User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:34, 31 January 2016

Userboxes

This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 10 months and 5 days.

This user has made over
42,000 edits on Wikipedia worldwide.

This editor is a Senior Editor and is entitled to display this Rhodium Editor Star.

This user has been blocked at Wikipedia 1 time.

This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen

Alien Mentor collection Thanks Hafs!
Now what kind of grammar was that? Be POLITE!! Darth Vader Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them I don't like the way you do your citations... That sentence, you need to reword it. It's too near original'.

File:Kalachakra el paso 2012.jpg

Appreciation. For the Kalachakra sand mandala above, see Archive 2012

en:User:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha/message

Please see Smarta Tradition page

Please see Smarta Tradition pageVictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: I've seen the message; will read & answer in detail later. Please remind me if I forget. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald James Larson

Hi JJ, Am I correct in assuming that Gerald James Larson is a scholar of Hinduism? Is he the one that coined the Neo-Hinduism term, or was it already in existence? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the redirect. The term is older; see Neo-Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good review there. But Larson's use of "Neo-Hinduism" seems broader than what is indicated there, i.e., going beyond Vedanta. To Larson, even Gandhi was a neo-Hindu and India's secularism is a neo-Hindu idea. We might need a separate article on Neo-Hinduism. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

"Although we find India's Agony over Religion a book of lasting value and interest, we are troubled by its main thesis: that the dominant feature of India's political culture is a comprehensive neo-Hinduism. Larson argues that neo-Hinduism constitutes the "civil religion" of India's national elites, from Nehruvian secular humanists committed to a "scientific temper," to old and new Gandhians, to the deeply Hindu, Muslim-excluding sangh pariwar (the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh [RSS], Vishva Hindu Parishad [VHP], and Bharatiya Jamata Party [BJP])." - Susanne and Llyod Rudolph [1]

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am beginning to agree with "Neo-Hindu" used as a label, suggesting novelty and innovation. On the other hand, "Neo-Hinduism," which is almost seen as a new religion (and a symmetric combination of old Hinduism and Western ideas, or even predominantly Western ideas couched in a Hindu language) is a much more radical viewpoint, and naturally offensive to its adherents. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: critics may be correct that the terms "neo-Vedanta" and "neo-Hinduism" are value-loaden. And I have to admit that Vivekananda is fascinating, with his inclusion of social activism within his ideas. Alas, "innovation" is nothing new; see John McRay's Seeing through Zen. It's only when people try to present the new as old, and battle over it, that it becomes, well, a battle. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to distinguish between the two senses (which always seems to happen with Hinduism for some reason). (1) "Neo-Hindu" as a label, and "Neo-Hinduism" as their ism. This seems acceptable to me. (2) "Neo-Hinduism" as a religion and "Neo-Hindus" as its followers. This seems much more questionable and perhaps value-laden. RM probably doesn't see these distinctions. But I am more interested in the first view, which seems to be Larson's view. Even though it has been rubbished by the reviewers, it seems to have merits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aum Shirikyo article

Why do you revert changes? I removed absurdities and added valuable info. What specifically is what you object to and why. Could you write to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed was sourced; the text you added was unsourced. I get the impression you're involved with this organisation, which is WP:COI. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for example I could source with Chinese sources to your articles on Buddhism and I don't do that cause quality of thoe sources is dubious. While you maintain that dubious sources justify quoting in the article text as long as there are some sources (and people do not work for Aum Shinrikyo, if I understood you correctly). For instance, you insist that KGB arrested own employee who is also an Aum Member, that karma is to be written with an 'h': kharma (harm-a, as from 'harm'), that Aum member hijacked a plane, that all is wrong. You seem to be interested in Buddhism, have you any idea why people do not edit your articles with sources from China state newspapers? Cause they are full of allegations and fakes. Did you check on each of these allegations? Just one link to the source is enough? Go check, its all been proven untrue. How am i supposed to be 'involved' with Aum? This is my real name, you could check what I am invoved with really with Google. Are you a Buddhist? Are you involved with Buddhism? Then why do you edit articles on its teachings? Let the Chinese do it. Go ahead, check. Are you lazy to google? Yuri Kozharov (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cult-link-unclear-in-hijack-of-Japan-plane-3143553.php

