Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalachakra King

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalachakra King

Jonas Silk has no past on Wikipedia and is requesting deletion practically exclusively for this page. He created his account at Wikipedia just for this. Not reliable. Request for deletion to be rejected by Wikipedia. No experience on Wikipedia. Sock Puppet. Unreliable. Geir Smith 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Removal of deletion tag and clean up tag. Wikipedia policy on deletion says that deletion should not be problem and create unnecessary disruption. In the case of doubt one can always keep the article and/or undelete an article. This is a case of doubtful nomination.Geir Smith 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I also have a link to the latest person, Nat Krause and his intervention on the deleting process of another page in which he shows excessive use of deleting without exchanging, and thus shows unrestrained use of his account bordering on vandalism but also POV in view of his belonging to a religious group. Geir Smith 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now today, Nat Krause deleted two times without previous talking to people on one page, repeatedly (the same section of the same page), in his usual pattern of behaviour. POV and against Wikipedia of wrongful deletion. I've warned him there that three reverts in less than a day makes his editing rights be suspended by policy : so he's been warned if Wikipedia chooses to suspend him. His vandalism is wrong and his POV in his obstinate reverting and deleting is also wrong. How much can one stand from the same person over and over ? Geir Smith 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixing incomplete nom by Jonas Silk. No opinion at this time.--Isotope23 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A new version of the deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Kalachakra. It's a POV fork of Kalachakra, most of which is reproduced wholesale. unsigned by Jonas Silk

• I'm not going to fight for this deletion because the issue has been taken up previously. The present content is not the same as the New Kalachakra page at all and is totally changed from other versions before it. Someone claiming it is identical is not in good faith. I prefer for people to unvote the deletion tag here and not intervene myself. People can just make up their own minds about it. Also, how can one see New Kalachakra so as to compare the claims of Jonas Silk ? I'll just let people judge and it's really just one keep vote that starts the ball rolling to keep it. The best test would be for people to look at Kalachakra to see if they're the same and then they'll see that Jonas Silk is just saying rubbish. Each paragraph is different and the outcome of the articles are opposite in their messages. Geir Smith 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. Stifle 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Question: is Kalachakra King really just a recreation of New Kalachakra? If so, then there's no question it should be redeleted. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If an admin could compare Kalachakra King to the deleted New Kalachakra, it would be helpful.--Isotope23 13:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • They are different. Stifle 22:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks Stifle!.--Isotope23 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
        • It is only about 10% different than the deleted article and the original fork. Jonas Silk 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete asassinate all POV forks in the face ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that this article is almost wholly a POV fork of Kalachakra. Compare this edit on Kalachakra, March 7, with the current version of Kalachakra King (an article which was started March 18). Kalachakra King is framed by a short introduction Mr. Smith wrote, which, unfortunately, adds basically no intelligible information. In addition, this introduction contains a self-referential quote from Kalachakra. Therefore, I vote to delete, although it would be just about as good to simply redirect to Kalachakra. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

