text:
Talk:Kenny G

Personal Life
Kenny G's wife Lyndie Benson-Gorlick filed for legal separation on 19th January 2012 citing "irreconcilable differences" in L.A. County Superior Court. http://www.tmz.com/2012/01/19/kenny-g-wife-legal-separation-divorce/?adid=hero3

Boring Turd Commentary
Whatever mature adult decided to vandalize this page and repeatedly call Kenny G a "boring turd" should get off Wikipedia and expend a little more effort on getting his kindergarten GED. I'm not entitled to fix this vandalism, as some large chunks of information that I can't fill in seem to have been cut out (I don't know too much about Kenny G), so if anyone would like to restore Kenny G to his former glory, go right ahead. 62 Misfit (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC) The man is a great musician not a great jazz musician, but he is an important part of the genre in question like it or not. Jazz music is heard today more than ever because of Kenny G, an that is a fact that even if you don't like him, you have to agree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundlib (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate
I found various dates quoted for his date of birth. I added him to July 6 before I realised the confusion. He's listed as being born on June 6 on 1956 in music (and some online sources), and I saw another couple of dates quoted elsewhere. Does anyone have a reliable source? fabiform | talk 19:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Logic dictates june 6th - making his birthdate a very appropriate 6/6/56 :)  I'm guessing his place of birth was actually Megiddo -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 02:41, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Most wanted articles
I must say that while I'm not a fan of Kenny G, it shocks me that we didn't have an article on him until so recently. Kudos to fabiform for filling the gap. Oh, and I have no idea when he was born. Isomorphic 05:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I found him languishing on Most wanted articles, which is quite a nicely random selection of articles to work on if you're in need of inspiration. :) fabiform | talk 16:32, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There should be an article on the new album, Rhythm and Romance. I haven't heard the album yet, so I won't write it.  Kenny G pitched the new album on HSN the other day.  It's on Concord Jazz after he left Arista after 25 years, so I put that down.Sposato (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Did he really invent the sax like it says in the article? Seems hard to believe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.59.237 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 * In the absence of any response so far (6 years 10 months is a long time), I'm led to answer that difficult question. Ready?  Here goes, and hold on to your horses!
 * The answer is in the negatory.

2600:1700:EA01:1090:5892:B30E:6D4E:2005 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Which saxophone?
His bio doesn't say which saxophone he plays???

 * Though I can't garuntee that this is all he plays on his albums, but he is mostly seen (I've only seen) playing a soprano sax. The photo of him on the article is of him holding an soprano sax. La Pizza11 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On some songs, he also plays alto and tenor. Andros 1337 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kenny G started on alto saxophone, and his main instrument is the soprano saxophone, which he has played almost exclusively for the past decade, with the exception of the occasional tenor sax track on his albums. He plays tenor sax at his concerts which you can see clips of on YouTube to provide some contrast, because he tends to play more upbeat songs on tenor and flash his chops in the high harmonics there, whereas most of his work includes using the circular breathing technique to endlessly play runs on his soprano sax over soft, slower melodies. However, he usually begins his concerts with "Home," a song from his 1988 album Silhouette, which is performed on alto sax.

Kenny has been playing a Selmer Mark VI soprano sax (as well as same brand and model for tenor and alto sax) for literally decades--you can even see the lacquer deterioration on his soprano sax on the cover of his albums from even 20 years ago. Selmer is based in Paris, not far from the town of Belgium where inventor Adolph Sax (a clarinetist whose dad invented & repaired brass instruments called saxhorns) was from. Selmer made the Mark VI model from the 1950s-1970s, and they are deemed to be the "Stradivari" of saxophones. If you can legitimately buy one from eBay, it will easily run $5,000.

Kenny G, in his earlier albums from the 1980s, would play the Lyricon wind synthesizer--a digital wind controller that could be connected to a mini-Moog synthesizer and played like a saxophone. Kenny G also sponsored the Casio DH-100 (digital MIDI horn), and can be heard playing both flute and alto flute on his first album released by Arista Records in 1982.

Kenny G has been known to use La Voz brand reeds in the 80s, but since the 90s, has used a Bobby Dukoff metal mouthpiece for his soprano sax, size/model D8, uses a Rovner 1M leather ligature, and Frederick L. Hemke brand reeds (available from the Rico website), size 2 1/2.

For those of you that don't know, obviously there exists a whole family of saxophones, and the soprano sax is rarely used in school bands (seldom if ever appears in any symphonic, marching or concert band as no sheet music is typically written for this instrument); however, it frequently appears in jazz and pep bands. It can be straight like a clarinet or curved like other saxophones (either way it does not affect the sound). Famous saxophonist and friend of Kenny G is Dave Koz, who plays many saxophones including a curved soprano sax. All saxophones are either in the key of B-flat or E-flat. In the case of Kenny G, both a soprano sax and a tenor sax are B-flat instruments, so they can read the same music as a trumpet or clarinet. The tenor sax is exactly twice the size of a soprano sax, and because all saxophones share the same fingering system (which is based on physics, by the way--that's why if you learn how to play recorder in elementary school the fingering is very similar to that of any flute, piccolo, oboe, bassoon, saxophone, and clarinet), playing a note on soprano sax is the exact same fingering and note on a tenor sax but one octave higher (i.e. middle C on a soprano sax is fingered with just the middle finger on the left hand pearl-key but sounds like high-C on a tenor sax--played the same way but with the octave key pressed with the left thumb). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.178.126 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The clarinet isn't the same fingering as the saxophone. It overblows at the 12th, not the octave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.123.178 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre dispute
By definition, Kenny G is a smooth jazz saxophonist, not a pop saxophonist. His music sounds nothing like pop music (i.e. Britney Spears). You will NEVER find Kenny G in the pop section of a music store, he will always be found in the jazz section. His main influence was Grover Washington Jr. I am not going to get into the argument whether smooth jazz is a valid jazz genre or not, but to remain neutral, he should be classed as smooth jazz. Andros 1337 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

very true, he is the exact opposite of pop music, people like usher, and the backstreet boys are pop, kenny g is jazz. the sax is a dead give away

Give me a break. Kenny G never improvises at all in his performances. His pieces are all arranged in advance, sax as well as orchestra, note for note. The essence of jazz is original composition inspired by a melody, usually a "standard," or popular song of some kind. Regardless of where record-store clerks happen to place his recordings, Kenny has never been a jazz performer at all. While some jazz performers, such as Ella Fitzgerald, have indeed made some--even many--pop recordings, they have also made many jazz recordings. The difference is in whether they improvise or not. Sinatra, for example, a consummate musician, has never made a jazz recording. It is not a question of greater, but of different.66.108.145.155 01:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

THE SAX IS A DEAD GIVE AWAY??? How ignorant are you? Sax is used not only in jazz, but classical, POP, rock, R&B and avante-garde. Jimi Hendrix improvises, does that make him a jazz musician? I agree with the adult contemporary genre but I strongly disagree that Kenny's music is jazz.

