94.210.203.230 (talk) |
Bladesmulti (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
::So tell me, why should we even debate with a frauding person who also has extreme [[WP:JDL]]? - [[Special:Contributions/94.210.203.230|94.210.203.230]] ([[User talk:94.210.203.230|talk]]) 16:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
::So tell me, why should we even debate with a frauding person who also has extreme [[WP:JDL]]? - [[Special:Contributions/94.210.203.230|94.210.203.230]] ([[User talk:94.210.203.230|talk]]) 16:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::You are misunderstanding my comment because you are not [[Wikipedia:COMPETENCE|competent enough]] to understand it. You haven't correct there. I don't want to discuss your nonsensical speculations, furthermore you are also misunderstanding the linked argument, nowhere anyone claimed that I am falsifying sources, did anyone? At least learn to spell the words and consider using the words that are actually listed under the English dictionary, instead of making up your own words. Yes there's no need to debate when you are really [[Wikipedia:INCOMPETENT|incompetent]] in these matters, and avoid more when you actually misinterpret the discussion in order to make [[Wikipedia:POINT|point]]. Any publication from Oxford University Press, relevant with the subject cannot be disregarded as ''"dubious, outdated''". [[User:Bladesmulti|Bladesmulti]] ([[User talk:Bladesmulti|talk]]) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:34, 2 January 2015
![]() |
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! |
| |||||
![]() Archive 2012 Archive 2013 Archive 2014 Archive 2015 |
Excessive emphasis on Longchenpa and Jigma Lingpa
Read THIS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Great! History is fascinating, isn't it, once you get passed the mythology? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Try this paper.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I already knew of the existence of this paper; good to have a link/ Thanks. At least some scholarly discussion; that's good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Semde is tantra too
Where did you get the idea that semde is not tantra?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did I write that?Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- You say that the Space and Instruction series were transformed by tantric influences, which implies the Mind series isn't tantra.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I already thought that you meant that. I've tried to nuanced it; I'll try to clarify it further. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You say that the Space and Instruction series were transformed by tantric influences, which implies the Mind series isn't tantra.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"Religion, Medicine and the Human Embryo in Tibet" has a lot about Dzogchen.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello
? ....Can you find sources? Find sources: Mohammad Ejuddin ... or Bladesmulti or any talk page stalker Hafspajen (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Kalachakra
“The shifting terrain of the tantric bodies of Buddhas and Buddhists from an Atiyoga perspective”. (2007) by Germano talks about Menngagde being derived from Kalachakra.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see Buswell and Lopez listed in the Sources section.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Act of Vandalism by editor 468SM
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/%D0%9C%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%88%D0%B8.jpg/220px-%D0%9C%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%88%D0%B8.jpg)
Dear Joshua, I deleted some parts in the article Hinduism, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism&action=history, especially the "theory of iranian migration" to India, Author 468sm cites sources which are mostly books, thus opinions that Iranians and Europeans migrated to India. I had cited, the archaeology department link, harvard studies, a university study and other indian researches and newspapers. Idea of migration is a personal opinion, as of now it is imposed very strongly, perhaps it would help if you edited the text to fairly display both the sides. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pydisc (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The edits by 468SM were all reverted. You removed a great lot of reliable sources, and replaced them by typical unreliable stuff to promote a nationalistic point of view. You may believe whatever you like, but India is a melting pot of cultures. So what? Your country has a great and rich history, and its complexity only adds value to this greatness. Be proud of these origins, and enjoy the fact that you and me share the Indo-European source. Did you celebrate the winter-solistice? We did; I love it. thanks to our forefathers at the Ukrainian steppes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also remembering that Europe and Asia had been much vandalized throughout 1st - 20th century CE. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- "We" Europeans are very good at vandalizing ourselves; concentration-camps were an European invention... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also remembering that Europe and Asia had been much vandalized throughout 1st - 20th century CE. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Germano 2004 or 2005?
In this section you have "Germano 2005, p. 2548". But elsewhere you have "Germano 2004, p. 2547." etc.VictoriaGraysonTalk 08:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Guugu
Anyone home? Hafspajen (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Vicente_Carducho._El_Paular_03.jpg/220px-Vicente_Carducho._El_Paular_03.jpg)
- Has anything like that ever happened to you
? Our Lady of the Sign ... no, haven't heard of it, will check. Hafspajen (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Aha, yes, I did new about it, but I didn't knew that it was called Our Lady of the Sign. Hafspajen (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[1]
- Has anything like that ever happened to you
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Much love to you, JJ. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks, though I'm not sure if I'm a good help for your position (what's in a name...) on Malasana. Anyway, I've been typing Sanskrit for the first time in my life. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Help with your mentee
I believe that your mentee bladesmulti has started using extraordinary means to destroy the Malasana page. I am at risk of over reverting, but he has removed almost all practical information from the page using a secondary user name User:TheRedPenOfDoom to avoid being reported. But it is pretty clearly the same user with similar editing history. He also deleted the account after making the edits. This is bordering on ban worthy. I'm afraid to revert changes. Help please if you can, either convincing him to stop massive undiscussed changes to the page, or reverting it for me so I can avoid warring with him. And thanks for all your work on wikipedia! Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changes were discussed, and it is funny that this time someone is claiming that TheRedPenOfDoom and I are one person. You don't have to be afraid anymore because your Wikipedia:HOAX has been removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hoax? Is the TheRedPenOfDoom a hoax? Or the practical information? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- What extraordinary means ? He is mine too, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Joshua Jonathan!
