Talk:Wheel of time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Time (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


The sentence "The Kalachakra article of Wikiepdia is not a neutral point of view article because it mostly embraces the views of the schools that have banned Taranatha for three hundred fifty years" speaks for itself. Not to mention the article is written in a way that only those who have done a doctorate on the topic would be able to make head or tail of it, but of course that can't be a cleanup rationale. Loom91 11:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The intent is on one hand to make a space avaliable to speak about Kalachakra where the pressure from peers to obey blindly is not present, and also to make the scholarship available that's not given any space at other venues on Wikipedia.

I've made that clear here about the scholarship in that I've quoted some sources from Taranatha and also underlined that the two aspects of the articles amount to adding to each other if someone uses both as resources for their own research. There's indeed no need for conflict between rivalling articles. (Because)...They're not rivalling articles to begin with.

So, as I say : two goals here. One is the Kalachakra and it's background, and two, the main source of it's history which is Taranatha and his ban's lifting. Two points to follow through on on this sole article. All the rest is taken over and kept busy with at the other article. They're doing what the other one is not doing : sharing the job for each other. They don't want to delve into the history and cleaning up the problems of human rights and abnning. I take care of that. They don't want to delve into the problems of Kalachakra's background sound : I do that as well because that more or less flows out of looking at the ban and it's aftermaths on Tibetan society. Tibetans are also embroiled in the Dorje Shugden thing which also stems out of the banning of Taranatha. Dorje Shugden was highjacked from Sakya by the same fifth Dalai lama as banned Taranatha at the same time. I won't get into that, but those who read that article on Shugden also know this is interlinked. So, Kalachakra is just the sesame opening the whole set of doors to Tibetan minds.

This is not a wheel of time here, but a wheel of linked bits and pieces, one article and another there, and none must be taken apart because they all pull at the same weight, which is the dead karmic weight of the past of the Tibetan mystery and culture, and which must follow it's perfectly prophecied march... just as a clock's mechanism clicks along like a march towards it's rendez-vous with it's time.Geir Smith 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Four tildes

Anyways, the conflicting thorn has been retrieved now. Geir Smith 18:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to go get crucified about it seems. "Nothing to get hung" about. It's just one word that's in question. Links are forthcoming now.Geir Smith 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You were probably seeking to intimidate me with that post-let me say I"m not that easy to intimidate. Look at the following sentence: "Full exposition of this problem is provided outside of Wikipedia, in external sources, only at the site of Geir Smith, the world's foremost authority on Taranatha." You may or may not be an authority on this person, but either way you can't write such things in an Wikipedia article. Every single sentence in this article is completely unsuitable for any encyclopedia.
This article is currently poor almost to the point of vandalism and I'm submitting it for cleanup, which will hopefully take care of the matter. If that doesn't work, I'll be forced to remove a lot of the content in the article since I do not possess the expertise required to rephrase the content in a less offending form, especially as nothing written in this article can be understood by anyone who does not happen to be the worlds foremost authority on Taranatha. If you continue to advertise yourself and your website on Wikipedia articles, it will count as deliberate vandalism.
The best solution would be for you to rewrite the article in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. If you need help on that, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. I understand that you may be a foremost expert on the subject and thus find it difficult to rephrase content in a manner that is not biased towards a particular POV, but unfortunately in an encyclopedia that's exactly what must be achieved. One option is to cut this article down to content I or other editors can keep while maintaining NPOV and you taking your time to rewrite the article at a separate page. Once the rewrite is done in a NPOV manner, we can replace this page with your content.
The next step will be to merge this article with Kalachakra, it is completely against WP policy to maintain separate articles on the same topic preaching two different POVs or two different aspects unless that is mentioned at the title of the page, in which case all the articles will be daughter articles of one master article that summarises the contents of both articles. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Loom91 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nivus and you all,

I'm convinced that all the names for Wheel of time with capitals or not, should be put in the same page with definitions enumerated on them (and the similarities of names be brought into one). As long as the one I've put up remains independant from any other, and clearly respected in it's identity. The whole epsiode of it being banned in Tibet in the 17th century makes for any renewed banning (under peer-pressure) from sectarian factions doesn't seem modern.