 * Pop simply means "popular". "Pop" music isn't an established genre, like Jazz. Any music can fall into that category. Anybody who doesn't think Mr. G is pop music should be shot.

THANKYOU! Fantastic comment you are great.

I would agree with the thought that Kenny G is not a jazz musician, for several reasons. One, as mentioned above, he does not improvise. While improvising is not limited to jazz, it is still an essential part of jazz. No improv, no jazz. Number two, in Kenny G's music, there is absolutely no musical reference to any traditional jazz arrangements, such as chord changes, melodic arrangements (i.e. AABA form), swing notes, and especially the blues. Although there are certainly wonderful pieces of jazz that are missing some of these elements, if a piece of music contains none of them, it ought to be disqualified as jazz. It also does not help that so much of Kenny G's music is synthesized. However, while his music is certainly not jazz, a mention should be put in the article of his prodigious talent in handling fast music.63.43.18.139 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's quite accurate. A good deal of jazz is arranged, there is even Category:Jazz music arrangers. Although usually arranged jazz basically means big band not solo work. The other point you make I would have to agree with, in that very little of his music seems to be based in any jazz tradition not even smooth jazz. It rarely "sounds like" jazz of any kind. (Although he's had a few songs I think are jazz, most being when he started out) I don't think I'm being a purist because Candy Dulfer and David Sanborn "sound" more jazzy to me. Granted I'm not trained in music so I can't explain what I mean by that. That said I don't think he's pop either. He usually sounds more like "Easy Listening" or "New Age" and those are the sections where I've seen him. Not that I ever bought any of his stuff, but I'll admit he had a few songs back in the early 90s I liked pretty well.--T. Anthony 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most mainstream jazz musicians do not consider Kenny G's genre to be jazz. There was an interview of Pat Metheny several years ago where he was very adamant that Kenny G's music not jazz. Kenny G is just like many artists who are chosen by the music industry to force on the public. His music is very cookie-cutter and packaged just like many "pop" artists. The public is inundated with these so-called artists on a daily basis on the air waves and in advertisement. People who are exploring jazz for the first time are sometimes lead down the path that the Kenny G's music is actually jazz. Many times because the music stores whether it's Tower Records, Circuit City or Best Buy place his music under jazz. All of the smooth jazz stations owned by Jefferson Pilot/Lincoln Financial jam Kenny G down the public's throat.

Silick\\ Whatever music means to you is subject to your intepretation of it, music alone is what is appreciated and the fact is that Kenny G is a very good musician who plays soulful melodies (my opinion) and arguing whether or not his music is strictly "jazz" in the traditional sense is irrelevant as music is constantly changing and the diversity it brings ought to be accepeted and even embraced. And to the subject to those musicians who are in the mainstream jazz are confining their creative flair by imposing limits on their music and others' by stating it must lie within a particular genre/chord progression/rhytmn. Music matters as expression, that is indeed if it comes from the heart and beyond that it as appreciation of the listner to identify/intepret the music and not judge it relative to musical classes that we force upon. Music simply is music.

 * FYI, I added a link to the article for the full text of Metheny's last comments on the jazz or not debate, Metheny changed his mind, sort of, while ripping Kenny a new one the size of a musical Grand Canyon. Tvccs 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Kenny G categorizes his music as jazz is in itself an invitation for all jazz musicians and listeners to make the comparison between what jazz is now established to be and what Mr. G plays. Anyone who does this however quickly realizes how wrong he is. Kenny G's music is not jazz as established jazz musicians see it. Firstly, his music contains very little improvisation, which is a fundamental characteristic of jazz. He also frequently employs harmony which is characteristic of pop music, and rarely uses jazz associated harmony. He simply uses the saxophone as a tool for melody playing, just in the same way that this is often done on pop records. Many people who are ignorant to this do not realize the differences between this music and jazz and therefore believe what Kenny G says, incorrectly categorizing the music as jazz. For this reason there should be a paragraph about genre dispute and musical criticism, even if only to comment on the aforementioned contradiction and to let people know about this widespread misunderstanding.

The correct classification of Kenny G's music is smooth jazz, in my opinion. Whether smooth jazz is real jazz or not is a valid and active debate, but it's really not material to this, I don't think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmorell (talk • contribs) 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For those who think he isn't a pop saxophonist, let me say this. A lot of his harmonies are not traditional jazz harmonies, and much of his improvisation is ornamentation, something most pop singers do to. So what would an instrumental pop band with a saxophonist as the main instrument sound like? I don't think it would sound different. And yes, his music is very much like most pop musicians, and much less like many of the smooth jazz bands that started smooth jazz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.123.178 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the link to Pat Metheny's comments about Kenny G. Is it still in the article? If not, why not? John Link (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Ben Ratliff ref. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In the face of the arguments back and forth, here is something to chew on. Whatever other genre his music might be thought to fall into, Kenny G is a determined player of Elevator Music, which goes some way to explain the popularity of escalators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:5892:B30E:6D4E:2005 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Clean Up
Please, especially discog.

DRUMMERS NAME?????

I need some help please in locating the drummers name in the band of Kenny G's first album Kenny G, I believe the last name is Alexander, but not sure if anyone can help me with this it would be greatly appreciated..email to iveri_ma@yahoo.com, thanks so much....

Cheap-ass drum machine. you're welcome. -matrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.137.95 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

teehee...i wud wike twee cookies to go, pweez! my gwandma is a cabbage and fushia is a purple dats a pink wannabe! ^^ -sweetiekins

Legitimacy
I think that the general jazz community would NOT consider Kenny G to be a jazz saxiphonist. Aside from a vast majority of jazz lovers (myself included) who think he is terrible, there are realistic aspects of his music (and I haven't heard all of it, so bear in mind I speak for a few tracks that I have listened, and the words of others) that allow him to NOT be placed in the realm of jazz.

--Gautam3 07:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * This page already has a lot of debate on the subject, and I added some detail with support on disdain for Kenny G in various forums to the article. However, much as I hate to, I'm deferring to Metheny here, who I thought addressed the issue well in his 2000 comments linked here. He explained why he went from the "not jazz" to "okay, most people think he is" position pretty well.  He also did a great job of articulating, from a very knowledgeable point of view, just how bad he thinks Kenny G is, jazz, or not.  Tvccs 08:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Longest Note
Why does this article claim that the man who broke Kenny's record did so by farting?

I didn't see anything regarding flatulence. I even did a search of the main page. Someone can delete this entire section labeled "Longest Note" when what I am saying is verified again.

--Gautam3 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to Kenny G being listed as a jazz musician. Is Cheez-Whiz cheese? Is Thunderbird wine? I don't advocate vandalism but if it happened on this article I wouldn't complain.

