Talk:Aro gTér

Highly questionable

This article is written like an advertisement at times: "These characteristics make it particularly suitable for those with jobs and families, and therefore limited practice time ...." The explanations are given like an introductory course without adequate citation. I'm unclear as to notability. It seems quite strongly to be written by a fan or a practitioner in a non-neutral way. We have got to get rid of these weasel words and weasel sentences/hagiographical viewpoint. Ogress _smash! 17:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding the "particularly suitable" sentence, and have deleted it.

As to notability, there is extensive reference to the topic in cited publications; I don't see an issue there.

Please note the following, quoted from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid over-tagging, using multiple redundant templates (e.g. {{Citation needed}} and {{Dubious}}) for the same problem."

Arthur chos (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is driving by? I gave specific examples. Ogress _smash! 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I restored the tags because there are tons of references and it seems like the wild majority are authored by Aro folks. I'm not saying they aren't relevant, but there are many problem quotes and attribution issues. And what non-Aro cites are provided have no page numbers to confirm. Ogress _smash! 07:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please be specific about "many problem quotes and attribution issues"? And which citations you think need page numbers? If there are problems, they should be fixed. If you see them, ideally you would fix them yourself, but having them listed here would let others help.

Arthur chos (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ogress. Pinging @CFynn: for his input as well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson, Ogress, and Arthur chos: As far as I can tell, all the citations in the current version of the article are from Aro gTér websites and publications - with the exception of four from Shamar Rinpoche, Reginald Ray, Khetsun Zangpo, and John Reynolds (one citation each) - and those four were not actually writing about Aro gTér - so they don't back up anything about the main topic of the article. There really do need to be some good secondary sources to back all this stuff up - otherwise in a Wikipedia article the most you can say is that the Aro gTér claim this, and that the Aro gTér claim that ( or that Ngakpa Chögyam has written this or written that). That they claim those things can be verified from the cited Aro gTér websites, Ngakpa Chögyam's writings and other Aro gTér publications - but without solid secondary sources to back these claims, and teachings up, the article cannot be written in such a way that might suggest to a reader that any of them are true. We don't even know if the Aro gTér teachings on Dzogchen, Semde, Longde etc. bear any real relationship to the traditional teachings with those names. Is there a reliable independent secondary source that says that they do? As for whether or not "Ngak'chang Rinpoche studied with Chhi'med Rig'dzin Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Kunzang Dorje Rinpoche, Khamtrül Yeshé Dorje Rinpoche and Konchog Rinpoche" and, if he did, to what extent - or whether (or not) he was "recognized as a tulku" where are the secondary sources, or other real evidence, to back these things up? Without any evidence other than their own publications the article cannot say such things without making it clear that these are not facts but merely claims or a list of their beliefs. I don't know, but putting a bunch of their claims/beliefs and teachings together from primary sources with no secondary sources that actually refer to the subject of the article might be regarded as "original research" or a synthesis woven together to push a particular POV or to promote the subject of the article. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Also suggest that the article Khandro Yeshé Réma be merged with this article unless it can be shown from reliable sources that she has any real notability outside Aro gTér. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I've written a detailed reply below, covering your comment here and others. In short, the article already cites numerous reliable secondary sources, which you may have overlooked. It does not rely mainly on web or self-published material. I hope I also addressed your other points; if I missed something, please let me know.

Arthur chos (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to pop over here and take a look at this article from a neutral perspective (full disclosure:I am not a Buddhist). I created a multiple issues tag because, regardless of content or its accuracy, the overwhelming majority of sources come from one basic web site that is an Aro gTér one. The further reading appears to be works that are mostly self-published. I tried to find third-party information and it is virtually non-existent. It appears that this group is headed by a European husband-wife team, and the founder, Ngakpa Chögyam, is kind of a one-man show. Seems to me we have a bit of a problem here that reminds me (I'm a horse person, mostly) of Parelli Natural Horsemanship or Nevzorov Haute Ecole - maybe not neessarily a "cult" per se, but apparently one of those deals where someone is taking "ancient wisdom" and repackaging it into a cult of personality. My question, though, is this: What do you all want to see happen with this article? Is an AfD appropriate or...? Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Aro is just a tiny group of people. Probably less than 10. I don't know why they have a Wikipedia page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How did you come up with this number? They list simultaneous activities all over the world and a center in Bristol, UK; clearly there are more than 10 people involved. Deletion seems to me a serious step, not warranted by guesses.JosephYon (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Aro contact page lists groups in 18 locations world-wide. The Aro Lamas page lists 16 people, the "other teachers" an additional 11. I don't know the teacher/student ratio, but clearly there are many more than 10 people.

Arthur chos (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone here have strong feelings if I put it up for deletion? Good way to put more neutral eyes on the thing and see if anyone can find good references. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD seems appropriate. It's lingered a long time in the grey area of sketchy. Ogress _smash! 06:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion. What provision of the deletion policy do you think applies?

Arthur chos (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep the article and improve the content with sources and notes re-organization, would avoid forcing it to AfD. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Replying to several comments above, at a manageable nesting level:

The article cites several books, published by major unaffiliated presses, that specifically discuss the Aro gTer.

They include a book by Andrew Rawlinson, an unaffiliated professor of religious history at the University of Lancaster. It was published by Open Court Publishing Company, a respected academic press. (According to its Wikipedia article, it "specializes in philosophy, science, and religion, and was one of the first academic presses in the country.") Rawlinson discusses the Aro gTer specifically and in some detail, and what he says supports several of the central points of the article. (For example, that Ngakpa Chogyam was recognized as a tulku—a point that Chris asked about.)

The article cites three books published by Shambhala_Publications, which is probably the largest and most prestigious Buddhist press. All three are about the Aro gTér specifically.

The article cites several publications in other unaffiliated venues that are less prestigious, but not just web sites: Gassho, which was semi-academic, with an impressive editorial board, and Kindred Spirit, an unaffiliated print magazine.

So, to summarize, it is not accurate to say that "all the citations in the current version of the article are from Aro gTér websites and publications... except [ones] not actually writing about Aro gTér"; nor that "the overwhelming majority of sources come from one basic web site that is an Aro gTér one."

This seems to dispel any concerns about notability; if Open Court and Shambhala think the Aro gTér is worth publishing books about, it's notable.

Regarding "there need to be some good secondary sources to back all this stuff up": Andrew Rawlinson is clearly secondary (and discusses both the history and the contemporary organization). The Shambhala books about the Aro gTér, and other publications, are also secondary sources. They discuss mainly historical religious matters on which the authors are experts, but did not participate in; that is the definition of "secondary source". Ngakpa Chogyam has a doctoral degree in Indo-Tibetan Studies and his expertise has been endorsed by several prominent Tibetan lamas.

The Reliable sources section of the Manual of stye for WikiProject Religion states: "The religious scholarship of experts in religions should not be considered primary sources, and should not be considered inferior to academic scholarship of these religions. However, it should be clearly noted in the text of the article (and not only via wikilink) whether experts in a religion or religious subject are internal experts (rabbis, theologians), or external experts (academics), or both." It could be helpful for the article to be revised to clarify which sources are internal vs external experts.

Regarding whether "the Aro gTér teachings ... bear any real relationship to the traditional teachings with those names": it's not our job as Wikipedia editors to evaluate that. It's a question for experts in the field. Reliable sources say they do. If we find other reliable sources that say they don't, we can document the disagreement.

Regarding "putting [statements] together from primary sources ... might be regarded as original research or a synthesis": WP:PRIMARY says that using primary sources is fine, but we can't draw new conclusions from them; we can only report what they say. If the article does draw new conclusions from primary sources, that should be corrected. Are there specific examples you have in mind?

Regarding "a one-man show": this page lists 16 Aro lamas, and this one an additional 11 non-lama Aro teachers. That is not a one-man show.

Regarding "a cult of personality", perhaps this is a subjective value judgement. However, the Wikipedia article defines it as "established by mass media and propaganda usually by the state," which does not apply. See also WP:LABEL: "calling an organization a cult... may express contentious opinion and [is] best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources."

Arthur chos (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the stuff you are citing above is all "in-house." About 80 percent of the citations in the article also go to arobuddhism.org or approachingaro.org. Most of those that don't are authored by Ngakpa Chögyam, and even if some of his books are not self-published (I see two from Shambhala, which is a reputable outside publishing house, but I also see several from "Aro Books", which is not. One or two other sources are just blogs, which generally fail RS. The remaining sources cite general concepts, nothing specific to Aro. All the external readings suggested are by Ngakpa or his now-deceased teacher (and only one work by that person) there is nothing that appears to be independent that discusses the group. In short, this group has a lot of the hallmarks of a cult. Basically, where a Google search pretty much turns up only Aro sites (and a few bulletin board posts, mostly negative) and works by third parties outside the movement are pretty much nonexistent, we do at the very least have a notability problem. Show me any material that is not from an Aro cite and there can be further discussion Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If Aro were a cult, that would not be a reason for it not to have a Wikipedia article about it. Lots of cults do have them.

I believe that I have addressed the source quality issues; see my comment of 05:48, 3 January 2015, below.

