User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2021

Harrison video

In your user page, the video once linked from your image with the Lewis Carroll quote is "no longer available". A quick search led to others. And, thank you, for the sweet diversion. azwaldo (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azwaldo: thanks for noticing! And nice you liked the diversion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

There was no misunderstanding but thanks for at least including as a note. Liberalvedantin (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OCP Culture

Hello @Joshua Jonathan, Regarding my edit on the Kurukshetra War page I would like to acknowledge that my use of the words "Many scholars" was inappropriate, but I would still like to keep some variation of my edit. Identifying OCP culture with early Vedic need not be fringe, and represents the opinions of several scholars. Whether you or I agree with it should not be relevant, as I was simply trying to give representation to the position on the page. Hopefully we can work something out.

Ur-Pabilsag (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Indigenous Aryans#More sources. Equating Vedic culture with OCP is crack-pottery. The only way to add these WP:FRINGE proposals is by adding that it is a Hindutva narrative, and completely at odds with the historical, linguistic and archaeological facts. And please continue the discussion at the appropriate talkpage, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

Nice to see your interests and good quotes on your page! Happy to see you. Gudaas (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Lataster

Hello Joshua!

I was just thinking about Raphael Lataster while dealing with the latest person trying to remove criticism of Richard Carrier from the lead of his article. I noticed Lataster has managed to publish a book with Brill in 2019: [1]. Given the fringe status of CMT, I'm sort of surprised that this could happen. On the other hand, in a 2019 article he also says Few critical scholars have responded to my recent work on the controversial topic of Jesus’ probable ahistoricity [2], which wold seem to confirm his fringe status, and most of the citations I find on Google Scholar of Lataster are... by Lataster [3], and most are also of his philosophical arguments against the existence of God rather than Jesus. Do you have any insight into what's going on here? Normally I would consider Brill a perfectly respectable and reliable source.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich: guess they're also just booksellers, with a team of editors who make decisions; so, this is the kind of rare decision that slips through. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so! Rather amusingly, the only "reviews" I can find of the book are by a mythicist blogger, a blog post by Carrier and... a blog post by Lataster himself [4]! That doesn't strike me as normal for a book published by a major academic press...--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also just came across this by James F. McGrath responding to Lataster's review of... himself: [5]. He offers this near the end: In case it may not be as clear to members of the general public as it is to academics, the mere publication of a book that makes the case for a particular viewpoint in no way suggests that that viewpoint should or will be found persuasive by academics, never mind adopted by the general public. Christ myth theory is pretty well sourced, but McGrath's reply could be worth adding there (I notice David Litwa also doesn't make an appearance).--Ermenrich (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on CMT

Hi Joshua Jonathan,

Since you were involved in the edit war with 2db more than me, you may want to add some comments on on his case in the admin noticeboard [6].

I think I agree with you. In my view, I am seeing similarities.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuga Cycle disruptive editor

Hi Joshua Jonathan, I was wondering if you could help me with one disruptive editor. On the Yuga Cycle page, the user, VirguloMane, has over many months edited the page, almost once per a day, in which he has tried to change punctuation in a way that is not in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I have reverted his edits, mostly with a descriptive summary for the reason. I have also repeatedly communicated to him on his talk page about this on going issue, which he has apparently ignored. He hasn't attempted to add any content, only edit existing content, and for some reason it seems he is entirely focused on this one page. Is there a way he can be banned/blocked from editing this one page and can you help initiate this? I will add that it appears that he was doing this previously on the Yuga page. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jroberson108: I took a look; quite annoying indeed. Try WP:ANI? Otherwise, maybe User:Doug Weller or User:Bishonen can take a look? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Hopefully one of the users you pinged can help. Otherwise, I will have to try the WP:ANI page you provided. Jroberson108 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Romila Thapar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. LearnIndology (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE; see Talk:Koenraad Elst#Right wing author and diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't replied a valid reason for the removal of sourced content[7], and I respect the revert of Vanamonde93 [8] for which I have initiated a discussion on the talk page[9], but you have reverted me multiple times without some dubious edit summary [10][11] along violating WP:BRD [12] LearnIndology (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Romila Thapar: "Reverted 1 edit by LearnIndology (talk): WP:POINTy edit; see Talk:Koenraad Elst#Right wing author" is a very clear explanation. Regarding Koenraad Elst: you removed a valid description, I reverted you, you reverted me, per WP:BRD; I think you missed a step in the proces. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a vague reply. "Reverted 1 edit by LearnIndology (talk): WP:POINTy edit; see Talk:Koenraad Elst#Right wing author" is not a valid reason to remove sourced content and that too on a different article. And what exactly were you referring to in the discussion on Koenraad Elst which should make us believe that your removal on Romila Thapar was justified? LearnIndology (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You objected against noting that Elst is a right-wing Hindutva-proponent; side-tracked the discussion by labeling Romila Thapar as "Marxist"; and the added that label to the lead of the article on Romila Thapar. That's WP:POINT. Now please continue the "discussion" at the appropriate talkpages, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Romila Thapar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. LearnIndology (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE; see Talk:Koenraad Elst#Right wing author and diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't replied a valid reason for the removal of sourced content[13], and I respect the revert of Vanamonde93 [14] for which I have initiated a discussion on the talk page[15], but you have reverted me multiple times without some dubious edit summary [16][17] along violating WP:BRD [18] LearnIndology (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Romila Thapar: "Reverted 1 edit by LearnIndology (talk): WP:POINTy edit; see Talk:Koenraad Elst#Right wing author" is a very clear explanation. Regarding Koenraad Elst: you removed a valid description, I reverted you, you reverted me, per WP:BRD; I think you missed a step in the proces. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a vague reply. "Reverted 1 edit by LearnIndology (talk): WP:POINTy edit; see Talk:Koenraad Elst#Right wing author" is not a valid reason to remove sourced content and that too on a different article. And what exactly were you referring to in the discussion on Koenraad Elst which should make us believe that your removal on Romila Thapar was justified? LearnIndology (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You objected against noting that Elst is a right-wing Hindutva-proponent; side-tracked the discussion by labeling Romila Thapar as "Marxist"; and the added that label to the lead of the article on Romila Thapar. That's WP:POINT. Now please continue the "discussion" at the appropriate talkpages, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

Hi Joshua, can you please help me understand which article led to this alert [19] on that user? I am asking this for my own understanding of DS scope. --Walrus Ji (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji: Hinduism in India. Obviously on a highway toward indef. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, thank you. I think this linked article is not about conflict. May be only the section about the partition which talks about partition and 1948 war can be considered under DS. El C, as we discussed yesterday, is my understanding correct? Walrus Ji (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about a specific section;it's about adding and removing large amounts of text, and the WP:TRUTH mentality shining through it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji, I think you may be conflating the narrow ban that those two users in those AE complaints you filed are subject to with the true scope of WP:ARBIPA...? (Which is wide.) El_C 15:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vedanta Article

A consensus we should reach on the Vedanta article is that although the article states major Vedanta tradition since this is an article about Vedanta and not just major Vendanta Traditions it would be appropriate to put Akshar-Purushottam darshan as well as other less known Vedanta's as sub-schools or even minor Vedanta traditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt to give WP:UNDUE weight to to this group. They have their own page; that suffices. 05:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Some interesting gossip from Kai Friese

Friese, Kai (2019), "The Complications of Genetics", in Romila Thapar (ed.), Which of Us are Aryans?: Rethinking the Concept of Our Origins, Aleph, ISBN 978-93-88292-38-2

On Shinde:

Why did it take so long? One answer was on offer a year ago when this writer spoke to Shinde who was then holding out the promise of publishing the findings in September 2017: 'It's a very politically sensitive issue,' he said. The archaeologist may have been referring to the fact that any research dealing with the Harappan civilization would have to confront the Hindutva agenda of the BJP government at the Centre—whose politics demands a genuflection to Vedic Hinduism as the origin of Indian civilization.

On Lalji Singh and Thangaraj:

In March 2018, the Harvard population geneticist David Reich published an overview of the state of research in his field, the surprise bestseller Who We Are And How We Got Here, including an account of how the extreme sensitivity of leading Indian scientists about earlier evidence suggesting an ancient migration of Eurasian people from the Northwest into the subcontinent had nearly scuppered an important scientific collaboration in 2008. The Indian scientists Lalji Singh and K. Thangaraj 'implied that the suggestion of a migration... would be politically explosive,' Reich writes. The issue was ultimately resolved by means of a terminological sleight-of-hand—using the nomenclature 'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI) and 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI) to obscure the revelation that ANI represented a population with a significant genetic contribution from outside the subcontinent.

