User talk:TheCitationist

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi TheCitationist! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay8g hey, I'm receiving a bit of aggression from one the editors of Wikipedia and he is using a threatening and aggressive tone. Is there a administrative authority we can call on to take a look into the matter. His handle is Joshua Johnathan TheCitationist (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Vedanta, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan
Hey, thanks for reaching out. Let's discuss this reversion. Having surveyed the literature it appears that the school is self identifying as a distinct school. There are also several peer reviewed research articles that demonstrate the point. TheCitationist (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the existing cited references themselves identify the darshan as expressivly not Vishisthadvaita. TheCitationist (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the talkpages on Swaminarayan; extensively discussed before. Any disruptive editing will be reported to experienced admins. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan wow that is being aggressive. Perhaps we should have experienced admins discuss your aggression. TheCitationist (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tamzin: FYI. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan
Wonderful, let's discuss this in greater detail. The references given for the details are explicily counter to the position that is advocated in the page. We can examine them in greater detail if it is needed. TheCitationist (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example - the first citation which is footnote 67: "HH Mahant Swami Maharaj Inaugurates the Svāminārāyaṇasiddhāntasudhā and Announces Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa's Darśana as the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana". BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. 17 September 2017.
This reference specifically states: "The Śrī Kāśī Vidvat Pariṣad recognizing Śrī Svāminārāyaṇa’s Vedānta as the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana, as Vedic and distinct from the other Vedanta darśanas."
The second citation: (footnote 68) ""Acclamation by th Sri Kasi Vidvat Parisad". BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha. 31 July 2017."
The source content expresses: "Therefore, we all collectively endorse that this Akṣarapuruṣottama Siddhānta that has been revealed by Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa is distinct from Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, and all other doctrines and is a Vedic siddhānta."
Based on the references that are placed on the point being discussed, it appears that categorizing the darshan as it appears would be inaccurate from the facts presented. TheCitationist (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while to find the third resource mentioned (Paramtattvadas 2019, p. 40); however, looking at the source there are two noteworthy changes that should be made:
1. The page number given 40, doesn't seem to have a discussion about the categorization of the darshan.
2. Instead page 69 does. On page 69 it discusses how the question: "How many metaphysical entities does it accept as real and which ones?" is a critical feature for identifying a darshan. It then goes on to explain how Śan˙kara proposes absolute monoism (1), "Rāmānuja’s acceptance of cit {sentient}
and acit {non-sentient} entities in addition to Īśvara {God} allows for both the world to be real and for individual souls to be distinct from God."
And then it mentions how Swaminarayan's school of Vedanta accepts 5 five eternal, real, and distinct entities. Chapter 5 is then dedicated to establishing that position.
In addition to these sources, there are other sources that seem to suggest categorizing the Akshar Purushottam Darshan as distinct. For example: the following peer reviewed journal article authored by Mahāmahopādhyāya Bhadreshdas Swami
"Parabrahman Svāminārāyaṇa’s Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana"
https://doi.org/10.70855/bsrj/1.1-4
(ISSN Print 2583-4029, ISSN Online 3048-9741)
This journal article argues for: "The Akṣara-Puruṣottama Siddhānta as it has been revealed by Bhagavān Swaminarayan (Svāminārāyaṇa) is a distinct darśanic doctrine." Within the article itself, it presents a number of reasons for why the darshan is distinct from Vishishtadvaita.
Given all of this, it seems only accurate to implement the change suggested. TheCitationist (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source that i found that appears to demonstrate the point:
It is from a well-known philosophy blog that is reviewed.
https://indianphilosophyblog.org/2025/05/29/book-review-of-svaminaraya%e1%b9%87asiddhantasudha-by-mahamahopadhyaya-bhadreshdas-swami-reviewed-by-aksharananddas-swami/
The article explicitly mentions:
"Complementing its epistemology is the Darśana’s distinct metaphysical framework. Setting it apart from other Vedānta darśanas, the Akṣara-Puruṣottama Darśana advocates five eternally distinct ontological realities: the jīvas (the individual self), the īśvaras (a class of beings involved in cosmic governance), māyā (primordial substance of the cosmos and the cause of ignorance), Akṣarabrahman (also referred to as Akṣara or Brahman), and Parabrahman (the supreme Being, also known as Puruṣottama)." TheCitationist (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the talk pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan) as you suggested, but could not identify the source of conflict. Could you please identify it and clarify its relevance. Thanks TheCitationist (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya/Archive 2#Relation with Vallabha's Pushtimarg and Ramajuna's Vishtadvaita. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88.
The BAPS may regard itself as a separate branch of Vedanta, but this does not mean it has no roots in the Vedanta tradition (the determination to present itself as an unique tradition shows the opposite....), nor that scholarship regards it as a major tradition, on a par with Ramanuja etc. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan The point being made is not regarding not being rooted in Vedanta. I'm sure they would not say they are not.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "determination." That is a statement of inferred intention which I believe violates Wikipedias policies. Please stick to the facts of the matter. It is also a fallacious and misaligned rebuttle to the detailing of references given.
Additionally, the point is not being made as to the darshan being major or minor. The point is on distinction.
Also, do you have scholarship on it as not being regarded as major or is this just a feeling? What are the metrics for such a determination? What are the parameters for determining major and minor and arewhat are the arguments for justifying the appropriateness of those parameters?
It seems like your disagreements are not founded on verifiable facts, unbiased, nor true to the discussion.
Perhaps this is not the location to litigate the change. TheCitationist (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The metrics are WP:RS; see the Vedanta-article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly take note of the following post on the dispute resolution noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Vedanta TheCitationist (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyaya article

[edit]

@TheCitationist thanks for adding new section/content on Nyaya page - from the large amount of content and single citation at the end, it was difficult to figure out if all of the content was WP:RS - also the content was difficult to read - I have tried to make it concise. You can read Wikipedia:Summary style and also WP:CITE. Asteramellus (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asteramellus ok Thanks for letting me know. The source appears credible as it is from a well known and established peer reviewed journal in the field. Thanks for the edits. TheCitationist (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]