User Talk: Joshua Jonathan

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Top icon/Top messages}}
<nowiki>For convenience: {{mdf|1=User talk:Joshua Jonathan|2=reason, ~~~~}}</nowiki>
{|style="float:right;"
|-
|thumb|right|240px|"The avalanche was down, the hillside swept bare behind it; the last echoes died on the white slopes; the new mount glittered and lay still in the silent valley." ''Evelyn Waugh ↗, [[Brideshead Revisited ↗'']]
|-
|thumb|240px|right|'''Archives:''' {{User talk:Joshua Jonathan/archivelist}} {{search box}} ↗
|-
|}
{{User:Joshua Jonathan/Buddha}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive %(year)d
|algo = old(7d)
|counter = 2026
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}

Hence

I appreciate your amazing work on Buddhist topics and your obvious commitment to helping Wikipedia explain Buddhist concepts clearly to a general readership. It's impressive.

I removed the “hence asanga” parenthetical from the White Plum lead because it reads more like an explanatory aside than encyclopedic summary language. The name issue is already explained in the body, especially in the Metcalf paragraph (which I also rewrote). That paragraph discusses the ambiguity--to the extent that it exists--around “White Plum Asanga” and “White Plum Sangha,” and notes that the organization’s own site used “White Plum Asanga,” and explains the meaning of ''asanga'' in context.

Per MOS:LEAD ↗ and WP:NOR ↗, the lead should stay concise and summarize the body content rather than include an interpretive parenthetical. Utahredrock (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Utahredrock I see; thank you for your extensive explanation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Maezumi

It's not appropriate to copy so much word for word from the body of the article. The lead should be a summary. If you don't like my summary, that's fine, but the current lead needs rewritten. More detail is in the body. And yes, this is a major part of his biography. Utahredrock (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:"Not appropriate", "needs rewritten" - because you say so? What's not appropriate is to blur this part of his biography. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Mindfulness resources

Hi Jonathan. One person answered on mindfulness that I cannot ask the lay people resources query. I saw you have written a lot on that page. Would you be able to answer it on your talk space or my talk space? APluralism (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reversion is non-constructive

The reversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71Ceremony) is not constructive. As Indian Subcontinent refers to physiographic region
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent ) while South Asia is more geopolitical (quoting the article).
The edit removed the consensus that does NOT exist in WP:IN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_6#India,_Indian_subcontinent,_South_Asia
On contrary, South Asia, as can be seen, refers to Geopolitical division of that part of the world while Indian Subcontinent is physiographic. — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 71Ceremony (talk • contribs ↗) 
:I gave you a warning diff ↗ for your removal diff ↗ of a warning-message at the top of :Talk:sanskrit ↗, which was ''highly'' disruptive. The noticeboard-thread you're referring to is from 2006. See WP:COMPETENCE ↗ and WP:NOTHERE ↗. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Atomism ↗

recently a user added a statement on atomism article which states that

{{tq|Kanada catagorizes atoms into four categories, viz., simple, binary, tertiary and quaternary atoms.}}
The problem is that we don't know whether the source given is legimate or not and this statement looks much similar to modern atomic theory ideas suggesting it may be a NPOV sentence Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)