User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:50, 26 May 2014 editStalkford (talk \| contribs)78 edits →Is Buddha really a God? Opinion of Buddhists atleast.← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:30, 26 May 2014 edit undoStalkford (talk \| contribs)78 edits →Stop edit warring.: new sectionNext edit →
Line 186:		Line 186:
	I beg and request from you.		I beg and request from you.
	] (]) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)		] (]) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

			== Stop edit warring. ==

			] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ], as you did at ] and ]. The sources were not primary at all. Infact many other articles are taken from what you call a a primary source. <!-- Template:uw-generic4 --> ] (]) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:30, 26 May 2014

A cheeseburger for you!

..............................well, a different one. Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Now I notice! That's roti! I LOVE roti! (Which, by the way, is an Indo-European word: roti, rat, rad, wheel). Thanks!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Dharmic Religions

Could you please tell me the reason of your reverted changes on Dharmic religion on various other pages? As per your change summary you have mentioned POV pushing and WP:COMMONNAME. I believe you must know the meaning of these terms before mentioning them anywhere. The term Indian religions is not at all common and no author mentions it. So if you know the meaning of COMMONNAME then you would understand that the word implies opposite to what it was used for. Second there is no POV as you might have missed one important thing in your bias that I gave references that justified the changes i.e. various authors has used the term Dharmic religion in contrary to this new term called Indian religions which is no where read. Third according to wiki policy of changes made with good faith, you should have resisted your temptation to express your bias. Fourth you better focus on Abrahimic religions and left these Indian topics to Indians as we Indians are more knowledgeable about our culture and faith. Don't use wikipedia as a platform to push your Abrahimic POV on others. So I'm reverting the changes and unlike you, I'm notifying you in advance and if you have any issue with this then you can definitely discuss this on talk pageHrihr (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: Thanks for your response. Regarding your arguments:
1. Commonname:

WP:COMMONNAME - Count of usage:
- Google Scholar gives 78 (seventy-eight) hits for "Dharmic religions", and 7.430 for "Indian religions". Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions".
- Google Books gives 73 hits for "Dharmic religions", and 93.000 hits for "Indian religions". When we exclude "Misplaced Pages, "Dharmic religions" gives 66, and "Indian religions" gives 236.000 - an amazing growth of numbers, which raises questions on this search-engine, but nevertheless, it's a ratio of 1:1208, or 1:3576.
- Bing: Inidian Religions with 41,100,000 and Dharmic Religions with 121,000. Basically 340 to 1 in favor of Indian Religions.

WP:COMMONNAMES - Previous concensus:

"When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced."

There has been previous concencus for the deletion of "Dharmic" pages and categories:

The issue has also been extensiveley discussed at Talk:Indian religions, previously "Dharmic religions":

2. References: WP:RS:

"major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals"

Malhotra and Frawley are not reliable

3. Good faith: calling my edits an expression of my "bias" - fill this in yourself.

4. Nationality: Misplaced Pages is based on WP:RS, not on nationality. Your "advice" is the kind of behavior which is not toelrated here at Misplaced Pages.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to give reference to all these links to prove your point. First I just added "also called Dharmic religions" to Dharmic religion page to make it more clear. Even from your response, it is quite clear that "Dharmic" religion is used by many people. I didn't move the page or rename the page. So I didn't understand your panic. Second as you have mentioned lot of links then you might have understood that these was no consensus in the favor of any name and both sides gave valid reasons and biggest thing that the word India itself is new but these Dharma religions are thousands of years old. Second the page was moved based on poll but I think that there is an insidious tendency for Wikipedians and Internet users in general to equate number of returns from an Internet search as signifying validity through raw numbers: Quality, not quantity, is true scholarship. Third I really didn't understand your logic describing the authors "Malhotra and Frawley" as unreliable but anonymous articles on internet as reliable! Fourth, if your edit was not biased then certainly it was ignorant. From the above you can understand how. Fifth, I mentioned nationality because I've seen and experienced that many western people having interest in Dharmic religions make bold statements which are based on very flimsy foundation. Even the western scholar like "Max Muller" made bold statements like "Aryan Invasion theory" without any valid ground. I believe that we do have better knowledge and understanding of our own traditions and faith whether or not you like it.

