User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Indo-Aryan migration

I just saw that on February 7, 2025, Donald Trump announced the creation of the White House Faith Office, to be led by Paula White. See also [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP3YHKghs_4]. JimRenge (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you undoing edits the source clearly states they where from Nuristan and migrated to Chitral but your claiming its a tradition or a folklore and thats not true.

What is your argument regarding this??

Dont tell your a Hindu nationalist you got a be kidding me with your mythology non sense and everyone was Hindu at first it was just Pakistan and Bangladesh for Hindu nationalist now its Afghanistan you got a be kidding me seriously.

Their has to be some changes in the Wikipedia Hindu nationalist are making every one Hindus then everyone is connected with Pashtuns for gods sake.

This country will go no where with a IQ of 70 and China is far ahead seriously. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:A Hindu nationalist? Well, thank you, I take that as a compliment! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Funny how you are routinely labelled as 'Anti-Hindu'. Welcome change right? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes. Big smile! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You haven't answered my question how do you see it as a tradition the source doesn't exactly state as being like a forklore.

::::Or do you have any agreed consensus regarding this. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::See WP:VERIFIABILITY, and Talk:Kalash people#Kalash traditions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not anti Hindu but certainly not being delusional.

:::Giving credit for every thing that's Iranian to Iran also needs to stop in that case just like Zoroaster was not from Iran.

:::Or Avestan is not from Persia or from Iran etc and etc many things.Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the source for the claim of Marathas being tributary of Mughals and nowhere is it mentioned that Marathas were tributaries. Dude please don't revert my changes using sources which do not say that Marathas were tributaries of Mguhals. https://archive.org/details/cambridgehistory035492mbp/page/394/mode/2up Nowhere does it say that Marathas were tributaries of Mughals in the source. Rama1234567 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:For the TPS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Confederacy&diff=1286975899&oldid=1286850868 diff]. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=1287497149] fits within WP:BRD? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Use Talk:Historicity of Jesus, will you? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Its not really relevent to the article, its more a behavioral issue. You appear not to understand that BRD is optional and is never an excuse for edit warring as you did on that page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::BRD is definitely relevant here, as we (you) are repeating a discussion we've had many times before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::BRD is always optional... And just FYI you didn't follow it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Jonathan, I have to agree with Horse Eye's Back. It's always optional. It says it's optional in the first sentence of the essay. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The status of the CmT is supported by an avalanche of sources, and discussed ad infinitum at the talk of Historicity of Jesus and CMT. Removing thoroughly sourced info three times, against a Long-standing consensus and status quo, ignoring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=1287493840&oldid=1287493637 this revert], edit-summary "discussed a thousand times before; please discuss at talk," responding with "If you want to include either that comment or the sources open talk page discussions... If there is previous consensus to point to then do so but you have to be specific and provide a link or diff to that consensus" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=1287496077&oldid=1287494949 diff]- that's why I'm referring to this essay: a bold removal of long-standing sourced info was clearly not appreciated, nevertheless this editor kept on removing it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to add an abstract of the teaching in the lead. But you are correct. It was an oversimplified statement. I should have been more careful. The correct statement should be "In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (chapters 6-8), the instruction "tat tvam asi" ("that you are") declares the individual self (Atman) to be equal to the supreme reality (Brahman) through the aid of metaphors and arguments that cause one to realise the self as an aspect of Brahman's universal reality, and attain spiritual liberation." — Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Satnam2408}} I think you should read the Wiki-article; the correct translation is "That'show you are." What Frazier argues is that the Chandogya aims at a disidentification from finite constituents, and move to identifying with the most-encompassing 'truth' or 'Being'. Tat tvam asi is a 'means' to that goal. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your feedback and for helping to clarify Frazier's arguments. I apologise for the oversimplification of my initial edit, which now appears to be too simplistic in its articulation of the identity of 'Atman' and 'Brahman' without highlighting the process of disidentification from limited constituents and the function of "tat tvam asi" as a tool for identification with the all-embracing 'truth' or 'Being.' Regards, Satnam₂₄₀₈^(talk) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Satnam2408}} Frazier states somewhere in her article, explicitly, that she does not argue that the Chandogya intents to lead to (an awareness) of an unitive or primordary consciousness, but to the 'largest inclusive cognition'. That could also be some sort of 'rational' insight, without necessarily recognising 'Purusha' or witness- consciousness, which is the aim of yoga (but, alas, also of Advaita Vedanta; what's essentially the difference?). Regards Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=next&oldid=1289677746 your edit here] on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Why did you change the threads kept to 5? There are presently 12 different threads running on that talk page with a 30day algorithm, so any thread with a post dated within the past 30 days will be kept. Nothing that has an ongoing discussion will be archived and the TOC code will keep a table of contents even if the threads drop off. Just wondering what is accomplished by keeping 5 threads always on the page. Doing so has editors posting to stale threads that could be a year or whatever old with no recent replies. Within the past several months or years or whatever. - Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Shearonink}} to have an overview of recent discussions, also when they're older than 30 days. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::That particular article talk page has gotten HUGE. It now has 1551 words, with those words clocking in at 9.17 kb. The HTML document size is at 604 kB, with the prose size (including all HTML code) being at 28 kB. WP:TALKSIZE states that "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections." I don't understand what useful encyclopedic purpose is served by keeping threads on the main talk page if they haven't received any new posts within the past month. 12 threads are going to stay I guess. - Shearonink (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)