User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:08, 16 December 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,775 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2024) (bot← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:24, 1 January 2025 edit undoJoshua Jonathan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,345 edits OneClickArchived "Happy New Year" to User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2025
(23 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|], ]''<small>]]		\|], ]''<small>]]
	\|-		\|-
	\|]		\|]
	\|-		\|-
	\|}		\|}
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|archive = User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive %(year)d		\|archive = User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive %(year)d
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|counter = ~~2024~~		\|counter = 2025
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	}}		}}

	== A goat for you! ==

	]
	Hey JJ. Hope all is well. Just saw you crossed 100k edits on Wiki. That is wild! Congrats on such a boss milestone.

	] (]) 04:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	<br style="clear: both;"/>

	:{{yo\|Kbhatt22}} short time ago I checked ''your'' whereabouts; good to see you're still around. Regards, ] - ] 05:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	:: :) I always poke around but Covid really just took a lot away and haven't managed to quite get my head back right. I keep telling myself I want to get back into the mix but just need to start carving out time to read and write. Its still calming to just make my usual tiny edits and watch patterns of users in my unique weird way haha. Always happy to get a chance to send my regards. ] (]) 05:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{yo\|Kbhatt22}} so, I took a look; utterly confusing articles. ] - ] 05:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::{{yo\|Joshua Jonathan}} I agree. It read in some aspects like a marketing brochure to begin with but splitting it into two articles seemed like a bizarre stretch the way its written. Couldn't find another Hindu temple that was given such treatment. Had to do a ton of searching around just to understand what the articles were trying to convey. ] (]) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

	== November 24 ==

	disruptive Contents going on article avatar and ], Request for page protection and i suggest to you add this file for avatar or ] suitable copyright info uploaded from users.
	]
	@] ] (]) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

	:Don't bother; the IP-disruption is endless. The picture is nice. ] - ] 05:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	::No not for me, Request for ] page. ] (]) 05:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Add this img for ] or ] article.
	:::Thanks for response. ] (]) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	::See ]. - ] (]) 06:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Jhana Table : Incomplete? ==

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

	:Whoops! My bad! Based on a wrong-headed skim of A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (p.91), I had made an inference that maybe the first factor you were referencing (''sampasadhana'') was based on Sanskrit parallels while the existing Misplaced Pages entries were using the Pali texts. But, I now see that ''sampasadana'' (without the 'h'; or, in Sanskrit, ''sa.mprasaada'') can be found in 322 different Early Buddhist texts according to Sutta Central (https://suttacentral.net/search?query=in:ebs+sampasada), many -- if not all! -- having to do with the second jhana. So, why do I and other WP contributers not consider ''sampasadana'' to be one of the jhana "factors"? Regrettably, it's been a decade since I've dug into this stuff so I don't recall my own sources. And, of course, my knowledge is decimated. I'll keep digging here though and, when I think I find something worthy of your time, I'll write again. (For what it's worth, I initally started the Talk page thread because I was confused by some of your edits to the table. Let's unravel this thing first though :-) ) If you want to dig together, please let me know :-) Best, ] (]) 21:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	::{{yo\|Larry Rosenfeld}} I have to read your comments yet, but thanks for reaching out. ] - ] 05:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	== "]" listed at ] ==
	]
	The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4#Adimo}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Historicity ==

	Hi , I noticed you reverted my edit on . To answer your question: The contents of any religious book of any kind is scrutinized by Modern Scholarship (its historicity) and they put forward their findings. I added that aspect to the article to make it balanced. I believed the information was accurate and properly sourced. Let me know if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks! ] (]) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:{{yo\|Tamir Nazir}} those two sources are over a century old, and placed in a disjunct section. What purpose does that serve, other than to enrage Hindus? ''If'' such characterisations wre to be used, the it should be a subsection on "Genre," which also mentions ]. Otherwise, it's ] and a violation of ]. IP, I hope you're watching too. Regards, ] - ] 09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your clarification. I see your point. There has to be such characterizations to make The Ramayana article broad and balanced according to ], ] (]) 10:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Thanks, JJ, for asking for my input. Itihas-Purana sufficiently covers "mythology." Anything in excess is POV pushing. The sources are severely outdated. By the same logic, mythology should be added against all books claiming things like a human riding a donkey to the moon, a man splitting a river in half, person walking on water etc. Religious pages should strictly follow NPOV. Why unnecessarily enrage just one group? Just because the group doesn’t react by cutting heads? Weak. I leave this to you. I am fed up. ] (]) 10:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I have re-inserted the info as a note; feel free to revert. ] - ] 10:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::It's fine—better than frequent revert wars, which are inevitable. Hindus are accustomed to extra attention, criticism, and scrutiny of their texts anyway, and this has been the case since ancient times, so it's nothing new. My only issue is with the sources, which are too outdated to provide meaningful direction, as well as the lack of commentaries from opposing perspectives. If you can find newer sources, please replace these archaic ones written during the missionary colonial era and add one or two differing viewpoints. I don't know what others will have to say; if they had anything to say, I wouldn’t be wasting my time here. And yes, I know it's futile to suggest doing this for all other religious texts across the world. So, taking my leave now. Good talk! ] (]) 11:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:24, 1 January 2025

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

en:User:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha/message