Arthur chos (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur chos: O.K. There are currently three citations in the article to a single page of Rawlinson's The Book of Enlightened Masters: Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions (which has few citations listed in Google scholar and only a couple of serious reviews). I haven't seen that book, but if what someone wrote above is true, Rawlinson is apparently just quoting or reporting what Ngakpa Chögyam (aka Ngak'chang Rinpoche) told him. Does Rawlinson say that he verified Ngakpa Chögyam's claims in any way? All the rest of the citations in the article are either to sources that are not actually writing about Aro gTér (the topic of the article) or Ngakpa Chögyam - or they are, as Montanabw says "in house". The article really does need more citations from other good quality secondary sources that specifically write about the subject in order to back up the content. Aro gTér does have a short article on pg. 196 of "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" - which is a tertiary source - but the only sources that article cites are two books by Ngak'chang Rinpoche published by Aro Books. If the subject is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article then it shouldn't be too difficult to find a few more independent secondary sources that have written about Aro gTér. A subject normally requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The citations to books published by Shambhala Publications are to books authored by Ngakpa Chögyam (or in the case of Dangerous Friend a book where he wrote the Introduction and the author is according to Amazon, "spiritual director, in the lineage of the Aro gTer, of Buddhist centers throughout Europe") - so these are not independent sources. If someone can't cite some reliable independent secondary sources to support the content of this article, then it probably shouldn't be here. If the article remains, then everything in it that isn't backed up by such sources should be removed. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My input into this is that secrets are often highly questionable and often unreliably published (best transferred in person). Removing such from here would help keep things secret until such time they can be revealed with adequate sources. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What secrets are you referring to? How is secrecy relevant to Wikipedia policies?

Arthur chos (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconceivable or, in the wikipedia theoretical context, those without adequate source support. Thanks for your work on this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @CFynn and Montanabw: for pointing out sourcing issues. I have revised the citations to address these concerns. There are now only two web site references, and I have marked them with with the "better source" template, so the sentences they support can be removed, eventually, if no good citations are found. Nearly all the references are now to print publications, with just two to Gassho, a web journal edited by unaffiliated experts. Print publications include nine books from seven unaffiliated book publishers (ABC-CLIO, Cosmo Publications, Element Books (an imprint of HarperCollins; three books published by them), Leaping Hare, Open Court, Shambhala, and Watkins. Additionally articles in two unaffiliated print magazines. All of these concern Aro specifically; I am not counting citations that cover general Buddhist topics. I have added reliable, unaffiliated expert sources for the tulku recognitions and teachers (which Chris asked about specifically). Can we now agree that notability, at least, is established? Arthur chos (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You're citing more Aro Books and Aro people and calling them "independent". Your only reliable cites seem to be ones like, for example, the Raven Crest, where you are citing merely that there are ngakpa in Tibetan Buddhism, or where you cite that Mahamudra is a thing. These are not helpful and do not address the issue. Ogress _smash! 23:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, if we were to take this page and remove everything that wasn't secondary sources, that was questionable, what would be left? Ogress _smash! 23:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The article would be left a threatened waste of the opportunity to properly attribute sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of the article simply explains what the Aro gTér people believe. Do you agree that they are reliable sources for what they believe?

The small remainder is history, which is all supported by citations of independent experts (Rawlinson, Cousens, Fontana, Gyaltsen Rinpoche, Chhi'med Rig'dzin Rinpoche, Ngakchang Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche).

Could you please list the specific points for which you feel there is insufficient support? Without that detail, it's impossible to address your concerns.

Arthur chos (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree with the reliable sources section of the Manual of stye for WikiProject Religion that: "The religious scholarship of experts in religions should not be considered primary sources, and should not be considered inferior to academic scholarship of these religions"?

Do you agree that Ngakpa Chögyam is an expert in the Aro gTér? (Based on his PhD in the field, and his extensive publications on the Aro gTér in prestigious independent venues.)

If you do not agree, could you please explain why, so we can figure out how to proceed?

If you do agree, could you explain exactly what problem you see, with reference to specific Wikipedia policies, and how the problem could be solved?

Thanks—Arthur chos (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems more like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/New religious movements would be an appropriate fit. "A movement should have its own article if it has developed social structures and behaviors that have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources." Ogress _smash! 04:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to offer that would place this in context? "Aro is a lineage within the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism." Cause these things are ancient. Sources supporting the original NRM claim would help. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the guidelines laid out there are appropriate for the kind of discussion we are having about a page about a religious group with serious challenges to notability and reliable sources. Ogress _smash! 08:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a claim avoiding real source support, best to stick with the other set of guidelines. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Judith Simmer-Brown writes "One example of a Western lineage holder of the ngak-phang line is Ngakpa Chögyam, a Welsh successor to the Aro Ter lineage of the Nyingma school." Do you accept this as a reliable source? (According to her Wikipedia article, she "is a Professor and past Chair of Religious Studies at Naropa University and a prominent Buddhist scholar"; the citation is to a book published by Shambhala Publications, probably the most mainstream and prestigious Buddhist publisher.)

Arthur chos (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur chos That is in fact a secondary source as far as I can tell. What does the text that sentence is a footnote to say? I don't have a copy of the book on hand. If we're finding our reliable sources about Aro to resemble that footnote... it literally just says there's a Western lineage of yogis called Aro. I'm not even sure it works to notability. Also, ZuluPapa5, I don't understand a lot of your replies, but in the case above you misunderstand me: the guidelines are not different for some religions, it's just that certain of Wikipedia's guidelines need to be heeded more closely and others not, which is why NRM's careful explanation of what is a credible source when dealing with small religious groups is helpful. It explains things that are not touched upon by editors dealing with, for example, Roman Catholicism. Ogress _smash! 20:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Where you see a difference between religions may in fact be a real part of this one? In my assessment, this is a notable article with adequate sources to be a wikipedia religious article. I see Aro in my pure view as presented by verifiable published sources, NRM is highly questionable in this regard, with NRM having few is any sources to balance a view. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot decide these things based on your "pure view", that is not how wikipedia works. I already said the issue of NRM was merely a subset of Religion, not that Aro wouldn't be religious. Ogress _smash! 21:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Smile. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The next time you consider telling a woman to smile, don't. Ogress _smash! 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: If "Ngakpa Chögyam is a successor to the Aro Ter lineage" then by definition he is not the originator or founder. Would you agree? Arthur chos (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur chos: No, I would not agree. Her mention of them in an aside does not provide analysis of the Aro Ter or its terma. Ogress _smash! 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's reasonable to accept, absent a sourced counter claim to the succession, the faith is good among the authorities. Chhi’-mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche, Kyabjé Khordong gTérchen Tulku (2003) and Ngakchang Yeshe Dorje Rinpoche, The Seventh Khamtrül Lama (1991) all forwarded good faith to the authority, no sourced reason to doubt the claim. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: According to what Wikipedia policy does she have to "provide analysis of the Aro Ter" for us to accept her as a reliable source for a simple stand-alone fact?

BTW, since you asked above, the full context for the footnote is, on pp. 221-222: "There have always been strong yogic traditions in Tibet, outside of the monastic commitments, in which karmamudra has been regularly practiced. These have been particularly carried in the Nyingma lineage, as well as the Kagyü lineages that have been particularly close to the Nyingma. In Tibet, the practice of karmamudrā was probably confined to hereditary lamas, treasure-discoverers or other noncelibate yogic practitioners (ngakpas); in exile communities, while the monastic lineages have continued to be important, there are still living teachers who continue the karmamudra practice in ngak-phang lineages. [122] These traditions have preserved and propagated all three methods for contemplating the nature of passion."

Arthur chos (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5:According to one Aro gTer related website Chhi’-mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche apparently also criticized Ngakpa Chögyam and Ngakpa Chögyam also had a "falling out" with Khamtul Yehse Dorje Rinpoche. So if these lamas are being cited as proof of Ngakpa Chögyam's claims should their apparent differences with Ngakpa Chögyam also be mentioned? (Mind you I knew Chhi’-mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche in the early 1970's when he lived in Kalimpong and my experience was that he quite often said deliberately very provocative and contradictory things.) Chris Fynn (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes you just did. I doubt the sources would stand reliably. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Those two lamas are cited only as support for Ngakpa Chogyam having been a student of theirs. Their statements are reliable sources for that. Arthur chos (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur chos: But didn't Ngakpa Chögyam supposedly "re-discover" the terma in his own visions of Aro Lingma as most of it had be lost? Of course such things are not that uncommon in the Tibetan terma tradition (a terma supposedly being discovered by one terton - the tradition afterwards disappearing or being lost and then later "re-discovered" by another terton) though usually the gap is several centuries not decades. So who is the terton - Aro Lingma or Ngakpa Chögyam? The only one of the two we have verifiable evidence for the existence of seems to be Ngakpa Chögyam. So Ogress has a point - by conventional standards Ngakpa Chögyam seems to be the "author". Chris Fynn (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ngakpa Chogyam is clearly the author of his books. Here we are only asking whether those are reliable sources for "Aro gTér teachings and practices". The terma itself is not cited, so "authorship" of it doesn't enter into it. That's a question about religious legitimacy according to Tibetan standards, not about source reliability according to Wikipedia standards.

If there's a reliable source that says Ngakpa Chogyam was the terton, that would be a great addition to the article. Otherwise for us to try to figure out "who was the terton" would be original research.

