Welcome!

Hello, Sacerdote, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Can I interest you in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Tibet NA‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Dear Sacerdote. Again welcome to wikipedia. I notice that you tried to move the page Karmapa controversy to 17th Karmapa recongitions. Unfortunately instead of using the move tab at the top of the screen you seem to have tried majing a new article and manually copying the page and then maing the talk page a redirect. Please se Help:Merging and moving pages. The method you used causes all sorts of problem, not least that the history of teh [page and the talk page can be lost. To compound the problems someone else has nominated the original page for deletion, mistaking it for a copy. If that happened we would not have the article history any more and a giant mess we would need an admin to fix. It is an understandable mistake though, and lots of us have made the same mistake early on.

On the general subject of Karmapa please note that this subject is highly controversial, and many people come o edit these pages to further their own point of view WP:NPOV. The article on the whole lineage Karmapa was a battle ground and I created Karmapa controversy to deflect the edit work away from the main article and worked hard to build a consensus on what we could at least agree that each side says. One reason the main article has a picture of the 16th K not the rival 17th Ks is for the same reason. When editing controversial articles please look at the article's Talk page first to see if there is a debate about the change you propose, and if it is major suggest it there first. Otherwsie the edits are likely to just get reverted. If you do know about teh topic, there is is plenty of room for improvement in the articles on all 16 previous Karmapas and the main article (which is very brief). Best wishes 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (ps you can reply here, I have it on watch)

There's two 17th Karmapas, and that's something that's gone beyond initial controversy to what has now been an abiding outcome for 15 years and longer. It's become a settled fact of life in which a generation has grown up having personal recall of nothing otherwise. HH the 16th Karmapa died 27 years ago. Best practice is then to rename it as "17th Karmapa recognitions". In just the same way with time we have come to accept the Partition of India as no longer a 'controversy' but as a settled and abiding outcome that has proved its stability through time to have an aspect of permanence. My preference also is to show current occupants of hereditary or reincarnated titles in a lead position because it is they who have most relevance to the present time, recent past, and foreseeable future. Images of historical/past occupants are most appropriately accomodated at the article's historical survey section.Sacerdote (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "fact" that there are two Karmapas and the controversy rages on. Unfortunately for you, your preference does not (and should not) dictate how wikipedia is written, structured, and organized. Please do not continue to make such sweeping changes without discussion first.--Changchub (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an abiding circumstance that has the quality of a fact, and it's up to us to have the conscientiousness to reflect that in article content. We can do other things - such as deny or ignore it - but that's not living up to a coverage that is conscientious and truly holistic. The duality of the two people has a unity which is their status as 17th Karmapas ministering to Kagyupa. It has connectedness to the lineage of Karmapas and the soundest approach - as I have sought to do - is to represent the Buddhist aspect of sharing which is what the dual representations live to exemplify. Representing things as division, 'controversy' and contest in the sangha isn't a characteristic of the Buddha's example.Sacerdote (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not characteristic of the Buddha's example to be honest? There is a controversy, there are people who vociferously support one and deny the other candidate for Karmapa. Pretending it doesn't exist and justifying said pretense on the grounds that it will be good for the Kagyü lineage is not an appropriate activity to engage in here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum for an as-neutral-as-possible exposition of facts and information. It is not factual or appropriate to try to foist one's own wishes for the way a particular lineage or tradition should conduct itself on this forum. If you want to start a website of your own advocating the sort of middle ground you hint at above I think that would be great. Peaceful intentions and all. But the cold hard facts are that there is a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchub (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This willingness to frame what has been a shared responsibility for 15 years as a 'controversy' is entirely a mischief and a generation of polluting karmic traces. Guard against infecting Wikipedia topic coverage with it. I acknowledge you're falling in with a viewpoint of those commentators who want to frame the innovated duality as somehow a conflict or a contest or a 'controversy'. Meditate for a moment on how harmful and unnecessary that is. Instead the ethical culture of Wikipedia impels us to a higher discipline which is to embrace WP:NPOV Middle Way. In other words, equably dignify the duality and its joint parts. I'll take strength from continuing to do so and encourage you to step up also in train.Sacerdote (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article 17th Karmapa recognitions, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]