About Narasimhan et al.:

Shinde informed this writer that he had complained to Reich about an earlier draft of that paper, and insisted that any reference to 'migrations' into South Asia be avoided. Or else. He suggested the more ambivalent term 'interaction' be used instead. Given that Shinde controlled access to the Rakhigarhi samples which Reich was keen to work on, this would have been a potent threat, and indeed Narasimhan et al. manages to eschew the term 'migration' entirely while ultimately making more potent statements about the impact of post-Harappan 'Middle to Late Bronze Age' (MLBA) steppe populations on the Indian gene pool.

On the Rakhigarhi sample:

According to one US-based researcher who prefers to remain anonymous, 'It was common knowledge through the grapevine that the Harvard team became impatient and eventually pushed to release their pre-print before Indian colleagues were totally comfortable. Some samples [read 'Rakhigarhi] were removed because of disagreements between collaborators'.

So, the Rakhigarhi results were ready when the Narasimhan et al. was written, but Shinde and co. didn't agree for it to be included!

In more recent conversations with this writer, Professor Shinde seemed intent on dissembling the results of his own team's paper, offering that the results showed that Rakhigarhi's ancient inhabitants were 'just like the locals [of today]...with some contact with South Indian Tribals'.

As I said, they needed the time to figure out how to spin it! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I received the book a couple of days ago. The impact of Hindutva seems to be substantial... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messiah in Judaism

Dear Jonathan,

Take a look closely at Enochs notes. Enoch is only related to christianity, not to Judaism according to those notes. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason of revert

I just removed a reference name (Jaya) because it was not defined on the page. Add a reference or remove again it. Thank you! Dinesh (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati Asmita

Hello, I hope you are fine. There is a complex and political topic known as Gujarati Asmita or Asmita is general. It is about pride and identity of Gujarati people. It is often raised identity associated political term in Gujarat and for Gujaratis in India. You may find some references in Google Books, scholarly works and elsewhere. It is probably coined by K. M. Munshi first in early 1920s and is continue in use in politics. It is sensitive and complex topic so I am unable to handle it. I think you are most capable person to handle it. Feel free to invite others or ask other to do it. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Few Refs:

Regional Roots of Indian Nationalism by Makarand Mehta
Desai, Rakesh. "Scripting a Region: Narmad's Idea of Gujarat." Indian Literature 58, no. 3 (281) (2014): 175-87. Accessed February 18, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44753748.

Suhrud, Tridip. "Modi and Gujarati 'Asmita'." Economic and Political Weekly 43, no. 1 (2008): 11-13. Accessed February 18, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40276435.

. Nizil (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shah, A. M., Pravin J. Patel, and Lancy Lobo. "A Heady Mix: Gujarati and Hindu Pride." Economic and Political Weekly 43, no. 8 (2008): 19-22. Accessed February 18, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40277173.

PARE, SHVETAL VYAS. "Writing Fiction, Living History: Kanhaiyalal Munshi's Historical Trilogy." Modern Asian Studies 48, no. 3 (2014): 596-616. Accessed February 18, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24494661. Nizil (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you are interested in this topic. @Kautilya3, Newslinger, and Csgir: -Nizil (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2021: Believe me , I did learn a lot

Here is what I learned.

That truth eventually prevails, not the agenda and leftist lobbies. The changes I wanted are now there, doest matter who did those eventually. but it did happen.

That Wikipedia managers like you, write some crap in the first place without any references and then ask for references for the changes that you do not understand. When explained you not even have expertise in the area you are guarding. Basic science does not need any references and blogs are not references that you seem to use often. and That, seeing your agenda, I lost the desire to contribute anyway so blocking me is not a punishment. And that, as a response to these leftist lobbies, we will bring alternative platforms with truly authentic information. The fall of arrogant Wikipedia is not very far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixitsandeep (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you a nice time with creating laternative platforms for presenting your alternate facts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJ: Thanks for leaving a note of caution on Dixitsandeep's page. They were obviously angry for so many years. If they have bothered to check the edit diffs and history of who added what, they would realize I didn't, and how fly-by blogging by others, in a manner just like theirs, introduces strange OR. The Indian festivals, astronomy/zodiac and calendar-related articles are difficult to maintain to a reasonable level of quality without some form of article protection. Our good faith open editing policies in some areas have the unfortunate consequence that we sometimes invite, enpower, and help spread misinformation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varahamihira

Hi, would you kindly take a look at these changes? I believe contents are not reliably sourced. Skimming through the diffs, I saw usage of the blacklisted jatland.com site. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: looks like good-faith edits:

Jatland note 1 refers to [20], a dead link;
Britannica, "Varamihira" is a proper source, which seems to be correctly cited, though it may be a copy-vio;
some of the additions are unsourced;
all of them could use some copy-editing.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kautilya3 has reverted it though. I believe WP:HISTRS compliant sources are necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinauli

Dear Joshua,

I see you are too much against uncientific and politicized material related apparently to "Hindutva", but your way of editing that article is too much politized too. In order to have a coherent and scientific approach to Sinauli article, we should mention references in historical order and make proper assertions. The references to archaeologist Akinori Uesugi should be included after Parpola's quoting because it implies the archaeological view by an expert, which is not a Hindu nationalist, and telling that Sinauli's burials belong to OCP-Bara archaeological complex is very fit, because it can imply the non-nationalist view that the carts are indigenous and a continuity of previous Bara-Harappan period with no traces of Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian features at all, which I think will be the view of other people like Witzel for instance, but the information must be kept as it is, the reader already got the information about the controversy in previous passages, it's not necessary to "overload" the reader. On the other hand, trying to keep the Parpola's version as the unique "non-Hindutva-related version" is not to see the future horizon that this site opens. It seems you try to "cut" any other reference after that of Parpola.

Regarding the Aryan migration that I highlighted and you deleted, you seem not knowing the indoeuropeanists use of that term, Parpola uses this term as a synonymous of Indo-Iranian as many other scholars. Please consult this and other Parpola's publications and you'll see that I am right by editing Aryan migration instead of Indo-Aryan migration. I've got some other things to tell you but it's late at night here. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DFTT

Myth ascribes authorship for "Never Wrestle with a Pig. You Both Get Dirty and the Pig Likes It" to GB Shaw, but whoever wrote it, they obviously anticipated modern-day trolls. That poor soul who pretends to be an academic (but uses stratum as plural LOL) even feeds on your one-liners. Just totally ignore them, and they will go back to Reddit or whereever they had come from :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, have you already read this new paper by Furholt? It's a huge step from his 2018 paper, amd a refreshing alternative view on how to incorporate evidence from aDNA. Furholt is less prone to simplicism (to put it harshly) than Anthony, which I find very appealing. –Austronesier (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: no, I didn't; downloading it now. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I am replying here so that the report against ChandlerMinh won't get derailed. To reply your comments here, I would just say that everyone there has confirmed that Chandlerminh is unresponsive to any concerns raised on his talk page and that's why he had been reported. I would also suggest you to avoid getting into this mess because admins generally prefer seeing the reported editor to defend his own case. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at the AE-page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Buddhism and other articles

JJ, @JimRenge: it has been a while since we collaborated on quite many Buddhism-related articles. Just wanted to bring Derryl MacLean's scholarly book, Religion and Society in Arab Sind, published by Brill to your attention, which is among the books and articles I have finished reading in response to a help ping I received from Kautilya3 last week. He is a historian, now working as a SFU faculty. MacLean makes a few interesting points in that book, based on his analysis of Muslim texts, Chinese texts and Indic texts of that era, that would be relevant to some of our articles:

Buddhism did not die out because of internal problems or because of Hinduism or clever Brahmins. Buddhism was thriving in northwest Indian subcontinent at the time of the early Islamic invasion and rule, between 8th and 10th centuries, in Sind region (now in Pakistan).
A simple majority of lower Sind population were Buddhists (other mainly Hindus). He writes "millions" of Buddhists lived in lower Sind in those centuries. The upper Sind had a majority of Hindus (other mainly Buddhists). In his view, it is wrong to keep perpetuating the colonial era theory that Hinduism pushed out Buddhism or Buddhism died out in greater India sometime in mid 1st-millennium. He explains the evidence.
Most Buddhists in this region in those centuries were from Sammitiya school (a Hinayana/Theravada)! not Mahayana, says MacLean; but there were a minority Mahayana population too and some monasteries hosted Mahayana monks. Esoteric Buddhism was there too.
Buddhist monks emigrated to central India, away from Islam controlled regions, as Islamic rule was established. Buddhist laypeople converted to Islam, says MacLean, not because they liked Islam, but for economic reasons (discriminatory taxes, credit and financial services for them dried out as monasteries emptied; tax exemption and credit/trade networks/financial services were only available to Muslims, they were thus economically compelled).
There was persecution of Hindus and Buddhists (he gives examples/massacres/discriminatory dress/etc). Based on the sources he cites, there were instances of forced conversion and of voluntary conversion to Islam during this period. But, he says for most part, the forced conversion was minor, and the voluntary conversion was minor. He criticizes both Indian nationalists and Pakistani nationalists, former convinced of convert-or-sword forced conversion theory, latter convinced of Islam-is-better-religion voluntary theory. MacLean criticizes much of the Indian and Pakistani – Hindu and Muslim and Leftist/Marxist and colonial literature – in South Asia on this. The sources, he says, suggest Arabs were not interested in converting anyone to Islam, they were interested in cash flow.
etc