This is particularly on why the plane passage is a made up fake. Lets not revert the meaningful edits. I specifically remove made up stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for toda, the edit I performed stands, no reverts. Thank you. Could you help in another matter? On Russian wiki in the article on Aum Shinrikyo (no, I am not actually 'involved with the organization', this particular one) article claims, with source for such claim the newspaper article (1995) that the group is "in terrorist organizations list" in Russia. Now, I know it is not and checked with reliable source, a government body that maintains such lists, the FSB (Federal Security Service, formerly the KGB). Admins lecture me on how this is irrelevant, and before I requested mediation did not engage in Talks even, but appealed to Administrators with request to block me. Now, as to the edit, removal of the word 'Russia' in passage on 'on terrorist orgs list', continue to appear as if they do not understand me and saying I "do not understand" and avoid discussion, which the mediators suggested we have, in talks. Yet on own Talk pages both these several people discussed me in words like "hey, thats our old mate", "i suggest permanent block, so that not to torture cats" and "nothing will turn out of him IMO"... I have the impression that they are active opponents of minority religious groups and dissenters of any form, and to them I am 'defending the cult'. They also referred the admins to Warning I recently got in the US wiki, seems to be of importance in Russia, and issued me 3 warnings etc. In English wiki the matter is resolved, but the Russian continue to defend what amounts to a very bad quality article, which however seem incidentally has tons of links and which has even grammar and style-related unresolved problems. Could you look in the matter? And discuss the issue as what counts as primary source?

Redirect request

Sir please can u redirect the article Hum to Tere Aashiq Hain to Hum To Tere Aashiq Hain. User:MarathiPaulPadtePudhe —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarathiPaulPadtePudhe: sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much sir. MarathiPaulPadtePudhe (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Psychology of Religion paragraph

Hello Joshua Jonathan! Many thanks for your contact and helpful links following my first Wikipedia contribution attempt. Could you explain why you deleted the paragraph I contributed to this page? I am doing my best to learn the ways of Wikipedia as expediently as possible and am assuming that it was because, in my bewilderment, I had not yet included citations. Any further guidance would be greatly appreciated as I find my way around. Kind regards, RMOxtoby (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 :::This is particularly on why the plane passage is a made up fake. Lets not revert the meaningful edits. I specifically remove made up stuff.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Yuri Kozharov|Yuri Kozharov]] ([[User talk:Yuri Kozharov|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yuri Kozharov|contribs]]) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:::As for toda, the edit I performed stands, no reverts. Thank you. Could you help in another matter? On Russian wiki in the article on Aum Shinrikyo (no, I am not actually 'involved with the organization', this particular one) article claims, with source for such claim the newspaper article (1995) that the group is "in terrorist organizations list" in Russia. Now, I know it is not and checked with reliable source, a government body that maintains such lists, the [[FSB]] (Federal Security Service, formerly the KGB). Admins lecture me on how this is irrelevant, and before I requested mediation did not engage in Talks even, but appealed to Administrators with request to block me. Now, as to the edit, removal of the word 'Russia' in passage on 'on terrorist orgs list', continue to appear as if they do not understand me and saying I "do not understand" and avoid discussion, which the mediators suggested we have, in talks. Yet on own Talk pages both these several people discussed me in words like "hey, thats our old mate", "i suggest permanent block, so that not to torture cats" and "nothing will turn out of him IMO"... I have the impression that they are active opponents of minority religious groups and dissenters of any form, and to them I am 'defending the cult'. They also referred the admins to Warning I recently got in the US wiki, seems to be of importance in Russia, and issued me 3 warnings etc. In English wiki the matter is resolved, but the Russian continue to defend what amounts to a very bad quality article, which however seem incidentally has tons of links and which has even grammar and style-related unresolved problems. Could you look in the matter? And discuss the issue as what counts as primary source?
 == Redirect request ==