Happy New Year Joshua Jonathan!
- The fireworks is getting better and better! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Hey (and a few happy year ;) ) thanks for your addition to the discussion we had yesterday. I wonder, do you know where this source CrusadeWatch, Impact of Evangelism on Hindus WorldWide you added to this article gets its data from? I tried searching for very long, but I can't find any other link/place mentioning any number of Hindus in Iran, and as far as I see neither does the linked source do so. Sounds unreliable to me on my girst glance. Any opinion? - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sort of unreliable, I guess. Those guys s***, of course, interfering with local religions, but my guess is that they are quite well informed on their statistics. Kind of management-info, I guess; where to go for maximal effect? Any way, I guess there are not so many Hindus in Iran. the influence seems to have been the other way round: from persia to India. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah it never really had a foothold anywhere in West Asia. Anyway that site sorta sounds to me like the Joshua Project, another one of those pseudo-scnientific sites which don't mention how they calculate or how they gain their sources. So yeah not really reliable at all. Imo, lets just leave the number estimation out for the better case. (its extremely marginal in any case, like in the rest of West Asia save for the Gulf nations/Saudi Arabia). Bests - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Joshua Projecr - what's in a name?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Something is better than nothing. That's why I hadn't removed that citation and estimate seems logical. He is referring to joshuaproject.net Bladesmulti (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Blades here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I was referring to the Joshuaproject.com anyway it doesn't mention how it gathers its data neither how they calculate it, so it doesnt matter. Like with the joshuaproject, there was a debate about it and the outcome was that is shouldn't be used.[[2]] There's no other source backing up this number (or any number for that part) so, imo, just leave it out. It makes no sense to "guess" at such things while there are no real sources about it. And there's no way ever that that number can be correct as there are only like 700 Indians in Iran. Assyrian, Armenians, Jews etc are all well established long-time existing groups in Iran with dozens of churches, organisations, you name it, and a number of ~50,000 Hindus would even mean there would be more Hindus than Assyrians, who are between 20,000 and 50,000 atm and very well known. (and again, no one ever heard of any sizeable amount of Hindus in Iran) Not even on April Fools day, no. So it doesn't make sense at all on this very point as well. Hindus in Iran would be no more than the amount of sikhs in Iran, which comprise 60 families, and about whom are actually numerous sources. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- 68,000 seems logical and sensible.[3] Knowing that a number of Hindu missions were active until 1979, they probably attracted more than other minorities of Iran did. Now we have a reliable book citation too. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I was referring to the Joshuaproject.com anyway it doesn't mention how it gathers its data neither how they calculate it, so it doesnt matter. Like with the joshuaproject, there was a debate about it and the outcome was that is shouldn't be used.[[2]] There's no other source backing up this number (or any number for that part) so, imo, just leave it out. It makes no sense to "guess" at such things while there are no real sources about it. And there's no way ever that that number can be correct as there are only like 700 Indians in Iran. Assyrian, Armenians, Jews etc are all well established long-time existing groups in Iran with dozens of churches, organisations, you name it, and a number of ~50,000 Hindus would even mean there would be more Hindus than Assyrians, who are between 20,000 and 50,000 atm and very well known. (and again, no one ever heard of any sizeable amount of Hindus in Iran) Not even on April Fools day, no. So it doesn't make sense at all on this very point as well. Hindus in Iran would be no more than the amount of sikhs in Iran, which comprise 60 families, and about whom are actually numerous sources. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Blades here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Something is better than nothing. That's why I hadn't removed that citation and estimate seems logical. He is referring to joshuaproject.net Bladesmulti (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Joshua Projecr - what's in a name?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah it never really had a foothold anywhere in West Asia. Anyway that site sorta sounds to me like the Joshua Project, another one of those pseudo-scnientific sites which don't mention how they calculate or how they gain their sources. So yeah not really reliable at all. Imo, lets just leave the number estimation out for the better case. (its extremely marginal in any case, like in the rest of West Asia save for the Gulf nations/Saudi Arabia). Bests - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Modern day sources for the amount of Sikhs in Iran are 60 families, while that source you gave says 14,000 so that just cant make any sense.[1][2] There's virtually no story about Hinduism in contemporary Iran except for some Indian settlers, so I dont see the point of hammering on numbers and theories that could or could not be true. All other numbers for religious minorities and ethnic groups are outdated per your source as well (Armenians one for example, another Zoroastrians who actually number 28,271 per 2012.[3][4][5] so that confirms my statement again. If there were any Hindus in Iran, 95%+ of them were just Indian settlers like in the rest of West Asia. This is obvious. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Each of these citations that you have mentioned are unreliable for speculating about religious demographics. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Modern day sources for the amount of Sikhs in Iran are 60 families, while that source you gave says 14,000 so that just cant make any sense.