I think a little precaution and time should be put into this, because as of yesterday, for example, if one looks at the Kalachakra page, several corrections have been made that frequently concern the Sakyapa school and it's Kalachakra. This means that a rewriting is being done there, in the light of this article on the Wheel of time which is thus influencing the page on Kalachakra. They are thus complimentary and inter-balancing between themselves. And in no way can be thought to just be a copy of each other or that the content of the one is conforming with the other. I'd say that the Wheel of time page is effecting a world of change on the Kalachakra page and that it's better to let the dust settle first and see what comes out of it. I think that the Kalachakra page will freeze up because they can't broach the question of the ban of Jonangpa. I think that the Wheel of time page will evolve while the other one will shrivel up, drawing back from the discussion about the ban. It looks nifty and professional (the Kalachakra page), but for someone who knows the subject like me, the main question is avoided squarely and broaching it seems beyond their scope and capacity. They're only prgrammed to produce the kind of preconceived thing they write theree and not actually discuss issues. If you look at the Dorje Shugden talk page that speaks of similar topics, between the Gelugpa school and it's internal feuding, you'll see that the Tibetans, who are the only ones able to answer back and speak their minds, while Westerners have little to say about these subjects, (because they have no knowledge of them), well Tibetans there have a lot of difficulty speaking, because their English is bad, and also, their ideas are a bit jumbled. The discussions there don't seem to be able to get beyond a point of just settling into some kind of limbo, at the end of their exchanges. Once in a while, they appear to wake up and utter some new incomprehensible mutterings, and then go off, falling asleep again. Much the same will happen, in my opinion, at Kalachakra because, behind the facade, no real challenge to the claims on the Wheel of time page will arise from Tibetans who would want to defend their theses of the Kalachakra page. I'm still working everyday on the Wheel of time page and have already cleared up mountains of mistakes and various other items.

I've tried to streamline it for better viewing and understanding. It's going on at it's own good little pace.

But concerning a merging with a Kalachakra page that's hypothetical (for Kalachakra ! I'm all for it though !). Indeed, if they were on the same page as Wheel of time, even under separate numerotation and sections, they'd be clamouring for it to be banned because the Tibetans of the 17th century had banned it's content. This would be like making cats and dogs get along in a box together. Of course enforcing a 1èth century ban wouldn't work and they'd be debunked by modernity and human rights. I could just ask the UN human rights to give their opinion and they'd never let someone ban an opinion nowadays.

But I said in the beginning here that I'm convinced that's the way (making one page with all on it, the fantasy series, Kalachakra and the Wheel of time - with the small capital-"time".). But for the Kalachakra people on their page, it would mean a world of change and no longer claiming they have the power to ban or silence anyone. For them, that would be big trouble looming. Merging with them is hypothetical, not for effecting the merging, but for them to be able to live with it. I think that if they saw the page of the Wheel of time on the same page... under a different paragraph, they'd go bezerk because that would be saying to them that they are no longer in control and that Tibet is now a dead country that they've lost irretrievably. It would mean that anyone can speak out freely, and say their own truth and not be under their control.

Anyways, I'll still work on it meanwhile, and we can see what changes they do over at Kalachakra, particulary changes that concern my Sakyapa school. They're trying to change their speech about us, but they still remain a very oppressive, repressing force against us/ and they'll never admit that the banning was a crime against freedom of speech. I'd say they're cornered by modern freedom of speech and that their old ways of controlling everyone in Tibet, just don't jell any more.

I'll keep an eye on developments at Kalachakra, and report them back to you as I know this is all pretty tough for you all to follow, and I'll also try to steamline "Wheel of time" some more... and break it down to right size, as well. I know the repetitions are too manyand go off into the marshland : rambling on too much. And also that the meaning is not brought down to the minimal mentionable requirements. Scarcity of language has to be my first problem : saying no more than needed but still saying things.

I'm also looking at reducing or changing the paragraph titles to better meet the required formatted content.

