User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2025

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings

When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it."

(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: well, you'd love to see my "boekenkamer"; at every wall, books from the floor to the ceiling. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely would. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

Hi, could you please help clean up the article Vizhinjam International Seaport Thiruvananthapuram? At present, it is written with a promotional tone, and much of the content are original research, and lacks text-source integrity. 2409:4073:31C:4337:F9C9:66CB:C27C:510E (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look; not my cup of tea... PS: I did several Google searches for Ramayanana and mythology, but found no satisfactory sources. Labelling it only as mythology is tok simple, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Hello, Joshua Jonathan,

As the year draws to a close, I would like to extend my warmest wishes to you for a joyous holiday season. May your Christmas be filled with happiness, peace, and cherished moments with loved ones.

Best wishes, NXcrypto • talk

Sending the WikiLove!... Nxcrypto Message 11:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ekdalian (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Wishing you a great New Year full of happiness, joy, and the bliss within that life has to offer.

Also, while here, wanted to ask if you have any recommendation for reading more on Ramana Maharshi's direct guidance on Self-realization through Bhakti. From what I read so far, it seems he mainly preferred Self-inquiry as sort of direct path for jivamukta state? Asteramellus (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus: pfoo... Ramana Maharshi himself was worshipped, as an incarnation of Shiva, but that may be somewhat diffgicult, now that he's not here anymore. But I'd recommand "Talks with Ramani"; it is, to my opinion/taste, one of the most instructive texts on the spiritual path. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. I got the pdf and read a bit - This is great. 4 years of contemporary collection. Thanks so much. Asteramellus (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbarka Sampradaya

Hello. In the spirit of WP:DTTR, I am not leaving you a notice in the customary form. I still need to say that in 2019, you made a number of additions to the prose of the above article. They appear to have been lifted directly from a third-party website[1], contrary to Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I am certain that you had not realised the policy's requirements, but please keep them in mind in future. Should you have any questions, let me know. Best regards, arcticocean ■ 16:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcticocean: as far as I can see, I merged Nimbarka and Dvaitadvaita to Nimbarka Sampradaya, and did not copy info from the Hare Krishna website, unless it was my edit from 12 january 2019 08:30. But that edit added 1,521 bytes, while you removed 3,693 bytes. But correct me if I'm wrong. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That is borne out by a few of the edit summaries too, so I'm sure that was the case indeed. Sorry for suggesting that you had copyvioed. It's been very difficult to understand the history of this article, and the genesis of the content, because so many merge, demerge, and move actions have occurred over the years. Nimbarka was moved to Draft:Move/Nimbarkacharya, for instance, but that page now has no history due to a subsequent WP:ROUNDROBIN… Thanks for your response and sorry to disturb. arcticocean ■ 17:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcticocean: thank you! I was bothered indeed; it's not the kind of source I prefer; and if I use something like that, I use quotation-marks and clear attribution if I deem a londer chunk of text relevant for a Wiki-article. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on the Lingam Page

Hello Hope you are well. On the LINGAM page I removed a small Sub-Talk regarding the Lingam. That consisted some very nasty stuff I said and hence I removed it. I also removed it because that sparked more problems and hence I wanted to remove it once and for all. Please do tell if it is wrong to remove it. Richard3451Grayson --Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardgrayson3451: yes, it is. It was a regular discussion, and there was no need to remove it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering

Would It affect me since I posted some wrong stuff in it? Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go; it's not relevant anymore for what you're doing now. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.

Will not happen again Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysticism: please provide a citation

Hello, in this edit you added a reference to Nikhilanada (1982), pp. 145–160, but I cannot find the corresponding citation. Please could you add it to Mysticism? -- Mirokado (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: the reference had a cite-error, so I copied the conten5s from whoever knows where. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it eventually. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to 2049

"Gopi" seemed to be a pun. Regards, anyway, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:ReckoningOfIgorance, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping thought

This article has already had a contested prod. That means you need to file an AfD if you think it should be deleted. Randy Kryn has already objected to the removal of the article, and I support him. Please follow process, don't just redirect when you know the move is contested. I don't see any evidence that you've discussed this on the talk page and gotten support for it. Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: I see, though I also don't see any reason to keep an article with an u defined topic and only one reference, to a non-RS. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For contentious topics

Thanks joshua for the consideration to remind me to be more vigilant regarding topics related to afghanistan paksitan and india Settlingstar (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

recent correction

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy in dates on Bill Fray.