[1][2] There's virtually no story about Hinduism in contemporary Iran except for some Indian settlers, so I dont see the point of hammering on numbers and theories that could or could not be true. All other numbers for religious minorities and ethnic groups are outdated per your source as well (Armenians one for example, another Zoroastrians who actually number 28,271 per 2012.[3][4][5] so that confirms my statement again. If there were any Hindus in Iran, 95%+ of them were just Indian settlers like in the rest of West Asia. This is obvious. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- /facepalm. For the Sikhs you mean. That's because virtually all of them are still Indian citizens after all those years, hence they are not included in the census, neither has virtually anyone heard of them. Stop making bogus allegations that there is some kind of spiritual bonding between West Asians and Indians based on millenia old linguistic/religion ties, seriously. (you kind of did it before as well when the discussion was about Vedic and stuff) There is virtually 0.0% history of Hinduism in West Asia. It's all brought there by Indian settlers. That's why theyre not included in any of the censuses either. The same way they're bringing it now en masse to the Gulf nations due to migration related to work etc. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was talking about religious demographics, that can be about any religion. You are using dailymail, ndtv as a citation for speculating religious demographics. None of them mentions the population of this(68,000) Hindu population figure, yet you are trying to refute it by stating about the population of Sikh. You are only wasting your efforts. We don't have to stick to Iranian Government' census for claiming the population data, because we haven't stated anything like "According to Iran census" for stating these statistics. Do you have any citation for claiming even a single sentence of yours to be well known in academia? History also tells that even Buddhism reached to Iraq, but today you there is no population of Buddhists in Iraq, doesn't means that there was no relevance before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Buddhism=/=Hinduism, so that analogy doesnt make sense. They have different histories. I can give another 10 sources of all various kinds which back up that number of 60 sikhs if you're so bothered about that. While you cant for your Hindu story. You cant change/switch religion in Iran as there's the death penalty on it too. *sigh* All Hindus in Iran are Indian settlers. There are 700+ Indians in Iran nowadays and 60 Sikh families and this is backed up by tons of sources, newspapers, you name it. A very very low amount. Ask any Iranian about any community of Hindus in Iran and he/she will stare at you. It's totally unheard of this story you're bringing, both before the revolution and after. The amount of Hindus there or anywhere in the Middle East is fully intertwined with the amount of Indian settlers. The sooner you understand this, (I know why you're precisely hammering on Iran out of all of West Asia) the sooner you will drop your pan-India rhetorics. You know you dont have any reliable sources, (I proved this for the previous one and for this one as well) yet you're hammering about displaying a bogus number specifically on this one article. Come on, we saw your comments and your editing reasons before on behalf of the history section on the same article we're talking about, but you really need to drop some of your fantasies. Thank you 94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Did I actually said that Buddhism = Hinduism? It is you who is making these nonsensical assumptions by claiming "Sikh/Hindus = Indians only". I have already provided source the 68,000 estimate that was added by JJ, and it is well backed by a reliable author, and reliable publisher(Oxford), yet you are only making up nonsensical speculation by providing some unreliable(for religion) weblinks that are not even discussing Hindu population. Repeating same speculation is not helpful. Wikipedia:I just don't like it clearly applies on you, it is what you are doing when you are trying to refute a book, published by Oxford University Press, with your incompetent argument. Just because I was wrong about the terms "Vedic religion" and "Indo-Iranian religion", that doesn't means that any of your original research becomes automatically true. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't say it, but you used that analogy. And I corrected you on it. I told, changing religion in Iran holds the death sentence. Or you wanna state this aint true as well or what? No Iranian citizen can convert to Hinduism/whatever religion. Understand this. Yet you keep hammering on these nonsense ideas based on some third-hand sourced/outdated/dubious book that doesnt even cite/source how it got its numbers (I showed you that it was wrong for many other populations/ethno-religious groups too). It even refers on the same page you linked me a reference to Wikipedia (!) as a source. We saw your comments before on the same article. You try and tried before to link Hinduism to West Asian nations without substantial facts and even with falsification/wrong interpreting of sources, even though I busted you on it. Or you forgot that discussion? I can refresh it if you want by copy-pasting it. In fact it's not the first time you get caught on falsifying sources and intepreting things the way you want to believe them.[[4]]
- So tell me, why should we even debate with a frauding person who also has extreme WP:JDL? - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding my comment because you are not competent enough to understand it. You haven't correct there. I don't want to discuss your nonsensical speculations, furthermore you are also misunderstanding the linked argument, nowhere anyone claimed that I am falsifying sources, did anyone? At least learn to spell the words and consider using the words that are actually listed under the English dictionary, instead of making up your own words. Yes there's no need to debate when you are really incompetent in these matters, and avoid more when you actually misinterpret the discussion in order to make point. Any publication from Oxford University Press, relevant with the subject cannot be disregarded as "dubious, outdated". Bladesmulti (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- So tell me, why should we even debate with a frauding person who also has extreme WP:JDL? - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)