Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 17 December 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2024) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For convenience: {{mdf|1=]|2=reason, ~~~~}}

November 24

disruptive Contents going on article avatar and Dashavatar, Request for page protection and i suggest to you add this file for avatar or dashavatar suitable copyright info uploaded from users.

@Joshua Jonathan Parthann (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't bother; the IP-disruption is endless. The picture is nice. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No not for me, Request for Dashavatar page. Parthann (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Add this img for avatar or Dashavatar article.

Thanks for response. Parthann (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vinayvinyill. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Jhana Table : Incomplete?

Hey Joshua - I added some thoughts to your talk page section, Template_talk:JhanaFactors#Incomplete. Just thought I'd mention this here just in case you're not following that page and might be interested in following up. I hope you're doing great! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! My bad! Based on a wrong-headed skim of A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (p.91), I had made an inference that maybe the first factor you were referencing (sampasadhana) was based on Sanskrit parallels while the existing Misplaced Pages entries were using the Pali texts. But, I now see that sampasadana (without the 'h'; or, in Sanskrit, sa.mprasaada) can be found in 322 different Early Buddhist texts according to Sutta Central (https://suttacentral.net/search?query=in:ebs+sampasada), many -- if not all! -- having to do with the second jhana. So, why do I and other WP contributers not consider sampasadana to be one of the jhana "factors"? Regrettably, it's been a decade since I've dug into this stuff so I don't recall my own sources. And, of course, my knowledge is decimated. I'll keep digging here though and, when I think I find something worthy of your time, I'll write again. (For what it's worth, I initally started the Talk page thread because I was confused by some of your edits to the table. Let's unravel this thing first though :-) ) If you want to dig together, please let me know :-) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Larry Rosenfeld: I have to read your comments yet, but thanks for reaching out. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Adimo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Adimo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4 § Adimo until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Historicity

Hi , I noticed you reverted my edit on . To answer your question: The contents of any religious book of any kind is scrutinized by Modern Scholarship (its historicity) and they put forward their findings. I added that aspect to the article to make it balanced. I believed the information was accurate and properly sourced. Let me know if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks! Tamir Nazir (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamir Nazir: those two sources are over a century old, and placed in a disjunct section. What purpose does that serve, other than to enrage Hindus? If such characterisations wre to be used, the it should be a subsection on "Genre," which also mentions Itihasa-Purana. Otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:NPOV. IP, I hope you're watching too. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I see your point. There has to be such characterizations to make The Ramayana article broad and balanced according to WP:NPOV, Tamir Nazir (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ, for asking for my input. Itihas-Purana sufficiently covers "mythology." Anything in excess is POV pushing. The sources are severely outdated. By the same logic, mythology should be added against all books claiming things like a human riding a donkey to the moon, a man splitting a river in half, person walking on water etc. Religious pages should strictly follow NPOV. Why unnecessarily enrage just one group? Just because the group doesn’t react by cutting heads? Weak. I leave this to you. I am fed up. 2409:40C1:10BC:AEF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the info as a note; feel free to revert. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fine—better than frequent revert wars, which are inevitable. Hindus are accustomed to extra attention, criticism, and scrutiny of their texts anyway, and this has been the case since ancient times, so it's nothing new. My only issue is with the sources, which are too outdated to provide meaningful direction, as well as the lack of commentaries from opposing perspectives. If you can find newer sources, please replace these archaic ones written during the missionary colonial era and add one or two differing viewpoints. I don't know what others will have to say; if they had anything to say, I wouldn’t be wasting my time here. And yes, I know it's futile to suggest doing this for all other religious texts across the world. So, taking my leave now. Good talk! 2409:40C1:10BC:AEF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)