Large deletion in September?
I'm curious as to why Kenny G's whole discography, early life, criticism and see also sections were removed (and never replaced) back on the 25th September by an anonymous IP? Shouldn't these be reinstated? H4cksaw 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Musical Criticism
The original overview of the criticism paragraph was unsupported and so it was rephrased to match the critical material. The orignal was, "While Kenny G's entry into the smooth jazz market remains popular with the American buying public, he has come under fire from music critics and jazz devotées, leading him to be described as "the musician many jazz listeners love to hate." The phrase, "under fire from music critics and jazz devotees" did not match up to the actual criticism as only two jazz guitarists and the lyrics of a hip hop artist were quoted.  In fact, I would suggest removing the entire paragraph because the individuals making the criticism are neither noted music critics, nor are they peers in the sense of being saxophone players.  What do others think?  The so called criticism from "Mos Def" in the form of a lyric from one of his songs was moved to popular culture. 24.27.200.205 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenny G, aka Kenny Gorlick appeared on the 1980 Lp by The Jeff Lorber Fusion "Wizard Island". He played flute, tenor and soprano sax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.36.57 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but if you want it to go in the article you'll need to find a source for it I'm afraid. Cheers, -Panser Born-   (talk)  08:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do people hate him? He has beautiful music. -Yancyfry

 * I must admit I liked him in the mid-80s to early 90s. Still I can kind of see disliking him. Although songs like Songbird are pretty a problem is that all his stuff starts kind of sounding the same after awhile. That's sort of a general criticism applied to most Easy listening or New Age musicians.--T. Anthony 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course most rap sounds the same. -Yancyfry

 * Please refrain from discussing anything other than changes to the article here. This talk page is not the place for critiquing Kenny G's work (or anyone else's, for that matter). -Panser Born-   (talk)  08:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Wonderful idea!! Why not leave out all criticism of Kenny G, notwithstanding the fact that he is well-known to be loathed by 99.99999999999999% of real jazz musicians on the planet. Good Christ!! Besides, if you actually wanted to make this into a Good article or higher (which I think is not possible, speaking as someone who has worked on 5 FAs and many GAs), you would be required to include extensive criticism. I do this with scientists and philosophers; I cannot imagine that no criticism of an artist can be found anywhere. Oh, the wacki Wiki!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Francesco Franco 09:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What makes a "real" jazz musician? Sounds like a bunch of less successful musicians sour graping because they cannot sell as well. The entire article seems to have an undercurrent of hostility slanted towards criticizing Kenny G. For example not making the band on his first try, the emphasis on golf, the accounting major he was taking on the side, etc. Is it being implied he's not a "real" musician because he doesn't come from a musical family, doesn't devote himself entirely to his music, and didn't drop out of school to pursue this interest?

To answer the question of what makes a "real" jazz musician-there can only be one reply: If you have to ask that question, then it would behoove you to take some time and research the subject of jazz. However, it can definately be said that becoming a jazz musician has nothing to do with what family you come from, whether or not you devote your entire time to music (i.e. Branford Marsalis hates practicing, unlike his brother Wynton, who practices everyday at 4:00 a.m. for 3 hours) or whether you drop out of school to pursue the artform. There are many elements that make up a jazz muscian, but for me communicating musical ideas through improvisation, use of harmony, interpretation of melody and lyrics, and the ability to tell a story are the things that I think about concerning jazz. Try using this site as a point of reference on jazz. Of course, you cannot use it as your only source, as there are so many books on the jazz idiom. Better yet, go and get your Kenny G recordings, listen them. Then go out and purchase the "Love Supreme" or "My Favorite Things" CD's by John Coltrane. Then evaluate the differences that you hear.

I would not insist that there are no jazz players that are jealous of Kenny's sucess; that fact is neither here nor there. The point is that given the genius of a John Coltrane or a Wayne Shorter (not to mention, all the other instrumentalists who came before him), his music should not exalted as being one having any real kind musical depth or intelligenc that is usually experienced when one listens to a great jazz player or vocalist. It simply is a tool, used to entertain the massess. I would have the utmost respect for Kenny if he were to say as such. It is simular to an entertainer like a Jennifer Lopez, whose forte' is dance but calls herself a vocalist because she "sings". She may like to sing as a tool of her act, however it does not make her a vocalist in any sense of the word. 162.115.108.124 18:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Lisa, September 28, 2007162.115.108.124 18:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means let's have extensive criticism of his musicianship. If his skills as a saxophonist are poor that's fair game but on the other hand if he is also a composer of his own music that deserves mention as well. Currently it says "many people" are critical of his abilities but only one source is primarily used to back the assertion.

I think the entire "What a Wonderful World" controversy deserves its own section if it's taking up half the Career section. Moreover is it really a criticism of his music? Does it belong in a Music Criticism section? Why? Also who is saying Louis Armstrong overdubbed in the performance? Armstrong was dubbed into the performance but whether it was overdubbed or not is a subjective call. Should Natalie Cole performing with her father or Celine Dion performing with Elvis arouse the same ire?

Edit: My apologies it seems overdubbing is a technical term and not as I had first interpreted it used in the sense of being overdone. But that makes me wonder even more what the gist of the complaint is. It seems essentially that the ire is there because "he trespassed on hallowed ground". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.91.114 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think an entire section for criticism is necessary. Yet, I won't argue against it. However, the paragraph that is in the career section is appropriate because his decision to use Armstrong's recording is a career move.  - Steve3849 talk 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm glad to see the Musical Criticism back in. This is clearly significant, and NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be represented. Dlabtot 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The quotes in this article are fantastic. IMO a very important part of Kenny G is his campiness. In fact, all fellow musicians I've known writhe in pain when a Kenny G song comes up. Sure, it's an opinion (like "Christina Aguilera is not a talented singer"), but being such a frequently-used measuring stick of lameness is very notable. When someone compares my playing to Kenny G, I can read this article and know it was most likely an insult. NorrYtt (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I, amongst many others, am outraged by the fact that many people who edit this page prefer not to include the section about Kenny G's musical criticism. I personally know many devoted listeners to jazz as well as a number of professional jazz musicians, all of whom offer negative criticism of Kenny G's music and emphasize the man's negligible contribution to modern improvised music (which, in the case of musicians who correctly categorize themselves as jazz, would not be described as such).