If there are reliable sources that evaluate the evidence for the existence of Aro Lingma, the article should cite them. Otherwise it is original research. Many famous figures in Buddhist history have had their existence questioned by Western academics. Some academics reject the whole of the history of Early Buddhism including the existence of Gautama and all his disciples, the Councils, etc. Most of the history of Vajrayana is also doubted and different academics have different opinions about what parts are real. These debates can be summarized in relevant Wikipedia articles, but only when there are reliable sources. Arguing about who did or didn't exist has to be left to experts. Arthur chos (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tags

Please do not remove the tags until they actually have been satisfied. I see zero agreement and yet ZeroPapa5 removed two tags as "satisfied". Ogress _smash! 21:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes and Sources re-org

Having just worked in Karma in Buddhism propose we re-code and organize the current source "Notes" into a similar format with "Notes", "References" and "Sources". This could help appropriately categorize sources into the religious style for the reader to decide in good faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think something like this would be an excellent idea. According to Reliable sources section of the Manual of style for WikiProject Religion, "it should be clearly noted whether experts are internal experts (rabbis, theologians), or external experts (academics), or both." I am not sure I understand how the Notes/References/Sources sections work in Karma in Buddhism. Perhaps we could have a References section with two sub-sections, Religious Sources and Academic Sources. The publication details would go there, and then the article would use short-form footnotes to point to them via a Notes section. The References/Sources model could also work (if I understood it better).

Since the article is currently changing rapidly, and there's been suggestions to delete all or most of it, it may be better to postpone this large reorganization until it has settled down.

By the way, I have discovered that Ngakpa Chögyam has books in German and Italian. Most are translations of the English books, but at least one seems to be a separate work, not available in English. These have been published by respected independent mainstream publishers such as de:Junfermann and it:Casa Editrice Astrolabio. This helps establish independence, reliability, and notability. Some of the in-house Aro publications were translated and published by these independent presses, which makes those in-house books more credible. I haven't added these references yet; they can be found on amazon.de and amazon.it. Perhaps someone else will want to do that.

Arthur chos (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would take some work to recode and it would help even if someone forces the article to AfD. The new coding just takes a bit a practice, but is very efficient after it gets going. Seem reasonable to list or note the translated versions with their publishers, in the new sections.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a good idea. I'm still finding and adding more sources, but that's small edits, so I can stay out of your way if you want to go ahead with a big citation reorg now.

Arthur chos (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a Source list and have a working draft on the ref changes in my sandbox User:ZuluPapa5/sandbox Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ready to transfer to sandbox to the article if ok? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not to have replied to this earlier. You have gone ahead and done this, right? If so, I will go through and check it when I have time. Thank you very much for a lot of hard work! Arthur chos (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes thank you, the pre converted version is in my sandbox now for comparison. User:ZuluPapa5/sandbox Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok recoded into references and sources, now the sources can be categorized. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Roaring Silence a reliable source for anything at all?

A main point of discussion is whether Ngakpa Chögyam is a reliable source. It may be helpful to consider, instead, whether specific works are reliable sources to support statements about specific subjects. For example, I would say he is a primary source on the structure of the contemporary religious organization, which makes him less reliable for statements about that subject. So, to be specific, let's consider his book Roaring Silence, and ask whether it is a reliable source for anything at all.

Kidder Smith, Professor of History and Asian Studies at Bowdoin College, wrote about Roaring Silence in Religious Studies Review, 29: 4, October 2003, pp. 390–391. Excerpts:

Chogyam and Dechen are western lineage holders in the Dzogchen tradition of the Aro-ter. Their book sets out this simple, yet difficult, theory/practice with uncommon clarity, from initial preparations on through to direct perception. Chogyam and Dechen write with sparkling intelligence. In many ways, then, this is the best single introduction to the Dzogchen path. Recommended to all with an interest in Buddhism or comparative soteriology. [Each sentence verbatim; bold added.]

Roaring Silence was published by Shambhala Publications, probably the most respected and mainstream Buddhist press. The author has a PhD in Indo-Tibetan Studies. Others of his books on the Aro gTér have been published by nine different independent publishers. Three of them have been recommended by three high-ranking Tibetan religious experts ([1] [2] [3]).

Based on these factors, I believe that Roaring Silence is a reliable source for, at minimum, the way Dzogchen is taught in the contemporary Aro gTér organization. Can we all agree on that? Arthur chos (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. (Laughing at the ironic title.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@CFynn, Montanabw, and VictoriaGrayson:, now is a good time for feedback. Ogress _smash! 05:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Shambala publishers is a Buddhist press. That does not convey legitimacy on Ngakpa Chögyam any more than Simon and Schuster publishing Glenn Beck conveys legitimacy on Glenn Beck. Publishers publish books that they think will have a market. I'm still not convinced of notability of this branch of Buddhism, so to me a discussion of its details is irrelevant to the notability question. Montanabw^(talk) 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I agree it's a reliable source for the subject of contemporary Aro gTér teaching and practice. Whether the above quotes & facts confer legitimacy or not is irrelevant to the question, and to the policy on reliable source. Lily W (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw is incorrect, Shambala provides great credibility to its sources. Do you have any sources to doubt the published works? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Reliability, notability, and legitimacy are three completely different issues. A source can be totally reliable about a non-notable topic. (That happens if it is the only source; a notable topic requires two reliable sources.) I have added a new section, below, to discuss reliability; let's do that there, not here. "Reliable" is also completely unrelated to "religiously legitimate". Legitimacy plays no role in Wikipedia procedures or policies. A religion could be utterly "illegitimate" and yet notable, and have numerous highly reliable sources about it. Arthur chos (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This source is a primary source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Victoria. And @Lily W:, you appear to have created a wikipedia account to debate this specific issue. Ogress _smash! 21:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Ogress: We disagree about whether it is primary. However, I asked this question specifically for this reason. Primary sources are definitely OK to use in Wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: " "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher." The following section of that page gives many examples. For instance, "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities."

So, "it is a primary source" is irrelevant. If you want to argue that Roaring Silence is not a reliable source for anything, you need to explain why none of the "You are allowed to use primary sources" cases apply. Arthur chos (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Roaring Silence" may be a perfectly good verifiable source for what the Aro gTér tradition says about itself - but nothing more than that. It is not a critical study of the the Aro gTér tradition or of it's claims and practices. Shambhala Publications is a respectable publisher of popular books on Buddhism, cooking, marshal arts and several other subject areas - but their publications are not peer reviewed. Sure the article can include quotes from primary sources like "Roaring Silence" - but this needs to be balanced by material from reliable independent secondary sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Shambhala does verify its' authorities and religious peer review occurred with significant religious authorites see [4]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

All these religious authorities seem to have close connections to Ngakpa Chögyam - (and many probably never read much English, so how could they review his books?) Anyway this so-called "religious peer review" seems nothing like what is usually considered to be academic peer review. Also does Shambhala anywhere claim these books were peer reviewed? Chris Fynn (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The authorities are highly appropriate for the subject. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@CFynn: We seem to be in agreement about this. It would be best if the article were cited mainly to in-depth Western academic analyses. There seems to be none. (You asked elsewhere about the Kidder Smith review. I have the full text. It is more of the same: copious praise but not much detail.) Searching academic databases I have found references to Ngakpa Chögyam in a few other sources not cited in the article. All are positive, but most only 1-2 sentences: "For discussion of this doctrine, see Ngakpa Chögyam's Wearing the Body of Visions" or "My thanks to Ngakpa Chögyam for his help with a draft of this book".

Reliability is gradated, not all-or-nothing. Also, different sorts of sources are good-enough support for different sorts of statements. As you said, Aro publications seem good enough for the "Teachings and practices" section of the article. We should prefer Aro writing published by third parties to self-published ones. However for this section self-published writing seems OK when third-party publications don't cover a topic.

The "Lineage history" section of the article is the one that caused most disputes here. Nearly everything there is now cited to non-Aro secondary or tertiary expert sources. There are only two sentences about the lineage in Tibet (the main cause of dispute). The first begins "according to the terma", and the second has "is said to", so they are not claiming truth, just reporting what the tradition says about itself. (Even though most of that has been confirmed by independent secondary sources.) Is there anything left in this section that is contentious and is cited only to Aro sources? Arthur chos (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A problem is that any Terma is, by its very nature and content, full of "extraordinary claims" and in Wikipedia exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Sure we can say and verify Aro gTér it exists as an organization and we can also say and verify that Ngakpa Chgögyam and others teach certain things about this tradition - but we always need to make it clear as to exactly who is saying what. We need to say not just "according to the terma" but "so and so says that according to the terma" because we don't have an independent citation that tells us what it says. Ad where does this terma come from? I suspect there is no physical terma and that it came from someone's mind or vision. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it does present problems of verifiability. Parts of the "lineage" may also not be historically verifiable - so the most we can say is that followers of this tradition believe that the teachings originated with Yeshe Tsogyal and were discovered / revealed by Terton Aro Lingma. Historically speaking, there seems no way of verifying that either Yeshe Tsogyal or Aro Lingma existed in the normal mundane sense of the word. (There are no contemporaneous historical records of Yeshe Tsogyal - she only appears in Terma texts which were revealed hundreds of years after the time she is supposed to have lived - so her very existence is another extraordinary claim. See e.g. Janice Gyatso "A Partial Genealogy of the Lifestory of Ye shes mtsho rgyal” Journal of International Association of Tibetan Studies, 2 (August 2006). p. 3.) Chris Fynn (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive edits to the article today. Are these all the issues that you believe require additional sources or clarification?

Regarding "We need to say not just "according to the terma" but "so and so says that according to the terma"": the history section does have numerous citations that ought to make this clear. The cited sources are linked online for most, so readers can see exactly what was said, as well as by whom. If that is not adequate, can you add additional inline tags to say specifically what you believe needs to be fixed?

