (Bryan)" - maybe that seemed so in 2005, but in 2016 it is increasingly confirmed by the recent research on genetics.

Regarding the horse, here's the quote:

"5) Were these people (Ddsas, Dasyus), if assumed to be native, savages? The fact that verses in the Rig Veda describe them as living in cities, accumulating wealth, owning property and jewels, occupying fortifications, etc. tells against their savage status (Ambedkar: 110-111). Ambedkar mentions a fact here that has a direct bearing on current controversies. The absence of the horse in Harappan civilization has been noted, whereas the Dasyus are described as possessing horses and chariots (RigVeda2.15.4) and also as using the chariots in war (8.24.27; 3.30.5; 2.15.4), indeed, possessing the same weapons as the Aryans."

Other people have also written about this, if I remember correctly; Witzel? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe Witzel thinks that both Dasas and Dasyus were "local inhabitants." Sometimes he calls them "aboriginal tribes." I haven't seen him refer to their horses. In fact, I haven't seen the horses of these people mentioned anywhere else.

As for Arvind Sharma, Professor at McGill, I never heard that there were issues with him being RS. I don't see why not. We read a paper of his earlier (Sharma, Arvind (2002), "On Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism and Hindutva", Numen, 49 (1): 1–36, JSTOR 3270470). - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, then it was Sharma's paper on Ramana Maharshi which I didn't find particularly convincing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ravidassia religion

Hi Joshua Jonathan, as you seem to be more well-versed in the topic than I, I'd like your opinion on something. I've been reverting some edits on Ravidassia religion by an IP editor that seem un-constructive and poorly sourced to me. They've continued to re-add them after I've reverted them, and at this point, I'm hoping someone more experienced with Ravidassia to take a look at the page revision history and tell me if I'm actually the one causing a problem here. Please tell me if I'm crazy! :) Chrisw80 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Ravidassia religion, but I'll have a look. Of course you're crazy, spending your time here! 06:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Sikh POV-pushing. @Ms Sarah Welch: any opinion here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I kinda got that impression, but again, wasn't sure so thought getting some more eyes on it would be good. And, yes, I suppose I am a bit crazy to spend my time on Wikipedia. :) Chrisw80 (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the asylum. I've already vowed to keep editing until I'm demented. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Agreed, and @Chrisw80 is on the mark reverting the soapboxing in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisw80:, @JJ: It continues. I asked for page protection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Many thanks to both of you! There's also the same thing going on at Dera Sach Khand. I issued a "final warning" to that IP. If it continues, I'll put that IP up for blocking over at AIV, also. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Kshatriya and Varna

Dear Joshua! Thanks for your acknowledgement. Please explain me the reasons for removing my edits for Kshatriya diff and Varna diff. I had given roots and reference of Rigvedic text. Can you explain?

Regards, Girijeshrao (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Indian castes are a very sensitive topic. You didn't provide references from WP:RS; they seem to be WP:OR and WP:POV. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparative religion

Hello, you recently removed one of the further readings calling it undue. I would like to ask you, that whether you've read the book. And, how can you call it outdated. The religions discussed on the page aren't new either. This is clear bias on your side. The book is one of the best book written on the subject "comparative religion". Nobody owns Wikipedia. If a book is good, it can be added in "Further readings". Thank you,- जैन (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Comparative religion#The Key Of Knowledge; to be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, if I have hurt you by my words. I get a little emotional when my edits are reverted. I acknowledge your contribution in improving the Wikipedia. Thank you-जैन (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@जैन: I understand. I'm a little bit blunt in my responses; editing at India-related articles is not always good for your behavior. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Good additions to Sheldon Pollock

It will make Indians think twice about supporting a leftist political activist like Sheldon Pollock.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to live in a world where people do have a choice, and have the freedom to defend this freedom. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, can you take a look at Gaudapada? Was the removal of the names of these monks correct or not? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 08:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Channar revolt

Hi Joshua. I am here to talk about the recent edits made by Rabtman to the Channar revolt article. Most of the lines he included do not make sense. Rabtman is primarily here to glorify Nair relevant articles (please go through his history). Please go through the recent made by Rabtman to the chanar revolt article.

• Most of the lines seem to glorify the Nair community (most of his edits to).
• He has included lines like the Nadars were untouchacbles etc. Now this is a very complicated topic.

• According to Hardgrave and Templeman, leading anthropologists on this topic, the Nadars were not untouchables. Some nadars were historically land lords. If some Nadars were regarded as aristocratic (Hardgrave), why were they regarded as untouchables?
• The term Nadar today refers to all these different Nadars subcastes. The former status of all these Nadar subcastes were different from each other. So this is something we have to discuss.

• He claims that the Nair women were allowed to cover their upper body. This topic has always baffled me. According to the Nair wiki article, the nairs didnt cover their upper bodies(men and women).
• He has added refs to support his claims. However I doubt the validity of these refs.

I didnt revert his edits. I didnt do anything. Because I am tired of all this. Admins do not usually intervene to edit nadar pages. But I have done my best to keep the page as neutral as possible. I actually started editing because a long time ago the page was heavily attacked [by] anti-nadar groups. I think that trend is coming back now.

I would be obliged if you would go through the recent edits made by rabtman to the Channar revolt article. I am pretty thorough with this topic. I am willing to help you by providing you whatever info I can (I have the Hardgrave and Templeman book with me). And since Sitush (one of the few who can understand this topic) [is] away, I dont have many options.

If you are busy please recommend me some other editor who might be interested to edit these pages. I just want these articles to be maintained by neutral editors (like the Nair article). Thank you for your time, Joshua. Mayan302 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. You removed a line anout Nadan women(Hardgrave pg:62) recently. May i know why? Is it possible for a normal user like me to introduce wiki rules? Please reply when you are free. Thank you. Mayan302 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mayan302: which line do you mean? Looking at the latest version by Rabt man, I see three references to Hardgrave, but not specifically p.62. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No offence. I am at the moment traveling and i cant use my lap now. I am also not able to open the discussion properly with my mob. The line 'However the aristocratic Nadans were allowed to' was I think removed during your last edit. I am quite sure it had a ref. I am not sure. Sorry, if iam wrong.

Ah, you mean:

" The Nadar climber women were not allowed to cover their bosoms, as most of the non- Brahmin women, to punctuate their low status. However the aristocratic Nadan women, their counterparts, had the rights to cover their bosom."

It wasn't removed, but rephrased:

"In 19th century Travancore lower-class women were not allowed to wear clothes that covered their breasts. Baring of chest to higher status was considered a sign of respect, by both males and females.[2][3] Higher-class women covered both breasts and shouldeers,[1] whereas Nadar women were not allowed to cover their bosoms, as most of the non-Brahmin women, to punctuate their low status."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

oh. Actually there used to be a line about a Nadan family. Guess someone must have removed it. Anyway thank you for your time, Joshua.

Userbox

Greetings Joshua Jonathan! How are things with you? I was wondering if you were able to help me to set up a Userbox on my User Page, where I could put different templates, all nicely aligned to the right just above the images I have? ;-)

Thanks a lot in advance! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Done! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate, and please have a pleasant Friday! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It was a pleasant friday indeed. Wish me more! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Varna (Hinduism)

Joshua

I will keep on editing it back. As i said give me a proof that the term "Varna" means colour and i will stop. However if you cannot prove it and want to edit Hindu texts in a negative sense this will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramadityachandel (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There are two references. I think you're WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

George L. Hart

Hi JJ, I have expanded the George L. Hart article. Can you review it, and perhaps condense it if you think it is too long? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you might also look at Paraiyar. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I already expected you to mention Hart! I'll take a look, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's good; it's interesting and informative to read. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks JJ. You were expecting me to mention Hart? (I will need to put this information into the Caste system in India article. Samuel's treatment isn't that great.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MSW reverting both Hinduism and Smarta Tradition

Please see.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you realize my lead is brilliant.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I love your irony. But it seems to have merit, yes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Smarta sources

I complied Smarta sources HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Kanhaiya Kumar

Can you please advice why my changes were not constructive.

Change #1: Afzal Guru is a terrorist. By All means. You trying to potray it as Kashmiri 'Separatist' is only playing in the hands of Separatist. He was given death sentence by Supreme court of India by following all legal methods.

Changes #2: Some students only Support JNUSU and Kanhaiya. Most of the students do not. And so, only some students protested particularly to that

Change #3: There is no term as 'Hindutva Politics'. Do not play politics. And Support such things. Helping to create a martyr after a terrorist supporter is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. It is to state facts that are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasrc (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Kanhaiya Kumar#Changes to Kanhaiya Kumar. To be continued there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits

Hi Joshua,
I was hoping you could explain your reverting the good faith edits I made. I realise you have put WP:Undue. Is that because you consider the organisation/religious group to insignificant to be mentioned? Or have you taken issue with the content? Thanks Alokibees (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alokibees: are you refererring the edits made at Rāja yoga revert and Meditation revert? They were WP:UNDUE, because the Brahma Kumaris is only a minor sect among so many Indian and Hindu groups. Giving so much attention to them is irrelevant for most readers, therefore undue. Also, be aware that you may have a WP:COI here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, in my country most people know about this group and so it is relevant for the 1.2 billion of us. We have never heard of Pagan meditation. When you talk about relevance to most readers, have you considered whether you have a global outlook or an outlook that only represents a minority? Alokibees (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alokibees: if so, provide a reference, and expand the main article on that group. Please be aware that this is the English Wikipedia, and that the majority are not Indians. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, You may be interested to know a lot of South India is educated in English medium schools and a significant proportion of young urban Indians speak English. There are approximately 24 million Indians living overseas, the vast majority being fluent in English. Here in India the Brahma Kumaris has mainly been popularised by their TV channel and one particular TV show - I don't think your reference request can be fulfilled as it's just TV. I don't see that the Pagan group has provided a reference justifying their significance and suspect there won't be one. Is there another way we can move this forward? Alokibees (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alokibees: at the Meditation-article, at best you could drop a line at the Hinduism subsection. But then, still: why this specific group, and not other groups? There's a reference at the Brahma Kumaris article to Melton & Baumann (2010), Religions of the World. A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. I guess there's a lot of groups in there; why then single out this specific new religious movement?
For Raja Yoga, it's really WP:UNDUE. The topic there is, 'What is being meant with "Raja Yoga"?' I think you really should consider that it looks like you're promoting your own religious affiliation. That's not what Wikipedia is meant for. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: you seem to have some edit-expoerience on this organisation; would you have some wise advice here? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshua/Bbb23, someone could put forward content for other groups to, all of which you will knock back on the same basis....I thought the encyclopedia grew by people adding 'their bit' to it. If everything gets knocked back (except paganism which has extremely low relevance here), how will it expand? It's information for the public about the wide range/variety of different meditation practices around. It's a very incomplete article. I don't have proper referenced content for OSHO, Ravi Shanker (AOL), Amma, Oneness University which are other meditation groups we have here. Saying that they are all just subsets of Hinduism is a significant misunderstanding of Hinduism. Are you suggesting there is a problem to include these other groups too? Given meditation practices originated in the east and these groups have large follwoings, shouldn't you consider a more global outlook and allow their inclusion? I thought those who have knowledge of other groups can add that in time. The Raja Yoga situation is the same - there are different forms/practices/interpretations of it. Why limit it to Patanjali's synthesis? Perhaps there should have been a new section for 'Modern interpretations of Raja Yoga' that could include divine life society, Vedanta, Brahma Kumaris etc?Alokibees (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

At Meditation#New Religious Movements, I've added a line with links to various NRM. That suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

thik hai, that covers 90% of the concerns I raised here. Thank you Alokibees (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed your clean up and recategorising (I had been wondering when prayer beds and new age became religions....much better!!! Thank you :-)Alokibees (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claims of 'Faith based' edits

Thanks for your message on my talk page impugning my motives by claiming my edits are based on 'faith based doubts about scientific theories'. If you'd bothered to read my edits you'd see that nothing I've added has any reference to faith - show where there's any reference to faith in anything I've written or alluded to?

If you bothered to check you'd have seen that both sources I've added conform to wikipedia's standards - including the peer reviewed Journal of Cosmology. Is that faith based too?

Look forward to your reply.

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently does sources were already disregarded by others. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your e-mail

You'll have to decide what evidence supports what and reopen an SPI if you think the evidence is persuasive. I'm not comfortable taking any action on such vague allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I reworked some edits, and noticed straight copies from websites, c.q. copy-vios. Not the kind of mistakes I'd expect in this case. So, I'll see what happens next. Thanks for responding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The JNU saga

What might have been a storm in a teacup at JNU has been transformed into a world-wide furore. The Kashmiri separatists couldn't have hoped for better publicity. May be it is all for the better. This issue had to come to the forefront sooner or later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the two of you can explain to me what this is all about? What do "the Kashmiri separatists" have to do with JNU? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

JNU students were cheering various Jihadi terrorists and are on videotape inciting violence. Remember India is 20% Muslim.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Where-after police forces entered the university grounds and arrested a student leader, on charges of sedition; in response, students protest, and a petition is signed by more than 500 people, including Sheldon Pollock and Noam Chomsky. Which you see as support for terrorism?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You got the idea. See User_talk:Kautilya3#Indian_Left_now_Cheering_Various_Terrorists. The JNU students that were supporting the so-called "Jihadi terrorists," were clearly an ultra left-wing, who would have normally had no support from any quarter. The right wingers have now turned them into heroes. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Gosh! Check out the day's news. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good piece to read [5], from a JNU professor. Arnab Goswami is the talk show host (of the so-called "news hour") that VG made me watch. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course this JNU professor will attack Arnab.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It all sounds like an event waiting to happen:

"Demanding beef in the hostel mess and worshipping 'Mahisasur' (a demon) are among the anti-national activities of the students listed by Delhi Police in a report on the controversial event organised in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) to commemorate the death anniversary of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru." [6]

How is "Kashmir separatism" the same as "jihadism"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of bombs, guns, killing people, attacking government buildings, flying the flag of ISIS etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Some fringe has turned "too left". But, they have forgotten that the negation of the State is anarchy. In general, overwhelming majority of the students across all Indian university campuses are not at all supporting them. No doubt a debate has started on ISA, but it is not anti-national and I can say this being personally present in such debates in my campus.Ghatus (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

JNU virus spreads.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: thanks for the link! Although I'm not a Marxist, I like those analyses.

