The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. uncontested request with minimal participation (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Düsum Khyenpa, 1st Karmapa Lama → 1st Karmapa, Düsum Khyenpa
• Karma Pakshi, 2nd Karmapa Lama → 2nd Karmapa, Karma Pakshi
• Rangjung Dorje, 3rd Karmapa Lama → 3rd Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje
• Rolpe Dorje, 4th Karmapa Lama → 4th Karmapa, Rolpe Dorje
• Deshin Shekpa, 5th Karmapa Lama → 5th Karmapa, Deshin Shekpa
• Thongwa Dönden, 6th Karmapa Lama → 6th Karmapa, Thongwa Dönden
• Chödrak Gyatso, 7th Karmapa Lama → 7th Karmapa, Chödrak Gyatso
• Mikyö Dorje, 8th Karmapa Lama → 8th Karmapa, Mikyö Dorje
• Wangchuk Dorje, 9th Karmapa Lama → 9th Karmapa, Wangchuk Dorje
• Chöying Dorje, 10th Karmapa → 10th Karmapa, Chöying Dorje
• Yeshe Dorje, 11th Karmapa → 11th Karmapa, Yeshe Dorje
• Changchub Dorje, 12th Karmapa Lama → 12th Karmapa, Changchub Dorje
• Dudul Dorje, 13th Karmapa Lama → 13th Karmapa, Dudul Dorje
• Theckchok Dorje, 14th Karmapa Lama → 14th Karmapa, Theckchok Dorje
• Khakyab Dorje, 15th Karmapa Lama → 15th Karmapa, Khakyab Dorje
• Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, 16th Karmapa → 16th Karmapa, Rangjung Rigpe Dorje

Again, this is on behalf of another user, I do not necessarily agree with the proposed titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC) This move request was unilaterally submitted on behalf of @Metokpema without coordination, after Metokpema submitted this issue to the Edit Warring Administrators. Metokpema is now completing this group move request properly by adding justification and source links in support of the moves. These moves follow two very simple points: The Karmapa's title is 'Karmapa', and can be 'Gyalwang Karmapa', but is not 'Karmapa Lama' and has never been Karmapa Lama:[reply]

• This elementary point is confirmed by the Karmapa himself at kagyuoffice.org, where their list of the 17 Karmapas do not have 'Lama' in their name. Their tulku title has never been 'Karmapa Lama', and why or when it was mistakenly used as their title on Wikipedia is not clear since no one has provided any evidentiary support for these incorrect titles.
• Three other respected academic sites that have presences on the internet all support this point. They are treasuryoflives.org , whose biographical articles are peer reviewed; and lotsawahouse.org , whose team of translators are highly respected and their open access to buddhist texts is commendable; and bdrc.org, the Buddhist Digital Resource Center, whose library of texts authored by the Karmapas list them exclusively as karma pa (in the Wylie translation of Tibetan).
• To assume wrongly that every tulku lineage has Lama in their title is rather shocking, especially in an encyclopedic setting.

The next very simple point is that the Tulku title naming convention for Tibetan Buddhists is tulku number, then spiritual title, then given name, as in the 8th Karmapa, Mikyo Dorje'.

• Again, this Tulku naming convention is used by the above listed highly reliable sources, and by innumerable published academic journals and their qualified authors. Minor differences could include writing or spelling the tulku number (as in '8th Karmapa' or 'Eighth Karmapa') and these moves propose keeping the number system as in '8th Karmapa'.
• Additionally, the Tibetan language version uses karma pa 08 where the number follows the tulku title, whereas the English translations prefer the number preceding the tulku title. These moves propose to keep the English version of number placement.

All of these links, and more links, and more examples and more points can be found at Talk:Theckchok Dorje, 14th Karmapa Lama, which is where this request for moves should have been posted.Metokpema (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm of the opinion that, if the title is incorrect and should be "Karmapa", we should treat it like we do a lot of other titles. What I mean by this is keeping 1st Karmapa, 2nd Karmapa, etc., at the end of the article title. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia. Frankly, your personal opinions do not matter since reliable academic sources prevail. Metokpema (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, I couldn't care less about your inaccurate edit warring report because, we I've described three times, it very clearly was not edit warring, but there's no need to rehash that. Submit it again if you like, I told you I'd start the move, and your edit warring report will be closed as not edit warring, plain and simple, because I reverted your moves once, and that was that. There was no back and forth, hence, no edit warring. Your personal attacks and repeated assumptions of bad faith are ridiculous.