The problem meanwhile,is to also keep an eye on what the developments of this topic are, on the other concerned pages at Wikipedia, but it'll work out slowly if one just takes a day or two to let things unruffle and cool out. The dust has to settle over there and when their moves are clearly outlined and known, the rest is easy as it'll be forseeable how they'll be taking things. Their reaction is the unknown but I forsee that they'll just let things be taken over for them without putting up any resistance. They control all their contents right now, so having other items added to their page or incorporated with them will be like they've been violated adnd their space has been invaded like in Tibet with the Chinese. It'll just be on Wikipedia this time. They can't always claim to be lords on their own land as they're doing now. That's not the modern world and one always has to give and take some. One can't win them all either. I'll keep you all posted on what's happening and what I've been able to garner in terms of observations within the closed world of this particular Tantric deity and it's world.Geir Smith 09:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, I want to know if you are aware of the English transalation of Kalachakra? And please do not add any more comments of such huge proportions on my desk, it really clutters up the space. You can always leave a one line comment under the topic in my desk directing me to read the respective talk page. Nivus 11:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I really can't believe a sane person is making these posts, it's just unbelievable. First of all merging the fantasy series with Kalachakra/Wheel of time is definitely not an option, they are as distinct as topics can be. Secondly, the detailed content about Kalachakra must be moved from Wheel of time to Kalachakra and the Wheel of time article must mention Kalachakra only in a summary manner in a single section and provide a link to the Kalachakra article. This is because Wheel of time is a general concept and not limited to the specific realisation in the form of Kalachakra.
Also, in a free encyclopedia like WP your claim that the content would be censored in the Kalachakra article is not valid, all you have to do is edit the article yourself giving verifiable references showing that your claims are an accepted alternative to the claims of your opponents. If your edits are reverted even after giving verifiable references then that will be vandalism and you can refer the matter to the authorities such as the Arbitration Committee.
We can not maintain two separate articles on the same topic, they must be mentioned as two different viewpoints in the same article. This is an accepted WP policy. Also, you seem to hold the opinion that PRC is justified in occupying Tibet while ignoring the fact that censorship and violation of freedom of speech in PRC is one of the worst in history. You say you are waiting for the dust to settle in Kalachakra, you can take some time but please do not use this as an excuse to indefinitely lengthen the contents existence in this page. Thank you. Loom91 07:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never said anywhere that I approve of Communism. I've always said that the banning I'm criticizing is the 17the century one and added the mention of this being in "ancient" Tibet systematically, so I can't imagine that anyone of any kind of qualification could have overlooked it. Are you qualified for this ? Is this a sectarian agenda you're out on and is this a slander to make me a Red-supporter in your last vandalism here ? At least this letter here will remain, and all will be able to see it and thus discriminate between the grain and the chaff in this.Geir Smith 08:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I do approve of Communism, and what's happening in PRC is anything but Communism. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is simply that contents must be NPOV and must be written in a proper article instead of being pushed in whatever page takes your fancy. Loom91 10:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

New Page[edit]

Because Geir Smith might wish to rewrite the contents of this page in an acceptable form and move them to the article on Kalachakra, I'm currently refraining from deleting the contents of this article. Therefore I'm creating a subpage and moving this content there, which Geir Smith can use as a source for adding content to the Kalachakra article. The Wheel of time article is now being returned to a stub form that is more appropriate.

An accessible summary of the Kalachakra concept may be added here at Wheel of time, but it should be very brief and mention the main concept of Kalachakra in summary style, without going into details about bans and conflicts and definitely without talking about other WP articles being censored! This article is currently a detailed treatment (though rather illegible to non-specialists) of Kalachakra, and the proper Kalachakra article (and subsequently Wikipedia) may greatly benefit from Geir Smith's contributions. Please understand that everything has its proper place. The subpage is /Oldcontent. Loom91 07:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying what content should be and whether banning should be mentionned or not. I'll send this to the Arbitration Committee thus, so that they can see in which way you do your editing of articles. I'll aslo adress this to Amnesty International so they can also speak up about your vision of banning. Thanks for your proividing the basis for a Kalachakra having something to really fight against because "who needs enemies with friends like this" ? Salman Rushdie's banning itself will sure learn from this vision of banning - this time from Buddhists versus Buddhists, in this Jonang, Jalpo, and Kalachakra case. It's good because this does need talking more about, because people don't know about it and stirring it up like you've done here, can only bring it out and make it known. Thanks for the oppressed that want to make their plight known and that I haven't done enough to help. This will sure help them a lot. Geir Smith 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • "I'll aslo adress this to Amnesty International"- you're simply too hilarious :D I had a long and hard laugh after reading that sentence, thanks. I'm not saying what content should be and whether banning should be mentionmed or not. I know nothing of the topic, so I can hardly do those things. The one and the only thing I'm saying is that content should be written from a neutral point of view without biases and that it should go into the proper article (Kalachakra in this case). Please take this into your head:-

The one and the only thing I'm saying is that content should be written from a neutral point of view without biases and that it should go into the proper article (Kalachakra in this case).

These are all WP policies, not my personal opinions. And you have to stop citing yourself as an authority inside articles. 10:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce entry closed[edit]

With most of the material from this artcile mvoed to Kalachakra and the remaining looking OK the taskforce entry has been closed. If you disagree about the article being in good shape please let me know and it can be reopened. RJFJR 15:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Post-Cleanup Question[edit]

First, thx to the Cleanup Taskforce. But, now I wonder is there anything of value left in this article that couldn't profitably be merged into Kalachakra and perhaps a redirect left here? or a dab pointing to Kalachakra and the Robert Jordan books? Zero sharp 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)