As for the first paragraph of this section, the author is quite wrong in saying that the claims in this section are not supported by reputable jazz critics. Pat Metheny alone is one of the world's most knowledgeable musicians in terms of harmony and melody - particularly in the field of jazz - and is regarded by most active jazz listeners as one of the most reputable critics out there. Therefore I believe that there are significant grounds for a paragraph under this heading to be included in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.85.87 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Even outside jazz musician circles, Kenny G is widely used as an example of terrible, unlistenable music in pop culture. Surely some mention of this should be made. To most Americans at least, Kenny G is known more for this than for anything else. Conical Johnson (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * You read my mind. The fact this article mentions not a word of Kenny G's suckiness and cheesyness is ridiculous, since it exactly these attributes which make Kenny G notable-- bad music and a bad hairdo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.147.96 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To me it is not a matter of neutrality but historical record and for wikipedia to be a true historical record, I believe the criticisms section must return. These criticisms are supported by the jazz community as evidenced by the quotes from Pat Metheny and the users of this forum. If a master composer such as Mozart was reviled in his time, isn't that relevant to how people react to his music now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.226.27 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Incredible! Not one word of criticism in the article about a musician who has received more than his fair share. Here's Pat Metheny on Kenny G: and Richard Thompson in song form  for starters, and there's shedloads of this stuff out there. This article seriously suffers from POV as it is no doubt patrolled by Kenny G's fans who remove anything they don't like. 81.157.194.236 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "Incredible! Not one word of criticism in the article about a musician who has received more than his fair share." - Please see the following excerpt from the 5th paragraph of the section Career, which was in the article at the time of the above message as it is now.
 * "Kenny G's 1999 single, "What A Wonderful World" was criticized regarding the overdubbing of Louis Armstrong's classic recording. A  criticism was that a revered recording by an artist such as Armstrong known especially for improvisation should not be altered and especially not by a musician such as Kenny G whose contributions to jazz were already in question.  "
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that there should be a section titled "Criticism" that simply outlines the very well known and very widely understood belief that Kenny G is considered a "sell out", and very poor when it comes to actual musical ability when compared against most Jazz musicians. To leave out this section is a blaring omission of valuable information, and comes across as very suspicious. There are many artists who have sections like this included, who are far less criticized than Kenny G. There is no counter argument to this, the section should be reinstated, someone put it back in please, now. Manachi (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"What a Wonderful World"
I've reintroduced a paragraph regarding this part of music history. It has plenty of useable references and I've also tried to keep it neutral. The topic was quite inflamed at the time and you'll see some of the references are more recent. The debate wasn't forgotten as the track was re-released. It is both a noteworthy moment of his career and noteworthy of modern recorded music in general. - Steve3849 talk 09:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have cut down the overlarge quote by Pat Metheny. If people want to read the whole profanity-laced thing they have only to click the reference. The first couple sentences get the point across. Diagonalfish (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mario Music?"
Is it true that he wrote the Mario music? Can we add more on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Mario music you're speaking of. I personally have never heard of Kenny G having anything to do with music for video games. Most of the Mario 64 soundtrack was written by Koji Kondo. I'm sure you can find the directors of the other tracks on here somewhere. Still, I don't think he's anything to do with Mario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.197.87 (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
"Kenny G. Blows" as a reference to the Guinness Book of Records thing, which sounds pretty impossible... vandalism? -- Y not? 04:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the article title is Kenny G Blows, check out the reference. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kids age
Would be nice to fix the birthdate of the kids instead of age whatever, which happens to change annually. Birthdate kind of stay the same, unless they became actors. :-) --grin ✎ 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Going Home
Going Home is even used by Chinese local governments, as its often played in 'public' parks (which are gated and ticketed often). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LlYiWbeK18

Is he the same man as weird al yankovich?

Certainly not. For a start, there is neither a recording nor a verifiable claim of K.G. playing the banjo, or performing humorously satirical covers of popular songs... at least, not deliberately. They do have something in common, though. Despite not being virtuoso saxophonists, both do have curly hair.2600:1700:EA01:1090:5892:B30E:6D4E:2005 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Kenny G explains how he can hold notes so long
In a performance first aired on 12/21/08 titled Kenny G: An Evening of Rhythm and Romance Kenny G demonstrated how he can play a continuous note almost indefinitely. He has the ability to inhale through his nose while playing a note on the sax with his mouth. In this performance he demonstrated this technique while he played a note for just less than one minute. During that 58 seconds he inhaled through his nose about 17 times with his nose next to a microphone so the inhaled breathes could be detected by the audience. Schlif (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlif (talk • contribs) 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The technique is called circular breathing where the player sustains a pitch by forcing the diaphram to "push" unused air outward after the air in the lungs is exhausted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.103 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is called circular breathing, but your explanation makes no sense (and isn't "circular"). Circular breathing involves playing normally while also filling the cheeks with air. Then, when air in the lungs runs low, forcing air out of the mouth with the cheeks while inhaling through the nose. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Circular breathing is explained here. It wasn't invented by nor is it unique to Kenny G. Jeisenberg (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Image
Seriously? That's the best we have? I know all about our image policies, but this is crap. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A few possibilities for comment: A, B, C. Obviously, we can crop/clean them up. Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A is good because it shows his face and shows him in performance. B is a bad angle. C shows a nice front view but it looks like it's posed at an event; in any case, A looks more like a "real" performance. Do you have the rights on those? Jeisenberg (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Stage Name
I don't see any discussion here about the origin of his stage name. It obviously ties to his first and last names, but that doesn't mean the stage name arose spontaneously out of those. Is there any connection to "Daddy G," a name some attribute to composer and sax player Gene Barge (e.g., http://www.mp3lyrics.org/g/gary-us-bonds/quarter-to-three/). However, per the Gene Barge article, the name Daddy G ties to the titles of two songs he wrote (and lyrics, for example in Quarter to Three, that refer to the sax player as "Daddy 'G'"), and a possible yet not entirely clear tie to Bishop "Daddy" Grace at a church that ties to Barge's group's name. Anyway, the point here is whether there is any information on the origin of Kenny G's stage name. Jeisenberg (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012
Kenny G no longer holds the Guinness World Record for the longest saxophone note held. Vann Burchfield holds that title.

Alex Yuwen (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. mabdul 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2012
Please add the following fact under the section "Personal life" Kenny G's Height: 5'4" Kenny G stated this fact to the audience on December 19, 2012 in Detroit Michigan at the Detroit Symphony Orchestra (DSO) hall. I was at this event, it was a full house

Michigangr (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I was there and I know it to be true" is not a reliable source; it is original research. — KuyaBriBri Talk 15:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Kenny G as "smooth jazz" - what sources say
,, , , , , , , ,. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * These sources prove the opposite of your assertion. They all refer to Kenny G as a "Saxophonist"-which is what is in the article.  41.76.66.11 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I am not positing that every source says Kenny G is "smooth jazz", although "saxophonist" is not a genre. Fact is many reliable sources (not one, not two, but many, many, and what I presented was just a tiny fraction of sources identifying him as such) consider him, fair or not, correct or not, the seminal example of "smooth jazz", and it should therefore be included in the genre.  I don't believe it should be the only identifier, as many other sources identify him as "pop", which I am more personally in agreement with, but my personal opinions shouldn't matter, the sources should.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 13:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Full disclosure* The preceding remarks from an IP address are mine. I had forgotten to log in when I wrote them. My apologies for that DanJazzy (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear that there are sources that are for and others against the motion at hand. This means we should consider which sources are more reliable for use in the article. Going by the lack of consensus in the previous discussion on the same issue, I suggest you consider other solutions using Wiki instruments; WP:THIRDOPINION WP:RSN WP:RFC DanJazzy (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable approach, but not a complete one. First, the genre designation is mostly the opinion of the individual reviewer, and getting two independent-thinking music critics to completely agree would cause the world to end.  Second, I don't see the need to list just a single genre.  Since there are multiple multiples of reliable sources who describe him as "smooth jazz" or "adult contemporary" (pop) or to a lesser degree "easy listening", it is reasonable to list these in the genre field in the infobox.  Theoretically there may be a reliable source listing him as bluegrass (by way of absurd example), but there wouldn't be multiple reliable sources saying such, so it would therefore be reasonable to exclude the exception to the norm.  By the sources, the preponderance of genres he is listed as are those currently listed in the infobox, so it is my !vote (not that we're having one) to leave "smooth jazz" there.  What I think you could do, though, is create a section in the article body perhaps named "style" which dispassionately discusses the various views regarding his placement on the musical spectrum.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Smooth jazz definitely belongs in the infobox, because there are plenty of reliable sources that state Kenny G is a smooth jazz musician. Whether or not smooth jazz is a valid jazz genre or not is a valid and active debate, but it isn't relevant to its inclusion or exclusion in the infobox, therefore I think it should stay.   ANDROS1337  TALK 15:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It's not like this is is undue emphasis or a fringe opinion.  Multiple, high quality sources have identified him thus.  We don't need unanimity in order to label something.  If there's a controversy, it can be sourced and discussed in the article.  It should not spill over into the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep smooth jazz - Multiple reliable sources refer to his music as smooth jazz and have for many, many years. I fail to see how this could be a controversy. (It's not like we're writing about his religion and he needs to personally verify it.) —Мандичка YO 😜 13:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kenny G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324120833/http://kennyg.com:80/blog/ to http://kennyg.com/blog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kenny G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324120833/http://kennyg.com:80/blog/ to http://kennyg.com/blog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request
In the Career section under 1990's, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads, "His music were also included in The Shadow, or Miracle on 34th Street." To make this more grammatically correct, the "were" should be changed to "was", and the "or" should be changed to "and".

