Talk:Aro gTér

Cult

It seems that Chogyam followers are not only reverting criticism about Aro, but also are attacking Dudjom RInpoche's page. From Admin Notices:

Re: persistent linking by a cult on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudjom_Rinpoche

Nyingma.com is a site setup by the cult of Aro (http://www.aroter.org/). This cult is run by an Englishman who claims to be a prophet (Terton) and his group has been denounced as a fake inauthentic lineage (masquerading as Tibetan Buddhism) by high lamas. Furthermore there have been shocking behavioral accusations about the practices of this cult by former members. Links to Nyingma.com will be contested. Sylvain1972 and members of the the cult keep reposting the link and have reported my editings as vandalism. They hope to recruit unknowing people interested in the holy Dudjom lineage with this link as they have done in the past. Can I have some action by an administrator please. For more information and evidence please contact any moderators on the largest Buddhist forum, E-sangha (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/).

- my question is: what is the reason for doing this? Could you please stop doing that?

Major revision

Hello and best wishes to all contributors!

Two brief substantive points, and then a longer procedural one.

I've done an extensive edit with the aim of turning a stub into a "good" article. Substantially all the material is new.

I would like to propose that the article be moved to "Aro lineage" (with a redirect). I'm inclined to think that the Aro gTér does not warrant a page of its own. Alternatively, we could spilt the terma section out as an Aro gTér page, and the remainder could be an "Aro lineage" page, with a summary of the terma. What do you think?

Procedurally, it would be helpful for all contributors to review the three fundamental policies of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:No original research. These terms all have non-obvious specialized meanings in the Wikipedia world.

"Verifiability in a nutshell means: material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." When I deleted some material on 21 Jan 08 and described it as non-verifiable in the edit note, I was referring to that. Sorry if this was cryptic. This material had no citations, was likely to be challenged, and relied on anonymous hearsay. (It was quickly restored by someone anonymous, and then deleted again by me today, for the same reason.)

"Neutral point of view" (NPOV) means that all significant views, that can be cited in reliable sources, must be represented. However, articles ought not to discuss views for which no reliable source can be found, or which come from a "tiny" minority. This is the case "regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". (See the NPOV article.)

"No original research" in a nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish... unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.... Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

What follows is my understanding of the applicability of these three principles to the material I deleted, and to the meta discussion in the article body (to which I've added a note suggesting that it be moved to this talk page).

"Considerable discussion on Buddhist forums": forums are rarely if ever a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense.

"Scholars reported that...": This should be included if we can find good citations. Unfortunately, during my research, I wasn't able to find any.

"Most observers...": please see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words.

"Numerous Tibetan Lamas... had repudiated these claims": which Lamas? Where did they publish these repudiations?

"A written statement from the Dalai Lama's office" and "a subsequent letter": Unfortunately I couldn't locate these; please provide citations?

"There is plenty of evidence on the internet of controversy." When looking for this, I found strongly-worded, anonymous statements on the eSangha forum. Is this what you are referring to? That probably does not in itself constitute "controversy". One can find forum threads with passionate denunciations of cauliflower, but that not make cauliflower a controversial topic. The question for Wikipedia purposes is whether disagreement is "notable", and whether it can be documented based on reliable sources. A good model would be NKT#Controversies, which is based on published meta-discussion of the controvery by academic experts.

"Reputable figures can confirm that..."; "comments made by several widely respected Lamas"; "several prominent scholars": Could you provide citations please? I couldn't locate these. In the eSangha forum, I did see anonymous postings attributing opinions to known third parties, but this would not constitute a "reliable source". On a forum, anyone can anonymously claim that person X said Y.

Arthur chos (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

response re properly citing critics, etc

Hi, thanks for clarifying how the controversy section of this entry can be presented in accord with wikipedia's guidelines. Ironically, you are wishing me the best in validating the points which, when properly documented, cited, etc, will clearly challenge the authenticity of this lineage. When I have the time to pursue this, I will return to this project. Thanks

Redirection from Aro gTer to Aro lineage

RE:

I agree. I think it would be tidier as one page, including the gTér as a subheading. If the main page should become unwieldy at some point, we could always revisit the idea of separating them out. Lily W (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism link

I am not sure what is best to do with the new "Criticism" external link that was added by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. The link leads to an anonymous blog post (inherently not a reliable source; not suitable for an encyclopedia). The blog post doesn't cite any reliable sources either. It is also fairly incoherent, written in a sort of stream-of-consciousness style, and I often couldn't understand what it was trying to say.

So I'm tempted to just delete it. But apparently there is someone who feels that the world really, really needs to know that someone anonymous thinks there is some sort of problem here. I don't really want to get in an edit war with whoever it is, so for the time being I've added a link to another blog that appears to be responsive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur chos (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that it is now the only reference to criticism, if you delete this, the whole page is pretty much advertising - including the load of links to its own website - for a lineage that certainly does have its critics, and is pretty strong in questionable claims. rudy (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wake up

Come on, people! We are facing the biggest fake phenomenon in contemporary Vajrayana, and you speak about NPOV, problems of verification of claims, forum rumours, gossip etc. These guys are fake, have no confirmation from anybody, they even have the guts to call themselves "Rinpoches"! People who want to verify what Aro is should know what others think about this "tradition". Removing the criticism section serves nothing but sweeping the dirt under the carpet. Wake up, this is important! People who are doing this will be partly responsible when some more innocents get caught in the net of that false guru. Please, leave the opposing view, this is more important that you may think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that that a fair fraction of Vajrayana is nonsense, including some of what I wrote on the page. What I believe, what you believe, what we KNOW, and even what is TRUE are irrelevant and have no place in a WP article. What matters is what can be documented on the basis of reliable sources using academic criteria.

I am really sure that "Joseph Ratzinger, who calls himself "Pope" and claims to be infallible, actually teaches a false religion based on faked documents, and advocates ritual cannibalism." However, I don't go vandalizing the Pope page, because my opinion, and in fact the truth, are irrelevant there.

WP articles need to be written from an external perspective. "Fake", and "false", when it comes to religion, are only meaningful from an internal perspective. Religious genuineness is a matter of dogmatic belief, not verifiable fact. It is inherently non-NPOV.

"Rinpoche" is a meaningless honorific. (Check the WP article, especially the last bit.) There is no fact-of-the-matter about who is a Rinpoche, and no criteria for deciding. In practice, if enough people call you "Rinpoche" that it sticks, then it sticks. That's all.

Published books and journal articles say that several respected Lamas have approved of the Aro gTér. Maybe they are wrong. If we can find comparable reliable sources, we should include them. In the meantime, your opinion or my opinion is irrelevant.

Arthur chos (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole problem with Chogyam is that some time ago it seemed that all goes well. Some lamas spoke favourably about him etc. But then something went very wrong. He started to call himself a Rinpoche, consider himself a terton etc. The aroter webpage is full of namedropping. Now I see you are even spamming Dudjom Rinpoche's wiki page. Guys, why on earth are you doing this? You won't make him more legitimate by trying to convince the world it's all true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)