@VictoriaGrayson: thanks for the update. But why is this show in English? Isn't that a strange contradiction, using the language of the former oppressor to promote nationalist ideas? I bet there's a Marxist term for such kind of cultural domination. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's strange you consider antiterrorism as nationalism. Do people cheer Osama bin Laden in your country? VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Activists should not be prosecuted solely based on their ideology. In the U.S.A., we had a short-lived but dangerous law known as the Smith Act that led to prosecutions of activists for their Communist beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court in decisions over the trials ruled that there has to be an intent to harm that must exist with revolutionary rhetoric for there to be criminality against the state. The standard supposedly in use in the U.S. today is that if there is no prospect of harm, then you cannot charge an activist with crimes solely based on rhetoric or ideology. No matter that people have made accusations against the JNU students for being intolerant of non-Leftist ideals (however weak that argument is), you can't justify criminally prosecuting activists for their ideology based on duplicity, even if that were shown to be the case. In research I have done, U.S. Federal prosecutors are trying to recreate the powers of the gutted Smith Act to recriminalise ideology. So, it should not be a surprise that terrorism is being invoked elsewhere as a ruse for these kinds of prosecutorial powers, even in contravention of the administration of justice. But that still doesn't make it right. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If American university students cheer Osama bin Laden, they would be expelled from university for breaking university codes of conduct. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, Indian students can get expelled for anything that looks anti-Indian, like celebarting Pakistan sport-victories over India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are cherrypicking based on crappy Indian media.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to separate what an objective application of free speech law should be from speech that is particularly tasteless. But it's important to note that what the JNU students have faced is criticism that they have not tolerated alternative speech, like speech that is supportive of the state. In that sense, what some people seem to be calling for is for the baseline tolerance of all speech. What we call free speech is given to us by how the laws for speech are written or interpreted in our own respective legal jurisdictions, even though speech like what is happening here have implications across legal jurisdictions or have extra-state impact. It seems like we need some kind of global standard of what free speech is. How do we get there when we are still rooting free speech rights to be state-based ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, inciting violence is not ideology or freedom of speech.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I am at a loss for words! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we might banish Zee News from Wikipedia. That would serve them right. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so this whole controversy was enflamed by a false press report ? Sounds like people are running an agenda here over the truth. I think the best thing to do is to keep reporting how Zee News reported fake news. Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There were preorganized rallies for Jihadi terrorists and multiple videos of event. And then other universities began cheering these terrorists.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest news report casts new doubt as to whether the people at the rally were even JNU students. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Demise007

Good for you for trying. If there was a barnstar for 'patience' I'd give it to you. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: there are, sort of. I already received several of them :) Ah well, it's a magical bonobo world! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Shortened footnote template in case of multiple authors

Greetings Joshua! You've got any idea how to use the shortened footnote template in case of multiple editors? I'd like to fix a reference to Pogorzelski & Maloof (2008) at the Chicago article. ;-D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Shishyaji, You need to say {{sfn|Pogorzelski|Maloof|2008}} and the two names must be listed as "last1=" and "last2=" in the citation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, thanks! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Guidance

Sir, I wanted to ask that if a film is not having an independent article on Wikipedia. Then can I use an article list of Films of the respective year when the film was released as a piped link for the film in any other article (e.g. any actor's filmography, who was a part of that film). Sir can u please guide me whether such use of piped links is valid or not. 1.39.45.154 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@1.39.45.154: you can add a link within a ref.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir, but I can't add, for example: List of Marathi films of 2013 as a piped link for Lagna Pahave Karun. I mean as Lagna Pahave Karun 1.39.46.43 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@1.39.45.154: you can, of course. But in this specific case the link would direct to the same article which contains the link, i.e. to where you already are. You can add a link to extrnal websites at the cell for "sources," though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir actually actress Mukta Barve has worked in the film, Lagna Pahave Karen . So in her biography can I link this film to the article List of Marathi films of 2013 as a piped link. 1.39.11.92 (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi 1.39.11.92, I think the specific linking policy is expressed at WP:EASTEREGG. So in this case, I wouldn't link Lagna Pahave Karen (a movie) to List of Marathi films of 2013 (list of movies by the director) since it doesn't really provide any valuable information to the reader about the movie. We shouldn't "force" linking, just for the sake of linking. I hope this helps! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hypnosis

The subject have sources even primary source,secondary source,,you are reverting,what is the reason?Allready you violeted 2RR RULE

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Hypnosisteacher (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC))

@Hypnosisteacher: you're clearly not new; which account have you been using before? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Jiří Vacek

Dear Joshua, You deleted the link to Jiří Vacek from the page of Sri Ramana Maharshi. I would like to please You, if You can accept Jiří Vacek as a devote of Sri Ramana. Jiří Vacek have written many books and made many translations of Ramana Maharshi. He has practically introduced him in our country and even abroad. He wrote many articles to the Mountain Path and the Call Divine. He introduces the teaching of Sri Ramana over 50 years. I believe, he is worthy to be mentioned as a devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Thanks--BlueKarel (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist cosmology

Could you please take a look at Buddhist cosmology? Thanks JimRenge (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: time for ANI, I'm afraid. This editor is a WP:NOTHERE proselyte. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not ripe for ANI now. I think he needs to be informed/warned about wp policies and guidelines first. Consequent use of templates might be a good idea. It should be very clear that this is not a content dispute. JimRenge (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joshua, You can report me at WP:ANI, for continuous WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. But distribute only the truth. Thanks, Muditha Mudithachampika (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user. Please let me know if you see logged out "corrections", Joshua, and I'll semi the articles. Incidentally, that also applies to Hypnosis, per above: I blocked the quacking ducks there, and we know that user is comfortable using IPs. Your page is quite the honeytrap! Bishonen | talk 17:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

Bzzzzzz...... thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What is this revert about?

Diff The reference is a transcript apparently. Who is asserting mistake in quote? Who asserts where, which quote originally? This is kind of amusing as wiki editors get down to defend their viewpoints with their own researches. --Ekvastra (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ekvastra: read the source: Nandini Majumdar, What the Petition against the Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock Is Really About]. The source was given, though, in the edit, which also contains a link to Pollock's original speech. I guess you failed to notice? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I must have missed it. Nandini Majumdar, who is s/he? I am confused you moved someone else comment after I replied below it. How/why is that done? --Ekvastra (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I split-off the part on the quote, which was about Kautilya's edit and Vic's revert. It seemed to me that your response belonged to that part too. I've moved them back again, with a series of diffs for the inseetion, revert, and re-insertion. I hope this makes it clearer what the thread is about. I guess we'll discuss that separately. NB: the question is not "Who is Nandini Majumdar?", but "Who is Dominik Wujastyk?" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hi! I had been busy when you helped clean my talk page archives. This way it’s much better than the random manner I had it before. So a delayed thanks for it…. Enjoy! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou Joshua

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for editing that page. Best regards, Terabar (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Terabar: that's a highly appreciated thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mahabharata Article

Hello, Responding to Let's talk! invitation on Talk:Mahabharata. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumphant0m1 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hallo! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What would you like to talk about? ˜˜˜˜ ps may I use some of your userboxes on my user page? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumphant0m1 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia, of course. And sure, copy the userboxes if you like them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the conversation supposed to be under Talk:Mahabharata? Quantumphant0m1 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks again for the userboxes!

Yes, though nice socializing talks can also take place at user talkpages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

On @Kautilya3 edits

Hi Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3 certain edit patterns indicates vandalism, and hence my edit...Do excuse if the tone needed to reduced - he simply blanks out 2 Quotes both from Kumar and Gandhi. Additionally, Kumar re-instates already referenced content in the same RSS article. I don't feel such editor are to be befriended IMHO. Like to know your opinion in this context, Joshua Huhshyeh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To be continued at User talk:Huhshyeh#Choosing your enemies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

INCOTM

Hello,

We are happy to inform you that WikiProject Indian Collaborations of the month is going to be restarted this month and we want your active support here.

1. Please nominate an article or vote other nominations here. The process will continue till 10 March.
2. Should we introduce prizes for the best participants? If so, what should be the criteria, and what prizes should we give? Share your views here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• If possible, please nominate an article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO at Vaikuntha?

Hi Joshua, do you remember if there was something about too long quotes in WP:COPYVIO (or related policies)? I was thinking of the Vaikuntha#Bhagavata Purana actually; if you take a look at the article, the quote (2910 characters) alone is longer than the rest of the article (2157 characters). Besides, the quote is referenced to Bhagavata Purana, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: fair use, that is, quoting is allowed, but not too much. It's a thin line, sometimes; proper attribution, references, and quotation-marks, are also important. But, in this case: too much; not encyclopedic. Condense, and a link to the original text. I hope this helps. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Cherrypicking is ridiciculous

I'm going to start an RfC to get rid of all the genetics from the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cherrypicking indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you cite Sahoo 2006 but don't cite its main conclusion!VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you have 2 genetics sections? One at the top of the article, and one later on?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The first section, "Description of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory"," is an introductory overview, to presen the essentials.

No indologist uses genetics to support Aryan migration. So to have it as part of the "Description of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory" makes no sense.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The geneticists do refer to the linguagistic and archeological research, though. Moorjani (2013) even explicitly mentions Witzel. And there is interest by archeologists etc. in genetics; see this talk by David Anthony. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cite an INDOLOGIST who uses genetics to discuss Aryan Migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why Indologists? We're talking here about several disciplines. Anthony is a major researcher in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: I'll have a look at Metspalu (2011) again too. They clearly state that there were no (large-scale?) migrations for the past 12,500 (?) years; yet, they also state that the Indo-Aryan migrations alone do not explain the genetic complexities of India. Sounds contradicting, so I'll look into that again. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add info

ANI's entered India between 40,000 years ago to 12,500 years ago. See HERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaGrayson (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 March 2016‎

Ha! I haven't opened th elink yet, but see my section on Reich et al. (2009) at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Reich et al. (2009). It's really a 'Wiki-whodunnit'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Murty Classical Library of India

... is under attack. Please take a look. I am tied up this evening. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism

JJ, I was reading comments about the Jainism article at the GA review, Talk:Jainism/GA4, and out of curiosity, to see whether lists are used in other religion articles and, if so, how many, I looked at the Hinduism article. I saw several lists. Then I looked at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hinduism, and saw that the article is a former featured article. It gave a link to see why it was removed as a featured article. I clicked on the link, and I could not find the Hinduism article among the articles beginning with letter "H". Can you help me find the discussion that removed it as a featured article? I'm curious to find out whether the presence of the lists was a factor at all. I'm now going to look at other religion articles.  – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that Buddhism is also a former featured article, but, again, I cannot find the discussion.  – Corinne (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: as far as I can see, the Milestones-part only contains links to the discussions on attaining GA-status. I think you should ask at the Teahouse; I know close to nothing about the GA-procedure. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Preview now available for BoS

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: thanks; I noticed. It's not the whole book, though? Funny, in Holland "BOS" means "Boeddhistische Omroep Stichting," that is, "Buddhist Broadcast Organisation." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I should have said BfS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A vey nice slip of the typeboard! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Critique of Pollock

Scholarly critique of Pollock.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wrote "I'll read it," but there was an edit-conflict. Meanwhile, I took a look; 69 pages! I'll scroll through it, at least. Thanks anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adiagr (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for inadvertent error. Should have posted on your talk page. Adiagr (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And at the right section, instead of at top, between the userboxes... I moved your apology downwards. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Notice: Please do not enquire as to editors' identities, as you did at WP:ANI. This is, as you are doubtless aware, contrary to WP:OUTING. Have a great day and ☺ happy editing! 08:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)08:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)

@151.230.65.134: I don't care, and don't want to know, about your real-life identity. I was wondering if you've got a Wiki-account, or have been editing under other Wiki-identities. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI loans

There are no language remnants in the world going that far back.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI and ASI mixed between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago; there are Dravidian and AA-loans in the Rig Veda; the ANI's lived in northern India; yet, there can't be ANI-loans? Hmmm... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is my understanding:

• ANI = IVC
• Dravidian = ANI + ASI.