It should read, "His music was also included in The Shadow, and Miracle on 34th Street."

 * ✅ Thank you!    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kenny G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421022505/http://music.barnesandnoble.com/features/interview.asp?z=y&NID=598266 to http://music.barnesandnoble.com/features/interview.asp?NID=598266&z=y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504091825/http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/19279 to http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/19279
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108081811/http://seattletimes.com/html/musicnightlife/2018085551_cr28kenny.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/musicnightlife/2018085551_cr28kenny.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761584562/Kenny_G.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517010233/http://music.yahoo.com/kenny-g/news/kenny-g-blows--12037787 to http://music.yahoo.com/kenny-g/news/kenny-g-blows--12037787
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615163048/http://kennygsaxophones.com/kennyg/Home.html to http://www.kennygsaxophones.com/kennyg/Home.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-20/news/30649204_1_wife-files-files-for-legal-separation-gabriel-aubry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Membership
Please add Kenny's Phi Beta Kappa membership to this article,

Amandapbk (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Original Published Date
Hello fellow Wikipedians.

Does anybody know the original publish date of this article? I need it for my project. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.239.82.20 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kenny G. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024065530/http://robertdamper.com/about/ to http://robertdamper.com/about/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130115232744/http://www.1025wloq.com/pages/kennyg.html to http://www.1025wloq.com/pages/kennyg.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029040827/http://jazztimes.com/sections/news/articles/145659-kenny-g-to-release-bossa-nova-album-in-january to http://jazztimes.com/sections/news/articles/145659-kenny-g-to-release-bossa-nova-album-in-january
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122133723/http://www.legacyrecordings.com/Kenny-G.aspx to http://www.legacyrecordings.com/Kenny-G.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023
Kenny G doesn't play the flute; he plays soprano, alto and tenor saxophones 2601:580:C180:22D0:44CC:7D37:C786:7E4D (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted. He played flute in his first band, the Seattle funksters Cold, Bold & Together during the years 1975 and 1976. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticism: JazzTimes Poll
"Critic Josef Woodard found Kenny G serving ‘a noble purpose by offering musicians a paradigm of what not to do’ in a JazzTimes poll in which, though, players such as Stan Kenton, Maynard Ferguson, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Ornette Coleman were characterized as ‘overrated’."

I wanted to rewrite this just because it's rather clunky and confusing but I decided to just say something here first. Who was the one taking part in the poll? It's a bit confusing as to whether Woodard was the one being polled or if Kenny G was taking part in a poll and Woodard was saying his response is an example of what not to do. (I read the article and yes, it was Woodard taking part in the poll, but I had a moment upon first reading that sentence when that wasn't entirely clear.)

The way "though" is used in the middle of that sentence, it seems to be setting it up to be followed by a contrasting statement that never comes. "Though", when used like this, reads like "on the one hand." Using "although" instead would clear that up.

Finally; although Kenton, Ferguson, Davis, Coltrane, and Coleman are mentioned in the article as "overrated", none of them were mentioned by Woodard. In fact, all five were listed as "overrated" by the next critic in the article, Jack Sohmer. The way it's written can lead one to think that came from Woodard. (This is one of those cases where I think grammarians are right to be warry about using the passive voice.)

Anyway, clunky, unclear, and thought it could use a rewrite. But what do others think? Beetfarm Louie (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023
Remove "flute" as Kenny G doesn't play such an instrument. 2601:580:C100:7BD0:4973:FFC8:E409:3F44 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He played flute and sax in his first band, the Cold, Bold & Together during 1975–1976. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023
Kenny G doesn't play the flute. Please remove "flute", as he doesn't play one. 2601:580:C100:7BD0:E8E4:BB76:8B46:C17C (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: - see section above. GoingBatty (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024
Remove "flute" in instruments 2601:580:C100:7BD0:ACF4:2F89:7647:AE7D (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 * ❌. Why would we remove flute? He joined Cold, Bold & Together as the flute/sax player in 1975. The band released a single in 1976 that credits Kenny Gorelick with sax and flute. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kenny G


text:
2004–05 snooker world rankings

Snooker world rankings 2004/2005: The professional world rankings for the top 64 snooker players in the 2004–05 season are listed below. This was Chris Small's only season in top 16, and Paul Hunter's only appearance in the top 4.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 2004–05 snooker world rankings


text:
United States military occupation code

A United States military occupation code, or a military occupational specialty code (MOS code), is a nine-character code used in the United States Army and United States Marine Corps to identify a specific job. In the United States Air Force, a system of Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) is used. In the United States Navy, a system of naval ratings and designators are used along with the Navy Enlisted Classification (NEC) system. A system of ratings is also used in the United States Coast Guard.

Since an individual can obtain multiple job specialties, a duty military occupational specialty (DMOS) is used to identify what their primary job function is at any given time. An individual must complete and pass all required training for their military occupational specialty qualification (MOSQ).

World War Two (1942–1946)
Originally, the four-digit MOS code mostly listed the recruit's civilian profession. This was to aid in classifying what military job they could be assigned. With so many recruits being processed, identifying any semi-skilled or skilled civilian tradesmen made it easier to match them with the right military job. There was an additional list of military trades and trainings added so a trained soldier could be assigned to the right unit. There were no grouping of similar trades together, making it hard for someone to know the meaning of an MOS code without a manual.