Regarding "we don't have an independent citation that tells us what it says": Rawlinson, Cousens, and Gyaltsen Rinpoche are independent sources in the Wikipedia sense. Per WP:INDY, they have "no vested interest in a written topic and therefore are commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective."

A different sense of "independent" is: investigation using a separate set of evidence. Our sources may not have been independent in that sense. They may have been insufficiently diligent; they may have relied on unreliable sources; this may have been improper according to the professional standards of religious history.

However, this is not the sense of "independent" that is relevant to Wikipedia policy. It is a much higher standard of evidence than required by Wikipedia. It is also one that we are not qualified to evaluate. Any attempt by us as Wikipedia editors to second-guess their work would be original research.

Regarding where the terma came from, Yeshe Tsogyel, etc: if someone finds answers that can be attributed to reliable sources, then that could be a useful addition to the article. Arthur chos (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Aro interdepended origination credibility

Folks seem to want independent Aro validation, but any source deemed to be a part of Aro to validate it is being doubted by their own original research. This violates interdepended origination principles (as well as wikipedia's governance). When can we have both independent sources and linage validation dependency? Doubter search your sources and find them non-existent in grounding, but a fabrication of you. Notability validation is separate from linage validation. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Um pratītyasamutpāda has absolutely zero to do with this situation. I also don't really understand a lot of what you are saying aside from that. It's not "original research" to require sourcing. Ogress _smash! 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You will see me agree that pratītyasamutpāda can be about "absolutely zero" absent bodhichitta with primal wisdom (the origin). You may understand in time and see what really validates terma. It's original research to require facts, make allegations, and give ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist for the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: Are the original Tibetan texts of the Aro gTér tradition available - or is there anything about Kyungchen Aro Lingma, her consort Khalden Lingpa or their son Aro Yeshe in traditional Tibetan sources that cover the lives of Tertons and their lineages? I can find nothing in the extensive TBRC database or digital library of Tibetan texts. Also nothing in the National Library of Bhutan (either their extensive collection or catalogue). It is the absence of any information on or texts about Aro gTér in these places where one would normally expect to find them, for even very minor traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, that makes me wonder.Chris Fynn (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder too. It's a terma mystery. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability

The notability guide for religions says: "In general, a religion and religious group is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiably independent and reliable sources."

According to WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage" means: more than a trivial mention, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Quoting WP:WHYN, "significant coverage" is enough that "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." "Trivial coverage" of organizations is explained further at WP:ORGDEPTH.

"Multiple" is explained as: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." As far as I can tell, two counts as "multiple." At least one of the sources must be secondary (WP:WHYN).

WP:INDY: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective."

Publications in "reputable peer-reviewed [journals] or by well-regarded academic presses" are reliable, especially if they are secondary to an earlier publication. WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Well-established news outlets [are] generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" WP:NEWSORG.

In the case of organizations, "attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" WP:AUD. See also WP:NONPROFIT: "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale."

Notability of the Aro gTér is supported by:

1. A 1562-word section, solely about the Aro gTér, in a book about religious history, written by Andrew Rawlinson, an independent UK professor of religious history, published by Open Court Publishing Company, a respected US academic press.
2. A review solely of one of the main Aro gTér texts, by Kidder Smith, an independent US professor of history and Asian studies, published in Religious Studies Review, a respected academic journal.
3. An article solely about the Aro gTér in an encyclopedia, published on paper by ABC-CLIO, a respected US academic and reference press, written by independent Australian expert Diana Cousens, who has a PhD in Himalayan studies and has published widely.
4. A two-page color article solely about the Aro gTér, in Eindhovens Dagblad, a major Dutch newspaper.
5. A 21-paragraph newspaper article solely about the Aro gTér, (particularly vajra romance) in The Western Mail, a Welsh national newspaper.
6. A two-page color article solely about Ngakpa Chögyam, the Aro lineage holder, in his teaching role, in The Observer, a UK national publication, the world's oldest Sunday newspaper.
7. a 7-paragraph newspaper story solely about the religious organizational activities of two Aro lamas, in The Western Mail, a Welsh national newspaper.
8. A two-page magazine article solely about the Aro gTér, in a (print) Swedish martial arts magazine.
9. A BBC television program with global reach prominently featuring an Aro gTér lama in his teaching role.
10. A 12-paragraph article solely about the Aro gTér, published in both the South Wales Argus, a regional newspaper, and the Oxford Mail, a local newspaper.

There's several other sources that probably qualify. However, my understanding is that any two of these would be enough. Each of these sources is more than a trivial mention, all are independent, all seem reliable, they span many countries, and all are secondary. (Except Cousens, who is tertiary, which for notability seems better than secondary.)

Any objections to removing the notability tag now?

Arthur chos (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Convinced me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I second that. Seems to me notability has been addressed. JosephYon (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your research and clarification on the notability topic Arthur Chos (talk). The sources cited here more than cover 'significant coverage in multiple verifiably independent and reliable sources.' Concerns about notability seem adequately covered. Lily W (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

JosephYon I note that your account was only created on Jan 8 and that you haven't contributed to any other Wikipedia articles but this one. That does not exactly give your "seconding" very much weight. Lily_W I see that your account goes back to 2008 when you contributed to this article - but then there was no activity from Sept 2008 till the Jan 5th of this year when you returned to this article - and later made a couple of minor edits to other unconnected articles as well. ZuluPapa5. Your account was only created on Jan 7 - and like JosephYon this is the only article you've edited. On the basis of your editing history the three of you are not exactly experienced Wikipedia editors. Arthur Chos does have a history of about 600 edits going back to January 2008 - but the main focus of his edits (50%+) seems to be this and a few closely related articles. I wonder are all of you somehow connected to Aro gTér? And are you all acquainted with each other outside Wikipedia? Of course you don't have to say, but on the face of it it looks rather like there may be a potential conflict of interest and co-ordinated editing going on here. Chris Fynn (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclear if you have the facts straight about me in all your suspicious allegations. Might want to check again. As far as COI, you are originating a COI, there is no other to be assumed, as none has been declared (that I have seen). This could be ad hominem attack, when we must assume good faith. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, your account does go back over seven years with many edits. My apologies for the mistake in your case. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

CFynn Please use this talk page for its intended purpose. See WP:TPNO "Do not ask for another's personal details" and WP:TPG#YES Talk page guidelines: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement." Any contributors concerned they may have a conflict of interest can check conflict of interest guidelines. Collaborative editing is our combined purpose here, assuming we're all seeking consensus and want the best standards for this page. Lily W (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

New accounts being created and a long inactive account suddenly becoming revived in a space of a few days to edit on one topic ~ all chiming in to back up one editor who has recently been challenged by experienced editors naturally raises certain concerns as these are hallmarks of some types of potentially problematic editing. It is also a little surprising to find people with brand new accounts quoting parts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines - it usually takes most editors a few months to get round to that. You'll find other editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and possibly single-purpose accounts to determine whether or not they are editing to advocate a particular POV. When one has concerns I feel it is best to state them so that they can be addressed and the air cleared. BTW I was mistaken about ZuluPapa5

This article has good sources for what the Aro gTér tradition says about itself, but what it apparently lacks are any good sources that critically examine the tradition and its claims. I wonder if Arthur chos has proper citations for the Kidder Smith review and the encyclopaedia article by Diana Cousens he mentions in his list above, as these might possibly provide some such material.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@CFynn: I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. The Smith and Cousens pieces both have full citations in the article. Is that what you meant? Arthur chos (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur chos: OK thanks. I was only looking at the references in your list above. Unfortunately the Smith article seems to be behind a paywall - is it a book review of "Roaring Silence"?. Sources like "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and practices" are generally considered to be tertiary sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Cousens piece on Aro gTér in "Religions of the World" amounts to four paragraphs taking up slightly over half a page and doesn't say very much - and she cites two of Ngak’chang Rinpoche's books published by published by Aro Books as her only sources. What would be useful is some independent source which critically examines the Aro gTér tradition its practices and claims - but I suppose no such source currently exists. Chris Fynn (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources would be useful; however, unnecessary to establish notability which is the topic here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the main topic of the article, gAro Tér (or the Aro Tér tradition), is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article but notability of the topic does not mean that everything about gAro Tér is sufficiently notable or well supported to be included in the article. Much of the content (e.g. about Dzogchen, tantra, ngakpas etc.) which is common to other traditions (especially other Nyingma traditions) which are not specific to gAro Tér are also probably best left to the articles on those subjects which can be wiki linked from here. Things like "the six realms of rebirth as states of mind, rather than physical places" - are not at all specifically gAro Tér teachings - many Buddhist teachers of many traditions have always taught this. However the way it is included here might make an ordinary reader think this is some unique doctrine of gAro Tér. Chris Fynn (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Much of the content ... which is common to other traditions ...is also probably best left to the articles on those subjects which can be wiki linked from here": It seems that Lily_W and ZuluPapa5 have removed that. (I probably disagree, but have not reviewed their many changes carefully; I may want to discuss those removals later.)

For ease of reference, I think my article edits relevant to this point are 08:36, 13 January 2015:‎ 'deleted irrelevant stuff about Dzogchen' and 23:05, 13 January 2015: 'removed rebirth section.' Lily W (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "notability of the topic does not mean that everything about gAro Tér is sufficiently notable": WP:NNC says that notability is only about the whole topic of the article, not parts of the topic. "Content coverage within a given article... is governed [instead] by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Due weight is only about the amount of coverage given to different views on a topic when there is disagreement among reliable sources. There seems to be no disagreement among reliable sources concerning this topic, so that policy is not relevant. I could not find another content policy that says "too much detail is bad". Let's discuss that, if at all, in the #Original_research section, where it also came up recently, since it is not about notability in the Wikipedia sense. Arthur chos (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Turning the tags into actionable tasks

@Ogress, Montanabw, and CFynn: Recently you added several cleanup tags to the article. As WP:TC notes, "The goal is an improved article, not a tagged article," so "editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed." To make progress, "tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it". So far, that seems to be lacking for several of the tags.