I had followed this source: 'It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Bill Fay, who died peacefully this morning (February 21st) in London, aged 81,” Dead Oceans said in a statement. “Bill was a gentle man and a gentlema...' from a RS, and I reverted to previous.

thanks again, Augmented Seventh (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

To be continued at Talk:History of India

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.

hello! I recently came across the History of India article and below the "Magadha" section was "the Hindush soldier, from the tomb of Xerxes I" which was wrongly written as "Indian warrior" considering he was a "soldier of the Persian empire" from the "Indus valley" not a "Soldier of Magadha" from the "Ganges valley"

I need advice as I don't want to do something which might be wrong, thanks. Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaiser-i-Mashriq: it was added here, by User:पाटलिपुत्र. I think he can explain more. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaiser-i-Mashriq:, Joshua Jonathan. The warrior is labelled as Hiduya 𐏃𐎡𐎯𐎢𐎹 (h-i-du-u-y) in Achaemenid script [2][3] on the Xerxes and Darius tombs ([4]). This term is translated as "Indian" by Lecoq 1997 p.225 and Encyclopedia Iranica ("Then the enumeration turns southeast, naming Drangians, Arachosians, Sattagydians (Thataguš), Gandharans, and Indians" [5]). According to Lecoq, these lists do not strictly represent Achaemenid satrapies, but rather a list of the people contributing troops to the Achaemenids ("On ne sait pas exactement ce que représentent ces listes de peuples: Il ne peut s'agir, en tout cas, de divisions administratives, à finalité fiscale, de satrapies." p.135). Beyond this, I do not know for certain whether this figure necessarily represents a man from Hindush (then Achaemenid territory), or a mercenary from the lands beyond to the east. Maybe there are more sources on that, but I am not aware of them. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Hindush/Indus" had not developed it's pan south Asian meaning yet, it was specifically referring to the Hindush satrapy of the Persian empire, just like how a soldier from "Macedonia" then don't mean from the "Macedonia" of today but contemporary"Greece" because those places share name only Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I agree with Qaiser-i-Mashriq. These are depictions of tribute payments, and only the Persian provinces paid tribute. The picture is showing the tribute payments from Hindush, not Magadha. This is ridiculous, पाटलिपुत्र! I have seen dozens of mistranslations of even Herdotus, let alone Xerxes! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2025 (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.

Move

The page Empuraan was moved by a new user without any explanation. L2: Empuraan is a stylization, not the actual title (onscreen title is Empuraan - Lucifer 2). Can you move that to its original title? The user also started a page with an arbitrary title L Franchise (film series). The makers has not said anywhere that the franchise's title is "L". Besides, title is also in incorrect format - the disambiguation "franchise" is followed by another disambiguation "film series". 2409:4073:4D1C:705:6C1D:8689:4ACA:6281 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Swaminarayan sect

Why did you revert the article? I added new content that emerged only after the last redirect was created. While I am aware of the talk page discussion, I would note that the article version in my edit is not the same as the one that was being discussed there. I would recommend you to take it to WP:AFD if you believe this subject does not need a separate article. Until then, you should also restore this link at Swaminarayan#Legacy. Thanks. Wareon (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wareon: the criticism is integrated in the Swaminarayan-page; there's no need for a separate page. And you also removed info, without any explanation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for help

Hi Joshua Jonathan, I would like to thank You very much for Your help in supporting my edit on Paul the Apostle. I am very sad that some editors are rude here, reverting any edit which does not comply with their subjective criteria which these editors subjectively pretend as if they are official WP rules for editing. But it is only their interpretation of WP rules

Also my edit on Kings of Israel and Judah was reverted on the basis of violation of "No original research" rule. But I added referenced sources, primary as well as secondary sources, for my edit containing "good and bad kings of Israel and Judah", so I am convinced that I did not break any original research rule.

WP says:

On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.