Our History of Buddhism article and a few other related articles do not summarize or mention MacLean's scholarly book (and other related papers). May be worth considering. Have either of you have already read and reflected on MacLean? If so, please let me know your thoughts. – MSW

@Kautilya3: you may find MacLean's book interesting to add to the Silk road/trading networks-related perspective you have been interested in. MacLean overlaps with Wink, says lot of similar things. He offers a competitive perspective, more thoroughly, but not very different. MacLean's work, just like Wink's work, is admired (and criticized) by his peers. MacLean has a bit less traction. A summary from MacLean with Wink in the article we are working on, will add another source, strengthen Wink's perspective and also strengthen NPOV. One of the issues with MacLean is his reliance on the mostly fictional Chachnama in quite many sections (not everywhere). His other sections are better sourced, such as on Buddhism / Hinduism / etc in 8th–10th century Sind. He writes and explains his points well. You may want to get the Brill book from a library, if you do not have it already. Or, get MacLean's thesis published by McGill which is pretty much the same but for chapter numbers/format/few details. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian nationalists" don't have forced conversion theory. You mean "Hindu nationalists". (That is a BIG difference!)

I don't have access to MacLean's book, but I have his PhD thesis, which is basically the same, but of course the page numbers won't match. I look foward to your summarisations.

I do know that the "silk road" was the older day CPEC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacLean uses the phrase "Indian nationalists". Poor MSW likes to stick with the source, :-). I see your point though. But, MacLean then had a broader brush than "Hindu nationalists" in his hand, with evidence to support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if this considered off topic or not but..

Do you believe that Aryans invaded India or it was just an migration? 950CMR (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@950CMR: migrations, over a period of 400 to 500 years, by pastoralists who were better armed than the local farmers. Some settled in local communities, 'protecting' those communities and thereby forming a local elite. But it is not until the Kuru Kingdom (ca. 1100-900 BCE) that the Vedic-Aryan-Brahmanical culture around which the Hindu synthesis chrystalized, took it's definitive shape. And the Sanskritization of (the nothern part) of India took centuries, and, in a way, is still going on. It's a complicated process. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good looks i'm not the only one who thinks that it was an migration because arayans invading India is unlikely because of raja parikshit or Janemjaya since both of them would have beaten arayans pretty badly 950CMR (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Janemjaya and parikshit had that overpowered advanced ancient technology my theory is scholars that knew how to summon the ancient weapons died with Janemjaya 950CMR (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, they were Aryans themselves, descendants of the Vedic Indo-Aryan migrants from ca. 1500 BCE. In their lifetime, those migrations were already a couple of centuries ago, and wandering tribes were settling down between the Sutlej and the Doab, forming a kingdom with a rudimentary centralized state-government. The Vedas were consolidated due to their efforts, and the Kuru organisasation of society, religion and power, has had a lasting impact on India. Remarkable, for a rudimentary state that existed 3,000 years ago! It's only comparable to the ancient Jews. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if Abhimanyu didn't died how would it affect the kuru political power and India as a whole? 950CMR (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that Pandavas would have still died in the himiliyas but if Abhimanyu was still alive kuru dyasty would have never killed in my opinion 950CMR (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek manuscript point of view of the resurrection day versus 'translation of the Greek manuscript point of view"

I have edited the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_tomb" to include the correct Greek manuscript's narrative of the resurrection day, a Saturday which is referred to as the 'firsts of the sabbaths'. On what ground did you delete it?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketzazu (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ketzazu: WP:PRIMARY: you gave an interpretation of a primary source, without providing WP:RS. Also, you put that info in the lead, while the WP:LEAD summarizes the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

I did not give an interpretation of a primary source. I intend to correct 'your interpretation of a primary source'. If you can check the primary source Greek of any manuscript, which needs no reference because the New Testament serves as its own reliable source, about the story of the empty tomb or other translations that I referenced, you might understand the veracity of the correction that I added, assuming that you are interested in the truth. In other words, when discoursing on a biblical topic, the primary source cannot be the subjective opinion of anyone since the Bible content-not the content of any translation-is immutable (Luke 16:17), the cited verses serve as both primary and reliable sources.

I even linked the cited verses to a bible books website with the specific translations as reliable sources that shed more light on the day on which the women went to the tomb: the first of the sabbaths, that is, a Saturday, according to ALL the Greek manuscripts. The word 'day' and 'week' do not appear in any Greek manuscript, EXCEPT in many translations that are not faithful to the primary source of the Greek manuscripts. As such, it turns out that your article is NOT wholly based on the primary sources but on the subjective interpretations of others who did not use the primary sources but only gave their personal erroneous view or interpretations and prejudices as they ignored the primary Greek manuscripts sources.

Hence, your reason for deleting my edits is not objective.

You could have also researched my correction and incorporated it where it belongs in your text, again, assuming that you are interested in knowing the truth from the primary source which is the Greek New Testament or from a translation of it.

Ketzazu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketzazu (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN. Wiki-policies apply to everyone, you too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

		The Original Barnstar
		You are one of the greatest Wikipedians, this is for your amazing work on the article Sarasvati river..245CMR.•^👥📜 05:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

245CMR thank you; glad to see reasonable editors around. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Wikipedia

I like the way they do it on Dutch Wikipedia, with all the pictures lining up and being of the right size so you don't have to squint. nl:Qing-dynastie.

By the way, any idea why this man has two last names with "Van" attached?

Van Walt Van Praag, Michael C. (1987), The Status of Tibet: History, Rights, And Prospects in International Law, Avalon Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8133-0394-9

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: aristocracy, maybe, from Germany. Walt may mean forest, as in Schwarzwalt; Praag is Prague. Or it is simply a combination of two surnames, with the same references: from the woods, and from Prague. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

My point diff was in covering Brahmanism at the third paragraph. Preferably, using boldface for the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrangaBellam (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: yes, I see your point. But, the sentence also introduces the second and third paragraph: the second paragraph treats Vedism, the third paragraph Brahmanism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

on Svetlana Zharnikova's theory

https://2lib.org/g/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%96%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.122.141 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

citation from ^[1]

В одной из книг Махабхараты говорится о Варанаси как о городе в области Видеха. Но эпическая страна Видеха со столицей Митхилой располагалась в краю семи устьев Ганги (Волги) и тысячи лотосовых озер и как считали санскритские комментаторы никакого отношения к царству Каши не имела. (Кстати и сейчас в дельте Волги растет множество лотосов, а в 5-6 тысяч лет назад уровень Каспийского моря был ниже современного на 20 метров и делта Волги смыкалась с дельтами Терека и Урала в один огромный озерный край).
Это кажущееся противоречие объясняется просто. У Воронежа в Дон впадает река Ведуга, по имени которой, судя по всему, и была названа область Видеха.
Рядом с городом Варанаси, как свидетельствует Махабхарата, был расположен город Хастин, ставший столицей арьев после битвы на Курукшетре (Курском поле) в 3102 году до нашей эры. И что же? Рядом с Воронежем расположено село Костенки (в 17 в — город), знаменитое своими археологическими памятниками, древнейшие из которых относятся к 30 тыс. до н. э. Культурные слои этого селения идут из глубокой древности до наших дней без перерыва, что свидетельствует о приемственности культуры и населения.
Так что, мы думаем, можно утверждать, что Воронеж и Варанаси, как Костенки и Хасти — одно и тоже.
На реке Воронеж находится и другой крупный город юга России — Липецк. Этого названия нет в Махабхарате. Зато есть город Матхура (Матура), также один из семи священных городов древних арьев. Он распологался на Курукшетре (Курском поле) к востоку от Ямуны (Оки). Но и сейчас в реку Воронеж у Липецка впадает река Матыра. Эпос говорит о том, что для захвата города Матуры Кришне необходимо было вначале овладеть пятью возвышенностями в его окрестностях. Но и сегодня, как и много тысяч лет тому назад, пять холмов к северу от Липецка продолжают господствовать над долиной.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammooth (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourth volume of her work, S. Zharnikova correlates Harappa in the Indus Valley with a toponym from the Slavic epic: «Веда славян (Обрядные песни языческого времени, сохранившиеся в устном предании у македонцев и фракийских болгар-помаковъ)». Собранные и изданные Стефаном Ил. Берковичем в 1875-76 гг. Во втором томе^[2], опубликованном в С.-Петербурге в 1881 г., Хараппе посвящено несколько песен. Отметим, что руины Хараппы открыты Р. Сахни в 1921 г. Современные интерпретаторы песен ищут Харапскую землю в Албании, у Скифов или в Аравии. Хотя в песнях Юды идут в Харпска-град с Дунава, но идут они далеко на Край-земли у моря, что может более относиться к Хараппе, чем к Албании, тем более при наличии в Харапской земле трех королевств.

