Talk:Aro gTér
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Aro gTér, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
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 unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position....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)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