My edit on good/bad kings fulfills these WP criteria so my edit should not have been deleted. My edit is not my original research. I added primary and also secondary sources. Please, help me with my edit in article on Kings of Israel and Judah as well. Thank You very much in advance. RoccoPexeso (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to explain "original research" to Joshua Jonathan, or to me. What's rude, RoccoPexeso, is edit warring. Your edit on that Good Kings article is terrible, and God only knows what kind of secondary source this is. So, yes, there are in fact rules, esp. for secondary sources: we like peer-reviewed sources, and we like em reliable. Primary sources cannot, for instance, verify that anything is worth citing. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, not only God. I do too. So can you. :) Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, so we learned it's a guy's personal bible blog? :) Drmies (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the blogging pastor is much more humble of his work ("I am not a biblical scholar, nor do I have a history degree.", "designation for each of the reign of the kings is clearly my subjective opinion") than the editor citing him! Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least he's married. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad not only God keeps an eye on my talkpage ;) @Drmies: as fvor the question why being a pillar should be mentioned, the obvious reason is that it gave more authority to Paul's defiant stance, I think. Kind of PR, so to speak. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, my edit on Good/bad kings refers to ranking of kings according to Bible itself, this judging of kings as good/bad can be found in the Bible itself, so any secondary source would be redundant and useless. Even if such a secondary source were to be found, it would only repeat what a primary source - the Bible - has already said. Simultaneously, it is also not my original research, this knowledge comes from Bible. Every editor should be free here in WP to add any information which supplement existing article and thus increase its informative value for all future WP readers. This should be primary goal for all WP editors. In my edit itself the sentence was written "The Bible judges all kings of Israel and Judah by their attitude ..." Why should there be any WP rules which limit editors in their effort to increase of informative value of existing WP article ? Such WP rule would only rob WP articles of their informational value. Plus, some editors interpret WP rules very narrowly and subjectively, and their interpretations again needlessly rob WP articles of their informative value. RoccoPexeso (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoccoPexeso, I wonder what bible you are reading. One that has only clear-cut answers, no questions, no need for interpretation or eschatology. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Drmies, Abecedare, or you want a source that isn't someone's 'blog, there is Puskas & Reasoner 2013, pp. 140–141. Not only does it have footnotes with further sources, and not only is it an academic work, but it also points out reasons that Acts and Galations might not be accounts of the same meeting, and mentions the pillars with references to the Galatians account. I'm sure that it's possible to go even further from there. To Polhill 1999, p. 110–119 for starters, which has footnotes and further reading for the view that does not identify the two meetings, the latter including Barrett 1953, which let's say touches upon the subject of Paul and pillars, and some of the subtleties of the Greek that are lost in translation. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puskas, Charles B.; Reasoner, Mark (2013). "The Letter to the Galatians". The Letters of Paul: An Introduction. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814680636.
Polhill, John B. (1999). "Paul defends his Gentile mission". Paul and His Letters. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 9780805410976. OL 38532M.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley (1953). "Paul and the 'Pillar' Apostles". In Sevenster, Jan Nicolaas; van Unnik, Willem Cornelis (eds.). Studia Paulina in honorem Jr. de Zwaan. Haarlem: Erven F. Bohn. pp. 1–19.

Can't help, sorry

See the note at the top of my usertalk. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: no problem; thanks for reaching out. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Get Real”

Hey Joshua, I really don't know what you're referring to with this:

"Reverted 2 edits by Quill Thrills (talk): Get real. It's not a matter of 'also', it's a matter of 'though': Brahmanic authors appropriating non-Brahmanic culture, to promote their own worldview. You're substantially altering the meaning of the text. Joshua Jonathan DISPLAYED EDIT Apr 6, 2025 at 2:25 PM →top: helping you out, though you probably know very well what's the issue here"

So please educate me. I'm trying to simplify language in an intro so non specialists can actually comprehend. How many high schoolers, college students, or general audience of Wikipedia go on the Gita page and understand the term Brahmanic? If you want to differentiate the two in a nuanced way why not do it lower down rather than the intro?

Also based on the kind of accusatory tone you used above it seems to be a hot button issue to you.

I'm not even aware this is a controversial term and wasn't aware it's possible to say the authors of a text as old as the Gita - when they draw on an idea like Dharma that they were engaging in "appropriation". That sounds absurd when I even type it out. When's the last time a Roman got seriously accused of "appropriation" of Greek culture haha. That's just history blending ideas and one tradition drawing from another as has happened millions of times over in all cultures. Am I misunderstanding your view? QuillThrills (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the whole article? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sure did and none of it explains why someone living in 2025 should be offended by removing actually quite repetitive claims throughout the article that a 2000 year old text has "appropriated" something i assume you must strongly identify with judging by your tone earlier. at some point harping on this brahmanism and not brahmanism thing isnt helpful to the average reader of an encyclopedia article on the Gita. it would be cool if you wanted to start a blog about it, but just seems like undue weight to a somewhat esoteric idea for a wikipedia article... QuillThrills (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "esoteric"; it's a main feature of the text, as explained in the body of the article, and at the talkpage. Let's continue there. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warm greetings, Jonathan!

Greetings!

How are you in life? We used to collaborate on some religion-centered articles (especially in Buddhism), but I've got quite passive (if not almost absent) here for the work and some new members in the family, but I just thought to drop by and say hi! :D

How is the wiki-community still holding up, lol?

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]