So if there are Dravidian loans, that already includes ANI.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Aryan migrationists say Buddhism never existed in India

Christian Aryan migrationists say Buddhism never existed in India.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

They do? Nuts! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

WP MANIKHANTA

Any idea why Pelican and Egret should have Telugu names added to their articles? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Enthusiasm? See also diff IVC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Sheldon Pollock

Kautilya3 deleted all the Ramayana info. If you read that paper, you will realize that whole paper repeats these same ideas over and over again. There is absolutely no cherrypicking.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No comment on what Pollock does or does not believe about the Ramayana, but Kautilya3 is correct. Pollock's own articles are primary sources and you shouldn't be reading them at all. Look for interpretations of Pollock's writings from reliable secondary sources instead. --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: JJ added material based directly on Pollock already. See the article. Why the double standard?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article, just at the diff you point to above. If JJ is adding OR, you should definitely call him out on that. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I don't mind JJ's info at all. But we should all play by the same rules. Since citing Pollock directly violates WP:PRIMARY, I deleted JJ's info as well. Sorry JJ!VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As a clarification, primary sources are allowed in certain circumstances so there is no blanket ban on those sort of sources. The intent of WP:PRIMARY (well worth a read) is to avoid adding our own interpretations to the article. That said, if JJ is directly summarizing Pollock, you and JJ should both look at those summaries very carefully. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Reverts by Kautilya

OK Joshua, will have a revised look at his reverts. However, I do see the same user deleting en masse as seen in the above section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sound and Communication by Wilke and Moebus

@JJ: Have you read Annette Wilke and Oliver Moebus 2011 book, "Sound and Communication"? I have been reading it for the last few days. Interesting treatise on Vedanga, with sections on Shiksha, the Vedic field of phonetics, phonology, design of the alphabet and related studies. The book discusses, among other things, the cooperation between Vedic / Buddhist / Jaina scholars in ancient times on the studies of sound, melody, alphabet and language. Plus, in chapter 5 they discuss how all this may have influenced the development of Tantra. ISBN 978-3110181593. Wilke is a professor at Universität Münster. Recommended. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, and in line with Nicholson (2010). Thanks for noticing! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh Come On !

It is a harmless discussion. Their is no shouting as well. Just let it persist. Scots225 (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Scots225: if you're not Js82, fine; be welcome, and go on with discussing. Take note, though, of the previous discussions; if you're not Js82, I guess you'll understand my suspicions. For the talkpage-stalkers: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

“ Self-restraint and benefiting others With a compassionate mind is the Dharma ” — Nagarjuna

“ The main thing is to develop a good heart ” — Gen Lamrimpa

“ A good man is a wise man ” — Krishnamurti

Scots225 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry pal. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: I am fine with not deleting the latest @Js82-sock-Scots225 content on Talk:Sikhism. I had deleted it per WP:TPO, thinking that we can always use diff if we ever needed evidence. May be just hiding it would suffice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

New Sikhism-related articles

There is another ~3 week old @SiddarthSunny account, who knows and quotes the rules, asking @Apuldram to get consensus but feels no need to get consensus. Now active in Sikhism-related articles, deleting sourced scholarly content. See @SiddarthSunny's edit history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: yes, I noticed. Your turn to file a SPI? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Well, @Ian.thomson blocked @SiddarthSunny for 36 hours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJ:SPI opened. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: it's not the finest part of Wiki-editing, this kind of dirty work, but it has to be done. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubts

No offence but based on your interactions with Ms Sarah Welch it seems you are taking sides. SiddharthSunny (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's nice that you don't see it as an offense. But serious: isn't it about time to stop this all? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

IVC and Krishna

Could you and @Kautilya3: take a look at the reference to IVC in the Iconography section of Krishna.--regentspark (comment) 18:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Giriwar Charan Agarwala (1979), Age of Bhārata War, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, p.81-82 [7]. Tsja... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It did look like a stretch. Thanks for getting rid of it! --regentspark (comment) 21:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: The Chandogya Upanishad summary in that article is also non-NPOV, incorrect. See Max Muller, page 52 note 1. It is in relatively modern Gopala-Tapani and Krishna Upanishads that we find the Krishna of that article. This date pushing, both ways, is an old dispute. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Ah, so, Motilal Banarsidas publishes junk too? It looks like the proceedings of a conference of traditionalists. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently. And they publish top publications. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi JJ, how is your crusade in Indo-Aryan related pages going on??? You are doing it for the last two years regularly with same enthusiasm. Good.:-) Ghatus (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "crusade" was over quite a while ago. Now it is a question of refining it, polishing it etc. But, I agree, JJ's passion for it is admirable! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Crusade"? Mind your language! But, we're doing fine on it; I'm t the point of also insulting Dravidian nationalists, so NPOV is guaranteed in my hands ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. "Crusade" doesn't have the same meaning to South Asians as it does to Europeans. As for Dravidian nationalists, see this. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess so. The crusades have a somewhat different meaning for Middle Eastern peoples as they have for Europeans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In Indian context, "crusade" means fighting for something passionately and nothing more. It actually has a positive connotation. See the use in the Indian newspaper - Narendra Modi’s black money crusade looms over property bubble.Ghatus (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I know, of course. But for muslims it may have a rather different meaning, comparable to European colonialism, and then the worst part of it. But now that you've mentioned the Indo-Aryans, Ghatus: do you know of portal cities at the Indian west-coast which were established, or grew strongly, between ca. 2,000-1,5000 BCE, and are related? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Other than Lothal? It is possible that Bharuch dates back to pre-Aryan times. Goods went up from there to Ujjain, which became a major trading city during the Second Urbanisation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Time frame ( 2,000-1,5000 BCE ) you are referring to can go with these two sea- ports of western India.

Lothal: In Gujarat settlements such as Rangapur, Surkotada and Lothal have been discovered. Lothal is located in the coastal flats of the Gulf of Cambay. This place seems to have been an outpost for sea trade with contemporary West Asian societies. Its excavator S.R. Rao claims to have discovered a dockyard here.

Sutkagen-Do: Sutkagen-Dor is located near the Makran coast which is close to the Pakistan-Iran border. At present the settlement is land-locked in dry inhospitable plains. The town had a citadel surrounded by a stone wall built for defense. Its location in an inhospitable area can only be explained by the need of sea-port for trading.

Relation: They are closely related to each other on two grounds- 1)Sutkagen-Do is considered is to be a colony of Lothal. 2)Sutkagen-Do was a resting place in the maritime trade between IVC (Lothal being the main port of entire IVC) and West Asia. Ghatus (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If one wants to come to modern day India from the Mediterranean Sea, the path he has to take is Syria>Iraq>Sutkagen-Do (today's Pakistan)>Lothal(today's India). It was an alternative route to India since time immemorial other than through Khyber Pass from Central Asia. And, the most parts of this route is either by sea or by river or by the coast. Ghatus (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Peopling of India

Talk to me!

You need to talk to me before you make any major changes, there are many things you seem to have misunderstood. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping

At 27 august 2015, 5 different IPs, but all starting with 117, made a series of edits at Andamanese people. At least one of them added "info" that's not in the source. I expect that the other edits need be checked too. The same info was added to Peopling of India. I guess it's all the same editor, who's harming Wikipedia. @Drmies, Bishonen, and Dougweller: what to do with this editor? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not harming, all i did was correct you regrading your misunderstanding regrading AAA yesterday. And, today you refuse to understand why ASI and AND component are distinct components today as mentioned in Basu et al. Just like ASI and AAA diverged, the same way ASI and AND diverged. Do look at the talk page. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, all the same:

• Special:Contributions/117.192.217.229 location 117.192.217.229
• Special:Contributions/117.192.204.213 location 117.192.204.213
• Special:Contributions/117.192.210.181 location 117.192.210.181
• Special:Contributions/117.192.195.247 location 117.192.195.247
• Special:Contributions/117.192.195.247 location 117.221.28.87
• Special:Contributions/117.221.28.87 location 117.192.197.97
• Special:Contributions/117.192.210.36 location 117.192.210.36

@Kautilya3: you gave one of those IP-adresses the ARBIPA-notification; do you remember which one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This one IP117.192.210.36 ARBIPA. Unregistered Bangaloreans have been messing with genetics pages for a long time. May be they are all the same user. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I did get ARBIPA, we did clear that misunderstanding yesterday. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you User:Pebble101? - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have an account yet and there does not seem to be a rule to sign up to edit either. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You do have an account: User talk:Kannadiga. Kautilya3 and I both noticed. You edited Talk:Dravidian peoples at 26 march using IP 117.192.210.36; then those two edits were chaged by Kannadiga; and then that message was edited again by IP 117.192.210.36. Please do use that account; I'l revert any edit you mak with your IPs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No such rules Wikipedia:Why not create an account? and Wikipedia:Why create an account?. And, if you were to undo my edits with source then that is against the rules of wikipedia. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Multiple accounts. Apparently you the Wiki-policies; then you should know that one too. And: you do have an account; you used it two days ago. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no such rule as to edit without an account, logged on, or logged off. You can't force me to make an account or to do edit logged on. Again, see Wikipedia:Why not create an account? and Wikipedia:Why create an account?. "If necessary, log out now, and officially join Earth's Wikipedia project by editing from a naked IP address." 117.192.217.229 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There are rules against using multiple accounts, as you are doing. You already do have an account. And your edits are problematic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again, wikipedia says even if you have any account you can log out and edit if you want to
• I do not have multipal accounts, I prefer to edit without an account or logging on. There is no rules for that.
• My edits are problematic? I always fully source in talk page before doing any major edits, unless the page has not been sourced for years.117.192.217.229 (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not say that you can log out and continue editing when you've got an account. Wikipedia wants editors to be traceable, not hop around on several accounts. I've already pointed you to the policies on this. And yes, your edits are problematic, deliberately changing quotes, adding wrong "info," and removing correct info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Kannadiga or whoever you are, if you are using WP:Why not create an account? (a joke) for any serious purpose, then you must be fanatical. That is what that page says at the top. There is no rule that says people should log in to make edits, but there are rules against using multiple accounts to edit the same page, or related pages. It is called "socking." You have already socked and you did so even after receiving the ARBIPA alert. Consequently, you can blocked permanently and any account or IP you use in future can be tracked and blocked as well. So, I suggest that you climb down your horse and explain yourself. The opening remark of this section is one of the rudest remarks I have ever seen. You are exhibiting a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and this doesn't bode well. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Copied from User:117.192.217.229

• False accusations, IP addess changes every time you turn on and turn off your laptop. There is nothing i can do about this.
• There is also no rules regrading editing with or without an account. See, Wikipedia:Why not create an account? and Wikipedia:Why create an account?.
• "If necessary, log out now, and officially join Earth's Wikipedia project by editing from a naked IP address." Wikipedia:Why not create an account? 117.192.217.229 (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If your IP address changes every time you turn on your laptop, then you must register an account and use it. Otherwise, you are socking. See Pebble101's case who had similar issues, and he was advised as I just did here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Joshua, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "contributions x" + "location y". Please explain. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

• P.S., just as I told Pebble101 here, it's a question of transparency and honesty. It's not permitted to log out and edit from dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny. Your evidence above that this is Kannadiga is convincing, Joshua. I have warned Kannadiga about evading scrutiny. Wikilawyering won't profit them. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I checked the locations of the IPs; and I added, for each IP, a link to their contributions, to check them if necessary. But the problem seems to be solved now. Thanks for responding! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hold on: I just had a look at the SPI for User:Pebble101; this does indeed look like the same user, who is now also using the User:Kannadiga account. Same location, same topics (Dravidian peoples, Peopling of India) Which would mean that they are socking indeed. @Kautilya3: do we have to reopen that SPI? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I asked this user whether he was Pebble101, and he denied. If the two users are the same, so far I don't see an abuse of multiple accounts. Pebble101 has been mostly inactive recently. Kannadiga, if you are the same as the Pebble101, you should admit it, declare it on your User page, and stop using the Pebble101 account so that you don't get into trouble in future. You know very well the rules about socking by now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a kind gesture of you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I barely use this account, why would i have the need to make another one? I have always edited without logging on, simply because it's hassel to edit pages with new editing theme that logged-in feature has. Kannadiga (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich-dating

@Joshua Jonathan : I have found dating for ASI and AND split according to Reich et al, See here. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's not 50,000-60,000 years ago, is it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not but at least i did find when that split occurred, which will now explain when early peopling of Andaman islands took place and why ASI and AND are not same components just like AAA and ASI are not same components. 117.192.217.229 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

50,000-40,000 sounds more likely. But adding information which is not in the source you use is not okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome messages

Hi JJ, For welcome messages, I normally use {{welcomelaws}}. It is the first one under "problem users" in the Twinkle menu. It says more about the rules and policies than the standard welcome. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 petition to remove Sheldon Pollock from Murty Classical Library for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 petition to remove Sheldon Pollock from Murty Classical Library is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 petition to remove Sheldon Pollock from Murty Classical Library until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Greek Legend (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wives

The Punjab, being the main gateway into India, was fated to be the perpetual field of battle and the first home of all the conquerors. Few invaders, if any, brought wives with them, and most of those who settled in their conquered domains acquired local women. Thus the blood of many conquering races came to mingle, and many alien languages – Arabic, Persian, Pushto, and Turkish – came to be spoken in the land. -- Khushwant Singh quoted in Singh, Pritam (2008). Federalism, Nationalism and Development: India and the Punjab Economy. Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 9781134049462.. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Upload request

Hello sir,

Sir please can you upload the title card of the show Tashan-e-Ishq in the article Tashan-e-Ishq. The image comes under

. The image can be found here. Please upload it, the image is owned by Zee TV. 103.225.183.129 (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies and Bishonen: what's this? See also the link which was changed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir when you open this changed link you will se a list of shows in which one of the shows is Tashan-e-Ishq. Above this name there is an image please upload that image. The image is not having any independent url. It needs to be downloaded from the changed url which is this. It is owned by Zee TV. Please upload it