Grow up. Don't post on my talk page again, and do not ping me again. Our interactions from here on out are over, unless you feel like submitting another frivolous report which will be closed without action (except maybe a WP:BOOMERANG based on your behaviour).

As mentioned, an uninvolved third party will close the discussion after 7 days. Let the process run its course, this is standard practice when a move has been contested. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback so far.... but I do still prefer, and believe, the number for the person should come after the comma, regardless of what title we end up using. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the reliable sources support my page title corrections, which you deleted more than three weeks ago.
• Again, you have not provided any sources at all, much less reliable sources, to support what you describe as 'your opinion' to the names and naming conventions of the tulku lineage of the Karmapas. Why not?
• Maybe a comparison to the naming of car models would be easier for you and others to understand: The Mercedes-Benz 300 SL is the recognised name for a "famous and highly respected car" (please note this is NOT an article). The name is not "300 SL Mercedes-Benz Vehicle". Likewise, the Jaguar XK-E , considered the most beautiful car ever made, is not named the "E KX Jaguar Vehicle". Simple, yes?
• Opinion as a personal preference to change these names remains a personal opinion, but should not, per WP:Name, be forced on WP pages by using page move deletions and page move blocks, a doubly negative move due in WP:NO-PREEMPT.
• In other words, "300 SL Mercedes-Benz Vehicle" is not the correct name, as copious amounts of sources prove. Personal opinion does not matter.
• These simple car model name examples further explain why the opinion of "Düsum Khyenpa, 1st Karmapa Lama" is not the correct name for the 1st Karmapa, Düsum Khyenpa. This is what all of the reliable sources prove.
• Please note that my exhaustive explanations of this most basic point are also not a form of edit warring, but exhaustive attempts to make the logical issue (inexperienced and unsourced opinions vs multiple reliable and scholarly sources) apparent, in order to build consensus per Wikipedia standards.
• Why are these exhaustive efforts to correct obvious errors in an encyclopaedia still necessary, after more than 3 weeks? Metokpema (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you.

Additionally, WP:BLP concerns are also involved with ensuring the naming conventions are corrected.

In that the Karmapa tulku lineage is a lineage of reincarnated spiritual leaders, we can say that the current Karmapa is also the 16th Karmapa and the 15th Karmapa, and on, since it's an incarnation (tulku) lineage that has continued from the 1st Karmapa. Thus, their names need to follow their own naming conventions in English (tulku number, title, given name) which are those that scholars also use, per the provided sources.

I'll bring it to the BLP notice board's attention. (Metokpema) 116.66.195.213 (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this multi-move as proposed by the nominator. Looking at similar topics, the Dalai Lama articles use the numbered title only (13th Dalai Lama), while the Panchen Lama articles use Name, Numbered Title (Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama). This wouldn't be suuuper consistent, but looking through Tulku I see all manner of other variations, so I think we can throw that one of the CRITERIA out of the window. Otherwise, their initial reasoning seems solid and I have no reason to doubt it. Their subsequent behavior has been very disruptive, but perhaps with this outside opinion the requested move can be closed and we can all move on. Toadspike [Talk] 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the input @Toadspike. The comparison to entries in Category:Dalai Lamas makes me wonder whether we should exclude the names altogether. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh I wasn't going to list all the options, but some of Tulkus use names only, like the Jamgon Kongtrul (e.g. Lodrö Chökyi Nyima). If you want to achieve WP:CONSISTENT here...I will watch from a safe distance. Toadspike [Talk] 19:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hahaha I thiiiinkkk I'm good then lol. Thanks @Toadspike. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, fair warning to all who come after me: The nom's preferred source, kagyuoffice.org, is the website of one of two current claimants to this title. We have an article on this at Karmapa controversy. I don't have the expertise to judge if this affects the move request (I believe it doesn't), but if someone with said expertise thinks it matters, please explain why and ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 19:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]