Well after all this I believe you shouldn't have a problem with atleast adding text "also called Dharmic religions" if not renaming the article. Hrihr (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "Dharmic religons" is used by a minority with a political agenda, and not used by "many people". Which is also clear from your additional reference, namely "Questioning the secular state" by Westerlund. You omitted this political context. Malhotra and Frawley are not scholars, but political/religious activists, and fit into this political picture. You're perfectly free to believe that Indians have better knowledge of India and history and culture, but if you want to edit at Misplaced Pages, you'll have to rely on WP:RS, not your personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with several things JJ says here, such as the need to abide by Misplaced Pages policies and standards. However, I believe that some things he's said in this thread are oversimplifications. "Dharmic religions" is not pursued only by people with a political agenda. The concept has much cogency on its own merits and people use it for different reasons. JJ's blanket statement, which seems to imply it is used only by those with a political agenda, is a polarizing oversimplification of a type that he usually manages to avoid. (And with regard to political motives, It strikes me as absurd to imagine that every single person who uses the phrase "Indian religions" is free from political motives for using that phrase; neither name is exempt from those who use it for political motives, just as neither name lacks those who use it because they believe it to be more intellectually cogent).

With regard to Malhotra and Frawley being scholars, neither has a long track record of publication in scholarly journals. Therefore by themselves neither establishes a source as reliable. Sources can also be deemed reliable (WP:RS) if the publisher has a reputation for fact-checking. Some of Malhotra's recent books were published by HarperCollins, which need not be regarded as any less reliable than other mass-market publishers such as Penguin and Random House. However, a mass market press is not the same as an academic press, where higher standards of fact-checking would be expected (even if alas it does not always occur in the real world). A few of Malhotra's writings appear in scholarly journals, however (e.g., International Journal of Hindu Studies). So it is wrong to completely dichotomize and separate him from scholars with established track records. Frankly, I regard a number of the things he has written as of higher scholarly quality than that of many authors who meet WP criteria for reliable sources. I have already told JJ that I believe that academic Hindu studies has suffered from a great deal of poor scholarship in recent decades, and in some ways the field has run aground. I believe that in the long run, many of Malhotra's perspectives will prevail. However, at the moment, Misplaced Pages is still constrained by its guidelines with regard to reliable soures - and Malhotra has neither a long track record of publication in recognized scholarly outlets, nor have most of his publications been by academic publishers. Of course, Malhotra is certainly a reliable source on his own perspectives, which are increasingly notable as his critiques become increasingly influential. Remember that whether or not a source is realiable is context-dependent

Personally, I believe that JJ will render the best service to Misplaced Pages readers if he uses the inevitable latitude in applying WP guidelines to steer coverage away from the poor contemporary scholarship of Hinduism, and towards a more valid and less biased account. Though how much latitude is available within Misplaced Pages guidelines is an interesting question. Computer science has long known the principle of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Misplaced Pages is set up in a way that it is vulnerable to being misled by scholarly fields that have run aground: When a scholarly field has run aground - and who would claim such a thing could never happen? -- Misplaced Pages seems constrained to spew out some garbage, unfortunately, in as much as Misplaced Pages editors conscientiously follow its WP:RS guidelines. --Presearch (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we still disagree on some basic points, like the current state of scholarship on Hinduism, Malhotra's works, and Wiki-policies; nevertheless, I appreciate your response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

After a short night's sleep, and thinking over your response, here's a lomger response from me:

The term "Dharmic religions" is not WP:COMMONNAME; that's "Indian religions". Malhotra, Frawley, and Elst are notable users of this term, and we both know their positions.
Malhotra c.s. is not only not WP:RS because they are not academic scholars, nor published by academic journals; they are also not RS because their work is polemical and apologetical, one-sided, and using poor arguments.

Thanks. I do think all of your claims here can be seriously disputed - either in their substance (e.g., "poor arguments") or in their connotations (e.g., one person's "polemical" may be another person's "forcefully argued"), or in both. However, I suspect that neither of us presently wishes to use time/energy to argue this in the abstract, and that my differing perspective will not surprise you. But I thought it worthwhile to clarify my views. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

PS Malhotra's work that I know best is Indra's Net, and, to a much lesser extent, Being Different. It is not impossible that some relevant features of his work have changed over time, such as his articulation of his evidence and arguments. And if you haven't read Indra's Net (e.g., given your silence here) then to some degree we may be talking about different Malhotras - possibly explaining part of our disagreement, though I suspect not all of it. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with your classification of contemporary scholarship as "run aground", on the contrary; it's critical of its own premises, but also of the premises of Indian, religious authors. That's good.

Yes, I was almost certain that you were not in agreement that it has run aground, so your response does not surprise me. But as you might expect, I do not regard the scholarship as sufficiently critical of its own premises. I think Malhotra's work is a desperately needed corrective, and believe that many more such correctives are likely needed, and will be coming, sooner or later.