Post-War reform
The MOS system now had five digits, with a period after the third digit. The first four-digit code number indicated the soldier's job; the first two digits were the field code, the third digit was the sub-specialty and the fourth code number (separated by a period) was the job title. A fifth code digit was for the soldier's special qualification identifier (SQI) digit, which indicated what specialized training the soldier had. If the soldier did not have an SQI, the digit was listed as "0" or was omitted. The codes for the civilian trades were removed as unnecessary.
 * Examples:
 * 11 (One-one) is the field code for infantry, 1.1 is the sub-specialty of light weapons, and 7 is the SQI for airborne training. Therefore, 111.10 is the MOS for an infantryman and 111.17 is for an airborne-qualified paratrooper.
 * 91 (Nine-one) was the old field code for the medical field, 912.0 was the MOS for medical NCO and 912.00 was a generalist medical NCO with no SQI.

1964 reform
In 1964 the system was revamped. There were completely different codes for enlisted / non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers.

Enlisted and NCO personnel had a five-symbol code. The first four code symbols were made up of a two-digit code for the career field, a letter code for the field specialty, and a number code (1 to 5) indicating level of instruction in their field specialty. The fifth code symbol was an SQI code letter indicating training in a special skill (the letter "O" indicating that the soldier had no SQI). An exception to the 5-symbol rule was made for an SQI which indicated language fluency. In this case, 7 symbols were used, with "L" as the language qualification indicator, followed by two characters indicating the specific language.

Warrant officers also had a five-symbol code but it was different. The first three numbers were the career field, then a letter code for the field specialty, and ended in the SQI code letter.

Officers had a four-digit code number for their career field and specialty. Officers with a special qualification also had an SQI code number prefix to their MOS rather than a code letter suffix. Officers without a special qualification had no prefix number.

1983 reform
In 1983, there was a reform of this system. Some of the field code numbers were changed and the MOS codes were streamlined.

Warrant officers and officers received the same career field codes as enlisted and NCO personnel and ended in the same SQI letter codes. Warrant officers received a five-symbol MOS consisting of a four-symbol field specialty code consisting of the two-digit field code, a one-digit sub-field code number (usually "0"), the field specialty code letter, and followed by the SQI code letter. Officers now had a four-symbol alphanumeric MOS. It consisted of the three-symbol field specialty code of two numbers and a specialty code letter and ended in the SQI letter code.

The field code "18" was created for US Army Special Forces, which are now considered part of the regular US Army. Previously they had been considered a layer between the intelligence services and the army. The 18A was for special forces officers and 180A was for special forces warrant officers. The 18X was for special forces candidates who had not yet passed the "Q" course. The "A" team leaders had to be captains instead of lieutenants and were rotated to conventional postings.

Certain field specialty code letters were reserved. The "X" was for recruits or candidates who have pre-selected a career field but had not graduated from AIT. The "Z" is for senior NCOs of E8 or E9 grade. The "A" is for officers and warrant officers in a general capacity. Specialist officers and warrant officers have other field code letters reserved for them.

Current version
The list of US Army military occupational specialty codes is published on the United States Army Human Resources Command (HRC) PAMXXI website.

Enlisted personnel
The MOS code (MOSC), consisting of nine characters, provides more information than a soldier's MOS. It is used by automated management systems and reports. The MOSC is used with active and reserve records, reports, authorization documents, and other personnel management systems.

The elements of the MOSC are as follows:

 * First three characters: the MOS. The first two characters are always numbers, but the third character is always a letter. The two-digit number is usually (but not always) synonymous with the career management field (CMF). For example, CMF 11 covers infantry, so MOS 11B is "rifle infantryman". Among the letters, Z is reserved for "senior sergeant" (E-8), such that 11Z is "senior infantry sergeant".
 * The fourth character of the MOSC represents skill level (commensurate with rank and grade):
 * "0" is used to identify personnel undergoing training for award of a primary MOS (PMOS).
 * "1" identifies a private (PVT) through specialist (SPC/pay grade E-4) or corporal (CPL/also pay grade E-4)
 * "2" identifies a sergeant (SGT/pay grade E-5)
 * "3" identifies a staff sergeant (SSG/pay grade E-6)
 * "4" identifies a sergeant first class (SFC/pay grade E-7)
 * "5" identifies a master sergeant (MSG) or first sergeant (1SG) (see E-8, below)
 * "6" identifies a sergeant major (SGM/pay grade E-9) or command sergeant major (CSM/pay grade E-9) (as of 1 April 2011)
 * Fifth character: a letter or number and a special qualification identifier (SQI). It may be associated with any MOS unless otherwise specified. Only Enlisted Soldiers without any special SQI are assigned the SQI "O" (oscar), often confused with a zero. Warrant Officers without any special SQI are assigned the SQI "0" zero.
 * Sixth and seventh characters: an additional skill identifier (ASI). They are an alphanumeric combination and may only be associated with specified MOSs, although in practice some ASIs are available to every MOS (e.g. ASI P5 for "master fitness trainer"). Soldiers without any ASIs are assigned the default ASI of "mk lmk00" (zero-zero).
 * Eighth and ninth characters: two-letter requirements and qualifications which are a language identification code (LIC). Soldiers without a language skill are assigned the default LIC "YY" (Yankee-Yankee). Language identification codes can be found in AR 611–6.

MOSC for E-8 and above
When an enlisted soldier is promoted from sergeant first class to master sergeant in most career types, that soldier will be reclassified administratively to the "senior sergeant" of their career management field. For example, a combat engineer (MOS 12B, part of CMF 12) is promoted from sergeant first class to master sergeant. That soldier is reclassified administratively from MOS 12B to MOS 12Z "senior engineer sergeant"). An example of when this conversion occurs at the MSG to SGM level is the 68 (formerly the 91) CMF. In this case, the soldier becomes a 68Z at the SGM level, not the MSG level. When promoted from master sergeant or first sergeant or sergeant major to command sergeant major, that soldier will be reclassified administratively from their previous "senior sergeant" MOS to the MOS 00Z (zero-zero-zulu), "command sergeant major". Some MOS do not change though, for example 25U starts out as 25U1O (E1-E4), and advances though 25U2O (E5/SGT), 25U3O (E6/SSG), 25U4O (E7/SFC), and 25U5O (E8, E9/MSG, 1SG, SGM, CSM)

Warrant officers
Warrant officers are sometimes specialized technicians and systems managers, and were not originally assigned to traditional arms or services of the Army. Approximately 50% of warrant officers are aviators (aircraft pilots, rotary wing and fixed wing), and can be appointed directly from civilian life or within the service, regardless of previous enlisted MOS. The remaining 50% are technicians appointed from experienced enlisted soldiers and NCOs in a "feeder" MOS directly related to the warrant officer MOS.

During 2004, all army warrant officers began wearing the insignia of their specialty's proponent branch rather than the 83-year-old "Eagle Rising" distinctive warrant officer insignia. The following year, a revision of commissioned officer professional development and career management integrated warrant officer career development with the officer career development model. In practice, warrant officer MOSC are very similar to enlisted codes except they begin with three digits instead of two before the first letter, and do not have a "skill level" identifier. They are then followed by the SQI, ASI, and SLI as an enlisted MOS would be.

