Talk:Kum Nye

Deletion of Aro system
Regarding my restoring Aro section, repeatedly deleted by UncleMartin. He justified this with "false trulkus, false terma and false teachings, not recognized by Tibetan Buddhists". (1) Please provide a citation from a reliable source for this claim. [I don't believe there is any.] (2) The system exists, is widely taught, and is documented in a published book. It should therefore be described in the encyclopedia, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. If a reliable source considers it 'false', that can be noted. Arthur chos (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

More about repeated deletion of Aro section (August 2012)
The most recent deletion was justified as "Undid vandalism. It's article about Tibetan Buddhism not about Western cults."

Please read WP:VANDAL. Restoring a large block of text that was deleted without discussion is not vandalism.

Please read WP:Blanking sections violates many policies. This explains why the repeated removal of the Aro section is disallowed under Wikipedia editing rules.

This article is not about Tibetan Buddhism: it is about Kum Nye. Among the Kum Nye system it discusses, there is a Bön system, which has not been subject to similar deletion. Bön is not Buddhism. Why delete the Aro section and not the Bön section?

Reliable sources (see WP:SOURCES), cited in the Aro gTér article, agree that the Aro gTér is Tibetan Buddhism. Your opinion may be different. Your opinion is also irrelevant, unless you back it with reliable sources (i.e. published scholarly literature). See WP:NOR.

If the Aro gTér were not Tibetan Buddhism, that would be irrelevant, because it does teach Kum Nye, according to a reliable source (the published book cited in this article).

Whether or not the Aro gTér is "Western" is also irrelevant to whether it should be included in this encyclopedia article.

Please read WP:LABEL. It begins: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

Arthur chos (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

New deletions
We need to discuss the deletion of material and the latest edits before we apply them to the article, please. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit boldly. I removed Western New Age claims to kunyé instruction. It seemed like advertising and sketchy. I also cleaned up the grammar, spelling, etc.  Ogress  smash!  07:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well please discuss the changes here in detail before engaging in edit wars and making wild accusations. You even removed the name of the article from the opening, this is controbversial to say the least of it and your retaliatory claims merely arouse my suspicions. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

These deletions seem unjustified for the same reasons as the similar deletions in August 2012, discussed above. Please read that discussion carefully; most of what I said then seems to apply in this case also. Reliable sources (quoted in the Aro gTér article) state that that system, at least, is indeed Tibetan, not Western. Also, "New Age" is a vague, derogatory term, with no specific meaning, and doesn't belong here unless it can be supported by citations from reliable sources. Could you please be more specific about what "seemed like advertising and sketchy" and in what way? That could probably be corrected without a massive deletion. Arthur chos (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Western teaching of Kum Nye is just as encyclopedic as Tibetan teaching. And in the West it is known as Kum Nye, removing this naming "as if it were wrong" is siding with the view that only Tibtean teaching counts, which is notv a neutral viewpoint. I am with Arthur on this one. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to edit war when you clearly have no consensus? That is not the way we work on wikipedia. You need to gain consensus here and stop edit warring when you clearly dont have consensus. Edit warring while ignoring the discussion your fellow editors are having on the article is neither collaborative nor helpful and needs to stop. You also have still failed to say while you have ignored the MoS by removing the name of the article, in bold, from the article itself. That is not a measured edit and was the first thing that made me suspicious about your edits. I have analysed all your edits and can find none that are worth including. Please ensure you get a consensus before making further changes. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)