We are currently discussing Wikipedia:Notability at #Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability at #Is_Roaring_Silence_a_reliable_source_for_anything_at_all.3F. It's probably best to postpone the questions of primary and self-published sources until the "Roaring Silence" discussion has ended. So I've created subsections, below, to discuss the remaining tags, with questions about how to proceed. Arthur chos (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet you decided to remove all the tags. Bad faith. Ogress _smash! 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Quoting WP:NPOVD, "The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."

WP:NPOV is accomplished by "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

What views, supported by reliable sources, are under-represented in the article as it stands now? Arthur chos (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Peacock

WP:PEACOCK refers to "terms" that "promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." Specifically which terms in the article are examples? Arthur chos (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed and moved sourced buy irrelevant superfluous material, to trim the bird into it's published content. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research

WP:ORIGINAL: "original research is material for which no reliable, published sources exist." Is there contentious material in the article for which no published source is given at all? If so, please tag with [needs citation]. (If the issue is only that the cited sources may not be reliable, let's discuss this as part of verifiability (or reliability) rather than here.) Arthur chos (talk)

My issues have been addressed. It can be removed, with cautious outlook for the future. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe we can wait a week, in case anyone else wants to point out remaining problems. Arthur chos (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not that no published sources exist - I think the question is largely how independent and reliable these sources are. So yes this can be discussed as part of reliability / neutrality. 10:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

Chris Fynn (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I'm not sure why you added that policy quote. If you believe the article contains original research, please use inline tags to make clear specifically what statements need additional citations. Arthur chos (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just weighing in a bit here.. It seems like it does fit Notability constraints, but could use some tightening overall and less primary source material. Perhaps it should be more stub-like?? Prasangika37 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems NPOV fair and proportionate to cite at least once from each adequate primary source. Removing sources to make balance counters the spirit of citing sourced material. Where there is a primary source concern, the issue is NPOV balance with what other sources say in a specific NPOV disagreement between editors. To me, it would be abusive to stub out sources. I believe we've established that this is a religious article where religious sources should be given prevalence. The most controversial part "Linage history" has been given its own section, with fewer primary sources. It's a style issue if anything. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5:"I believe we've established that this is a religious article where religious sources should be given prevalence." No that has not been established. I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline that suggests primary sources should be given precedence in articles religious on religious subjects. Chris Fynn (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above cited this Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/Manual_of_style#Reliable_sources Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: The Aro gTer tradition appears to be very fresh gter gsar - as such there is very little written about it other than by those who are essentially primary revealers of the tradition - I'm not sure that this qualifies as "religious scholarship" of any kind - insider or academic. I think you are stretching the point to imply that it does. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As Prasangika37 suggests I also think it would make a lot of sense to pare the article down mostly to what can be backed up by reliable independent sources and what are commonly known, accepted and verifiable facts about the tradition. All the rest is simply a re-statement of what is on Aro-gTer websites and in books by leaders / revealers of the tradition. So long as there is a lack of reliable secondary sources to back these things up inevitably this is going to cause endless dispute between editors who appear to be insiders / sympathizers of the tradition and those who want a encyclopaedic article conforming to Wikipedia standards (with the first group trying to stretch and cherry pick those standards to say that their POV does). I'm not sure why Buddhist groups such as the Aro gTer Tradition appear to feel compelled to publicise details of their teachings on Wikipedia. When you include extraordinary claims in Wikipedia they require exceptionally good sources otherwise they will be disputed which, from a Buddhist point of view, leads to a bunch of useless rnam rtog that benefits no one. The External Links section contains links to Aro gTer websites where any reader who wants to know more about the tradition can persue. 05:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy, "It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war... Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content."

Is there any policy that says what "too much detail" would be? I have not found one. Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons does not include too much detail as a reason. An article can be too long, more than about 50,000 characters, but this one is not close to that. Wikipedia:Article_size#Content_removal also says "content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". Making an article "stub-like", as Prasangika37 advocated, seems to be against policy; everything I could find about stubs suggests they are bad and should be expanded.

I agree that the lineage history, which takes an external view, should be based mainly on independent sources. However, there is no reason not to base the "teaching and practices" section primarily on internal sources. We have agreed that books by Aro authors are reliable sources for what Aro people teach and practice. If there is no guideline that says "too much detail" then there is no problem with the section as it is.

Regarding "All the rest is simply a re-statement of what is on Aro-gTer websites and in books by leaders / revealers of the tradition... The External Links section contains links to Aro gTer websites where any reader who wants to know more about the tradition can persue": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link directory. The value of an encyclopedia article is that it provides a readable summary of a mass of information that most people would not want to go through. There are dozens of Aro books and articles and web sites; giving a list of them is not helpful. None of their web sites gives as good an overview as this article, I believe.

The Wikipedia article on the iPhone 6 contains extensive technical information, all of which you could also get from Apple's web site. Many readers will choose the Wikipedia article instead. The same goes for this article. Arthur chos (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

An article with as many relevant sources as possible makes the most benefit. Particularly, sources with a professional interest in providing verifiable accurate information on the topic are valuable. In a religious article, a primary source can be questioned when a secondary source counters, for NPOV balance per WP:DUE. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective WP:BIASED. Editors may have an interest conflict when they question a primary source based on their own individual original researched beliefs, without a published second source support. Wikipedia is here to benefit readers with verifiable content. I am disappointed that CFynn sees separate groups in duality. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The above is a tl;dr wall of text. You are not debating this issue in good faith. You both (Arthur chos and ZuluPapa5) are not expressing an understanding of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you appear to be merely cherry-picking material out of context to back your continued attempts to add poor quality material to this article. You are also engaging in WP:TAGTEAM behavior and I strongly suggest that you stop. Montanabw^(talk) 09:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disappointing; because, there is a dispute about wikipedia quality. However, I feel conflict to further engage in this dispute on wikipedia. Rejoicing with faithfull patients that in time, things will change. My conflict's source is pride, for which I offer my best wishes for happiness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tag removal

With a now emaciated article the tags should be close to removal now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources material removed

Here's a content diff text wall.

• This [5] was cited and provokes the issue. Should be restored.
• This [6] was cited and provokes the issue. Should be restored.
• This [7] has appropriate sources support. Should be restored.
• This [8] has appropriate sources support. Should be restored.
• This [9] has appropriate sources. Should be restored.
• This [10] has appropriate sources. Should be restored.
• This [11] has appropriate sources. Should be restored.
• This [12] is wrong. Scholarly review not required. Should be restored

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It shouldn't be restored per all the reasons discussed on this page several times.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Too bad for wikipedia. Seems like the next step is take the sources to the notice board? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your links, ZuluPapa, are either uncited or cited to unreliable sources. All of those above. I am seriously considering nominating this article for deletion as a COI promotional piece on a non-notable cult. Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is notable, why waste your time? Which source says cult? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Aro is not notable. I'm still baffled there is a Wikipedia page for this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am Aro jealous that sources support the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ZP5, I have no idea what you are even saying half of the time. Montanabw, I agree that with the "in-house" cites removed, it's pretty bare, AfD seems like a good idea. So far my call for attention and more cites has lead to basically NOTHING changing except more in-house cites added and a lot of waffling, and when I removed sketchy cites, I was generous. Many of the remaining cites are interviews with the chief Aro guy in old New Age magazines - one touts itself as specialising in New Age shamanism, as in practical shamanism. (Its wikipedia page has zero cites, which I tagged.) Not notable, continues to be not notable, don't forsee it becoming notable in the future. Ogress _smash! 06:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The right thing, that could help you is to self revert. Maybe admit your arguments are weak and your motives are flawed. That you recruited people to be here. That an authority with so many published sources will have additional notability. That given the discussion above the article is obviously notable. That religious sources are adequate. That there was an ongoing discussion about the tags and you provocatively removed the material. Where was the consensus to remove the material? Pride may prevent you from taking my advice and you could escalate further to AfD, I would not be surprise. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ogress is correct.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if we chose to ignore the sources. There were additional notable sources added [13]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5, those sources did not discuss Aro. This page is not the place to elucidate the meaning and teachings of Dzogchen. Ogress _smash! 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

With new sources the notability issue is dead. I've lost faith in anyone who raises it again. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

((ping|ZuluPapa5}} Taking one of the paragraphs that you feel should be restored as an example:

The Aro gTér has several distinctive characteristics: it treats all Buddhist subjects from point of view of Dzogchen; as a consequence its practices are simpler than the elaborate sadhanas typical of Tantric Buddhism; and it includes practices of semde and longde as well as the more common [[menngagde].