Let me also add that two wrongs don't make a right (as I'm sure you agree). There are sporadic attempts by unsophisticated Misplaced Pages contributors who seek to correct, unfortunately often unskillfully, some of the wrong notions of the flawed modern Hindu scholarship. If I had the time/energy/resources, I might try to augment their efforts with more skillful corrections, when available (as I hope you do whenever you see opportunities and recognize it as a notable perspective). But there also seems to be a strong and steady stream of new Wikipedians who confuse traditional legends with reliable sources (for example in terms of dates), and others who seem to push particular caste or linguistic identities, or a variety of other special issues. I myself have put much energy into ensuring that Radhakrishnan's name is not mis-spelled on his WP page (due to competing ethnic claims over him). While I mourn the poor state of many facets of modern western Hindu scholarship (and the unfortunate but very real implications for GIGO), I salute the efforts of you and others to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. And I appreciate your persistent and steady courtesy and good intentions. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Best regards, and thanks again for your extensive response, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Samadhi

Brother, i agree if we include the instances for every saint who went into samadhi, the page will become endless. But i have specifically shortlisted only the instances from the recent history and that too related to the very prominent saints (i dont see more that 5-7 such instances in the recent history even if someone else adds to the article). The main idea before adding these instances is that there is hardly any information available on the physical aspect of samadhi even this article talks only in terms of consciousness. Moreover there are a lot of myths related to samadhi that can only be dispelled by quoting some real examples like samadhi can be while talking (e.g. Lahiri Mahasaya), it can be while standing, moving (e.g. ramkrishna & chaitanya), biological processes may switch off & the body may require extensive care (e.g. ramkrishna). I do not feel adding real life incidents to a concept will count to WP:UNDUE; i have also tried my best to maintain a neutral point of view by quoting the original text as far as possible. Kindly discuss the same on the article's talk page before removing it so that others can also share their opinion. UnusualExplorer (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Explorer. Thanks for your comment here. I'll go the talkpage, but first response here: it looks like you've got a specific understanding of samadhi. I don't know where to place it in the spectrum, but I think that this should be made clear in the article. You're aware of WP:BRD? I'll explain at the talk page. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I took a closer look at the page; it's weird that it's about samadhi in Hinduism, but uses a definition from a Buddhist dictionary. This article needs better than that! but i'm not going to spend time on improving it, so I'll leave it here. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

JJ, thanks for referring me the WP:BRD. I was not aware of this earlier. Have added a text in the article stating that only the unique instances related to Samadhi are listed below in order to through some light on the physical aspects of Samadhi. I ll also start a discussion for the same on the talk page.UnusualExplorer (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you know this book "Mysterious samadhi" by Surath Chandra Chakravarti? It might be of interest to you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, i ll definitely go through it. UnusualExplorer (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk about the conclusion

First of all, it is surprising to see you getting heated up for almost no reason. Second thing is that nothing is going to happen about it. Best can be done is, the issue can be brought to WP:DRN, or RfC it usually takes about 14 days.

If you agree, all you have to do is edit out your warnings, I will obviously do the same, thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Flood's book also says that according to Puranas, Upanishad, Narayana is the Supreme God, , Page 120-121, although he uses terms like "absolute and highest deity", "supreme deity", same meaning. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gavin Flood says that in the Mahabaratha Narayana is the supreme deity. he also says that Narayana became absorbed within the Vishnu-cults. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes he do, so Mahabharata, Upanishad, 'some puranas' and Vedas. 4 scriptures recognize him as Supreme Deity. What can be done about it? It can be attributed in better way if you want, but I am sure that the information is itself notable to add. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is, you'll still have to find a reliable source which makes this comparison. Otherwise it's still OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we agree that Gavin flood is a reliable source? I am sure that these 2 are also reliable source., Also this one, who's access you don't have. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock

Will look tomorrow. Where did the other Admin tell you to contact him? I couldn't find the post. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tirinti`s pattern of editing reminds me of Septate. JimRenge (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't find it back neither. Anyway, I've contacted Q several times on Krizpo. Regarding Septate: Krizpo is more of a "stealth"-editor: changing percentages, no comments, disappearing again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Review: Bengali Kayastha

