Misplaced Pages

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 05:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If Aro were a cult, that would not be a reason for it not to have a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies, and how the problem could be solved?

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

Seems more like Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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. These traditions have preserved and propagated all three methods for contemplating the nature of passion."

Arthur chos (talk) 07:35, 6 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.

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 ( ).

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. It is a much higher standard of evidence than required by Misplaced Pages. It is also one that we are not qualified to evaluate. Any attempt by us as Misplaced Pages 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 or by well-regarded academic presses" are reliable, especially if they are secondary to an earlier publication. WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Well-established news outlets 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Notability at #Notability, and Misplaced Pages: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)

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 . (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)

Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages 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, 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)