First it has to many unfamiliar terms (jargon) for the average reader. All that stuff about [semde]], longde and menngagde adds nothing to this article - all these terms only add to confusion. Any thing about these is best left to the Dzogchen article where these terms can be explained more fully. Secondly if the paragraph were re-written to say something like: The Aro gTér says it has several distinctive characteristics: it claims it treats all Buddhist subjects from point of view of Dzogchen; and that as a consequence its practices are simpler than the elaborate sadhanas typical of most Tantric Buddhism." - then I don't think there would be many objections. Of course it would still need a citation but because we are now only saying that this is what Aro gTér says about itself, there is not so much problem about using primary sources. (Encyclopaedias like the one originally cited in the paragraph are only tertiary sources and some of these so-called "Encyclopaedias" are of very poor quality Chris Fynn (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tag Teams Investigation

Tag team: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18][19] [20] [21] There is a coordinated effort here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Page reversion 16-Jan-15

I have reverted the article to a previous version (as edited by Ogress (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 14 January 2015) prior to the removal of tags and a radical reduction of content. I'd like for us to proceed incrementally, seeking consensus. I'm opposed to deletion because I think the article is well-sourced, notable and conforms to wikipedia standards. (See previous discussion on this page.) Lily W (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This [22] disrupted my incremental improvements. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5 thanks for your continued interest in the article and for the great work you've done on source editing. I made the page reversion to undo several mass deletions of material which, I think we agree, are well-sourced by wikipedia standards.

Ogress (talk · contribs) and VictoriaGrayson (talk · contribs) I notice that you've, again, mass deleted most of the Aro article after my reversion. Both you and Montanabw have said that sources are unreliable a number of times, but have not given a clear explanation as to why you think so. For example, after Arthur chos and CFynn had agreed adequate sourcing for the Teachings and Practice subsection, you deleted the entire section. (See under 'Is Roaring Silence a reliable source...' Arthur chos : – "As you said, Aro publications seem good enough for the "Teachings and practices" section of the article. We should prefer Aro writing published by third parties to self-published ones. However for this section self-published writing seems OK when third-party publications don't cover a topic.") This pattern repeats throughout the talk page discussion, as though evidence by wikipedia standards is irrelevant.

Are your objections to the content and sources primarily religious? Comments you've made previously suggest so, (eg: Montanabw (talk · contribs): "Shambala publishers is a Buddhist press. That does not convey legitimacy on Ngakpa Chögyam any more than Simon and Schuster publishing Glenn Beck conveys legitimacy on Glenn Beck". Lily W (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

These are not religious objections, they are objections to nonscholarly material, which in this case happens to be, for example, an Aro-written webpage explaining how to make a human thighbone into a trumpet. Just because Aro - or any other first-order material - claims something doesn't mean we put it on Wikipedia. These are not reliable sources by the standards of Wikipedia, where we use secondary sources. Primary sources are not appropriate for claims of lineage-holding, authority and truth. This is also not the page for discussing Dzogchen or other practices either: discussions of the finer points of Dzogchen should be discussed on that page. And this page is also not appropriate for lecturing us on the nature of "real" Tibetan Buddhism either: much of what was cut was didactic materials making claims about the ultimate nature of reality, full of weasel words and sounding like a lectionary.

Also, I did not revert your reversion. Ogress _smash! 08:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The site that you refer to is an online version of an article printed in an independent source. The website is not an Aro Buddhism website. It appears to be completely independent from them. The text at the top of the page is a reference to the print publication that the website article appeared in. Using this citation makes the reference itself immediately accessible to readers.Lily W (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lily W: I've been looking but I don't see how this sentence relates to the rest of the conversation here: can you clarify what site that I refer to that is an online version of an article? Ogress _smash! 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: That was a citation in the Teaching and Practice subsection, now deleted. Would you agree to an at least temporary restoration of the deleted material? If so, we could discuss individual citations in it that you find problematic. Lily W (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Re "Primary sources are not appropriate for claims of lineage-holding, authority and truth," the citation was not attempting to evidence lineage holding, authority or religious truth - it evidenced a specific type of practice that Aro students engage in. Making kanglings is distinctive.

Re: "This is also not the page for discussing Dzogchen or other practices either" This point was made earlier prior to yours and others' deletion of most of the article's ~28k characters. At that suggestion I read through and deleted a few sentences that seemed irrelevant. A couple of sentences in the semde and longde subsections remained as relevant contextual explanation. They linked to other wiki pages.

Re: "much of what was cut was didactic materials making claims about the ultimate nature of reality, full of weasel words and sounding like a lectionary": I'm not sure what this refers to, could you specify sentences? Thanks. Lily W (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacing more large deletions

I am restoring the main body of the article which was again deleted. Please do not make more large deletions, on the grounds that: "It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war... Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content." Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy

To summarize:

Notability was discussed. A key point was WP:NNC says that notability is only about the whole topic of the article, not parts of the topic. It seemed consensus was reached and the notability tag was removed.

By definition, 'notable' means 'this is an acceptable topic for a wikipedia page article.' If an article is notable, it is better for it to be substantive, than stub-like.

A good case has been made, repeatedly, for the article's sources and citations. The teaching and practices section, a large part of what I am re-posting to the page, relies on internal resources. As this section represents an emic view, we agreed above (under Original research) this is acceptable for wikipedia standards.

Are there remaining sourcing or citation requirements for specific sentences? Lily W (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I support carefull expansion of the article with appropriate style to honor the sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Since these deletions occurred again, best advice I can offer, is to they be restored slower, section by section. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Germano 2005, p. 3.

Does anyone have the complete reference for this David Germano notable source? It's in the text, but not listed in the sources. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it.

• Germano, David (2005), "The Funerary Transformation of the Great Perfection", Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, vol. 1

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

He does not discuss Aro. How is The Funerary Transformation of the Great Perfection relevant? You're just piling up books that are about Tibetan Buddhism. Ogress _smash! 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologizes, this one can go. I pilled up additional sources that site Aro. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: @ZuluPapa5: This citation wasn't a reference to "discuss Aro." It was requested by CFynn (talk · contribs) for a contextual explanatory sentence, explaining the difference between Aroter approach and other Buddhist approaches, in a section which has been mostly deleted. Lily W (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

However Professor Germano can explain in detail the reasons we know unequivocally there is no significant and well known historical figure in Tibetan Buddhist named Aro Yeshe, as alleged by the Aro Ter organization. The name and story are whole cloth fabrications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpotts (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this page a fork on the Aro lineage?

I found a few sources on the Aro lineage. The Aro gTer article could be just a fork on Aro in which case all the religious sources could refer to Aro with a section on the Aro gTer. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop inserting material that merely uses the word "Aro".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your have removed relevant sources. It's disrupting progress. Please restore and discussion individually . Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Simply because a source mentions the word "Aro" does not mean that they are related to the Aro gTér: Aro Yeshe Jungné is not claimed to be part of the Aro gTér lineage, for example, and their own website says they don't even think Aro Lingma - from whom they get their name! - even existed as a real person. Don't confuse unrelated topics simply because they happen to share the same word in their name. These sources are not related and do not have a place on this page. Removing irrelevant citations is progress. Ogress _smash! 20:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Aww, terma are at the Nyingma root. I can wait for additional sources that bring them together. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Cabezon says Aro and Vimalamitra. My private sources see these as separate branches from Rigzin Sri Sengha, where Khandro Yeshe Tsogyal is most likely Aro as Aro gTer claim. I have no reason to believe Aro and Aro gTer are separate; however I admit it may take a better source. BTW, I carry them both. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, Jamgon Kontrul Lodro Tay doesn't have Yeshe Tsogyal name per say in the Aro linage succession (could be something special about her name or Aro lineage). He has "the translator Yeshe Zhönu of the Nyak clan, the incarnate Aro Yeshe Jungne" on p 116. I suspect they are the same. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the Aro gTer claims the Aro branch at Yeshe Tsogyal which Jamgon may not have received and recorded. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamgon produced a commentary on Light of Wisdom by Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogyal. This Yeshe Tsogyal thing is all so secret. I have not doubt he carried Aro from Yeshe Tsogyal. Aro and Aro gTer are in the same lineage as much as Yeshe Tsogyal is the same. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the very definition of Original Research, and is exactly the kind of behavior that is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors. What you believe is not relevant, and on top of that this egregious behavior is doubled in that the Aro people themselves don't even claim a connexion. The Aro Lingpa Jungne that Jamgon Kongtrul wrote about in the 19th century is not mentioned by Aro in its own materials. You're just making things up now. Ogress _smash! 08:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: Aro Yeshe Jungne was active in Khams in the second half of the 10th or early 11th Century - his Dzogchen instructions are part of the Nyingma Kama (not Terma) tradition and they are said to unite the Dzogchen mind-class with those of the Chinese master Heshang Moheyan of the Northern Ch'an tradition (and hence have always been somewhat controversial). Anyway the lineage of Aro Yeshe Jungne's instructions do not come from Yeshe Tsogyal, they are not terma, and have nothing to do with Aro gTér. Aro Yeshe Jungne is also always depicted as a monk. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources removed

• Nam'gyal, Ngakpa; She-zer, Ngakma (2007), "Sky Weaving, Working with the four elements to make personal change from the perspective of Tibetan tantra." (PDF), Sacred Hoop Magazine, 15 (58): 32 to 35
• Kongtrul, Jamgon (Sep 28, 2009), The Treasury of Knowledge: Book Eight, Part Four: Esoteric Instructions (Google eBook ed.), Snow Lion Publications, p. 64
• Dorje, Rig'dzin (Winter 1994), "'Ultimate Gesture - The ceremonial tools of Tantric Tibetan Buddhism are ancient aids on the Path of Transformation.'" (PDF), Sacred Hoop Magazine, 02 (7): 6 to 10{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Ngak'chang Rinpoche (Autumn 1997), "'Wearing the Body of Visions - Peaceful, joyful and wrathful Yidams. The spiritual life of Tibet is full of the strangest beings. Here we look at what all these images mean, and how they help us reach an enlightened state.'", Sacred Hoop Magazine, 05 (18): 20 to 24{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Dorje, Rig'dzin (Winter 1994), "'Ultimate Gesture - The ceremonial tools of Tantric Tibetan Buddhism are ancient aids on the Path of Transformation.'" (PDF), Sacred Hoop Magazine, 02 (7): 6 to 10{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Cabezon, Jose Ignacio (January 10, 2013), The Buddha's Doctrine and the Nine Vehicles: Rog Bande Sherab's Lamp of the Teachings, Oxford University Press, p. 320, ISBN 978-0199958627
• Taye, Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro (2013), The Catalog of The Treasury of Precious Instructions (PDF), New York: Tsadra Foundation, pp. 86, 116