Another "Myth"

The term "Slavs" could be used by medieval chroniclers as a synonym for the modern "Indo-Europeans". And authors like Cornelius Aurelius were professional falsifiers of the history of the origin of the peoples of Europe.

This is what Olga Semyonova-Rotterdam discovered: “The Dutch chronicle of 1620: “In the year after the birth of our Lord in 370 or so, the Wilts, who are now the founders; and the Slavs, they are now the Dutch; and Neder-Sassen, who are now Frisians, gathered and exchanged people and formed a very large people and moved up the Rhine in ships” ... --> The Dutch are the Slavs! The Slavs have lived in the Lower Lands from time immemorial. They lived and built their cities here”.

Dutch < "Wilti" < (Early) Slavs < * "Indo-Europeans".

1. «Beschrijvinge der stad Rotterdam, en eenige omleggende dorpen, verdeeld in 3 boeken». Door Geraard van Spaan. De tweede druk. Te Rotterdam, 1713. Pag. 24-25. Источник: https://books.google.ru/books?id=a-lWAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Beschrijvinge+der+stad+Rotterdam,+en+eenige+omleggende+dorpen,+verdeeld+in+3+boeken&hl=ru&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju1ombjZnwAhVuo4sKHbGTB44Q6AEwAnoECAQQAg 2. «Отечественная история» Ян Вагенар, 1749 (Источник: «Vaderlandsche historie. Deel 1» (1749), Jan Wagenaar» https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/wage004vade01_01/colofon.php) 3. Gerard Van Loon «Beschryving der aloude regeeringwyze van Holland», Volumes 1-2, By Pieter vander Eyk, 1744 https://books.google.ru/books?id=MFVbAAAAQAAJ&hl=ru&source=gbs_navlinks_s 4. Ольга Семёнова-Роттердам «Slavische steden van Nederland» www.awakeupnow.info/nl/58-feiten-meningen-en-hypothesen/3139-slavishe-steden-van-nederland 5. Ольга Семёнова-Роттердам «Славяне - предки голландцев» https://www.tart-aria.info/slavjane-predki-gollandcev/ 6. Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Cornelius Aurelius, Die cronycke van Hollandt Zeelandt ende Vrieslant. Leiden, Jan Seversz, 1517. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek: KW 1084 A 6). http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/divisiekroniek/#page=0&accessor=thumbnails&view=homePane

Het oude Goutsche chronycxken van Hollandt, Zeelandt, Vrieslandt en Utrecht [Door Petrus Scriverius] https://goudaopschrift.nl/index.php/publicatie/gouds-kroniekje#3

"alsmen hier nae noch wel hoeren sel UOer die qheboerte ons heren ihesu cris=ti dusent hondert ende ses ende tsestich. iaer soe staken hen te samen die sicambriene die=men nv franschs hiet. ende quamen mit veel scepen ouer die zee ende wouden in brutangen we=sen om dat lant te winnen, soe dat si versta=ken mitten wynde. ende quamen gheuaren an die zeeusche cust Ende doe dit die slauen vernamen soe hadden si sonmighe scepen ende toghen op ter zee tot die sicambriene. daer si tegens streden. ende wonnen hem alte groten roef of ende sloghen veel volcs. ende behilden al hoer scepen. ende quamen soe weder te slauenburch daer omtrent daer nv vlaerdinc staet. mer dat oude vlaerdinc dat staet nv verde in die maes Dit volc dese slauen gheneerden hem ter zee ende inden woude. ende creghen veel kin=der te samen. soe dat si hem stroyden. ende to ghen een groet deel woenen ouer die maes dat nv zuythollant hiet Die ander toghen in zeelant dat een groet onbewoent eylant was Ende plaghen hem te gheneeren ter zee mit visschen ende mit roeuen Dus worden die luden zeelanders qhehieten Die ander ..."

[edition 1663, 3 page]: alsmen hier na noch wel hooren sal. Door de qheboorte ons heeren Jesu Christi elf hondert ende sessent-sestich jaer/ soo staechen hem te samen die Sicambrinen diemen nu Franschen hiet/...

We will hear about this later on. It was 1166 BC when the Sicambrians, now called Franks, crossed the sea with many ships. They wanted to go to Britain to conquer that country. They got off course because of the wind, so that they were heading for the coast of Zeeland. When the Slavs learned of this, they sailed to sea with a number of ships to fight against the Sicambrians. They robbed them and killed a lot of the men. They kept all their ships and returned to Slavenburg, the place where Vlaardingen is approximately. However, the old town of Vlaardingen is now further in the Meuse, and these people, the Slavs, sought their food at sea and in the forest. They had many children, who went to live scattered. A large part went to live above the Maas, which is now called South Holland, while the others moved to Zeeland, which was then a large uninhabited island. They lived off fishing and sea raids. That is why these people are called Zeelanders. Those who already lived in South Holland were called the ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.122.37 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Some archaic roots of the Northern Russian traditional culture https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/001/073/j4.htm
^ https://www.studmed.ru/verkovich-si-veda-slavyan-tom-2_6332bea8dd7.html

How much should it be shortened from your point of view?

109.252.123.71 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Eastern European homeland of the Indo-Aryans[reply]

Indo-Aryan peoples

My revert was constructive. I would suggest discussing on the Talk page of the article as per the BOLD, revert, and discuss cycle, as your proposed change is contentious. Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Vigyan Bhairav Tantra

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zen_Flesh,_Zen_Bones&oldid=prev&diff=1024828268 Please provide me with evidence that my first edit contained inaccurate information about the age of Vigyan Bhairav Tantra. Before claiming that this document cannot be 5000 years old, you must provide proof of my mistake. I need proof that I was wrong, and not "just words", I ask you to be more serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healingtheworld (talk • contribs) 24 may 2021 (UTC)

@Healingtheworld: regarding being more serious, I suggest you learn some basics:

New threads go to the bottom of the talkpage, not the top, and are signed with ~~~~
The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide WP:RS for the claim of 5000 years. Which you won't find; at 3000 BCE the mature IVC hadn't even started yet. 5000 ya is ridiculous.

Please discuss further at the talkpage of Zen flesh, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Love - Thank you and Questions!

Hi Joshua - I just noticed the buddha image in the bottom corner of my screen for the first time and finally realized I could click on it - loved the message it brought me to, and would very very much like to collaborate with you on methods for everyone here to spread more wikiKindness and wikiLove. Could we setup a dialog chat session somewhere? I'm on telegram a lot these days (so much wikipedia stuff going on over there!). Come find me? @ drmelganus

Please know that your work here is Essential to the future of human knowledge, and your endurance in being here even when it is not pretty is worth your time and perseverance. Looking forward to supporting your work however I can. DrMel (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations in Buddhism articles

Hi, I am working through the backlog at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and I stumbled upon a number of Buddhism related articles that were edited by you and that have numerous errors where the short reference link is broken and does not properly link to a full citation in the bibliography.

Please install a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page.

Can you please help solve these errors?

'McRae 1993' is missing from Chan Buddhism, Zen, Linji Yixuan. I suspect it's a typo in year and corrected accordingly.
'Kasulis 1999' is missing from Chan Buddhism, it was added in October 2012
'Jones 2010' is missing from Chan Buddhism, it was added in November 2012
'Stein 1991' is missing from Zen, it was added in January 2020
'Lachs 1999' is missing from Zen, it was added in July 2012
'Spilka 2003' is missing from Enlightenment (spiritual), it was in February 2013
'Gethin 2002' is missing from Dhyāna in Buddhism, it was added in December 2018
'McRae, p. 2-9' is missing from Zen scriptures, Kenshō, Dharma transmission. I suspect it should be "McRae 2003"?

Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: sure, that must be possible. Thank you for your work! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whats up!!!

Hey JJ. Hope this finds you in good health and you are doing well during this pandemic. Fingers crossed we are on the tail end of things. Some headlines last night crossed my attention from a few weeks ago and figure I would share

The group ring any bells haha. That entire lot of meat-puppet accounts that tried to overwhelm their opinion on Wiki was very pro this group. Go figure. I've stepped away from Wiki after that experience outside of checking in every now and then and using it for learning but did always enjoy working with you and catching this story in the news was interesting to say the least. Crazy these kinds of things exist in todays times. Nonetheless, sorry for taking up your time and stay safe man!

Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbhatt22: yes, I noticed; the gang managed to wash it away, not surprisingly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Of course lol. Amazing how quickly they jump on to rubber stamp one another. I don't have it in me to pick that topic again with all 8-10 of them piling on but clicking around and seeing what you mean about them washing it out. Maybe some day an admin will notice. Time to crawl back into my little hole haha. Thanks again as always. Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Integral yoga for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Integral yoga, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral yoga until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kali's Child Deletion of Edit

Hi Joshua, Why did you delete my edits. They are sourced, and more clearly explains the issues of mistaken translations. For instance,one of the critical papers cited is actually titled, "Kali's Child Revisited or Didn't Anyone Check the Documentation?" by Swami Tyagananda. This simple point explains much of the controversy of the book. Bengali speakers, since the book was published, have complained that Kripal was not fluent or even conversant with Bengali (especially 19th Century rural or village Bengali), which explains many of his errors. As to the un-adressed errors, Kripal himself in the article has admitted mistakes that have not been corrected in the book. That explains why the controversy continues, as mentioned in the paragraph. My edits broadly clarifies the issues, more than point by point examples. Please explain or revert your deletion of my edit. Thank you, Ellis408 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellis408: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article; Tyagananda already has his own subsection, summarized together with other critics in one sentence. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua, My suggested edit was not to support or argue with any of the opinions listed. The root of major disagreements about the book are given no rational explanation - it just dives into the various opinions. My edit is an attempt to address why the controversy erupted so broadly, and why it continues, without taking sides.

It needs to be stated up front that the many translation errors occurred because neither Kripal nor the pre-publication reviewers and editors were conversant with Bengali, especially rural 19th Century Bengali. It actually deflects the many criticisms that Kripal's mis-translations were intentional and gives context as to why there were so many errors. I feel strongly that this is an important point for the article, that needs to be up front - before the listed opinions.

That errors were admitted by Kripal, but have not been corrected in a new edition, and that Kripal is refusing to address other points raised, helps explains why the controversy continues. I'm less concerned about this point, but I do think it helps to contextualize the ongoing controversy.

By establishing those two points up front, I believe, helps to put all of the following opinions into a more neutral setting - without blame aimed at supporters or detractors of Kripal and his book.

I hope you can see the sense of this. Perhaps suggest your own wording, to make the points. Let's get a few more opinions, please. Best, Ellis408 (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pease discuss at the Talkpage of Kali's Child; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I only cited Tyagananda as he incorporated the issue of checking the translations in the title of his response. Virtually all critics of KC point out the issue, and while point by point examples are listed below, there's not a context for it. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eckhart Tolle

We disagree clearly on what should be removed from Eckhart's page. ET is a buisness, and he is more than welcome to run it, but we cannot let wiki page be a propaganda wagon for him. Ramana Maharishi and Jiddu comparison is self-drawn by ET, hence has no place in wiki. Cigarlover (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS-alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Is there a talkpage-stalker willing to block this guy rightaway? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cigarlover (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sigh..." is a polite understatement... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chutzpah is the operative word :) --RegentsPark (comment) 18:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well...It happened

Hey JJ. Hope all is well. If at any point I get annoying, feel free to tell me to go away haha. Looks like the admins went through that user group and untangled their web. Very impressive the tools they have to tie all the movement together. I want to help review some of the pages where I can be of help. You move quick. I made 1 edit to the [Swaminarayan Smapradaya] page in the time you refactored and restored the POV balance to the page lol. Mind reviewing some of the edits I made here and checking my approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachanamrut

I plan on doing edits where I see the need to specify which branch the interpretation originates from. That seems to be the gray area the socks used to misrepresent the Baps beliefs as universal to all branches. Trying to read the sources and identifying where they were misrepresented will take some time. I don't want to wholesale start removing their content so taking baby steps to fill in clarity where I see a need. This (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Jonathan/Sources#Swaminarayan) has been extremely helpful so thanks for aligning that list. I need to get better at editing again before I can be of any tangible assistance again. As always, thank you for the time. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BAPS etc, articles with systemic issues

Hi JJ,

I concur with the need for a review and rewrite of BAPS and similar articles by Tamzin and you here. Perhaps, wikipedia coding wizards should develop code to auto-discover socks with device/IP-plus-same-page-editing match without human intervention, thus respecting everyone's privacy. The code could flag suspected accounts with matches to trusted admins/editors to review. This would be a big help to stopping early such bad faith editing, thereby improving the quality of our articles. Sock-editing spreads so much misinformation / disinformation / nonsense / damage.

I am too busy to help with the clean up of these Swaminarayan articles. Sorry.

If, when and as time permits, the topic areas I hope to work on are some 300 to 500 articles on pre-1st century BCE to 16th century CE Buddhist / Hindu / Jain temples, stupas, inscriptions and sites. Some of our articles are WP:TNT worthy, mostly OR+unsourced, wrong GPS location data, and loaded with bizarre claims by different sides. Most of these temples/stupas/slabs/artwork/sites are little known monuments and inscriptions outside of scholarly circles. Yet, they are very important to appreciating and learning about the regional arts, architecture, religions, chronology, wars, and history. All of them need to summarized from peer reviewed scholarly sources. I also hope to review some problematic articles I promised admins offline and online long ago, as well as editors such as Kautilya3. I am so late and slow. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I figured you'd be interested to know, since you also run into this sock-farm. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: That's potentially possible with machine learning, but I imagine it would be very hard to get any signal from the noise due to the complexities of human language. Even with all of the little details I found about the Moksha socks, the make-or-break evidence was probably that they all talk in a more-or-less indistinguishable way—some slight differences in minute writing choices (of the sort that sockmasters like to inject into their contributions to obfuscate things), but overall quite similar content and quite similar demeanors. I don't think there's any AIs yet that could determine a lot of those similarities, at least not in a way where it could then articulate to humans reviewing it why it saw similarity. There'd also be the risk of it skewing things against, say, editors who speak a minority dialect of English, who speak English as a learned language, etc., all of whom might have noticeable similarities in their writing style.

If you have the chance to comment at the NPOVN thread, please do. Soon I'm going to get around to notifying every individual talk page (once I update the ever-growing list of pages affected... 7 socks blocked now, and I think another 7 pending? And, don't tell L235 or he'll kill me, but I still have a few left to report). Dealing with this whole thing requires a part of my brain that doesn't always want to boot itself up, but, I really hope to be able to steer this content area away from its current state. @JJ, you've been lighting up my watchlist all week, and that's been a very rewarding consequence to see from all of this. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin: There are two broad kinds of sock-farms/accounts in wiki projects. One uses the same IP/device and edits the same page/topic/template/target to create a sense of "faux consensus" or to mock/bully/disrupt another editor(s)/admin(s). Another kind is meat puppetry, where the accounts use different IPs and devices and far-away locations – perhaps with offline coordination or a campaign or a shared-sense-of-devotion-to-their-religion/cause. This second kind work together to shape "the same page/topic/target or to harass/bully/get-someone-blocked or banned". For this latter type, your comments are spot on. I was suggesting a way to prevent problems that the former type create and to lower the SPI-clerk workload.

Except in cases of serious disruption, repeated abuse, systematic misrepresentation of sources, or disinformation/misinformation that can cause harm (medical articles, violent conflict in progress, etc), I do not favor a block ban of all accounts in a meat-puppet-type sock farm. Instead, we should weigh whether one (master?), or a few of the accounts should be allowed. Our focus should not be on punishing everyone, rather our focus should be on the wikipedia project and the quality of our articles. If the project can benefit from the suspected meat puppet master's continued participation, then why not block everyone except the master? I have not checked and I do not know if this applies in the Swaminarayan case. In general, if the master or primary editor in what seems to be a meat puppet farm is constructively contributing to the project by identifying and properly summarizing peer-reviewed scholarly sources and such WP:RS, then their continued participation may improve the project and their absence may not be in the interest of the wikipedia project.

There is another thing to watch for, which I must credit a previously active admin+SPI-clerk for. Anyone can claim to be another account, not because they are, but because they want someone blocked! In some cases, an active and productive editor such as JJ can be framed through faux-meat-puppetry. Wikipedia is an open project. It takes little for someone to follow an editor, copy paste their edit summaries and style, agree with them, and come across as almost always backing them up. If we block/punish JJ just because he is being stalked and plagiarized by someone he never met or talked to or interacted with, then wikipedia suffers.