103.225.183.129 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should I do that, and why do you ask me? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh!! I am sorry I thought I can ask you. Earlier I had asked u for help. Sorry. 103.225.183.129 (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's just tht this IP-adress is unknown to me. So, who are you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Adi Sankara

There is absolutely no evidence to show he was a Tamil, considering all his writings are in Sanskrit.Pied Hornbill (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Good reasoning. Its a common mistake in Indian history to connect historical people to current demographics of the region they were born in. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that Ramanuja (born in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu) was a Tamil, or that Madhvacharya (Pajaka, Udupi, Karnataka state) was a Kannada speaker. These were Brahmin saints who espoused the cause of Brahminical Hinduism, the Vedas and Upanishad (Hindu scriptures written in Sanskrit) and as such, the naturalization of Brahmins into the local South Indian languages was a slow process that fully culminated only after the 15th century.Mayasandra (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pied Hornbill, @Mayasandra: Indeed, there is uncertainty. Yet, there is "increased likelihood" too after decades of recent scholarship. Some Dharmasutras, from the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE, are likely from their South Indian states, all composed beautifully in Sanskrit. That language was used, in ancient and medieval times, likely because it was the language of the primary texts (Upanishads, Vedas), as well as Sanskrit's highly developed grammar and structure, plus its reach among the then scholars (just like the reach of English in our times). Not only did South Indians write in Sanskrit (in different scripts such as Nandinagari), so did Buddhism and Jainism scholars (e.g. Umaswati, 2-5th century CE). The earliest known Sanskrit South Indian inscriptions are in Nagarjunakonda, from early 1st millennium. There is a good book by Rick Salomon, published by Oxford University Press for more on all this. In Adi Shankara article, consider accepting @JJ's version, perhaps with an added 'refn' style note on uncertainty and competing claims. @JJ and you may have other creative ideas to reach a consensus compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MSW. I recall that my 'creative idea' here was a chain of thought: a Tamil state; Shankara was a Shaivist; Shaivism may be older than Vedic-Brahmanic religiosity; Shaivism has monistic tendencies; Shankara is seen as a Vedic orthodox, but maybe he was expressing non-Vedic thoughts in Vedic language, "infiltrating" Vedic orthodoxy, so to speak; Shankara gained more prominence when the north was subdued by the Muslims, and the south was taking a stand, creating or strengthening their Hindu-identity; this is when he came to be regarded/portrayed as a Vedic orthodox; compare Ramana Maharshi, a folk Shaivite holy men and Bhakta, who's regarded by many as an Advaita Vedantin - what a stretch of imagination!; south Indian Hindu identity may actually be a Harappan-Dravidian identity which spread over India before the Indo-Aryans and the Vedic orthodoxy of the Kuru kingdom. Everyone still following my thoughts? :) And indeed, Shankara writing in Sanskrit does not mean he couldn't have been a Tamil. We're all writing here in English; well, I'm definitely not English. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Se also Why did Adi Sankaracharya propagate his teachings and writing in Sanskrit? NB: he's also credited with organising the Dashanami Sampradaya, and he opposed the Mimamsa ritualism. And he's also regarded as a 'crypto-Buddhist.' Not exactly the kind of brave householder the Vedic orthodox Brahmans may have preferred... Well, 'eat your enemy,' so to speak, incorporate him into your tradition, just like the Buddha became an avatar of Vishnu. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Isaeva and others mention the uncertainty about the early life of Adi Shankara, and inconsistent fictional details in different hagiographies. He is indeed placed in South India in these works, from what we now call Kerala/Tamil Nadu/Karnataka. Kerala is the favored one (see pages 70-72 of Isaeva's book on Shankara). These are guesses, not proof though. You are right, indeed, that Shankara writing in Sanskrit does not mean he couldn't have been Tamil.

On crypto-this or crypto-that, we should ignore it. These ancient and medieval Indians had a very rich tradition of public debates, in a manner similar to the Greeks, where they would use all tools of rhetoric, including silly name calling, to press their point. Set aside Veda-inspired Hindus and their internal debates. Buddhists called Jaina and Charvaka scholars with similar crypto-this and crypto-that too, Jaina criticized Ajivikas/Charvakas/Buddhists too, Ajivikas didn't hold back either, etc. They all tried "eat your enemy" as you put it. The Hindus/Buddhists/Jaina all tried "embrace your enemy with tough love, and stand your ground" - read their ancient and medieval texts. This name calling and personal attacks are the sort we see sometimes (often?) in our political campaigns, where a few are fighting for minds and hearts of many. It is amazing how passionately the ancient/medieval Indians pursued ideas, pursued spirituality, each in their own lovely ways. Southeast Asians, Chinese and Japanese too. The competing sects of Buddhism in southeast Asia tried the same "eat your enemy" approach, as did others. See Seiwert's pages 99-123, for what happened in medieval China, as an example.

On Sanskrit, it was just the means of expression, the real fascinating debate was about the meaning of the expressed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Its important for @JJ not to draw conclusions that Sankara was a Shaivite, or that he was a Tamil based on Aryan/Dravidian theories, especially considering these theories themselves are lost in a mist of uncertainties. Without literary, epigraphic or any other written evidence, with some secondary sources from medieval India corroborating it, its nothing but hand waving to come to any conclusions. Good luck.Mayasandra (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious: "not to draw conclusions that Sankara was a Shaivite"? What do you think he was? A Krisha-bhakta? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: Evidence suggests, as @JJ notes, that Shankara's name had been strongly linked to Shaivism heritage. Shankara did see this saguna -> nirguna as a transitory phase. Krishna is more linked to Ramanuja and particularly to Madhvacharya. Yet, the ontological differences between Ramanuja and Shankara are narrower, than say Madhvacharya and Shankara (the criticism of Advaita-Hindus/Buddhists by Madhva is intense, but perhaps not surprising if we compassionately view the polemics from Madhva's theistic premises and passion). For Shaivism-Shankara-Gaudapada connection, see Jones and Ryan, Encyclopedia of Hinduism, page 402; and Isaeva's From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Adi Shankara accepted Krishna as Ishvara and came from a Vaishnavaite background. See the academic book Krishna: A Sourcebook pages 4, 12, 312. The reason modern Shankaracharyas are Saivas is because they combined Vedanta with some Saiva tantra.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Goddess tradition too! See page 313 of that Bryant edited Krishna Sourcebook text as well, or that whole chapter by Lance Nelson. The Bhagavata Purana and other texts of Vaishnavism and many Shaktism texts are Advaitic, most Agamas and key texts of Shaivism more so. That doesn't affect the validity of @JJ's comments and summary in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I wrong if I think that Saivism is much "older," a local variant of the much wider spread Mother goddess worship; mother Earth and father Heaven? Predating the Vedic influences on Indian religions? And that Vaishnaism is more linked with these vedic influences and the Kuru kingdom? Also, Smartism is often mentioned as the fourth main tradition in Hinduism; wouldn't it be more accurate to speak of [(Saivism/Shaktism), Shrauta, Vaishnaism (theistic Vedanta)) Smartism (Advaita Vedanta)]? Shrauta may be small in numbers, but comes closest to the original Vedic religion, doesn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Evidence suggests the roots of Shaivism are ancient (there is a 3rd/2nd-century BCE major linga temple at Gudimallam, for example). Vaishnavism is ancient as well (there is the 3rd/2nd-century Ghosundi inscription, the 2nd/1st century BCE Heliodorus pillar and the 1st-century BCE Western Ghats Nanaghat inscription with Vasudeva/Bhagavatism). Tantra is ancient (but Tantra meant something different for a very long time, not the "intimate" sense of meaning ascribed in the modern era). Shiva/Shakti is ancient, as is Vishnu/Sri, and both had Tantra. Upanishadic influence is traceable to Shaivism and Vaishnavism from last centuries of BCE. Shrautism/Smartism emerged later, likely after Mimamsa/Vedanta split. While Atman-Brahman ideas are from pre-600 BCE, the names Rudra/Narayana/Saraswati/etc are too, but pre-600 BCE evidence for Shaivism/Vaishnavism/Shaktism is missing. But, "absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence", it epistemically only implies "we don't know".

We do know of textual evidence on all this too (which is often questionable, interpolated? inserted later?). Consider Krishna/Vaishnavism: Panini's 5th century BCE classic on grammar mentions the word Vasudevaka, confirmed to be authentic because it is discussed in the 2nd century BCE Patanjali's Mahabhasya classic on Panini (see Dasgupta's book published by Cambridge University Press, etc). Beyond that evidence is missing and we don't know, except for fictional treasured fringe-y hagiographies that push dates with amazing OR to 3000 to 4000 BCE for Shaiva/Vaishnava/Shakti-Tantra by some (see Talk:Andal for an example of Vaishnavism 3000 BCE claim, with angry accusations that wiki contributors like me hate Hindus, because we are questioning these ~3000 BCE fringe-y claims, and because we insist on adding scholarly 8th/9th century CE dates for Andal from WP:RS).

Shaivism, just like Vaishnavism, is interesting with deep roots. It may be older, but like yoga and Pashupati seal, there is that possibility that we are projecting later practices into ancient artifacts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Shiva is from the Shri Rudram Chamakam.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sex-androgyny in mythology

The article Sex-androgyny in mythology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Over-reliant on huge quotes. Neither comprehensive nor specialized enough to warrant its own article. Consider merging any usable content into related articles.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: no problem; go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

3 problems with the 4 denominations of Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saktism and Smarta

3 problems with the 4 denominations of Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saktism and Smarta:

• Problem 1: Vaikhanasas, who are commonly the priest you find in Hindu temples, are a Vedic sakha and follow the Smriti. They are distinct from Srivaishnava who follow the tantric Pancharatra. So Vaikhanasas have much more in common with Smarta than they do with Srivaishnava even though both are Vaishnava.
• Problem 2: Only Brahmins have denominations. (Ignoring cults like Hare Krishna)
• Problem 3: Omits Srauta.

The Solution: Explain that there are 3 denominations of Hinduism. Those who follow the Srauta. Those who follow the Smriti. Those who follow the Tantras.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nice! Ehm... how about the scholarly resarch? Isn't the Saivism-Vaishnavism-Saktism-Smarta supposed to be the 'standard' division? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all. Where did you get that idea? VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what the Hinduism-article says, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: "Tradition" is the better term, see Jones and Ryan's article on Vaishnavism in the Encyclopedia of Hinduism, page 474 (or the recent Blackwell Companion to Hinduism). Julius Lipner is a good WP:RS on this, and he states "sampradayas" are best understood as denominations within each tradition (page 398, Lipner's Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Do you have a source for your "Problems 1-3"? How is this different from your flawed arguments on Talk:Smarta Tradition, which @JJ and I have responded to there. I have all the Gudrun Bühnemann literature on Smarta on my desk, and I believe you have misunderstood Bühnemann. Have you read Bühnemann's Smarta-related publications completely, rather than a few selective pages? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does Srauta fit into these 4 denominations? It doesn't.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: See Jan Gonda's Vedic Ritual, Brill Academic, ISBN 978-9004062108. The book is on Shrauta and non-Shrauta, its historical development, with rituals focus. Shrauta-sutras are interesting too, but WP:Primary. Indeed, Shrauta doesn't fit as a separate significant tradition, and is sort of embedded in all of them. A Hindu wedding, for example, is a Vedic fire ritual, though with post-Vedic influences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Srauta and Smarta are two halves of a Vedic Sakha. You cannot mention Smarta and ignore Srauta. And the Hindu wedding fire ritual is Vedic Smarta, not Vedic Srauta.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As modern denominations? any WP:RS? If that was just a general comment, agreed, yes, Sruti -> Shrauta, and Smriti -> Smarta. Should we collaborate on improving the Shrauta article? It is currently a weak and incomplete article. I am fine if you prefer to work on it alone. You could use the above Jan Gonda's book, John Bowker's The message and the book published by Yale University Press, Brian Hatcher's Hinduism in the Modern World etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Srauta is practiced in the modern day. The book "Vedic Voices" chronicles this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Research Question

Hi JJ. I was wondering if you knew about any tibetan or vajrayana practices that are similar to the circular breathing patterns used in taoist microcosmic orbit and in Babaji's kriya yoga. I am looking into connections between these sagittal-plane circular paths in the subtle body and how they may have influenced each other, and a himalayan or buddhist practice would make a great theoretical connection. You seemed like the right guy to ask! Thanks! Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Since kriya yoga is a modern invention, the question makes no sense.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: I'm just a simple Zennie, when it comes down to meditation-practice: "Sit down and shut up!" So, I know nothing about "circular breathing practices," at least not that I am aware of. I don't even know what it is! Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaishnavism

@JJ: I like your edits to Vaishnavism so far. Let me know if I can help in any way. Some additional WP:RS on Vaishnavism: [1] Chapter 8: Vaishnava by Francis Clooney and Tony Stewart, in The Hindu World (Ed: Mittal and Thursby), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415772273, pages 162-184. [2] The Journal of Vaishnava Studies has been publishing peer reviewed content on Vaishnavism. [3] On history, in addition to some Krishna/Vasudeva sources I mentioned earlier, the chapters by Michael Witzel and others in Vaishnavism (Ed: Rosen), ISBN 978-8120812352. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: never realized that "Hinduism" is so complicated... And so 'non-Vedic'. How about the merger-proposal? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Fine move/merge. Just like Krishnaism, the Ramaism has been significant. Each has literature, traditions, pilgrimage, festivals, etc. Ramaism, for example, has had influential monastic movements (e.g. monks who metamorphosed into warriors, but generally peaceful, they are now one of the world's largest monastic groups, their claimed founder influenced Guru Nanak of Sikhism, etc). Ramaism texts are interesting, such as Adhyatma Ramayana, now found embedded in Brahmanda Purana, and is one of Advaita Vedanta classics, and the text is a syncretism of Rama (Vishnuism), Sita (Shaktism), Advaita and Yoga. Then we Vithoba-ism, particularly in parts of their Deccan region, which is also an aspect of Vaishnavism. Madhvacharya and Dvaita school was a Christianity-like Vishnu-centered theistic movement, another aspect of Vaishnavism. Their Bengal, Assam and Manipur regions had their own brilliant texts and thinkers. Of course, one of the Vaishnavism's philosophical stars was Ramanuja with his Vedanta sub-school. There is more. You write 'so complicated', I write 'yes indeed'. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

JJ, Hinduism is not that complicated. You have Srauta on one extreme. Tantra (which introduces idols and Hindu temples) is on the other extreme. Smriti is a hybrid of the two and uses the mantras of Vedas with the idols of Tantra.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a 1000+ year discussion on the differences between the two? Agama (Pancaratra tantra in Vaishnavism) texts are, to many scholars, nothing but same wine (vedic ideas) in a different bottle. Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta scholars have long explained it as "the Vedas are the cow, the Agama Tantras is the cow's milk". Shrauta, Smriti and Tantra are describing the same space of ideas, as Cartesian, Cylindrical and Spherical coordinate systems describing the same space of points. Just read the sutras/samhitas of each. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The ideas of the Pancaratra are the opposite of Srauta. Srauta entails mass animal sacrifice. Pancaratra has the typical Hindu puja of water and flower offerings.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Have you read any Srautasutra? If yes, which one states "Srauta entails mass animal sacrifice"? Of course, you have a right to believe in whatever wisdom/prejudice/etc you want to, but it is always better to have an open mind and verify one's assumptions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read "Vedic Voices" by Knipe, Michael Witzel and some translations of Brahmanas. To deny Srauta involves animal sacrifice is to go against both indigenous and scholarly perspectives. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Well, then identify the page number and WP:RS, or the Shrautasutra, or the Brahmana. Where did David Knipe or Michael Witzel ever generalize and write ""Srauta entails mass animal sacrifice"? Page number with ISBN or link please? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(ps....@JJ and his talk page readers: Yes, some Vedic rituals such as Asvamedha involved horse sacrifice and this is mentioned in the Vedas for example, but textual evidence suggests that almost all srauta rituals had no actual animal sacrifice. The biggest ritual Agnistoma had none. There is the Pashubandha ritual which does mention animal sacrifice, but then almost all versions substitute a vegetable as a symbolism for animal (or pista-pashu, a flour-paste animal). Most smaller rituals involved yajna fire, grains, seeds, clarified butter, etc.; For srauta, tantra and substitution of animal with something else, in BCE times, see: Brian Smith's Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual, and Religion, pages 172-199. This probably happened because of Ahimsa concepts that developed in 1st millennium BCE, with Jainism likely leading their sentiments. But, wait for @VictoriaGrayson to provide page numbers and sources, let us read them, and get informed.) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Srauta is still practiced today. And Agnistoma is the simplest Srauta yajna, not the biggest:

The initiatory rite for this leap into extended sacrifices is the agni-stoma pg. 44 Vedic Voices

Vedic ritual texts imagine an ideal progression through a number of sacrifices—extensive and quite expensive—after the agni-stoma. pg. 220 Vedic Voices

And Agnistoma requires the killing of atleast two goats:

A goat is bound to a pole and sacrificed by suffocation. pg. 45 Vedic Voices

After first offering and then drinking soma, the priests sacrifice a second goat and conclude the agni-stoma with a ritual bath. pg. 45 Vedic Voices

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Again, read your comments above, the strange "You have Srauta on one extreme. Tantra is on the other extreme. Smriti is a hybrid of the two" and "Srauta entails mass animal sacrifice"? where does David Knipe ever generalize and write that? Just give plain answers, with WP:RS and page numbers, and quit wasting your and my effort. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Knipe explains different amount of animals for different yajnas. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Did you miss or haven't read the pages where David Knipe mentions vegetable and flour-paste substitutes? Apastamba Srauta-sutra dedicates 106 chapters to Agnistoma, starting at 10.1, this is much longer than any other ritual. Longer implies complicated, not simple. You mustn't have read any Shrauta-sutra. Consider, but don't rely too much on David Knipe, because it is a record of an anecdotal practice in a village. Knipe repeatedly mentions problems and disagreements between the locals. Generalizing Knipe's WP:Primary anecdotal record needs a lot of care and caution.

Let us consider what other scholars state. A peer reviewed study by Michael Witzel, in 2015, discusses, "how Vedic (Srauta) rituals changed over time". In there is a chapter starting at page 67, which describes Buddhist records on vedic rituals. Here is a quote (I kept it short because of fair use concerns, but encourage you to read the book):

How Srauta rituals evolved over time? - Michael Witzel's book (2015)

Section: Buddhist Reinterpretation of Vedic Fires and Sacrifices
(...) The Buddha also criticizes the Brahmins for their decadence and failure to live in conformity with the Brahmanic legacy of the ancient Brahmins. In one of his discourses he tells an assembly of Brahmins that the ancient Brahmins lived in self-restraint and were ascetics. They had no cattle, no gold, and no wealth. They had study as their grain and wealth, guarded the holy life as their treasure, and praised morality, austerity and nonviolence. They performed sacrifices consisting of rice, barley and oil, but they did not kill cows.

— Michael Witzel (2015), Homa Variations: The Study of Ritual Change Across the Longue Durée, Oxford University Press, page 86

Clearly, this is discussing the prior history and the nature of vedic sacrifices before and at the time of Buddha. It mentions what was sacrificed, what wasn't, and the nonviolence principle before Buddha. @JJ: The book is interesting in other chapters too, where it describes homa/vedic sacrifice ritual grammar that is found in Tibet and Japan, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Page 86 of Homa Variations is not by Michael Witzel, nor about actual history. Its about a discourse of the Buddha criticizing animal sacrifice:

"The Buddha also criticizes the Brahmins for their decadence and failure to live in conformity with the Brahmanic legacy (dhamma) of the ancient Brahmins. In one of his discourses he tells an assembly of Brahmins that the ancient Brahmins lived in self-restraint and were ascetics. They had no cattle, no gold, and no wealth. They had study as their grain and wealth, guarded the holy life as their treasure, and praised morality, austerity and nonviolence. They performed sacrifices consisting of rice, barley and oil, but they did not kill the cows. However, eventually things have changed. The Brahmins saw the wealth and prosperity of the king, his cows and women, and they coveted his riches. They composed hymns and induced the king to sacrifice his wealth. The king consented, sponsored sacrifices, and bestowed wealth on the Brahmins. Once they received wealth, the Brahmins became overcome by greed and craved for more. This time, they induced the king to sacrifice his cows. The king complied and had thousands of cows killed in sacrifices. When the cows were slaughtered, the gods and forefathers protested against their slaughter as being against the Law (adhamma). The Buddha concludes his discourse by stating that the slaughter of innocent animals is unlawful and that those who perform bloody sacrifices deviate from the true Dhamma."

Witzel says Srauta has animal sacrifice. Witzel's chapter of Blackwell Companion of Hinduism says:

"The Pasubandha or “Animal Sacrifice” (Schwab 1886) is also integrated into the Soma ritual, and involves the killing of an animal. The inauspicious effect of killing is undone by involving substitution for the Adhvaryu priests and “bloodless” suffocation outside the actual offering ground; both are major features of the Srauta mind set, as exemplified by the foundational (charter) myth of the Asvins as the Adhvaryu priests of the gods." pg.80 of Blackwell Companion of Hinduism

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: It is a Witzel's edited book (the chapter is by Tadeusz Skorupski). Dhamma, or true Dhamma in the cited discourse, is referring to "Brahmanic legacy of the ancient Brahmins", nothing else. I already mentioned 'Pashubandha and animal sacrifice' way back above. But, what Skorupski in Witzel 2015 book is stating in that quote is that "true Dhamma of Brahmins does not involve bloody sacrifices" (or that is what Buddha or the author of that Buddha discourse understood long long ago). The Blackwell book you quote is part of a section that starts on page 77, titled "The Post-Rigvedic reform of the Srauta ritual". The context is reform. Later after your page 80 quote, on page 82 etc, the reform theme continues, and the 'evil in killing' is referred to by Witzel. Page 83 onwards, the ritual moves from the exterior karma to the interior jnana (knowledge). So, you must read that 'suffocation thing' as a step in the on-going Srauta reforms he discusses. Never ignore the context of a sentence or paragraph.

If a Brahmin or group of Brahmins encourage a king to kill goats/cows/whatever, or a villager kills a goat, it does not necessarily mean that is "true dhamma" or "śrauta". You have yet to provide a page number, where either Knipe or Witzel state your strange "You have Srauta on one extreme. Tantra is on the other extreme. Smriti is a hybrid of the two". Or "Srauta entails mass animal sacrifice". You have misunderstood "true dhamma" and post-Vedic "Srauta" of the Brahmanic legacy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What does the Buddha's discourse about "true dhamma" have to do with anything? Buddha is Buddhism. Why do you keep bringing up this discourse of Buddha?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the Skorupski chapter in Witzel's book. Therein is the answer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you put archive`r on my talk page?

--AmritasyaPutra^T 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Shaivism?

The Vaishnavism article is a much better article, thanks to your initiative and efforts. How about a similar review and revision of Shaivism article with parallel layout and depth? I will join you, help in the small ways I can, add any expand section you identify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's on my mind, but it asks more from than the usual stuff I'm doing. Vaishnavism is (was) almost completely unknown to me, so I learned while I was reading. Shaivism shouls be easier, in that respect; it has a natural appeal to, from before my twenties. So, I guess we'll give it try, though not right know.

Regarding Nondualism, it's a complicated topic, precisely because it's not a scholarly topic but an "amateur" topic. But there's also an unexpected beauty in that fact: it's a "lay" movement, like the Naths and the Sants. No formal theology, no highly developed philosophical works, but a bottom-up movement, with "lay-literature" in the form of blogs, websites and records of satsangs. It's interesting, in this regard, that Ramana Maharshi is the 'patron Saint' of nondualism (c.q. neo-Advaita): a lay-person with a 'spontaneous' awakening c.q. spirit-possession (I think he had an epileptic fit...) who became kind of a projection-screen for a wide diversity of religious ideas and longings: Tamil folk-religion, high-brow Advaita Vedanta, western Theosophy and the like, and modern holistic spirituality. To paraphrase Nietzsche, who wrote "Christianity is Platonism for lay-people," maybe we could say "Nondualism is monism/holism/vedanta for (western) lay-people." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Well said. FWIW, I have not yet removed the blogs, the op-eds, and the rest of the websites-sourced content, because of similar questions in my mind. I just focussed, so far, on the nondualism in the classical and post-classical Buddhist and Hindu literature where there is a ton of WP:RS. Perhaps, we could have a dedicated separate section that just has the neo-ND-movements with its juggle of amateur sources. I will meditate on this a bit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Scholars just cite Alexis Sanderson on Saivism. As just one example, Gavin Flood's Saivism chapter in Blackwell Companion to Hinduism is almost entirely referenced to Alexis Sanderson. This paper is the most important reference on Saivism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's this 'lay-movement' which has popualrized the term "nondualism." It refers to the classical Asian as expecially found in Advaita Vedanta, but I wonder, no I'm quite sure that it has little to do with classical Advaita Vedanta. So, those blogs et cetera are essential, 'cause they 'define' what (popular)nondualism is. It may be interesting to see what Google Scholar (2015-2016) gives us, and compare it with Google. Google Scholar highlights the "classical" meaning, while Google gives the "popular" understanding. We're probly into OR-territoy here, but it would be a nice topic for an academic study. Anyway, again, if we strictly stick to scholarly sources, the common (popular) meaning will get lost, which I want to avoid. The focus of the article on Nondualism has always been on this popular meaning, not on the classical meaning; that's more like an 'authority-providing framework' (though it's also, of course, an inpsiration). High culture versus 'low' culture, right? Or: power to the people!