Officers
Commissioned officers' occupational codes are structured somewhat differently. A newly commissioned army officer first receives a "career branch". This is similar to the career management field of the enlisted personnel. Career branch numbers range from 11 to 92. For example: 13 for field artillery, 19 for armor/armored cavalry and 92 for quartermaster. Within each occupational field, there are usually several codes available. Within armor (branch 19) there are three specialties available: 19A (armor, general), 19B (armor), and 19C (cavalry). After an officer's fifth or sixth year of service, he or she may receive a "functional area" designation. More specific than a career branch, this is a specific skill set in which the officer is proficient. For example, an artillery officer who has had schooling in communications and public speaking could end up with a functional area in public affairs (FA46).

Marine Corps
The U.S. Marine Corps begins by separating all jobs into "occupational fields" (OccFld), in which no distinction is made between officers and enlisted Marines. The fields are numbered from 01 to 99 and include general categories (intelligence, infantry, logistics, public affairs, ordnance, etc.) under which specific jobs fall.

Each field contains multiple MOS's, each designated by a four-digit numerical indicator and a job title. Most fields have at least one "basic MOS" for enlisted, and one "basic MOS" for officers, who have yet to be fully trained in any other MOS within that field. Upon completion of required training, the Marine is reclassified from their "basic MOS" to a "primary MOS" in which Marines generally will serve the remainder of their careers, be assigned, seek promotion, and be retained.

Additionally, many fields have specialty MOS's, such as "necessary MOS's", for which there may be varying prerequisites and assignment criterion. Marines do not compete for promotion or retention based on their NMOS, only their PMOS (or basic MOS, for those who have yet to complete training for a PMOS). A Marine who earns an NMOS retains it in their service records as an additional MOS beyond their PMOS, and multiple NMOS's (and PMOS's, in some cases) may be earned showing additional skills.

For example, the infantry field (03) has multiple enlisted classifications:

 * basic infantry Marine (Basic MOS 0300),
 * rifleman (Primary MOS 0311),
 * light armored reconnaissance Marine (Primary MOS 0313),
 * combat rubber reconnaissance craft (CRRC) coxswain (Necessary MOS 0316),
 * scout sniper (Necessary MOS 0317),
 * reconnaissance Marine (Primary MOS 0321),
 * reconnaissance Marine (parachute qualified) (Necessary MOS 0323),
 * reconnaissance Marine (combatant diver qualified) (Necessary MOS 0324),
 * reconnaissance Marine (parachute and combatant diver qualified) (Necessary MOS 0326),
 * machine gunner (Primary MOS 0331),
 * mortarman (Primary MOS 0341),
 * infantry assault Marine (Primary MOS 0351),
 * antitank missile gunner (Primary MOS 0352),
 * light armored reconnaissance leader (Primary MOS 0363),
 * infantry squad leader (Primary MOS 0365),
 * light armored reconnaissance master gunner (Necessary MOS 0367),
 * infantry unit leader (Primary MOS 0369),
 * critical skills operator (Primary MOS 0372),
 * light armored reconnaissance operations chief (Primary MOS 0393), and
 * operations chief (Primary MOS 0399).

Each of the jobs have authorized ranks associated with them. For example, anyone ranking from private to sergeant can be a rifleman (0311), but only Marines ranking from staff sergeant to gunnery sergeant can be an infantry unit leader (0369).

Duties and tasks are identified by rank because the Marine Corps MOS system is designed around the belief that increased duties and tasks accompany promotions. The first two digits designate the field and, the last two digits identify the promotional channel and specialty.

For example, the MOS 0311 indicates that it is in occupational field 03 (infantry) and designates the "rifleman" (11) MOS. For warrant officers, the MOS 2305 indicates that it is in occupational field 23 (ammunition and explosive ordnance disposal) and designates the "explosive ordnance disposal officer" (05) MOS. For officers, the MOS 0802 indicates that it is in occupational field 08 (field artillery) and designates the "field artillery officer" (02) MOS.

Navy
On September 29, 2016, the Navy announced it would "modernize" all rating titles for Sailors with a new classification system that would move towards occupational specialty codes similar to how the other services operate.

Former Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Michael Stevens led the controversial review earlier that year for the Secretary of the Navy on behalf of Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson.

Initially, the Navy Rating Modernization System eliminated all rating titles. The former Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Steven S. Giordano, said:

"Sailors would no longer be called, 'Yeoman Second Class' or YN2, for example," he said. "Instead they will be 'Second Class Petty Officer, or 'Petty Officer'. However, Sailors' ranks will not change: an E-7 will remain a Chief Petty Officer and an E-3 will remain a Seaman. Additionally, there will no longer be a distinction between 'airman, fireman and seaman.'"

The fleet at large did not respond to this favorably. As a result, Admiral Richardson rescinded this change on December 21, 2016, restoring all rating titles.

However, the plan retains the goal of producing sailors with more than one NOS, which might give them a broader range of professional experience and expertise and will be grouped under career fields that will enable flexibility to move between occupational specialties within the fields and will be tied to training and qualifications.

The transformation will occur in phases over a multi-year period and the Chief of Naval Personnel will lead the implementation efforts

The United States Navy has not released its NOS details yet and has not changed "designators" for officers.

Enlisted personnel ratings
The Navy indicates its "ratings" by a two or three character code based on the actual name of the rating. These range from ABE (aviation boatswain's mate – equipment) to YN (Yeoman). Each sailor and Chief Petty Officer wears a rating badge indicating their rating as part of their rate (rank) insignia on full dress and service dress uniforms.

Commissioned officer designators
The navy officer "designator" is similar to an MOS but is less complicated and has fewer categories. For example, a surface warfare officer with a regular commission has a designator of 1110; a reserve officer has an 1115 designator. A reserve surface warfare officer specializing in nuclear training (i.e., engineer on a carrier) has a designator of 1165N. Navy officers also have one or more three-character additional qualification designators (AQD) that reflect completion of requirements qualifying them in a specific warfare area or other specialization. In some senses this functions more like the MOS in other services. An officer with the naval aviator designator of 1310 might have an AQD of DV3, SH-60F carrier anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, or DB4, F-14 fighter pilot. An officer designated 2100, medical corps officer (physician) may hold an AQD of 6CM, trauma surgeon, or 6AE, flight surgeon who is also a naval aviator. Some AQDs may be possessed by officers in any designator, such as BT2, freefall parachutist, or BS1, shipboard Tomahawk strike officer. Navy officer designators and AQD codes may be found in NAVPERS 15839I, The Manual of Navy Officer Manpower and Personnel Classification.ip

Coast Guard
The United States Coast Guard does not use the military occupational specialty concept either, instead dividing their occupational specialties into groups such as aviation, administrative and scientific, deck and weapons, and engineering and hull. Their rating system is very similar to the US Navy (e.g., BM, boatswain's mate).