These are all appropriate for this article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamgon Kongtrul is relevant to this article? Frankly at this point, the discussion is absolutely absurd.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, leave then. Cause it is. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Jamgon Kongtrul merely mentions someone named Aro Yeshe Jungne. Cabezón merely uses the word "Aro." They have nothing to do with the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You might have missed where Jamgon has the complete Aro linage history. I might be mistaken; but, the authorities have visionary, primary, secondary, tertiary, disciple, multiple centers support to claim the Aro linage with religious complements. All I've seen is original research to counter. So, the sources are stacked against "nothing to do with the article". Cabezón can go. Sacred Hoop was called out on Ogress original research; which you seem to support. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken, because this Aro is not the Aro of the Aro gTér; they merely share a similar name. I didn't say it was Original Research, what I said was that it was not a scholarly source, that it was primary writings and interviews and instructions, depending on the article. Ogress _smash! 20:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How is that so, that they share a similar name? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

OMG are you seriously asking me how it is possible that there are multiple persons in Tibetan history with similar names? Aro Yeshe, alleged son of Aro Lingma, is supposed to have died in 1951. Aro Yeshe Jungné lived in the 11th century . The Aro gTer people themselves do not claim any connexion to Aro Yeshe Jungne whatsoever. It's just a name. Ogress _smash! 21:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Could be. Thanks, I have a bit to learn about Aro, but they all seem to go back to the same source, ya know what I mean? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wangpo, Zhamar Kachö, sNyan brgyud rin po che’i khrid kyi man ngag mkha’ dbyings snying po’i bde khrid / rDzogs pa chen po sems sde a ro lugs, vol. 1, pp. 363–78. (PDF), Primary Source in "The Catalog of The Treasury of Precious Instructions", pp. 363–78

I'll suspend this one, on the premise that Aro is a separate branch of the same root of Aro gTer. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are defining original research by doing that. Wikipedia is not concerned with your opinions. Ogress _smash! 03:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but we must take your opinion seriously. (Smile from me.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:Sources. Andrew Rawlinson seems to be just repeating what Ngakpa Chögyam said or wrote. His "The Book of Enlightened masters : Western teachers in Eastern traditions" (1997) mainly seems to be about the phenomena of western teachers eastern traditions followed by an assembly of stories or mini biographies of about 150 different western teachers of Sufism, Hinduism and Buddhism etc. It is not a serious study of Aro gTér. Melton & Baumann's "Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices" seems to be a book designed to sell to high school and public libraries. It is only a tertiary not a secondary source - and certainly not a serious academic publication. Again the authors only repeat what Ngakpa Chögyam has written and two of his books are listed as the only sources for the short (less than a page)article on Aro gTér. Neither of these books is a good quality secondary source - and since they are both repeating or rephrasing Ngakpa Chögyam they are not really independent either. I'm not suggesting that they cannot be used, but let's not pretend these are high quality independent sources. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sacred Hoop Magazine

I've conducted my own original research on Sacred Hoop Magazine, and verified that it meets the requirements for WP:NEWSORG and is adequate place to publish religious news. Therefore these sources can be restored in the religious section. It is WP:USEBYOTHERS in a reliable way [23] [24][25][26][27]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh... I don't know how to respond to your assertion. Ogress _smash! 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, well you can withdraw your unsourced assertions about Sacred Hoop Magazine by restoring the material. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not withdrawing them, and I specifically asked you not to tell me (or other women) to smile as it's infuriating and paternalistic. Ogress _smash! 07:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

The sources section of this page is a train wreck, there's like 30 things on there and about 6 cites. There is no cause to list all those books. We cite books, that's it. That's the bibliography: cited material. Ogress _smash! 08:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Existing cites are now cited in the preferred style; additional material should be added as it assists the text of the page, not simply to conglomerate a laundry list of books that should/could/might assist the reader of this page. A book or article that is cited should appear automatically in the citation section, because that is what we use sources for: citation. Ogress _smash! 08:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored them, to follow style guidelines. Having faith that adequate material will be produced. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

This [28] is disruptive to article progress. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't write an article by listing a huge bibliography and then "Having faith that adequate material will be produced", we produce adequate material and cite it properly at that time. Ogress _smash! 17:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is we, speak for yourself. Cause it is a reasonable way to proceed absent continually disruptive removals. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ogress.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that a better class article has separate sections for notes, references, bibliography, etc. ? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: and hopefully some useful information for future editors too:

The Wikipedia term 'self-published' means those sources that are published by the organization itself. So, for example, if the organization's leader is interviewed in a National newspaper, that is not a self-published source. But if s/he publishes an article or book within their own publishing house, or as an 'internal' pamphlet, that is a self-published source.

The sourcing for the section on the organizational program of apprenticeship is not self-published. It's 'independent' according to Wikipedia terminology. It's a Buddhist Journal (Gassho) which has nothing to do with the Aro Ter. So, even though it contains material written by their teacher, it is not considered 'self-published.' The same applies to magazines or newspapers or journals that use material or information that comes from the organization originally. Because is is not published by the organization itself, it is not 'self-published.'

Self-published materials are considered legitimate sources for some kinds of information in a Wikipedia article. There's a good wikipedia section on that here. One of the key points is that using individual's websites or blogs are not good sources, but using material self-published by an organization as a source for information about itself is ok.

Hope this is helpful. Lily W (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• You do not fully understand WP:SELFPUB. The article has links to dozens of vanity presses. Some material is acceptable for a group's definition of itself, but many things are simply self-promotional and lack third party indicia of reliability. You need to learn how to tell the difference. Your goal appears to be to push a POV that this fringe little cult is some sort of mainstream group when it is not. But you also don't care what I think, so I see no need to explain this farther. Montanabw^(talk) 08:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We may disagree, @Montanabw:, but I do not ignore anything substantive that you say about the article or sources. I have said that I thought the Aro ter is 'notable' in wikipedia terms. That is not the same as saying that I think it is a mainstream group. I don't. I have only ever said that sources exist that make it notable. Wikipedia is based on democratic principles and, as you know, diverse, non-mainstream topics, organizations or individuals can be notable. Lily W (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Aro is not notable in Wikipedia terms.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Taking the Article to Class B

This article has been rated Class C for some time. With so many sources, I propose we take it to Class B based on similar Class B articles. We've seen effort to delete it and make it a stub, which will lower its class. And, yes improving the article to Class B involves having a Notes, Sources, Bibliography and whatever else improves the article WP:FNNR. However, my proposal may cause people to rate it lower than Class C, in denial that it is possible to improve this article to similar Class B articles on Wikipedia. Looking for Class B examples to compare. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article would probably deserve a D or an F if there was such a classification. Anyway better to leave the classification to Wikipedia editors who have had no involvement in editing the article - otherwise it is a bit like letting school children give their own grades. 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The current article is stub-class, after many non-consensual deletions. I believe this version [29] met the criteria for B grade.Lily W (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Roll Back

I rolled it back because, there is an ongoing discussions about the sources. Please continue in the discussion here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"An article about a Buddhist organization shouldn't discuss Buddhist concepts" is absurd. This article is about Aro gTer which as the article says is a "lineage" with a terma. This [30] is disruptive Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the organization. Not Dzogchen, Nyingma etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The lineage is Nyingma Dzogchen. These things can be attributed and included from appropriate sources. Are you in denialism? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what Wiki links are for. You can link terms like Nyingma, Dzogchen, etc. to the articles, or sections of articles, that explain or describe them. The main topic of this article is Aro gTér so as far as possible use independent sources that specifically talk about Aro gTér. BTW How far back is Aro gTér a human "lineage" in the usual sense of that term? We know the lineage goes back to Ngakpa Chögyam - but beyond him there seems to be no substantial evidence (such as Tibetan texts) that Khandro Yeshé Réma, who is supposed to be the first discoverer / revealer of Aro gTér, even existed or that she physically revealed such a terma. It is unclear to me if Ngakpa Chögyam recieved this "lineage" of terma teachingd from a teacher who had in turn received them from Khandro Yeshé Réma/Aro Lingma or her son - or if Khandro Yeshé Réma/Aro Lingma and her son revealed them directly to Ngakpa Chögyam in a vision - in which case, in conventional worldly terms, he would normally be considered to be be the founder of the lineage. Either way, somehow this needs to be clarified in the article and not fudged. I wonder if it might make more sense to have the main topic / focus of the article as the contemporary Aro gTér group / "Buddhist organisation" which obviously exists, rather than the main topic being a "lineage of teachings" which cannot really be substantiated. Of course if the the topic article of the article were the organisation a summary of it's claims and teachings could then be included within that context. 05:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to note that one of Chögyam Ngakpa's own articles states that Aro practitioners don't believe Aro Lingma even existed. Ogress _smash! 10:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Aro gTér for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aro gTér is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aro gTér until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a long history of this group on the internet being repeatedly challenged for manufactured endorsements allegedly made by senior Tibetan Lamas which were then reputiated by the Lama in question or their representatives. As long as the adherents of the sect are prevented from removing an entry which details the numerous controversies which arose and why , I would think that a page in which is clear that a concensus opinion does exist to comprehensively refute the eloquently and vociferously claimed authenticity of this group should remain on Wikipedia . The story of how this group had its lack of authenticity gradually revealed on internet discussions hosted by Tricycle magazine seems worth telling? There are also numerous scholars who have pointed out there are no historical roots to this tradition, no one named "Aro Yeshe" etc Jpotts (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC) David Germano is one, Malcolm Smith, Janet Gyatso of Harvard, there are others too.