Which VNPOV thread were you referring to above? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin:: pinged!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Heh, I'd already seen it on my watchlist. :) I was referring to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Systematic NPOV review needed in the BAPS topic area. As to mass blocks, well, I think the key ingredient is honesty. If someone's actively deceiving your fellow editors, as we try to undo the damage they've done, then any contributions they make will be net-unconstructive. If Moksha88 or someone else in that farm wants to confess to what they've done, help undo the damage, and return to editing with an understanding that they'll be under a great deal of scrutiny (and probably TBANned from the topic area they disrupted)... in principle I don't have an issue with that. In practice, though, that never seems to happen. On those occasions where a sockmaster does have a change of heart and want to turn white-hat, I think they tend to take the other route. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from TrangaBellam

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asikni (goddess) § Good Article. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jesus exist

Hi there. The info I removed is not properly sourced. There's a single secondary RS that's cited throught the article, and most of the claims I removed fail verification in that. The article otherwise is a mess of WP:SYNTH - it's a load of he said/she said from self published blogs by the authors. please take a look at what was removed - there's a real WP:ONUS problem on the materialPipsally (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss at the appropriate talkpage, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talkpage said reply here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs) 11 july 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry; standard template... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva harassment of scholars

Is this category for real? Looks a bit weird to me. Or is it supposed to mean "Scholars harassed by Hindu nationalists"?--RegentsPark (comment) 13:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: the last. Did I phrase it incorrect? See Audrey Truschke for the reason of creating this category. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is ok but Hindutva is an ideology rather than a group of people. And ideologies cannot harass anyone!--RegentsPark (comment) 00:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, such a 'twist' somehow fits the twisted logic of it's supporters. If Harappans can be Vedic, an ideology can came alive & embodied, and hunt it's enemies! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Brahminism

Can I remove redirect from brahminism? The lede in Anti-Brahminism is twisted with content which the sources don't say in the name of restoring to good version. Kindly see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mama Nyptor (talk • contribs) 17 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Audrey Truschke, you may be blocked from editing. LearnIndology (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take a good look at those policies again; you'll need it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the excellent work that you do on Wikipedia. Best wishes. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasnaboy: thank you; glad it's appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 PIE

hello Jonathan. I was wondering what about the information I had added to the proto-Indo-European Migration theories you saw unconstructive and why have you removed the information completely instead of modifying it as you deemed appropriate - as the information that had been provided was in accordance with the clause of the paragraph and further elaborated and expanded on the paragraph which was short and not very specific. thanks for your help and clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali mjr (talk • contribs) 22 july 2021 (UTC)

@Ali mjr: see Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#POV-pushing on Iranian homeland, again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Pov pushing

You are engaging in your own biased PoV pushing while accusing others. This racist behaviour is not proper. Avdmoh (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Racist behaviour" is a strong accusation, but as such shows a waekness of character and a lack of arguments. Refrain from it; you're only weakening your "case," which is already not very strong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable or reliable stuff

Hi. What do you think about this? Some IP user added it to several articles in 2020 and now that new user just restored it. Wario-Man ^talk 08:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wario-Man: I know very little about Turkic genetics. Wolfgang Haak is co-author; that's a good sign. But it doesn't mention the Ashina tribe, though. I don't know what to make of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of warning or blocking template

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

I have only been warned once for editwarring, by you straight off the bat in response to my edits. That is not an editwar. JJNito197 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that you use this warning template. I've explained why I warned you: you're repeating a discussion at Adi Shankara I've had just two days ago with an editor who's now indeffed, removing the info the Buddhist influences. You're correct, though, that you'd reverted only once (removing the passage on the Buddhist influences from the lead) when I warned you; I'm just really not thrilled about going through this same discussion again. This edit didn't show much inderstanding of the topic, beyond popular notions of 'Atman is Brahman', nor this comment Do you want me to provide sources that state Brahman is satchitanda? Don't teach me the basics; update your own knowledge. And this was your second revert, after I gave you that warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Don't teach me the basics; update your own knowledge' Okay. likewise. JJNito197 (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

May I remind you that wikipedia is a collabrative effort and you are gatekeeping the article as of present. JJNito197 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You surely may remind me so; let me remind you of the Wiki-policies I've referred to, and urge you to stop edit-warring and pushing you personal point of view, which makes "gatekeeping" necessary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring though. This is not my POV this is Hindus. Take it up with them I guess? JJNito197 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JJNito197 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: ). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

revert action on article Persecution of Hindus

Hi Johanthan, Your comment sounds like you are the sole ownership of information regarding Indian History. I just corrected things on topic with proper reference. I amended only those lines which were not on the topic of 'persecution' of Hindus. In fact, I added more information with original source. It sounds like there is hidden agenda of some people who don't want actual information to be on Wikipedia. I will be reporting this incident to appropriate platforms. Thank you for blocking original information. You have just preferred propaganda over facts. Amit Srivastava (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean my revert of your removal of sourced info and your addition of WP:OR? @RegentsPark: what do you make of this comment I will be reporting this incident to appropriate platforms? It sounds like a threat of off-Wiki canvassing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for making legal threats. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Buddhism and gender

An article that you have been involved in editing—Buddhism and gender—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling ref

Hi Joshua, I have been working on fixing dangling references that have no corresponding sources, and it appears you added a ref to Advaita Vedanta in this edit. Do you know the source? For now, I have hidden the ref. Let me know if you need any assistance if you do know the source! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aussie Article Writer: I have no idea, but I think you can just remove it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joshua, is it OK to remove this one as well? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Quotes on the historicity of Jesus

Template:Quotes on the historicity of Jesus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chariot or cart of sinauli

If this vehicles are ox pulled cart then why did the ancient people of sinauli site decoreted and design carts like Chariot ? Please explain me. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sinauli excavation site#Chariot or cart. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atma

Regarding this edit: I don't think this specific work might conflict WP:RS, the source itself is coauthored by a well recognized scholar, Dr. Satyanarayana Dasa, with numerous reception from other academic scholars as well, which we can clearly see from this particular source material. Given that, detracting the source is a serious smear on the material. —WikiLinuz (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with your rejection of "soul" as translation for Atma," but trust me, Malhotra is categorically rejected as a source at Wikipedia. He's not a scholar, but an opinion-writer. There have to be better sources, which explain that Atman is not soul -at least, not in Advaita Vedanta.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued at Talk:Ātman (Hinduism)#Soul. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

California textbook

If you have time, might choose to clean up California textbook controversy over Hindu history. Extensive bothsideism, as of now. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Christ myth theory/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Christ myth theory/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Christ myth theory/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your map of Indo-European language dispersals

Are all the colours in this map correct? For instance, it looks like Greek and Balto-Slavic are round the wrong way. Best wishes. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970: it wouldn't surprise me if there are some mistakes left. regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct for me to change the key so that Greek is grey, Balto-Slavic is deep yellow, Iranian is light yellow, and Indo-Aryans (India) are purple? How would you refer to the red arrow in the key? The key also mentions Armenians, but I can’t see any corresponding arrow. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970: I'll have to take a closer look at it;I'll respond in detail later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key you propose above is correct - but that's the key that's already being used, isn't it? See, for example, Indo-European migrations. Red is Eastern Corded Ware (5A-B) plus Sintashta (5C). Armenians are not drawn in the map: "– [not drawn]: Armenian, expanding from western steppe". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions are based on the colours of the arrows on the map, and the words in the map. The way I read this, the verbal key below the map disagrees with the map. It looks like I have misinterpreted the placing of the numbers and colons in the verbal key. I read e.g. ‘proto-Balto-Slavic 8 (grey)’ as meaning that the grey arrow represented Balto-Slavic. Sorry for the trouble. Regards. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unwikivoiced

Finally, my talents have been given the recognition they deserve. Thanks for the barnstar! Tewdar (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Your recent editing history at Sanātana Dharma shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: no need to template the regulars; I suggest you take a look at the sources per WP:RS, WP:LEAD as summarizing the content of the article, and the number of pov-warriors pushing for that content blocked in the last few days. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New info

Did you know that Professor Lavanya Vemsani has dispelled the Aryan Invasion Myth? At JNU, no less? [21]

Ping TrangaBellam. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, Ctrl+F "Lavanya" at Talk:Indigenous_Aryanism#Opening_content_is_racist/Indophobic. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she is a complete nut case. But I was struck by the JNU gang that is developing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the late 2000s, she had emphatically asserted in a conference about having dated Krshna to 3XYZ BC. None seemed to care much about what she spoke though I was pretty amused. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, our article on Puranic chronology needs a rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Advaita

Hi Joshua 👋, I added a section Template_talk:Advaita#Neo-Advaita that refers to one of your recent edits. Would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what you think! Llightex (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Just want to commend you for your work on anatta, I've noticed that page has needed reorganizing for quite some time but didn't know how to approach it. Great work on other pages in the Buddhism wikiproject as well. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman5676: thanks for your appreciation! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying and Civility

Hi please stop harassing me on my talk page with false accusations over a talk page entry I made over Indo-Aryan Languages. If you disagree with me, you can do so in a civilized on the Talk page for that article rather than engaging in fraudulent accusations in an attempt to somehow discredit me. Let this be a warningXoltron (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xoltron: get a grip on yourself, and behave in a normal way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rig vedic rivers

Hi JJ saw you were editing Rigvedic rivers, i have come across another intrepretation of this rivers. please refer to page 109-113 I think it make sense to add another perspective than the current barbaric version?, let me know link Shrikanthv (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might lead to the inclusion of quite a lot of religious views; I don't know if this would be deemed warranted by other editors... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand is there a possiblities to summaries multiple views available ? , also the current version is a view/interpretation based on narrow knowledge of the subject, dont you think ? and who are the other users involved? --Shrikanthv (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Indian DNA

Hey Joshua Jonathan Isn’t it important to mention at Rakhigarhi that modern day Indians have a significant amount of steppe ancestry? Isn’t that the whole point? The Shinde paper doesn’t make reference to it. They are interested in Harappan DNA only. What about modern DNA especially that for North Indian Brahmins? —ChandlerMinh (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC) ChandlerMinh (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChandlerMinh: Shinde mentions the Indo-Aryan migrations into India, don't they? From Rakhigarhi:

Shinde et al. (2019) have carried out DNA-tests on a single skeleton. Results announced in September 2018, and a paper published in Cell Magazine in 2019, show that the DNA did not include any traces of steppe ancestry, in line with the Aryan migration theory, which says that Indo-Aryans migrated to India from the steppes after the Harappan civilization had started to disintegrate.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56]

This could be appended with "which contributed significantly to the gene-pool of present-day Indians, especially Brahmins." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers, doesn’t talk about any migration into India per se. That is not the main issue. They have their own agenda. We need other published work that provides the amount of Steppe ancestry in modern Indians. ChandlerMinh (talk) Here is a quote from the paper:

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the genetic similarity of I6113 to the Indus Periphery Cline individuals is due to gene flow from South Asia rather than in the reverse direction.