Oh, look at this quote!: "Non-dualism refers to the idea that the universe and all its mul- tiplicity are ultimately appearances of one essential reality." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Advaitins don't recognize the conceptualizing mind. They just sit around in Satsang wasting their time.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Nondualism/monism in Indian religions context, has been studied since colonial times. Google scholar gives more than 4900 article links on nondualism since 1975. Over 3000 returns for nondualism AND advaita, since 1975, on google scholar. Over 150 articles on nondualism AND advaita, about 20 on nondualism AND advaya, in journals hosted by JSTOR, more on non-JSTOR. That is plenty of notability, that needs to be summarized somewhere. There are a zillion wikipedia articles on Jainism/Buddhism/Hinduism/Sikhism/Taoism/eastern topics with far less number of google scholar links. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we agree there. But do you see my point here? You are focused on the classical meaning, the Indian religious context, so that's what you perceive when you read this article on nondualism. But there's also this popular (western) movement, which is somehow below the radar of the academics, but quite popular in some subcultures. Go into a New Age bookshop; you won't find any scholarly publication, but plenty of popular books on nondualism/neo-Advaita! So, that's what this article is about, and which is mainly to be found at primary sources. Have a look at some Google hits, and try to "formalize" what those blogs et cetera are describing: is it classical Advaita Vedanta, is it something else? What's the role of "experience"? What does their "liberating insight" constitute? How is this "liberating insight" brought about, c.q. constructed? There are plenty of descriptions of "spontaneous awakenings"; what does this subculture eman with that? What's the effect on morals, on the attitude toward others? Is there an effect on the attitude towards others, or is it merely a variant of the self-development culture? See also Immediatism (spirituality); funny, I guess that I wrote that, but I can't remember. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Yes, indeed there are the popular movements, notable enough to be included in the article. The challenge is picking the sources, or the least worst from some borderline quality sources. Yet, to the extent we can, we need to rejig and update with summary from peer reviewed sources on these new movements. The journal Nova Religio, published by the University of California, carries such articles. You already added some good sources, and there is a lot more in them that we could summarize (while trimming out the borderline/bad sources). For example, Jay Michaelson's book on nondual Judaism includes a review of nondualism in Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, New Age on pages 78-89 and elsewhere, which should be in the article, but isn't. Above all, the article should try to focus on "nondualism" subject of the article, and avoid getting coatracked. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mysticism

Please discuss your changes of September 2015 on the talk:Mysticism page.1Z (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? You've got a problem with the addition of a link to Pizza effect? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mysticism #2

Jonathan, please explain why you reverted the move. 1Z (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the edit-summary: the word "shamanism" is derived from Siberian cultures, but the phenomenon is a worldwide phenomenon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Tum bhi ham jaise nikale

"You turned out just like us," says a Pakistani poet. Making waves in India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This world is slowly turning mad by anger, aren't we? It's sad and frightening... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Deep Orientalism

traditional Sanskrit texts	Old European Indology / Colonialism	Modern post-colonial studies	Pollock
"pre-orientalist orientalism" / "pre-colonial orientalism"	orientalism	post-colonialism	post-orientalism
Oppressive hegemonic power structures	Inherits oppressive structures from Sanskrit	Incorrectly blames Europeans for oppressing Indians	Correctly assigns oppression to Sanskrit as a moral responsibility

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

4NT

@JJ: please check your internet email. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Brahminsm vs Historical religion article

Hi User, Thanks for sharing your view points on the article Brahminsm. Actually I am working on the same project in my university and I like to add the same topic to wikipedia also.Please help me by giving your valuable suggestions. Your view points are always welcomed.We can disscuss about the topic on the talk page of the article.--IrumudiChozhan (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Brahminsm: first, start with spelling it correct (Brahminism), and second, make a clear distinctin between 'historical Brahminism' (post-Vedic, pre-'early Hinduism', say 1000-500 BCE). What you and your friends apparently mean is the dominant position of a Brahmin elite in Indian society. Isn't there a better term? Notice also that this topic is likely to attract a lot of POV-pushing, from several sides; be sure not t turn it into a political manifesto. See also WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Kanhaiya Kumar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kanhaiya Kumar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanhaiya Kumar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Brahminsm

Hi User, I verified the topic through some sources and the article is ok. The information in the article is partially correct.In ancient India the social system is different and comparing that to the current social system of India is irrelevent. Since this article involves some particular group of people (Brahmins) Care needs to be taken while giving info. Derogatory info should be avoided.Instead of deleting the article we can improve the article by giving proper sources and citations. Unsourced items should be removed from the article.I think the best option is not the removal of article but the improvement of article. Welcoming your suggestions.Thanks in advance.--SanManuDharma (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Brahminsm, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Article Brahminsm citations

The article received heavy criticsm due to lack of citations. So I had added proper citations to each and every information writtien in this article. So I think now the article is satisfying minimum requirement of Wikipedia and so I think there is no need in deleting the article. The neutrality of the article is not disputed since all the facts mentioned in the article can be verified through the citations.Only the facts are mentioned and it is not a particular person's viewpoint.But i think some other view points are missed in the article. That should be added.But deleting of the article is not necessary.I think you are emotionally attached to the topic.Please dont take it as personal.It is just a fact.If you want to improve article or if you want to add other view points it is mostly welcomed.Please reach out to me at anytime regarding improvement of this article.Thanks in advance.--ChatruSamhara (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't expect the prod to stick, did you, Joshua? I'll support if you AfD it. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

@ChatruSamhara: All article-related discussion is best done at the article's talk page. I will copy your discussion there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I've deleted the G5 eligible articles that I found, let me know if there are any others. The SPI should show the socking details. —SpacemanSpiff 15:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: the problem may have been moved now to Brahminism, though I do I think there is some ground for such an article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

On holiday

On holiday for a couple of days. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Back from holiday. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI

You might be interested in this Rfc. JimRenge (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: thanks! That's kind of you, to send a notice of this RfC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Four Noble Truths

In this group of edits, you added a note in the lede which quotes the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. This would be a primary source and when it comes to something like this, the guidelines state: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Your note lacks this reliable secondary source. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76:Isn't that hypocritical since you insisted on primary sources at Yeshe Tsogyal?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I did no such thing. The Buddhist Path: A Practical Guide from the Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism is not a primary source and you continually removed without proper discussion. But then you just moved and completely eradicated God in Buddhism with no discussion at all so thinking you WP:OWN articles seems to be your method. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll add a secndary source. The point is, and I trust you're completely aware of that, that at the core of Buddhism is the attempt to escape from samsara, not the attempt to strive after happines in this world. That someone starts a discussion about shows a gross lack of understanding of Buddhism, bordering on disruptive: now we're spending time on explainig the basics of Buddhism to ignorant people. That's a waste of my time which I could spend in better ways. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the content of your edit but since there is a large discussion on the talk page, I feel the referencing should rock solid or else things will continue going in circles. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Patrick Olivelle. And note again that this information is so basic that it shouldn't be controversial or challenging. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this clean-up: quite radical indeed! Vic likes to be to the point, doesn't he? But I suggest that the two of you dicuss this further at Talk:Creator in Buddhism or your own talkpages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary source and Mahaparinibbana Sutta

@Dharmalion76: Page 162, with note 38 in Carol Anderson's book is a secondary WP:RS on Mahaparinibbana Sutta, that should suffice. But MpS is not the only source, Vinaya Pitaka etc too say the same "by not understanding the four truths, rebirth continues" thing. This is, frankly, pretty basic.Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

As I noted above, I take no issue with the content of the edit but that the sourcing needs to be stronger on an article that is being endlessly discussed on the talk page (a discussion I take no part in and am not criticizing Joshua's edit) Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

4NT talk page edits

@JJ: I somehow deleted a part of @RW's reply on 4NT talk page. I was using Wiki's mobile device edit app. Now the app wouldn't let me fix it. Could u please fix it and insert @RW 14:11 UTC reply back? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: done. Did somebody miss it? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks. I see continued misrepresentations by @RW at WP:AN, but with only mobile app editor access for 2 more days, that is buggy or I am not using it right, I must hold off responding. Take a look at Rebirth (Buddhism) article; it is weak, mostly unsourced, with quite a bit of OR, and important to understanding 4NT article. @John Carter: would you have time and interest in fixing that article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@JJ:, @John Carter: I updated Rebirth (Buddhism) a bit. Needs more work. Your participation would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute at the administrator noticebord

Joshua, Ms Sarah Welch, content disputes are off-topic at AN. Please resist the temptation to answer Robert Walkers content related arguments there. Your answers might be viewed as seriously disruptive editing. JimRenge (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Thank you and understood. That is, in part, why I have not responded to yesterday's false assertions by @Robert Walker on AN. @RW seems busy making his 'conduct issue' appear a 'content dispute'. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, though there is a serious irony of course in "Your answers might be viewed as seriously disruptive editing" given the topic of that ANI-thread. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add

The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system:

The co-presence of this haplogroup in many of the tribal populations of India, its existence in high frequency in Saharia (present study) and Chenchu tribes, the high frequency of R1a* in Kashmiri Pandits (KPs—Brahmins) as well as Saharia (tribe) and associated phylogenetic ages supported the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins, confronting the concepts of recent Central Asian introduction and rank-related Eurasian contribution of the Indian caste system.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: looks interesting; I'll read the paper in detail. I know close to nothing, though, about the R1a-debate, except that it's a higly contentious topic, so I'm hesitating to add it. I guess you were thinking about the genetics-section of Indo-Aryan migration theory? Comparing it to the findings of Reich etc., "confronting the concepts" is not a very strong statement, also given the fact that this article is from 2009, and does not respond to those investigations. They refer to the same four ancestral cmponents, though, as Basu (2016), and that study confirmed the findings of Reich etc. I'll read the article, and ponder it over. Thanks for the change of subject! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You really should have read through WP:BAN more carefully...

Meaning no offense, but I don't honestly think any of the Robertinventor proposals will work out at this point. While I have a habit of (accidentally) filibustering a lot of proposals whether I agree or disagree with them, and I think it's entirely possible Robertinventor is doing the same deliberately, it won't be either my fault or Robert's if the current discussion gets closed as "no consensus". If you really did mean to propose a WP:PBAN from the start, then it will be difficult for a closer to determine whether all of the "supports" were in favour of what you initially proposed or what you later said you meant. In my experience when "some kind of sanction" receives overwhelming but not quite unanimous support, the closer generally just says "be careful" and puts the user in question on probation, but no admin will block someone for a post they haven't read, and I doubt any admin is ever going to sit down and read one of Robertinventor's long posts from start to finish.

I don't really think a PBAN will do the trick in this case, as the problem is clearly more widespread than the one page, and the original TBAN parameters were way too technical and difficult to enforce, especially given the circumstances. I'm going to withdraw my alternate proposal as it seems even less likely to get off the ground.

If you need any help dealing with Robertinventor going forward, ping me or message me on my talk page and I will be happy to do whatever I can, but I don't frankly see the current AN mess ending in our favour.

Best,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: the current mess at the AN-thread is symptomatic. You may be right, that this will end (again) in no concensus; yet, the pressure against this disruption is building up, since it is not the first time this happens. We'll see... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Noted, and agreed. But just FYI, my username is "Hijiri88" (no space). Since I requested you ping me going forward, I figured I should point it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: ping! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Buddhism: god, demi-god, human, animal, hungry ghost and hell

@JJ: Hope the title got your attention!, please have a look at Saṃsāra (Buddhism), which I have been cleaning thanks to @JimRenge's efforts and tags. Its section on Realms of rebirth is weak, and feels one sided pessimism. It is a @Dorje108 contribution from 2012 (who also seems like a big quote farm contributor). While it states, "[gods, after they have] exhausted their good karma (which was the cause for being reborn in the god realm)" ... "they suffer through being reborn in the lower realms."; the problem is that it does not state the reverse for those in the lower realms. That is, how someone in the lower three realms returns to the human realm. If this were never possible, then the Buddhist samsara theory breaks down, and those in lower realms never get a second chance. The old version misrepresents Buddhism, and it fails to state the optimism and hope in Buddhist texts.

This needs a fix, perhaps a copy-paste of sourced content from some other Buddhist article you (or your talk page stalkers) may know or have worked on in the past. Or do we perhaps need to dig into WP:RS and add summary from them? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work, your efforts your merit. :) JimRenge (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorely disappointed. I came looking for hungry ghosts... Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you've got my attention. Harvey? I'll have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look. It's the same problem again: at first sight, it looks acceptable, but when you start to think about it, it's not. Details which are not correct, and which need to be rewritten. Yech... Quite a lot of work. I've added a tag, as a reminder. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Welcome to the Dukkha!! May be @JJ will cheer you up soon by improving the 'hungry ghost' etc sections. Yep it is "Yech... Quite a lot of work'. @JJ: I am wondering whether to mention and compare Hinduism and Jainism theories in Samsara (Buddhism) article? Just like you have added Buddhism sections in various Hinduism articles, particularly on Buddhist influence on Advaita/etc (particularly from King's book that is largely based on his study of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and Vedanta). The Samsara+Karma+Nirvana/Moksha ideas of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism likely influenced each other. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed some of these comparisons now, but also added a new one, so I think some comparisons might be fine, and helpfull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Another quote farm

Avidyā (Buddhism). I see you or other WP:RS-driven editors haven't edited it. Tagged it for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Poor Dorje... Almost all his articles have been kind of WP:TNT... But with good reasons, and witht he consent of multiple editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed, a lot of the @Dorje108 added content to Buddhism-related articles I have checked so far, are weak and strange. The quote farms @Dorje108 added, with good intentions and in good faith, have the following problems:

[1] the bad ones misrepresent Buddhism, begin offering psychotherapy / mental health advice, which is not okay with MEDRS. Most have nothing to do with the article topic and Buddhism. An example of Dorje108's version: there was a long section on "contemporary Tibetan teachers having acknowledged how Western people have difficult relationship with their mothers"!! This has nothing to do with Samsara or Buddhism (fwiw, I removed it);

[2] the quote farms did not provide context, many sections read like wikiquote. Nor do the quotes preserve the context in quite many sources I checked.

[3] A lack of WP:RS and peer reviewed scholarship. This has been the most serious problem.

[4] Very large quotes or overuse of quotes raises WP:Copyvio concerns. Fair use law only allows us to quote for review, commentary, criticism, explanation and similar use. The quotes have to be small part of the article, not the article.

