Talk:Ban on Jonang

message: Middle seems a bit top heavy. Be doing that soon. Beginning and end seem to function though. Geir Smith 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

message: If the tone is wrong (and it's too familiar-sounding for encyclopedic tone of voice) I can change it like in the paragraph about "How Jonang was finally banned". I can just dress it up for "formal dress". "Business"-style.Geir Smith 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section suffers from some POV issues, too, though. NPOV means that Wikipedia doesn't use words like "hopefully," because that indicates an opinion. Calling another point of view "archaic" is also an opinion. The closest thing Wikipedia comes to stating a conclusion as fact within a controversy is "the large consensus of experts is X" or that "there is no evidence for Y". Just look at Modern geocentrism for an example of NPOV. Phoenix-forgotten 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a cleanup tag; article tone is totally wrong.  Needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic.--Isotope23 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If the tone is wrong

message: * Deville, Hi. Merging Bon on Jonang and Taranatha might be a good thing making a kind of SuperTaranatha page. It could include several issues in it which all arose during the 17the cent. Gelugpa banning of 1. Taranatha (the name of the page) 2. the Jonangs (his school) and 3. the other school of Sakyas protector Jalpo/Gyalpo [one of the three Gyalpo Sum/Three King-Spirits] (Jonang-Taranatha was Sakya) at the same time by the same Gelug school. (So as to offset Sakyas powerful protector and finalize the Gelugpa power at its time. Also try throwing a jinx on Sakya..didn't succeed though seeing Jalpo is now truning on Gelugpas as the deity truning Gelug into a battle field now and which all know who is, even if its name is not named ooutwardly or mentionned outloud now.)
The three are natural to each other in time, topic and intent. It would indeed be interesting but would have to be a kind of encyclopedic treatment of the themes in their totality or else separate pages woiuld still be needed, so as to reach the full exent of it. Also, treading this ground is not easy, as people are very fanatical about it, and the banning faction sees itself as still being in power while their country has been ground to dust and they don't see that reality; preferring to live in illusion of grandeur and power-lost. Presently, two pages are bringing Tibetans back to earth, which are American Buddha Online Library (which is stating the court-cases for sex abuse against Sakya Trizin and Trungpa), while the page of Kalachakra King is in debate now for deleting and people can go there from here to vote stopping that deletion process on grounds that it is not, as accused, a new version of the Kalachakra page. One keep vote there will already be a good starting point: a way to counter-balance the delete vote that's already there; and it can hold down the page for now, gain some time, and we see things on from there. 
People with agendas and who want to preserve the Tibetan power-structure from lost Tibet are out there, and should be stopped from developping their mad dream of a revitalized Tibet that will not happen and which prevents them from seeing reality and modernizing 1. Tibetan Buddhism 2. the Kalachakra 3. and the future for us all. People with agendas and blind faiths... that blind them should be woken up and a simple little vote over there helps make them think... instead of just banning as they do... like idiots and lynching parties and which will just accrue bad karma for them. They're also just suppressing deep sholarship and years of study that they have themselves not done any of. Suppressing knowledge like with Taranatha being banned in the 17th cent. is not a path towards the goal that we all seek : Nirvana. Yeah, merging could be  a fantastic project of bringing all together one one single page for people to browse through and thus not get lost on all kinds of side-pages. Right. Good idea. Didn't think of it. But have to erase a lot of double-mentionned subjects in both articles. Merging and blotting out one in favour of the other is also not an option. If merging means enriching great but if it means making it cannibalizing the one for the other, no way. I'll take a look at it. If it means fighting no way. I'm a scholar not a bulldog. Anyone with hidden political agendas can just get lost. That's not part of Wikipedia. Civility is Wikipedia.  Geir Smith 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge them