Talk:Aro gTér

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I wonder too.  It's a terma mystery.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aro interdepended origination credibility 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I agree with .VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Turning the tags into actionable tasks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peacock 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I agree with .VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Original research 

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

message: Here's a content diff text wall.
* This  was cited and provokes the issue.  Should be restored.
* This  was cited and provokes the issue.  Should be restored.
* This  has appropriate sources support. Should be restored.
* This  has appropriate sources support. Should be restored.
* This  has appropriate sources. Should be restored.
* This  has appropriate sources. Should be restored.
* This  has appropriate sources. Should be restored.
* This  is wrong.  Scholarly review not required.  Should be restored
Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It shouldn't be restored per all the reasons discussed on this page several times.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The article is notable, why waste your time? Which source says cult? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Aro is not notable.  I'm still baffled there is a Wikipedia page for this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am Aro jealous that sources support the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ZP5, I have no idea what you are even saying half of the time. , 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)

text:  is correct.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if we chose to ignore the sources. There were additional notable sources added .  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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)

text: ((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)
thread_title:  Sources material removed 

message: Tag team:         There is a coordinated effort here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag Teams Investigation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacing more large deletions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  My apologizes, this one can go.  I pilled up additional sources that site Aro.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   This citation wasn't a reference to "discuss Aro." It was requested by  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)
thread_title:  Germano 2005, p. 3. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please stop inserting material that merely uses the word "Aro".VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your have removed relevant sources. It's disrupting progress. Please restore and discussion individually . Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Is this page a fork on the Aro lineage? 

message: 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  . Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... I don't know how to respond to your assertion. Ogress smash! 03:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sacred Hoop Magazine 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The current article is stub-class, after many non-consensual deletions. I believe this version  met the criteria for B grade.Lily W (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking the Article to Class B 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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  is disruptive  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss the organization.  Not Dzogchen, Nyingma etc.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Roll Back 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Aro gTér]] for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: They are indeed the same person. Skyerise (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation marks 

message: Unsubstantiated claim.    Removed Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMV OR 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cleaned up. Skyerise (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concerns 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Folks are focusing on the wrong "controversy"