Of course they are talking about migration during IVC. But they are twisting this to prove Out of India theory. That is why specifying the amount of steppe ancestry in Modern Savarna Indians is important. —ChandlerMinh 09:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinde himself tried to spin their results, but the paper was firmly within non-fringe territory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. But the Rakhigarhi paper only talks about absence of steppe ancestry. We also need citations that prove that there is a presence of steppe ancestry in modern Indians. Does the Narasimhan et al. talks about Steppe ancestry present in modern Indians? ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be off-topic? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaduvanshi

Hii dear Joshua. what is the problem why this Yaduvanshi page is not showing in google search and why its connection site is associated with Yadu legendary king page, please solve this problem . AlexaRiveralis (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lockwood on Buddhist stories and the origins of Christianity

Lockwood, Michael (2019). "Miscellaneous Concluding Remarks". The Unknown Buddha of Christianity. Indie Author Books. pp. 390–419. @ https://www.academia.edu/38828438

[T]he New Testament narratives are replete with allusions to Buddhist stories, as well as to stories in the Septuagint, and to Homer’s epics, and to the narratives of Euripides, Sophocles, and Plato, among others, and in the Book of Revelation, to ancient Egyptian narratives, and, finally, to historical accounts of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, it becomes incumbent on researchers to examine carefully and extensively the well-documented studies of Buddhist influence on Christianity. —(p. 400)

--2db (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Advaita Vedanta article

Hi Joshua, can we nominate Advaita Vedanta article as a good articles nominee? I think it requires minor copy-editing and replacement of {{citation needed}} in few places, but I believe it meets the criteria. Since, from my understanding, you're one of the active contributors to that page, I'm asking for your consent. Let me know what you think. —Wiki Linuz ( 💬 ) 13:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz: feel free to do so; yet, I'm not interested in GA-status of articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC) ==[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing this right...

Missing citations in Buddhism articles

Reposting my message from May 2021 as it does not appear that all the errors were corrected. Please address them. Also added a couple new ones.

Hi, I am working through the backlog at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and I stumbled upon a number of Buddhism related articles that were edited by you and that have numerous errors where the short reference link is broken and does not properly link to a full citation in the bibliography.

Please install a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page.

Can you please help solve these errors?

'Lachs 1999' is missing from Zen, it was added in July 2012
'Spilka 2003' is missing from Enlightenment (spiritual), it was in February 2013
'Gethin 2002' is missing from Dhyāna in Buddhism, it was added in December 2018
- Also missing: 'Stuart-Fox 1989' and 'Crangle 1994' in Dhyāna in Buddhism
'McRae, p. 2-9' is missing from Zen scriptures, Kenshō, Dharma transmission. I suspect it should be "McRae 2003"?
'Bronkhorst 2016', 'Michaels 2014', 'Bronkhorst 2015' are missing from Āryāvarta

Thank you, Renata•3 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Draft:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JJNito197 (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing-out instruction

If you want to be helpful, you could help summarize the way too many quotations already in this article. Most of them should be removed. Certainly no more quotations should be added to the article until this is done. Then we could discuss which two or three longer quotations would be the best to put in this article. In any case, long quotations shouldn't be placed in the notes section, which has been removed. Then there is the fact that the quotation you returned to the article was from a Lama who had a major controversy and resigned from his own organization before he died. There would be many who would discount material quoted from him for this reason so he is not the best choice to quote on this topic. Skyerise (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhidharma

To be continued at Talk:Bodhidharma#Indian monk

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.

They ain't Chinese sources and is contrary to what's been mentioned. I tried to correct precisely but you removed even with giving reliable sources. Major sources cite him Indian buddhist monk not a central Asian. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arorapriyansh333: the sources you added are crap. This is a contentious subject; just stick to the sources - the good ones. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business insider is crap? So what you added is only good? Bcoz of ppl like you wiki has become such an untrusted place. No one has right to edit and correct anything. Only what you think is right. And you own everything. Nearly all sources I encountered cite him as indian monk. I've yet to encounter any source that clearly state he is central asian. Even the sources you mentioned cite him as Indian buddhist monk on 8th page. Even Chinese sources cite him Indian monk. Honestly, if I had to rate this article I'd give it F grade. No proper formatting, factually incorrect written article that do not match the sources. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(guest comment) Arorapriyansh333, newspapers are not the best sources for historical events; academic sources are preferred in wikipedia. Per WP:BESTSOURCES "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources." JimRenge (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even the academic source that are mentioned cite Bodhidharma as Indian monk clearly in it's first page of introduction so how he became central Asian? Although there are arguments regarding this in a page 53 to 54 but rest of pages clearly cite him Indian monk. And this is what I tried to correct. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try to learn the basics of Wiki-editing, such as WP:RS and indenting your replies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your phenomenal work in Advaita Vedanta :-) 986 edits at that article alone (and still counting), Wow! WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz: thank you! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz: and you know what? I'm still learning diff - a mistake which has been there from the very start of the article! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's definitely a good catch. So, in my understanding Atman is the 'witness consciousness' - the one which shines as an 'experiencing self' or Jivatman in Maya, thus is identical to Brahman in Advaita; these interesting nuances often trips me up :-) but metaphors sometimes helps. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it, exactly that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.JJNito197 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parking my reply here, until I've found the thread:

Serious? You just mass-reverted my edits throughout the article on Advaita Vedanta diff, including three notes and five or six sources, because you object to this sentence in the lead:

[Brahman], which is self-aware (svayam prakāśa)^[1]^[2]^[3]^{[note 1]} pure Awareness or Consciousness.^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[2]^[1]^{[note 2]}

References

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Ganeri was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference IEP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Dasgupta 1975, p. 148-149.
^ Mayeda, p. 103 (verse 1), p.105 (note 1); p.126, verse 7.
^ Davis 2010, p. 34–35.
^ Deutsch 1973, pp. 48–51.
^ Cite error: The named reference aramb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

This info is well-sourced and correct - core Advaita tenets - and a summary of sourced info in the article.

Regarding my neutrality, let's ask some other editors: @Kautilya3, Ms Sarah Welch, TrangaBellam, WikiLinuz, Chariotrider555, and Fowler&fowler:. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TPS:please respond at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bias / conflict of interest on topics relating to Hinduism. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong link There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has now moved to WP:NPOV/N on the basis that the ANI discussion was deeply premature. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a giant timesink. Will comment at the NPOVN thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Truschke

Has shared her syllabi [22]. Pretty impressive! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: interesting addition. I took a look at the "History of Hinduism" syllabus; it's a lot, and still a small part of the topic which is treated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nondualism reversion

Disagree with your reversion of the Nondualism edit. The added content is nothing more than can be read on the pages for each of those two subjects. Normal practice is to suggest that sources be ADDED, which is why you see the related tags on pages. Simply reverting the honest legitimate work of others is just rude pedantry. Wikipedia can't really afford to keep hemorrhaging editors, and stuff like this is why it's been happening for the last five to ten years at least. The polite thing would be to revert your reversion and add the tag please, and I can try to add them in later. Chris Rodgers (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) @Chris Rodgers: Please note that it is your responsibility to cite sources for the materials you add, because the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor [Chris Rodgers] who adds or restores material. Any unsourced additions—regardless of the number of bytes—can be challenged by anyone. Thanks, WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 03:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see most of what I said went whoosh. Perhaps you should review WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. It's almost like you didn't even try to listen to what I explained. I guess the consequences I alluded to went whoosh just as quickly. :-/ Chris Rodgers (talk)

