User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Why Did Remove Updates?!?[edit]

Hey man. This is Mark Forman, a world's expert on Integral Theory and you removed a host of badly needed updates I put on the page. Every line was absolutely factual, and not everything is citable in a book or white paper - even though I linked several books and you removed them too. I brought the post up to date - here in reality - and you put it back fifteen years.

Do you have any knowledge of Integral Theory at all or do you just police the page and keep it in 2010? Mforman30 (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mforman30: regarding my revert diff: I studied Integral Theory for a couple of years after my graduation in the 90s, and concluded it's a bunch of eloquent bullshit, with Wilber deeply misunderstanding and misrepresenting both the theories and the traditions he's writing about. Obviously, I'm not the only one who drew that conclusion, but some tiny islands of support still seem to hold out.

Luckily, Wiki-policies are easier to follow. Like WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY; we don't use YouTube videos as references, especially not if we have made them ourselves. Or WP:SPAM: we don't use Amazon-links to our own writings, also not when they are from 2010, nearly fifteen years ago (nice irony). Or the organizing entity (IEC) for the statement "Similar attendee credentials have been present at the very well-attended 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2022 U.S. Integral Theory Conferences" - WP:SPAM and WP:OR. And we don't use inline links, especially not in headers.

And, to bring you back into reality: "over 50 published books that utilize Integral in some pragmatic or practical domain" since 2000: that's an average of two per year. Not what I'd call "this deficit has been widely addressed." Or "Bruce Alderman [...] notes that Integral is now being taught in some form in about 12 different colleges and universities, and has been taken up by dozens of individual academics." Where did he say that? In which form is it being taught? At which universities? I'd state it differently: this only underscores the irrelevancy. And Zimmerman surely didn't write that "This reality overrides a previous, early period in the 2000s." For additional input: see Ken Wilber at Google Trends. The direction is clear.

So, if you think I police the page: people like you make it necessary. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: your book, A Guide to Integral Psychotherapy: Complexity, Integration, and Spirituality in Practice, State University of New York Press, has 141 citations at Google Scholar. That's pretty good; I've re-inserted it at the article. Pity, though, that you forgot R. Elliott Ingersoll and David M. Zeitler (2010), Integral Psychotherapy: Inside Out/Outside In, SUNY, and John Dupuy (2013), Integral Recovery: A Revolutionary Approach to the Treatment of Alcoholism and Addiction, SUNY, both also published in the SUNY series in Integral Theory, of which you must be aware; and Andre Marquis (2018), Integral Psychotherapy: A Unifying Approach, Routledge. So, basically, still WP:SPAM and a violation of WP:NPOV.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can clean up how I cite things, but having you as someone you thinks Integral is bs is terrible policy for overseeing the page. I at least know the facts, and what has happened from 2000 to 2024. So I will take another stab soon at updating the page with tighter citations and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. Mforman30 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Citing all the books is a hefty project, but yes of course I know many of them. I will put it in as many as seems feasible. Mforman30 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. - you need applause, yearning for validation? It sounds like you're showcasing that IT doesn't work: talking about ego-transcendence, stuck in self-aggrandising. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: did you know that Danish is not Dutch? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun the process of adding to the page with clear, factual additions and proper citations. Prepare for a lot of additions. If you try to block these sound, factual, properly-cited additions because you have a strong, negative bias against Integral Theory, I will find a way to adjudicate this with Wikipedia.

Here's a question: Do you have the honestly and integrity to stick with the facts as they are here in reality, or will you - simply out of prejudice and out of a power-drive - block these changes? This is up to you and the quality of your character.

P.S. I don't claim to be a flawless knower of all things, or all things Nordic. But feel free to go over my work and look for errors. You won't find a whole lot. Mforman30 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mforman30: despite my scepsis, if you have any questions regarding formatting, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE etc., please ask. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

This whore is reverting my edits everywhere Subodhak Shraman (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Subodhak Shraman: what a language for a Shraman; way to go, dude. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Forman[edit]

You might want to note that @Mforman30: seems to be citing his own publications. Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: no surprise; see my comments at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Why Did Remove Updates?!?. But in this case I'm inclined to say: lei t be. He's a long-time contributor in the discussions on the Wilber's works. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Edits[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anti-Brahminism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

LΞVIXIUS💬 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: action? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bish page blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Doug. I'm disappointed. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style[edit]

Could you please be more careful with the referencing? The article used sfn exclusively, and you keep adding sfnp references. And did you move a listed ref back into the article, or was that Forman? Skyerise (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot find any evidence that Het Atman Project published by Sevire even exists. Please provide the ISBN, OCLC, or a link to establish what book you are citing. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: sfnp seems to have become the preferred format. What do you mean with "listed ref"? Inline ref? And no, I didn't put that back inline, come on. "Het Atman Project" is lying besides me at the table; isbn 90-6325-419-9. The English original of course is fine too, but I have the Dutch translation, which was the quickest way to source the statements.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you include the isbn and language parameters in the citation, then. Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sfnp may be preferred for new articles, but WP:REFVAR says that if an article has an established style, it should not be changed. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dasrajna war[edit]

(TPS: Battle of the Ten Kings)

dont use your headcanon or assumption in wikipedia , 10 kings don't have any background detail

i will look into proof if you got any factual detail on kings background from original source

so remove assumptions edits Simmorta (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I look into detail, some of them are sure Indo-Aryan but not all such as

Alina

Anu

Āyu

Ambaśṭha

Bhageratha

Bhalanas etc

so don't put your assumption unless u think wikipedia is for joke

kindly remove them, also casualties, there is clear detail of casualties....

don't add your fiction. Simmorta (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]