User talk:Joshua Jonathan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fitz Roy framed trees (colour balans).jpg
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 3 years, 7 months and 17 days.
This user has made over
34,000 edits on Wikipedia worldwide.
Editor - gold star.jpg This editor is a Veteran Editor IV
and is entitled to display this
Gold Editor Star.
Blocked rabbit.png
This user has been blocked at Wikipedia 1 time.
Phidippus audax Jumping Spider.jpg This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen
Talk, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, list


Hello, Joshua. I notice you've been helping to archive Corinne's talk page, or at least that's what it seems. I wonder if you could do the same for me. Archiving is one of those things I get worse at every time I do it. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

India - A Sacred Geography[edit]

Hi Joshua, I think you will enjoy this book review. Natarajan, Kalathmika. "India: A Sacred Geography by Diana L. Eck (Review Essay)". Strategic Analysis 37 (3): 366–371. doi:10.1080/09700161.2013.782665.  -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the claim is that this "sacred geography" defined India as a nation and "Hindu" as an identity long before the advent of modern nation-states and the modern "Hinduism". One might even claim that this was the right kind of nation and the right kind of identity, whereas the modern identity gave rise to abominations like Hindutva. The reviewer, however, doesn't seem to make these distinctions. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice coincidence. I've just been watching a documentary, together with my daughter, on the Ganges. Yours is a fascinating country. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this [1] the documentary? It has rave reviews! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it was "Simon Reeve's Sacred Rivers." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


You took time and added neatness in my infobox, similarly guide me for my future edits, if u find any errors then point out or show me the correct path which caters to wikipedia policies Ankush 89 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't do "guidances" anymore, but if you've got questions, or need any help, just ask me. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


A few days ago I read the article on Hermes. I had found an error in a sentence in the etymology section and asked Kwamikagami to correct it. Today, I realized he had corrected it, so I was re-reading the etymology section and I saw an interesting sentence. It's the last sentence in the section Hermes#Etymology:

  • It is also suggested that Hermes is cognate of the Vedic Sarama.

Then I decided to look at the article on Sarama. In the section Sarama#Etymology and epithets I see that Sarama is described as "the runner", "the fleet one", and as being "fair-footed" and "quick". All of those would support the idea that the name Hermes is cognate with "Sarama". I'm wondering if you think it would make sense to include, somewhere in the article on Sarama, a mention of Hermes. I wouldn't know how to word it or what references to use, though. CorinneSD (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense. Indian and European mythology share several gods and mythological beings. Unfortunately, I can't recall any names now, apart from something with Mare (folklore) (nightmares). For references, just use Google, preferably Google Books. Hope that works. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I added another reference: Debroy, Bibek (2008). Sarama and her Children: The Dog in the Indian Myth. Penguin Books India. p. 77. ISBN 0143064703. . Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Dogs also play a role with the Sravaka's (if I remember the term correctly), and are related to the Indo-Europeans. But where did I read that?... Oh, blissfull loss of memory! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha Feedback[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan. I read your message on my talk-page and thought I'd respond on your talk-page, you've obviously given the reversion of my edits some thought and I'm absolutely fine with that. I understand that Wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia and thus objectivity matters... All of the accounts and and quotes that I added were from the Theravada Pali Canon and I've read somewhere that those are the earliest known accounts of the historical Buddhas life... Nonetheless, your point about leaving certain interpretations to the scholars is well taken.. And I'm certainly not a buddhist scholar, just a curious person.

I find those accounts and those texts to be beautiful in their straightforwardness and in the way in which one almost gets transported twenty five centuries back in time to this very interesting period of time in India... Either way that's my subjective opinion and I shouldn't muddle my personal views and inclinations with what is supposed to be objective, encyclopedic content contribution to Wikipedia. Be that as it may, I read your message and I wish you all the best in your continued wikipedia endeavors! 16:53, 23 April 2015‎ Msundqvist

Further response to your thoughts; I've spent many, many hours in my life reading and studying the Pali Canon(although I actually don't consider myself a buddhist, just a person who likes to learn), especially the Sutta Pitaka, and some of your observations are certainly new to me... I tend to think of these different accounts (supposedly uttered by the "Sakyamuni" himself) as sort of different pieces to a puzzle that together somehow make a whole.. This is a deep topic of discussion and there's a lot of detail here that perhaps matters, it seems to me, regardless, your considerations are interesting. Out of all of the philosophies and religions that I've studied in my life, "Buddhism" or the "Dhamma" (perhaps among others) seems very open to personal (on an individual basis) reflection and analysis, and I've no doubt that people will continue to analyze it and think about these things in the future as they do in the present. Take care! 17:05, 23 April 2015‎ Msundqvist

Hi Msundqvist, thanks for your response! Really, for curiosity's sake, read Bronkhorst's "The two Traditions", chapter eight, with the Majjhima Nikaya in hand, to closely read MN 26 and MN 36. It's intriguing, how the interpolaton of the four truths reveals some crucial developments in Buddhist thought. If you like, also read Gombrich's "The Conditioned Genesis," chapter four, on dhyana versus insight. It's essential for understanding not only Buddhism, but also Yoga and Advaita Vedanta, and even neo-Advaita and pop-buddhism: does 'a flash of insight' suffice, or is there more to be discovered and integrated? Roller-coaster spirituality, aiming for a good feeling, versus real-life spirituality, aiming for a real life in which pain, failure and disillusionment can have it's proper place. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
NB: don't forget to sign with ~~~~. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


I was looking at the latest edits to Hafez. Is this correct [2], or was it correct to say "Persia (now Iran)"? Also, if you look at one or two edits before this one, you will see that blog websites have been added; there's a list of several. Are all of those websites appropriate? CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSD, at Gautama Buddha we always say "Kapilavastu, present-day Nepal." So, from that point of view, the edit is not correct. If the blogs are used as sources, that may be problematic. If they are merely external links, that may be okay, if they provide correct info, or a relevant point of view. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for "brilliantly" copyediting my recent edit. Kudos! (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! "Brilliantly" means you like it, I hope? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Osho's exclusion from you[edit]

Hi... Kindly explain the exclusion of Osho's contribution to the Ten Bulls... The reference of the book was also cited... How is it undue weight?

Dilara.adim Dilara.adim (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Osho's comment "We enter on a rare pilgrimage. The Ten Bulls of Zen are something unique in the history of human consciousness... The Ten Bulls of Zen have tried in a single effort to express the inexpressible." doesn't add any information to the article, only the opinion of a non-Zen guru, which is not relevant here. See also [3]. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Notes at Pratītyasamutpāda[edit]

Greetings Joshua! How are you doing these days? :-) Anyway, I noticed that in order to shorten the article Pratītyasamutpāda, you resorted to replacing some of the material with Notes that include sources as well. I remember there was an article with a similar solution that I edited, Oddfellows (old version, see references 1 and 2), and when I asked an experienced editor Cullen328 about the matter, his opinion was that each source should be pertained to separately (here's the specific diff, and here's the discussion in whole). This, of course, is not according to any existing policy, guideline - nor an administrative opinion - but that just caught my attention.

I'm also in a strong favor of summarizing the article, so I am not making any objections with regards to your recent edits. But citations within citations (/notes), that's what I got curious about.... :-P

Any thoughts? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Over-extensive usage of quotations; most of them I moved to notes (quotes), to get them out of first sight. Of course info should be properly sourced, but that's a next step. For the moment, shortening was my main concern. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that. I recently included a quotation to the {{citation}} template at the Gyaincain Norbu article[4]. Perhaps some of the smaller quotations could be replaced that way? That's how we could kill two birds with one stone without requiring a separate Notes -reference. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)