It's up to show that Christian Science and ACIM are nondualistic; otherwise, it's just plain WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (comment) @Chris Rodgers: Seems like you didn't read the policy that I linked to you previously either. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM says they [added material] should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research. Your text violates verifiability and original research; if you think it doesn't, then please WP:PROVEIT. Also, {{citation needed}} tag is used in certain cases given the usage policy is met, however, it certainly doesn't in Nondualism. This is my final comment. Cheers, WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 08:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as requested. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atman

Hi Joshua, Hope you don't mind, I've pointed someone in your direction. Ericoides (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericoides: that's okay; I already checked: Katha upanishad is 5th-1th c. BCE. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Ericoides (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

	Season's Greetings
	Hi Joshua Jonathan! Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@पाटलिपुत्र: you're alive! Very happy to get a lifesign from you! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nondualism

Hello Joshua, I saw a formatting error of a reference here. I wish you and your loved ones a good new year. JimRenge (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JimRenge. Hope for a better year next year - though it may take more than the two years we've already had... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Witness Conciousness"

It's definitely an interesting concept and can (sort of) explain the unexplainable. Just now browsing I came across this book,[23] talking about 'Love-Light-Conciousness' which is the first time I've come across that definition; the apparent "ultimate goal of yoga". It is true and understandable when yourself linked words together like-this, as english words and structure cannot adequtely explain information without prefacing it with likewise hard to explain terminology. "Atman-Brahman" is great to use once establishing there is only "Brahman" (according to Advaita Vedanta[Hinduism]), as the reader has a stable/still "correct" understanding whilst the development of the understanding moves on/furthers. However if the usage of "Atman-Brahman" is not clear in its ultimate meaning, Brahman (which ideally should be precursory), it can confuse. This reminds me, is Chidabhasa a good intermediate word to explain a certain phenomenon (direct experience)? Quote, "the abhasa or reflection of Brahman, the Universal Self, on or through the mind; ordinarily this term is used to denote the reflected Universal Self in the Jiva, the Individual Self". Does the word explain the phenomenon (specifics), more philosophical wider understanding, both, or none? Such is the multifaceted nature of sanskrit. Regards, JJNito197 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and WP policy

Greetings. I really don't appreciate you whole-sale removing of valid edits completely (some of them were corrections of previous misspellings too btw), with no explanation except some lame vague subjective thing about "essay" which theoretically could be said about ANY section in ANY article made by ANYONE... The point is simple though. The edits were VERY COPIOUSLY SOURCED...and Wikipedia policy is that they are supposed to be LEFT ALONE. Regardless of your personal tastes or feelings or whims on the matter. (And there were facts and points and things in the article that were sorely lacking, arguably. So, very "due". In fact over-due. In an article such as this, no mention AT ALL about how some churches and groups view the post-resurrection appearances, and the nature of them? The article was lacking. And even if you personally don't agree, that's called TOUGH...it's a WIKI. Meaning any addition as long as it's sourced and is pertinent and verified STAYS...theoretically. There are many things in this article I don't agree with, but they are referenced, so I wouldn't dare remove. Uh, that's how it works. That's presumably the policy...of course rarely followed lately unfortunately.) Hard work and sourced edits should NOT be removed for "I DON'T LIKE" REASONS. No warrant for such disrespect. This is a WIKI. "No Own"... Restored.... Revert again. Get reverted again. The edit-warring would be YOUR starting. Not mine. Regards 71.190.0.236 (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:UNDUE. You added a new section, repeating some of the appearance-stories. Such repetition is unnecessary. As for the interpretations, go to Resurrection of Jesus. As for your intention to edit-war, as registered here, I'll ad it to a report on you when necessary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for responding. Please read this whole thing. If the somewhat repetitive part you have a big problem with, then deal with that, fine, but as you know and admit, there was a whole big paragraph at the end that was NOT "REPETITION" AT ALL but completely lacking in the entire article (and the other article that deals with Christ's resurrection).

Why do you say to go to the other article for that part when this very article here (the very name of it) is so even more specific to the point of interpretations of nature etc? (I would say that that part probably belongs in BOTH articles, but especially in this one.)

So, then, Joshua... Wikipedia policy is to MODIFY, to collaborate and work with, not to arrogantly delete and treat something like garbage...not to completely disrespectfully remove the entire thing. Because then it starts reek of "I don't like" and attempting to "own" an article, when that's also violation, and ignoring that this is a WIKI. Meaning anything that's valid and sourced and relevant to the article (which this definitely unquestionably does) stays. Period. Modify (maybe) but not completely remove.

And let's face it. This stuff about "essay" and "undue" (especially if you call the last big paragraph also "undue") is many times just a matter of opinion, and is very subjective, and is oftentimes used as a FRONT excuse...to remove...when the real reason (the real obvious reason) is because of "I don't like". Which is a no no, and something I wouldn't even come close to putting up with. I worked hard on this, and in one second you just removed for mostly invalid reasons? Aint gonna happen. The stuff is (very) sourced... and arguably needed. At the very least that last paragraph there.

The section itself is needed. Nothing in the article before that told about the various interpretations by various churches and theologians of what those post-resurrection appearances were in nature and form. Spirit, flesh, or later on spirit, etc etc. If some of the stuff in the beginning of the section is kind of repetitive, then maybe modify or remove JUST THAT PART of it. Not the whole thing. Regards. 71.190.0.236 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of Edits on Saraswati River

Hi,

I have cited the journals from nature.com in regard with year of appearance of Sarasvati river. And, also deleted the some part where Romila Thapar makes controversial claims there.

I want to mention that Wikipedia should be a platform of facts and neutral point of view but what I see in reference to this is there are instance where wiki texts puts some isolated views. Rather it should be the facts from research papers, and that what I have tried to do through my edits.

I want to ask, whether it is important to give only isolated conclusions. Aren't we smart enough to make conclusions when facts and chronological order is presented to us?

Thanks ~rkrishnavedic

To be continued at Talk:Sarasvati River#Revert of Edits on Saraswati River. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On apophatic theology.

Could you please reply on its talk page? Thanks so much. Mauro Lanari --82.84.30.66 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

[1] Some archaic roots of the Northern Russian traditional culture https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/001/073/j4.htm

[2] ttps://www.studmed.ru/verkovich-si-veda-slavyan-tom-2_6332bea8dd7.html

[Ganeri-3] Cite error: The named reference Ganeri was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[IEP-4] Cite error: The named reference IEP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[FOOTNOTEDasgupta1975148-149-5] Dasgupta 1975, p. 148-149.

[FOOTNOTEMayeda103_(verse_1),_p.105_(note_1);_p.126,_verse_7-7] Mayeda, p. 103 (verse 1), p.105 (note 1); p.126, verse 7.

[FOOTNOTEDavis201034–35-8] Davis 2010, p. 34–35.

[FOOTNOTEDeutsch197348–51-9] Deutsch 1973, pp. 48–51.

[aramb-10] Cite error: The named reference aramb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[note 1]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[note 2]

Harrison video

Note

OCP Culture

Some falafel for you!

Raphael Lataster

Edit war on CMT

Yuga Cycle disruptive editor

February 2021

February 2021

Alert

Vedanta Article

Some interesting gossip from Kai Friese

Messiah in Judaism

Reason of revert

Gujarati Asmita

19 February 2021: Believe me , I did learn a lot

Varahamihira

Sinauli

DFTT

Reply

History of Buddhism and other articles

Idk if this considered off topic or not but..

Greek manuscript point of view of the resurrection day versus 'translation of the Greek manuscript point of view"

Thank you very much

Dutch Wikipedia

Edit

on Svetlana Zharnikova's theory

Another "Myth"

How much should it be shortened from your point of view?

Indo-Aryan peoples

About Vigyan Bhairav ​​Tantra

Buddha Love - Thank you and Questions!

Missing citations in Buddhism articles

Whats up!!!

Nomination of Integral yoga for deletion

Kali's Child Deletion of Edit

Eckhart Tolle

DS-alert

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Well...It happened

BAPS etc, articles with systemic issues

New message from TrangaBellam

Did Jesus exist

Hindutva harassment of scholars

Anti-Brahminism

July 2021

The Original Barnstar

July 2021 PIE

Biased Pov pushing

Unreliable or reliable stuff

Improper use of warning or blocking template

Ownership of articles

RfC notice

revert action on article Persecution of Hindus

Merger discussion for Buddhism and gender

Dangling ref

Nomination for deletion of Template:Quotes on the historicity of Jesus

Chariot or cart of sinauli

Atma

California textbook

"Christ myth theory/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

Your map of Indo-European language dispersals

Unwikivoiced

August 2021

New info

Neo-Advaita

Barnstar for you!

Bullying and Civility

Rig vedic rivers

Modern Indian DNA

Yaduvanshi

Michael Lockwood on Buddhist stories and the origins of Christianity

Promoting Advaita Vedanta article

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Missing citations in Buddhism articles

"Draft:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax" listed at Redirects for discussion

Precious anniversary

You have been reported

Pointing-out instruction

Bodhidharma

About Vigyan Bhairav Tantra