* Comment:: I believe that this is at least the 3rd delete on articles within this direct subject-area, and on at least 2 I feel sure I have seen notes that there is a "dispute" on theological grounds between two sides. I know nothing of either, but I feel that whichever admin resolves this nomination needs to be sure that Wiki-process is not being used to push one PoV and throttle another. -- Simon Cursitor 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite plausible that there is a real theological dispute here. Unfortunately, this has never been documented on Wikipedia with anything resembling useable sources; instead, what we get is a series of half-intelligible rants citing mostly unrelated websites. Assuming that there is an underlying real-world controversy, it's actually quite unfortunate that the one user who seems to know about it has so far been unable to productively add info to Wikipedia about it. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is a dispute about this. Simon Cursitor, the camps that are hashing it out in this are the following : the Dalai Lama camp that's trying to silence the camp of Shugden that suports a kind of demon-spirit called the King-spirit aka Gyalpo or "Dolgyal", another of its names. Then there's the camp of others that are not really concerned with this mess in politics of Tibet, which is my Sakyapa, (Ngorpa) school, Tibets second bieggest behind the Dalai lama school (both the feuding parties above - Dalai and Shugdens - are of that same school feuding amonst themselves !!!). ALso compounding on this dispute and overlapping it is another closely related dispute : that around Jonang. They're actually the same because Shugden was taken from our Sakya school in the 17th cent. and used by the Gelugpas and produced their fighting about it today. (It's very complicated unless given good space on the page to elaborate scholarly a bit and not just quick like here). Now, Kalachakra was the main teaching of Jonang and passed down to all from it. It's main master was Taranatha. Now the person who knows about this all is me. I can make this page go in other directions : englobing the subject of the king-sprit and the Jonang page of Ban on Jonang. This will thus make it lose even more of what was part of the Kalachakra page (which is already not important on it). I know this seems complicated for those who don't know about it, but I'm tryig to explain here. Those who know here, will understand this though, and maybe weigh in seeing the intent is honest and good on my side. I can make an effort to reformat and wikify the page. I can encyclopedize it with references to all the words in the first introductory part and so forth. I've never taken the time to go into such detail because of the flak from either of these parties involved always meddling in each and every move I make. Now the people intent on getting me deleted are doing so from POV motives because they're either with the Shugdens or with the Dalai. There are also those who want to further the ban on the Jonangs against the Kalachakra being claimed back by the Jonangs and this is POV too, of course. This is furthering a three hundred year old ban. But all these guys want me deleted so they can basically go back to bashing each other. My article doesn't really bother them, because I speak about neither of them, just about my own schools approach that's non-sectarian and non-confrontational, being part of a tradition that came before them, and has no links to them (either of them). The Jonangs belong to my school before the Dalai school took it over and banned it forcefully. If I can get even half a mandate to be able to work peacefully and just work on making this page legible, well good. Or else I give up. These boys jumping me and ganging up for lynching because this is a disputed subject makes me laugh honestly, because it's like building a sand castle in a hurricane. They're so POV that it's laughable too. So, yes, Simon, it's a disputed subject. The people deleting it will only go POV back into in their own camp and the subject will still; not have been resolved. I propose to make a different article altogether and take it into real historical research without POV whitewashing which is what is going on at the other page that doesn't accept anyone giving a different version of a history that they admit themselves is "a mass of contradictons" (that's what they say on the page itself. Ha ha ha ! They can't go forward and are too stubborn to back up and admit they're stuck in deep trouble. Ha ha ha ! None of them have done my research and can't even match their own facts up. They just say they don't know and it's all full of contraditions. Ha ha ha !). If I get that mandate peacefully from you all, then I admit you all pitch in for correcting and so forth but not all the POV attacks. I can scale down the similarities of the pages and make up for different approaches to the subject. We can enlarge the new approaches and minimize the common parts. This is thus an honest proposal to solve a problem that indeed is an internal Tibetan dispute. I'll make all efforts to make this good with all my best efforts. I'd like people to carry this with me and bear with me in this. This is not a clear and easy case but a difficult thing to be worked out peacefully and relying rather on scholarship than on fanatical POV writing. Geir Smith 18:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, this is Rudy Harderwijk, (webmaster of www.kalachakranet.org, www.jonangfoundation.org and www.rimebuddhism.com); if I may give my POV; I think the basic information on this page is OK, but this page is called Kalachakra Kings - to begin with, an expression I've never seen or heard of before, then the page meanders out on all kinds of subjects - very good as such, but why is that information not simply where it should be - on the pages of the Kalachakra tantra, Shambhala etc.? All the references to the "ban" and Shugden give the strong impression that this page was not created to supply information, but to give a POV. (Rudyh01 - April 9, 2006).

• Kalachakra is a page that doesn't respect NPOV. It's not a space where anyone but the Dalai lama followers can write. It's a cult-following ambiance recreated on a Wikipedia page... using Wiki for POV purposes. Plus it admits itself that "its sources from Tiebtan historians are a mass of contradictions". So, that's the blind leading blind, (even admitting it themselves). Better be on ones own and sticking to real scholarship. Kalachakra is all lies and blind. Don't bluff people with your fake sites, Rudy. You know your site closed down because the things I published didn't jell with the offical Dalai Lama line. Don't try to tell people here you're just an innocent poster. You're here to bait me for the Dalai Lama. He's not that kind of person but compassionate and you're using him for your own agenda : protecting your sites that would be invalidated by this page because it invalidates most of your outdated, sectarain and POV data. Admit that much, eh ! You're trying to claim that the Dalai lama didn't ban the Jonangpas in the 17th cent. Ha ha ha ! Geir Smith 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.