Hi Joshua Jonathan,

As suggested by Bishonen, I would formally like to request you to review the article on Bengali Kayastha. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joshua Jonathon, could you review Tej Ram Sharma's reference in Dutta article too? It is only one paragraph. BTW, most probably some editors will alert me about "COI" in this article, as it is my surname, but I try my best to edit neutrally. Tito☸Dutta 02:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added some pieces of info, and reshuffled Sharma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joshua Jonathan, copyright violation was a serious lapse on my part (and I have considered it as a serious offense), but the statements were reliably sourced. Your statement "The office of Kayastha was instituted before the Gupta period (c.320 to 550 CE), the Kayastha ranking as shudras." is incorrect. During the Gupta period, the Kayasthas represented an administrative role, and not a caste, therefore there's no question of ranking. There's a lot of scope for constructive improvements and hope we can work on the same. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua Jonathan, requesting you to rectify the same in the article on Dutta. Ekdalian (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your copyediting works in Indian caste related articles, you get this barnstar. Tito☸Dutta 05:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Highly appreciated, since it's a tough area to edit. Thank you very much! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Do you have some more information on Dutta, so that we can expand article. Are you following the results? All major related articles are semi-protected at Misplaced Pages, so not many disruptive edits still, but there should be conflicts and disruption soon in other articles. Tito☸Dutta 05:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean of the elections? I thought of it this morning. Hope that wisdom prevails... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ya, that is the event of the hour. "Wisdom"?? We need to update hundreds of articles today. Something special is happening, both for BJP and Left. Times Now just said, this election result is going to be turning point of Indian politics. This article should go Indian general election, 2014 to ITN, only if we can copyedit it. It should go. Tito☸Dutta 05:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Couple of months ago, some editor wrote something like "In five months the Indian Government will form a team of specialists, and correct the info at Misplaced Pages". It feels like returning to the Cold War: "keep on rocking in the free world". I'd never thought, when I was younger, that I would turn up here, defending the freedom of thought and reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! Ya! If only indian Government had paid us. . . . Something significant has happened just now. Supreme Court of India has issued some order on the the black money related case. What a day to announce it. You'll not get it in any news article, it is showing in live TV (link above) Tito☸Dutta 05:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Raju (Kshatriya) sources

The statement "Rajus claim kshatriya status" is defendable; the statement "Rajus claim kshatriya status" is not defendable. What? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I write that? Hmmm... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing like hedging your bets ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pic

Yes, it is better, isn't it? Hafspajen (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please look the page of Ambedkar? A user removed the Table (List of Books) from the page. Theredpenofdoom is a user who is constantly reverting the changes made by other users. Metta

hello

Can you please look the page of B.R. Ambedkar? A user removed the Table (List of Books) from the page. Theredpenofdoom is a user who is constantly reverting the changes made by other users. Metta 123.239.118.255 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The list of books is still there, but not as a table. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well,well

Joshua, is Apostle Paul really there according to ... ? But nothing I know about. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you believe, I guess... As far as I can see, religions are made by humans, so there's a lot we can believe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, you missed all the fun. Just look at the edit history... Paul the Apostle see : Revision historyHafspajen (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed. I slept well tonight. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Worse

This is worse. I could not ignore a slow edit war on and realized that one editor is systematically adding Ambedkar related pictures/Captions to seemingly unrelated articles like seat, gesture, gate etc. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look; succes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

My signature

Hello JJ, sorry to answer you late on this, i didn't see your remark on my signature in the first place. Well, I don't know what to say: on my computer it looks fine... Best, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it's a browser-problem. My signature doesn't work at Explorer (I'm using Firefox). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary source?

Joshua brother ... Accesstoinsight isn't a primary source. Its the only website which gives the Buddhist scriptures. I advise you to read the copyright claim here. I saw from your profile page that your interest is in Buddhism. So don't you know the edits I did was correct? I advise you to kindly recheck my edits ...and atleast rvert the edit which I did on God in Buddhism and Buddha in Hinduism;

And many of my edits were not in violation. Other references were also from this website and you call a primary source? Please recheck your claim and give a response. Stalkford (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stalkford. The problem here is not the copyright; the problem here is the addition of large quotes from the Buddhist sources to make a statement about what Buddhism is supposed to stand for. That's WP:OR. If yo want to make a point, you'll have to find reliable secondary sources. And yes, accesstoinsight is used by many as a reference. Nevertheless, it's also a primary source, since it is written by buddhist "believers".

Regarding your re-reverts: I've pointed out the problems with your edits now in several edit-summaries, and at your talk page. I've also pointed you to the relevant policies. I'm going to have a look now at your re-reverts; if I re-re-revert them, I urgently advice you to discuss your edits, per WP:BRD, instead of re-re-re-reverting; I'm not that patient anymore with this kind of editing; I'm not going to waste too much time on educating you on policies which you can also read and apply yourself. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Buddha really a God? Opinion of Buddhists atleast.

Why don't you give the opinion of the Buddhists on that article. Its first of all necessary. or otherwise it will go wrong message to the people that Buddha is a God. Also give atleast a sentence that Buddha himself rejected that he was not any god. you can quote from dona sutta and other buddhist monks Even Dalai lama says " Buddha is just the teacher, you are your own master." If you continue doing like this. It won't be healthy. I beg and request from you. Stalkford (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Gautama Buddha in Hinduism and God in Buddhism. The sources were not primary at all. Infact many other articles are taken from what you call a a primary source. Stalkford (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)