I have not completely WP:TNT'ed the @Dorje108 articles. Sourcing from authors based in East Asia / Tibet / etc is okay with me, so as to present a diversity of views. This gives a better WP:NPOV presentation. But sourcing predominantly from Tibetan authors psychotherapy, mental health and relationship advice, in an important historic topic within Buddhism is not okay. Summary from peer reviewed mainstream scholarship from Europe, United States, Japan and other regions of the world, published in secondary and tertiary literature, ought to be in these articles. But @Dorje108's version skipped such WP:RS in many articles linked to Four Noble Truths. In Avidyā (Buddhism) and other 4NT-related articles, I have tried to bring a balance, by keeping some perspective from Asian authors but converting quote into prose in many cases, and adding a lot more from mainstream scholarship. I appreciate @JimRenge, you and others keeping an eye on my edits to these Four Noble Truths-linked articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Noble Eightfold Path

@JJ: I am slowly progressing through the linked articles in the Four Noble Truths article. Just looked at Noble Eightfold Path. I am puzzled by its excessive reliance on a single author. The single dominant source used in that article is Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who is cited some 50+ times. Some sentences/lists have two or more sources, but the additional sources in many cases are Thanissaro Bhikkhu again. In contrast, the following are not mentioned at all: Gombrich, Williams, Keown, Lopez, Gethin, Bronkhorst, Vetter, Conze, Lamotte, Choong, Payutto, Takasaki, Buswell, Pagel, Garfield, Frauwallner, etc. Peter Harvey is mentioned, but cursorily just in lead. Strange. Including Thanissaro Bhikkhu is fine, but NEP article is a case of excess of Thanissaro Bhikkhu while the mainstream scholarship is not even mentioned. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'm afraid that the popular sources are relatively well-known, while only a few western Buddhist go further than that... I'll have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Vetter's summary of NEP, Williams on NEP, Bodhi on NEP, Gombrich on NEP (on what is popular), etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Userbox decoration - finally!

Greetings Joshua Jonathan! It's now been almost 3 ½ months since you inserted a userbox on my Talk Page,[8] and finally I have started to update it with some personally selected templates. Should you be interested, I'd like to invite you to freely decorate my User Page! At the moment it's a bit blank, but as the saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day". Thanks! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The new indigenists

The summer holidays are here. Fasten your seatbelts! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Smile: indigenism is not indigenous to India ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dukkha, dhyana and karuna

@Ms Sarah Welch: some additional thoughts (my talkpage stalkers are welcome to red this too, of course): the nuance that dukkha is about letting go of carving and attachment to temporary states and things, and not about "suffering" in general; coupled to the notion that dhyana may have been the original practice, which helps in letting go of this attachments to ultimately worthless states and things; this sheds another light on Buddhism. Not an 'ultimate truth', a metaphysical grand theatre, but a personal conviction. And not an ancient variant of our modern search for happiness, but an ancient answer to the question "what is really important and worthfull?" This last question also sheds another light on metta and karuna: not as means to stop literal suffering, but as additional answers to the question "What does really matter?" Well, the well-being of all living beings matter, not only your own happiness. This love and well-being is even worth physical and mental suffering; it's a kind of "suffering" that's Arya, noble. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed, that is closer to what these ancient/medieval sages of Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism traditions have been writing about. The other truth is that there is a lot of inconsistencies, in Pali Canon, in Jaina Canon and the Hindu scriptures. They all say a lot of things, a lot of beautiful things, a lot of different things, a lot of gobbledygook things, a lot of inconsistent things. If we compassionately study them, it is indeed about the questions, such as "what is really important and worthy?" and "what is the meaning of life, what are we and what is happiness?". Dukkha theory is in all three traditions. Dukkha is indeed more than what the term "suffering" means, in all three traditions, it includes "unsatisfactoriness".

"Well being of all living beings matter", that you write above, is a beautiful conviction. It has been a part of their Ahimsa (non-violence) doctrine, and the passages in the ancient Jainism texts are the most profound on this, with Hindu and Buddhist texts not far behind. Similarly Metta or Maitri and equivalent words are in all three traditions, and dhyana is indeed about such virtues, let go of craving and clinging, practice inner reflection, is in all three traditions.

"One should be willing to suffer for love, universal love, beautiful love, pure love for all beings" is... how Jainism defends asceticism. Middle way is for the weaklings, assert the Jaina texts. "Change yourself, let all livings be, let the world be, don't create Dukkha karma".... is in the Jaina texts. Amazing, isn't it.

But we must not over reach here, and project our feelings, our wishes and humanistic values into the ancient texts. ध्यान (dhyana, meditate) is a means. It is different than प्रज्ञा (prajna, jnana, vidya, insight, wisdom, knowledge). Dhyana is the path, prajna is the destination. Dhyana is a process and phenomena, prajna is about the subject-object-dualities-nondualities-nonSelf-Self-0-1-nonSoul-Soul-etc-etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

IdeaLab and @Robert Walker

@RW's proposal and this. IMHO, @EdJohnston's advice to @RW is spot on. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and hopeless. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC-closure

See Four Noble Truths

Joshua, an Rfc can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor [9]. I do agree with your result, but I think it should be closed by someone else. JimRenge (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll self-revert, and leave it as it is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Review request

Would you please verify these edits (IE-related articles)?

• [10], [11], [12]

Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I'd noticed these edits too, but they seem to be correct. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Origins of the PIE

Hi Joshua,

You reinserted the statement the DNA evidence "confirmed a migratory pattern out of the Pontic Steppe at the relevant time" in Kurgan Hypothesis.

The DNA evidence is relatively new and therefore not surprisingly misunderstood by most, even by "scientists" writing in "RS" journals. Consider:

1) The entire idea that there is any genetic evidence that PIE originated with R1a1a is absurd. The article says that "Geneticists have noted the correlation of a specific haplogroup, R1a1a, defined by the M17 (SNP marker) of the Y chromosome, and speakers of Indo-European languages in Europe and Asia. The connection between Y-DNA R-M17 and the spread of Indo-European languages was first proposed by Zerjal and colleagues in 1999" but a little thought will make it clear why this is wrong. Modern populations that speak the Italic and Celtic languages are dominated not by R1a, but by R1b.

FACTUALLY "correlation of a specific haplogroup, R1a1a, defined by the M17 (SNP marker) of the Y chromosome, and speakers of Indo-European languages" is WRONG.

FACTUALLY "correlation of a specific haplogroup, R1 and speakers of Indo-European languages" MAYBE correct.

As haplogroup R2 is also concentrated in modern populations that speak the Indo European languages, this statement MAYBE correct "correlation of a specific haplogroup R and speakers of Indo-European languages".

That is, factually the correlation is between IE languages and parent R (or maybe R1), not only the descendant R1a1a.

The genetic evidence for the origins of R is likely South Asia, given that its descendant R2 occurs almost entirely in South Asia. The genetic evidence for the origins of R1 is likely South Asia or its western neighboring areas for example Soares et al., "The Archaeogenetics of Europe", Current Biology 2010. The place of origin as the "Pontic steppe" is not supported by any scientific research that I know of.

Best,

JS (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayanta Sen: Haak et al. (2015) is noy about R1a1. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Haak et al. concludes "These results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe."

What does the above statement mean? It could mean: 1) The place of origin (place of birth) of some of the IE languages of Europe was the steppe. This is the Kurgan Hypothesis

2) Some of the IE languages of Europe originated from (came from) the steppes.

There is a difference between 1) and 2).

The evidence that Haak et al provide does support 2). Indeed, R1 was not present in older European populations but common in modern European populations. This supports the idea of massive migrations into Europe by R1, who carried with them the IE languages.

However, the evidence produced by Haak does not support 1). It is quite possible that the R1 population that spoke PIE originated east of the steppes, then migrated to the steppes and next to Europe. As the steppes lie between Iran/South Asia and Europe, it is to be expected that this population spent time in the steppes before invading/migrating into Europe.

The scientific way of determining the place of origin of a haplogroup is to look for geographical areas with great diversity in the older descendant haplogroups.

Let me try to explain it in another way. As Haak et al. do not compare the diversity in descendant mutations in different candidate geographical regions, they cannot determine the place of origin, they can only deduce that there was movement into Europe.

Others such as Soares et al. (2010) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20178764) consider the DNA evidence from different regions. Soares has this to say "More surprising is the status of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1, which, unlike mtDNA haplogroup I, is not indigenous to West Eurasia but appears to have originated in South Asia, possibly in the early settlements associated with the southern route dispersal. This appears better substantiated than the alternative suggestion of a Central Asian origin."

One needs to exercise caution in understanding the methodologies and conclusions of the research in this area.

Best,

JS (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to re-insert without discussion ideas that are obviously understood to be wrong with a bit of reading such as R1a1a is the population in which IE originated, which then magically replaced the languages of R1b populations, I don't have the time to continue this. Somebody in the future will come along and clean this up. Best, JS (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read my response? "Haak et al. (2015) is not about R1a1." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I did read your all your responses. My comment was directed to this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurgan_hypothesis&type=revision&diff=725568960&oldid=725553411 Best, JS (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And that's exactly the kind of information you can't remove; it's relevant for an overview. What is questionable, though, is how much attention must be given to this R1a discussion in the context of the Kurgan-hypothesis; too many possibilities, too much partisanship. It may be somewhat undue there. Haak et al. (2015) and Allentoft et al. (2015) is more relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Admiring your patience

Allegations of racism on Buddhism talk page can be bothersome, but inappropriate in your case. It reflects nothing off you, but just how upset the OP is. Your patience, calmness and "no ill-will" is not unnoticed. Just admired. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. I shouldn't have used that one specific word; it heats the emotions, which is not usefull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sex-androgyny in mythology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sex-androgyny in mythology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex-androgyny in mythology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

IVC editor

I've reverted several other edits by this person, but not yet South Asia. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff already did. We'll see what more Diannaa has to say about this editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, SpacemanSpiff took care of that too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've given an ARBIPA warning. If it was just copyvios then I'd have done the banning when needed, but I've had to revert some POV nonsense that can be confused for being involved in content, so I don't think I'll take any admin action. Maybe Bishonen can keep a watch and do what's necessary, if/when (Gullupat‎). —SpacemanSpiff 10:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

SuttaCentral

Hello, Joshua ! Can you please expand and find some sources for the above website? I shall be very grateful to you. With regards and love, Terabar (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion. This website offers translations of Buddhist scriptures in various languages and deserves a wikipedia article. Can you please help? Terabar (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted before; it may indeed not be very notable for Wikipedia. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. No Problem. Thanks for checking out. With regards, Terabar (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

20th century BC

I didn't really want to revert you, but that's had a fact tag for 2 years, we normally don't replace unsourced text which has a fact tag. You watching the Krishna stuff? Doug Weller talk 13:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: 2000 BCE as the (mythological) founding date of Judaism isn't really controversial, is it? Krishna is on my watchlist; regarding Dwarka, it's not about the facts themselves, but about the claims, isn't it? The fact that those people claim this, may be relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the mythological date for Judaism is, but Krishna's dates - plural - are disputed so we shouldn't choose one to state as fact, plus the editor considers him to have been a real person which isn't what this article says. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to conflate two discussions. I've looked at the related articles and none of them give the 2000 date, so I've removed this. If it were the traditional date you'd expect it to be in Abraham or Judaism, History of Judaism, Origins of Judaism, etc. All of them in fact would mention it. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I found two different dates for Abraham at a quick search: 1800 BCE, and 2100-2000 BCE. Bu that's Abraham; not an explicit statement that Judaism was founded then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job on researching and and bringing into the discussion current academic articles that come from actual academic journals and publications (Considering some of the things that get cited here in wiki, it's a relief that there are a few that actual do their homework and bring civil intelligent discussion into the subject) Kathanar (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kathanar: thanks! I don't remember that we interacted before, so it's a pleasant surprise that you found me. Wikipedia is a magical place sometimes, with people keeping eyes on each other without being aware of it. I'm happy that you like my edits. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mano Laohavanich

More eyes needed on Mano Laohavanich. JimRenge (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Chapters 2 through 4 in Rory Mackenzie's book provide a decent NPOV review of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. It is cited once, on meditation center -> temple, but the book has a treasure of information on Thai Dhammakaya and other new Buddhist movements. Donald Swearer too, which is already cited, but only sparsely. Swearer has more reviewed information; he also mentions Laohavanich. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Not previous incarnations, but one instance a month ago by Kautilya

Closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This is from Lemmongrls page: Hi Lemmongirl, thanks for sticking around the JNU pages and watching over the vandals and goons. Highly appreciate your help! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Hey Kautilya3, thank you! The 3 pages are on my watchlist and I occasionally have a look at the changes. Today's changes were grossly indecent and honestly, I was surprised at the intensity. I guess I will watch the pages more frequently from now on! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Well, there are nationalists, communalists, fundamentalists and what have you. They own the God-given truth! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC) What exactly does Kautilya3 mean by a goon or a vandal? When someone posts something that is contrary to the beliefs and biases that they hold, they use words like : goons and vandals. Then they offer one rule, a second rule and then ban you for a month. There are ways to get around it, but I decided to let it go. Everyone has a bias or side they take in life. To say one is bias free or value free is untrue. The amount of individual who truly neutral on this planet are far and few. Having said that, how does one POV which is not supported by facts get accepted, while others don't. Is it that might is right. This is like when the mafia uses an attorney to guide them skirt the law or just toe the boundary. Knowing a few wiki rules and then using them to ban people or suppress views, that is not correct. Wiki is crowd-sourced and crowd-funded. Both can be stopped, because of such individuals.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:452:C966:DF0F:D619 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Pleasure to talk to an adherent of Dhamma I knew that you are probably a person who interested in The Buddha or the brahman or the self. Such a person knows the right path or the middle path or the noble truths. Having said that how is that some wiki editors who are self-acclaimed old-hats get away with making inflammatory comments, suppressing comments and then banning people. That is not dharmic. My favorite zen parable on perspective taking is the one where three fingers are used and a debate is conducted in silence. I sure you know it or can look it up. That is what I think is happening with the world at large, which is reflected on social media. I hope folks like you can counter that. Dharmam Sharanam Gachami2602:30A:C7D7:E590:2877:3B6F:6279:3E77 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC) @2602:30A:C7D7:E590:*: As @Kautilya3 and @Joshua Jonathan have suggested to you, please review and follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Further you must stop personally attacking and ridiculing @Kautilya3 as you did here. See WP:NPA. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Ms Welch. I have not attacked or ridiculed @Joshua Jonathan. I asked to apply the same, purported, standards of wiki fairness to all. I was excited to talk to an adherent of dhamma, just like you seem to be know the sat-asat difference. Those who are dharmic do not lie, manipulate or twist facts. Moreover, a month ago, as I have cut-and-pasted above @Kautilya3 made a concerted effort where he openly recruited the assistance of others in reverting some edits I had made (yes I did regrettably use inflammatory language, that is not right by any standard), he then labeled my post as "vandals and goons, and later on proceeded to label it fundamentalist. What gives him the right to do that? Do the standards not apply to him? Yesterday he proceeded to say "you are still new here". That is a direct transliteration from Hindi (tum abhi naye ho). Such (H)inglish is not grammatical according to US or UK standards. I have a right to point that out. Moreover he does not have the inherent right label me, just like I don't. So how is that there are double standards here. I asked him for an apology and he is now playing victim. A dharmic person like you should understand that this is adharmic. There are three components in ahimsa. Non-injury toward other living being, non-injury toward the self, by the self, finally, not allowing injury of the self by others. By this standard what is applicable to him, also applies to me. He has been hauled up in the past for his biased views on South Asian matters. Please review his comments toward this address block and make a fair assessment. Thank you. Dharmam sharanam gacchami.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:1CCD:7843:6A70:1858 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Ok, you seem to have taken serious offence at my words, and I apologise. I didn't necessarily mean you when I mentioned "goons and vandals" on LemonGirl's talk page. She had opposed the page existing in the first place. I didn't know she was continuing to watch it and defend the content. Most of the drama happened while I wasn't even online and lot of people thought your attacks on the subject as well as me way over the top, and you got a 72-hour block as a result. Let us put all that behind us. If you want to have a dharmic discourse with friends, that is perfectly fine by me. But you better stop commenting on me in every post and every edit summary. Otherwise, you are likely to get blocked again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Dear Kautilya3, if your apology is sincere I shall accept it and move on, however if you wish to blow hot and cold--meaning append your apology with a veiled threat, then that is not acceptable. If I am going to be blocked, then, so be it. I do not rely on Wiki editorship for my livelihood or my self-esteem. I do not back down from fights, especially unjust ones. An apology should be an apology, and the one to whom it is made should be gracious to accept. However if there is an apology in sentence, and a veiled threat in the same breath, then that is non-apology. Please think about what you have written. Yes, I am open to a dharmic discussion. Thank you2602:30A:C7D7:E590:1CCD:7843:6A70:1858 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Another thing Kautilya3, what do you mean "you were not even online?" Who knows whether you were or not, and who cares. The history clearly shows that supported Lemongirl942 in her decision and went to make the comment posted above. This was not before you reverted two prior edits that I made. The edits themselves have been suppressed by Lemongirl942 and they are not viewable, but am sure other wiki editors can access them. When you say a "lot of people" how many, do you know who they were, or how do you know they were a lot of people? Unless there is overt online activity, all you are saying is a supposition or a suppository. Again is that a sincere apology or a non-apology? Thank you for engaging in this conversation. Is this the wiki equivalent of having tea or a beer?2602:30A:C7D7:E590:1CCD:7843:6A70:1858 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Punjab edit-a-thon

Hello friend,
A multilingual national-level edit-a-thon is being conducted at this moment with an aim to create or improve Punjab-related articles. A community that will create or expand the most number of articles during this edit-a-thon contest will be awarded a trophy during WikiConference India 2016. Best contributors' recognition may also be considered. We need your help here. Please join right now as a participant and help your community.
Thanks and regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha in Hinduism

Hi Joshua,

I re-added some content on this page from a free published source. See One user says that I am misrepresenting the source and it is my personal opinion but in actual, I have even cited the name of the book and page number from where I took the content. If you don't mind, can you please look into this matter? Terabar (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC) @Terabar: I think that there are better sources for that info, especially John Holt, The Buddhist Visnu. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Classics

Hi, thanks for your comment about knowing the classics. I'm not a Latinist or a Greek scholar, but I do work seriously on the classical culture of India. Best, Wujastyk 10:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for the late reply. I am also interested on the Indus valley civilisation. I guess we need to have ancient samples from India tested, urgently. I'm sure the results will be interesting. Best regards!Grenzer22 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

IE article(s)

Hi Joshua, I appreciate your work and interest here, but I think it would be very useful if you tried a little hard to take mainstream secondary sources as the starting point for writing. Neither super-recent genetics articles or selfpublished work by the many people who work on historical linguistics as hobby projects are good ways to find a balanced overview of the field. Wikipedia needs to start by representing faithfully the mainstream views, and the history of the discipline before branching out to cover the more fringy edges. So really I suggest you read work like Mallory, Beekes, Clackson, Szmerenyi, Anthony etc. to get some broad and general overviews of the discipline before you do much more in terms of restructuring the article to represent the many smaller proposals. the mainstream needs to be well represented first. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Lingam

Hello, JJ -- I hope when you read this you will have had a nice vacation. I was just looking at the article on Lingam, and I made a few copy-edits. I saw "lingam" several times with lower-case "l", so I started to change a few that were capital to lower-case. Then I saw several were capitalized, so I thought, before changing any more, I would check with you to see if the word should be capitalized throughout the article or lower-case. (I think lower-case would probably be all right, but I thought I'd ask you.) Don't you think this should be consistent throughout the article? Is there any reason that some should be lower-case and others capitalized? Also, I felt that "aniconic" was such an unusual word that it would be worth linking it to the article on Aniconism, but just before I saved my edits I saw the note to editors saying "no more links". If you think "aniconic" should not be linked, I'll be happy to remove the link.  – Corinne (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: the vacation is very nice; thank you. But also in the empty spaces of Scandinavia there is wifi, so also Wikipedia... Regarding Linga/lingam: I don't know what rules apply here, but I'd guess that it's lingam, Shiva Linga, and linga Purana. And the link to Aniconism seems very usefull to me; I thought I didn't know the word, but the article immediately ringed an important bell: nirguna Brahman, sunyate, etc. (as an aside: in the Dom church in Utrecht there's still a statue which was severly damaged during the Beeldenstorm in 1566). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Indo-Aryan migration debate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indo-Aryan migration debate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-Aryan migration debate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Corvus

Hello, JJ -- What do you think of this edit to Corvus? While before the edit, there was a contrast: "On a positive note,.... However,...negative...", now there is no contrast: "positive... However, other...". Apparently, this editor has taken issue with the negative characterization. First, the accuracy (and appropriateness) of the added material needs to be evaluated. If it is to stand, then we've got to give attention to the wording of the sentences. Besides the loss of contrast, there are a few problems with the prose:

• the gods and goddesses, particularly the controversial ones – Can Hindu gods be said to be controversial?

• it is said that one who has the effect of Sani in their horoscope are angered easily...–starting with the singular ("one...has") and changing to the plural

• The sentence starting "Thus" is ungrammatical; I suppose it could be fixed with commas.  – Corinne (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: I'd prefer the first version; I also wonder if the source says what this editor writes. Yet, the second addition ("Crows are also fed...) is interesting; it looks like a good faith edit, though with some grammatical limitations. Maybe you can contact the ditor in question, and suggest improvements? You may also chck the source. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ -- Would you mind doing that when you return from your vacation? I only like to copy-edit and don't want to go delving into these kinds of sources. I figured you're the expert. ;)  – Corinne (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello, Sir I am new to Wikipedia I wanted to ask something. Sir there is this Indian television actress Surbhi Jyoti she had appeared as a guest in one or two episodes of the Indian reality shows Khatron Ke Khiladi, Comedy Nights Live and Comedy Nights Bachao. So my question is that can these shows be included in the Filmography section of the actress's article or it can't be???? Sir please clear my doubt. Currently these shows are added in the Filmography so should these things be removed. Regards, YAP123456 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir please reply YAP123456 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd guess it can be included. Why would you want to remove it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Brahui

Hi JJ, long time no talk. Here is something interesting:

"The main habitat of Brahui tribesmen, as well as the main area where Brahui is spoken, extends continuously over a narrow north-south belt in Pakistan from north of Quetta southwards through Mastung and Kalat (including Nushki to the west) as far south as Las Bela, just inland from the Arabian sea coast. This belt is approximately 100 miles wide."

I plotted the route here on Google Maps.

If we imagine that this was the original core area of Brahui, which remained stable under the onslaught of IA and IIr languages from the east and west, then the idea that Brahui came from the south looks totally absurd.

See also Balochistan#Etymology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: thanks. See also Broshaki et al. (2016), who also mention the Brahui, as part of neo-lithic Iranian migrations which may have brought Dravidian to India. Several publications suggest clearly that ANI is a mix of Iranian (Zagros) migrations and Indo-European migrations; they also sugest that R1a-Z93 was brought to India by the Indo-Europeans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

mythology

Hi, the change I made is constructive since Wikipedia should be a non-biased platform and therefore should treat all religions equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgoswami (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@JJ:

• Jackgoswami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• abdulgoswami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

May be a WP:DUCK. See 1 and 2. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: The editwarring by @Jackgoswami is at 5RR, with too many editors. Filed SPI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks. I really have a bad memory; I've come to the point of just acknowledging it, and taking refuge into the strengths of others (meanwhile not doubting that I've got other strengths to offer as well). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Vajrapani

You may like to edit this. I have added a lot of text with refrences and removed the tag.--Nvvchar. 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: "to generate "fear in the individual to loosen up his dogmatism"" - thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Map

Hi! Where do you see India and Siberia in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.svg this map? According to it, R1a drops to zero percent frequency east of Afghanistan and the Ural Mountains. The highest frequency in the Altai Mountains is not covered. 130.204.189.59 (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@130.204.189.59: yep, you've got a point there. Nevertheless, the map is clearer than the one you added. How good are you at creating maps? Maybe try to create a new one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that any of the available maps is suitable for the infobox. Though I think that the maps with the piecharts may serve usefully the sections. As the maps here are all incomplete somehow. I haven't tried so far map creating, but I may try when I am not busy enough. Regards. 130.204.189.59 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Too add to my above statement: the map that I re-inserted at least gives an intuitive grip on how/where R1a is distributed; the 'direction' is in line with the implications of recent genetical studies, namely from (east) steppe/Yamnaya via the east to India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I might be able to help. Is there data available for a better map? Joe Roe (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Underhill et al. (2014), The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. See also Google. Your help would be very welcome. The most recent Y-DNA research seems to indicate that R1a-Z93 came to India with the Indo-Europeans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can reproduce their maps, I'm afraid – they've included the R1a frequencies for each population in the supplementary data but, annoyingly, not the coordinates of the populations (grumble grumble reproducibility grumble).

I think the best I could do is shade individual countries by their (average) R1a frequency, although obviously that isn't ideal for showing the distribution within big countries like Russia, and I think there will be lots of gaps. Joe Roe (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: no, that won't work indeed. In that case, we'll just stick with what we have - and enjoy all the recent research! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those recent articles: Hollard et al. (2014), Strong genetic admixture in the Altai at the Middle Bronze Age

revealed by uniparental and ancestry informative markers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda September

Hello,
3 years ago a year-long celebration was planned during Swami Vivekananda's 150th birth anniversary. Between 11 and 26 September we had 6 DYKs on the dates Vivekananda delvered his lectures in Chicago.
Now, after 3 years, can we plan something similar this September? Please share your opinion and views. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia talkpage has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia talkpage, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. -- numbermaniac (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Punjab edit-a-thon result

As you are a prominent member of WikiProject India, I am inviting your opinion here. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: congratulations, and thanks for notifying! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Wat Phra Dhammakaya

Can you expand on the last sentence of Wat Phra Dhammakaya #True Self? The [review history] says it was you who added it, but i can't really follow what you were trying to say.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@S Khemadhammo: I did? I don't know, but I don't mind if you remove it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!S Khemadhammo (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanamonde93

Please note that the RfA hasn't been transcluded yet, so !votes and comments cannot yet be added. I've reverted your vote, but you're welcome to re-add it if/when the RfA is transcluded. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: okay,thanks. Ehm... what does "if/when the RfA is transcluded" mean? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It means when the RfA is included at WP:RFA. Basically, once the candidate accepts the nomination and starts the one-week period of scrutiny. It's started now if you care to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

fyi, it was actually Calypso who disposed of all oppose votes in one fell swoop [13]. Thanks, though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Split article Wat Phra Dhammakaya

@Joshua Jonathan: can you give your opinion on the split that has been proposed here? Thank you. S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)