Ah, I see WP:Sources. There is no one Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

The main argument seems to be whether or not publications by Aro authors can be used in the "teaching and practice" section. I suggest a two-part compromise:

1. The "teachings and practice" section will start with a 1-2 sentence paragraph that addresses the doubt that the current Aro gTér is the same as the historical Aro gTér. We can't say much (because no reliable source discusses this in detail), but how about something like: "This section describes the teachings and practices of the contemporary Aro gTér organization, based mainly on publications by authors from that organization."
2. We will remove any material that cannot be cited to print publications from independent publishers. I have argued above that there is no reason not to use self-published sources in the "teachings and practices" section. However, if it will end the dispute here, I would not object to this restriction.

(Sorry I haven't had time to read all the new details of the dispute; I have been away for several days.) Arthur chos (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no verifiable evidence that there ever was a "historical Aro gTér" the article can only be about the contemporary Aro gTér organization. The article also necessarily has to primarily rely on what Aro gTér says about iself since there are really no good independent sources. As I've mentioned above, both Rawlinson and Melton & Baumann are simply repeating or rephrasing small bits of what Ngakpa Chögyam has written and the very brief coverage of Ngakpa Chögyam and Aro gTér in their respective books in no way amount to critical examinations of the tradition. The authors were simply accepting or reporting Ngakpa Chögyam's account.

From what I can gather it seems that Ngakpa Chögyam is supposed to have recalled the Aro gTér teachings from his earlier rebirths as Aro Yeshe and a-Shul Pema Legden - or had some kind of meditative vision of Aro Lingma / Khandro Yeshé Réma in which he directly received these teachings. Since none of this can ever be verified it is all matter of faith, which is of course fine - but, unless there is some real evidence, the article should not be written in a way that suggests any of these beliefs are historical facts. Chris Fynn (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And this probably needs to be noted at the AfD, as well as an SPI on a couple people posting there. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We have been around this several times, and you are ignoring what I have said. Your assertion that reputable independent scholars, publishing in reputable independent scholarly venues, have improperly evaluated the evidence, is original research of the worst kind.

Also, there is no requirement that a Wikipedia article rely only on scholarly sources. You have a right to personally disbelieve non-scholarly sources, but you have no right to remove them from the article.

Arthur chos (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur chos:- This isn't "original research" - I simply looked at the books cited and evaluated them for what type of source they are - or the quality and type of the source. It is obvious to anyone that the authors didn't really do any real investigation of Aro gTér, they are just providing a brief summary of what Aro gTér says about itself. The first part of Rawlinson's Book of Enlightened Masters:Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions is basically a study of the phenomena of western spiritual teachers of eastern traditions the second part is a a Directory of Spiritual Teachers that is a Who's Who of about 150 of these "enlightened masters" or spiritual teachers and a brief summary of the life and teachings of each. Do you really think Rawlinson checked whether the claims (many of them exceptional) of all these 150 "enlightened masters" are factual - other than that they made them? Of course we can use his book, but in his brief account of Ngakpa Chogyam where Rawlinson is simply quoting or paraphrasing the subject we should make that clear. Melton & Baumann's Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices covers 3,200 different religous traditions of alll faiths. This book is, at best, a tertiary source. In that book the body of the entry on Aro gTér , written by Diana Cousens, consists of 4 paragraphs covering just over half a page (one of the shorter entries in the book) the first two paragraphs of the entry are a preamble which don't even talk about Aro gTér - so there are only two paragraphs in the entry which do. Cousens cites only two sources (Ngak’chang Rinpoche. Wearing the Body of Visions. Ramsey, NJ: Aro Books, 1995 and Ngak’chang Rinpoche with Khandro Déchen Spectrum of Ecstasy: Embracing Emotions as the Path. Ramsey, NJ: Aro Books, 1997) and makes no evaluation of there claims. In fact at least half of these two paragraphs are direct quotations from those books. If you quote those parts then you have to say something like "Cousens quoting Ngak’chang Rinpoche" - so you may as well cite the original source directly. I have no problem if people want to cite Ngakpa Chögyam but it needs to be clear that whatever he says about many things are simply his own claims. For instance we have no real source, other than Ngakpa Chögyam himself that says Khandro Yeshé Réma/ Aro Lingma discovered the Aro terma (everybody else who says this is just repeating Ngakpa Chögyam's claim). Ngakpa Chögyam presents no evidence for this claim other than his own visions or "remembrance" of previous lives. Can you find a single independent source (one that does not directly or indirectly rely on Ngakpa Chögyam) that says Khandro Yeshé Réma/ Aro Lingma discovered the Aro terma? Or even that this person Khandro Yeshé Réma/ Aro Lingma ever existed? Such things are simply the belief of Aro gTér followers based on Ngakpa Chögyam's visions or recollection of his past lives. Whether they are historically true or not is irrelevant here, so long as the article doesn't make it look like or read like they are. Chris Fynn (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Even some followers of Aro gTér are sceptical about its objective "history" - so it seems rather pointless to argue or pretend, for the purpose of having an article included in Wikipedia, that people in the Aro gTér lineage such as Aro Lingma "existed" in an objective historical sense when Aro gTér followers have themselves pointed out that the evidence for this is "precisely none" (see: Did Aro Lingma really exist? ). The only objective thing we know about the history of Aro gTér is that it is based on a "vision" of Ngagpa Chogyam - beyond that we can't say much (other than it is a belief or claim) - so why shouldn't the article just say this? If one insists that that lineages like this are some kind of objective history, how does that benefit anyone? From the point of view of Buddhist practice does it have any benefit and should one even worry about it? An interesting POV related to this is what Roger Corless writes in his book, The Vision of Buddhism. (New York: Paragon House,1989), p.xx: "It is my contention that history, a western, post-Christian, academic discipline, is non-Buddhist, even anti-Buddhist...and, hence, any attempt to explain Buddhism primarily by means of its history obscures, and sometimes destroys, the reality, that is,the Buddhism that it is trying to study and explain". Chris Fynn (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Double quotes are only grammatically correct for speech quotation or for excerpts from text. Ngakpa Chögyam seems to be the most commonly used and referenced name for the founder/leader, so putting 'Ngak'chang Rinpoche' in single quotes as an alternative name makes most sense. As far as I know he doesn't refer to himself as Ngak'chang Rinpoche? He writes his books as Ngakpa Chögyam. Lily W (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with whatever style is chosen on that issue. I believe that in the AfD, some of the reasons this article was salvaged was due to Ngakpa Chögyam and Ngak'chang Rinpoche apparently being the same person. So if others call him that, it probably does need to be mentioned in the article. If it's not the same person, then we may have to go back and reexamine some of the sources provided at the AfD. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They are indeed the same person. Skyerise (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RMV OR

Unsubstantiated claim. [31] Removed Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Editored restored [32] without talk or reliable sources. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Unsourced negative attributes, can cause WP:BLP issues in this public place. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure where to put this request to reopen this review? have additional sourced information to contribute to this discussion which had not had time previously to collect and assemble Jpotts (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

POV concerns

This article appears to have been written at least partially to cast doubt upon this lineage. The first paragraph confuses physical terma and mind terma. Mind terma appear in the mind of the practitioner and are thus written in the language of the receiver. That there is "no Tibetan source" is irrelevant with respect to mind terma. A Tibetan with write their terma in Tibetan, ann Englishman in English. Why is this misdirected and inaccurate criticism placed predominantly in the lead section, without any reference to or explanation of even the word "terma", with an attempt to disparage the lineage's teachings based on the non-availbablity of a "Tibetan" source without so much as an explanation of what a terma is and what a mind terma is? Skyerise (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Skyerise (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-traditional claim source

Which source originates the non-traditional claim [33] as if there is group controversy and says something, not Nyingma recognized [34] as well as claims not supported by another published source research [35]? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's unsourced opinion. I've reverted all the POV edits by the user who made that change. Skyerise (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Folks are focusing on the wrong "controversy"

I've been studying Tibetan Buddhism since the '80s. There was a period where there was some questioning of this group's legitimacy. However, that was quite some time ago and those questions are no longer current. It's generally accepted by those who really know the more eclectic nature of the Nyingma tradition that this lineage received approval from some fairly high lamas.

The actual current controversy is that the leader of the group seems to be homo- and trans-phobic. While more recognized Tibetan teachers such as Tulku Sang-gnag Rinpoche and teachers associated with him have adapted empowerments to be inclusive of both, and Chagdud Gonpa has adopted a strong non-discrimination policy, this lineage is pretty much exclusively cis- & hetero- normative and there have been complaints from both gay and trans people about being rejected by this group. Any controversy section should focus on this. Skyerise (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)