Enlisted personnel ratings
The Coast Guard indicates its "ratings" by a two or three character code based on the actual name of the rating. These range from AMT (aviation maintenance technician) to YN (yeoman). Coast Guardsmen wear a rating badge indicating their rating as part of their rate (rank) insignia on full dress and service dress uniforms.

Air Force
The Air Force utilizes a similar system, but titled "Air Force Specialty Code" (AFSC). Enlisted airmen have a five digit code, and officers have a four digit code.

title: United States military occupation code


text:
Conifold

In mathematics and string theory, a conifold is a generalization of a manifold. Unlike manifolds, conifolds can contain conical singularities, i.e. points whose neighbourhoods look like cones over a certain base. In physics, in particular in flux compactifications of string theory, the base is usually a five-dimensional real manifold, since the typically considered conifolds are complex 3-dimensional (real 6-dimensional) spaces.

Overview
Conifolds are important objects in string theory: Brian Greene explains the physics of conifolds in Chapter 13 of his book The Elegant Universe—including the fact that the space can tear near the cone, and its topology can change. This possibility was first noticed by and employed by  to prove that conifolds provide a connection between all (then) known Calabi–Yau compactifications in string theory; this partially supports a conjecture by  whereby conifolds connect all possible Calabi–Yau complex 3-dimensional spaces.

A well-known example of a conifold is obtained as a deformation limit of a quintic - i.e. a quintic hypersurface in the projective space $$\mathbb{CP}^4$$. The space $$\mathbb{CP}^4$$ has complex dimension equal to four, and therefore the space defined by the quintic (degree five) equations:

$$z_1^5+z_2^5+z_3^5+z_4^5+z_5^5-5\psi z_1z_2z_3z_4z_5 = 0$$

in terms of homogeneous coordinates $$z_i$$ on $$\mathbb{CP}^4$$, for any fixed complex $$\psi$$, has complex dimension three. This family of quintic hypersurfaces is the most famous example of Calabi–Yau manifolds. If the complex structure parameter $$\psi$$ is chosen to become equal to one, the manifold described above becomes singular since the derivatives of the quintic polynomial in the equation vanish when all coordinates $$z_i$$ are equal or their ratios are certain fifth roots of unity. The neighbourhood of this singular point looks like a cone whose base is topologically just.

$$S^2 \times S^3$$

In the context of string theory, the geometrically singular conifolds can be shown to lead to completely smooth physics of strings. The divergences are "smeared out" by D3-branes wrapped on the shrinking three-sphere in Type IIB string theory and by D2-branes wrapped on the shrinking two-sphere in Type IIA string theory, as originally pointed out by. As shown by, this provides the string-theoretic description of the topology-change via the conifold transition originally described by , who also invented the term "conifold" and the diagram for the purpose. The two topologically distinct ways of smoothing a conifold are thus shown to involve replacing the singular vertex (node) by either a 3-sphere (by way of deforming the complex structure) or a 2-sphere (by way of a "small resolution"). It is believed that nearly all Calabi–Yau manifolds can be connected via these "critical transitions", resonating with Reid's conjecture.

title: Conifold


text:
AFSC

AFSC may stand for any of the following:
 * Affiliate of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, used as post-nominal initials
 * American Friends Service Committee
 * Air Force Specialty Code
 * Air Force Systems Command
 * Air Force Safety Center
 * Air Force Space Command, often abbreviated as AFSPC to avoid confusion with the now defunct AF Systems Command
 * Air Force School, Coimbatore, a school run by Indian Air Force

title: AFSC


text:
Day of the Death

Day of the Death is the second album by American hardcore punk band Death by Stereo, released in 2001.

The band became more widely known after this release due to their switch from the Indecision Records label to the larger Epitaph Records label. This is the group's first album on Epitaph Records.

Track listing
"Death for Life" is actually only 3:00 long, but includes five minutes of silence (3:00–8:00) and a hidden track begins: there is a section right near the end which is the sound of a gong and a manic scream.

Band line-up

 * Efrem Schulz - vocals
 * Jim Miner - rhythm guitar, backing vocals
 * Dan Palmer - lead guitar, backing vocals
 * Paul Miner - bass, backing vocals
 * Tim Bender - drums, backing vocals

Adtional credits

 * Recorded at For the Record and Death Tracks
 * Engineered by Paul Miner
 * Assistant engineered by Sergio Chavez
 * Mastered by Eddy Schreyer at Oasis Mastering

title: Day of the Death


text:
Talk:Three marks of existence

impermanence is impermanence
"In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants."
 * that's cute, but this temporal or wishful interpretation is neither consistent with the pali nor physics. Even those little carbon atoms will break down, even those quarks. And the world itself if we should believe the Buddha if not Hubble. -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.226.240 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that the original editor was not clear about what they were attempting to say. The argument must be from anatta - essencelessness. To attempt a paraphrase - remembering that science (and perception) are models, or narratives, we cannot claim that impermanence is objectively true, but merely that it is central to many edifying (or resonant) narratives. cf. Huntington (emptiness of emptiness) 20040302 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Early comments
is it not true that the Buddha said even Nirvana was anatta? for example:

Sabbe sankhara anicca     (sankhara being conditioned phenomena) Sabbe sankhara dukkha     ( "         "         "        "     ) Sabbe dhamma anatta       (dhammas being all phenomena)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grainsilo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dharma of Dukkha should not be among the Three Seals, and Dukkha should be the ADDITIONAL FOURTH seal instead of tranquility of Nirvana. Therefore, the Three Seals of Dharma are: 1.Anitya (impermanence), 2.Anatman (No-self), and 3.Tranquility of Nirvana. Reference: http://www.buddhistdoor.com/bdoor/0108/sources/seals.htm     ;      http://www.ibc-rk.org/04Dharma%20talk/Dharma%20talk7/01dharmatalk7.html    ;  and also the Chinese classic: 智度論二十二曰：「佛法印有三種：一者一切有為法念念生滅皆無常，二者一切法無我，三者寂滅涅槃。（中略）摩訶衍中說諸法不生不滅，一相所謂無相。」 - kumkee 14:40, 01 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection by the end of May, I whill correct the Three-Seal content.  -- kumkee 12:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Charles Muller's digital dictionary agrees with you. This convinces me, at the very least, that the version with nirvana is standard in the Sinitic world. I guess there's a chance that other versions might predominate in other languages. The only reason I bring this up is that the version with dukkha seems to enjoy fairly wide credence as standard in English. - Nat Krause 14:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This could use headers differentiating various interpretive traditions within Buddhism. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

 * Yes- it's possibly a little syncretic; ideas? (20040302 20:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC))

 * Unfortunately, a lot of this stuff is out of my field, so I'm not sure how best to tinker. I threw up a division between the main article and a section on various traditions' interpretations; that should help a little bit. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:23, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * looks good as ever, kukku.. (20040302 04:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC))

This page makes no sense at all. The three marks of existence are "1. Dukkha- The reality and universality of suffering. 2. Samudaya- Td control things.  3. Nirodha- Suffering ceases with the final liberation of Nirvana." www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism1.htm

 * That is not correct. You are listing the first three of the Four Noble Truths, as the website cited accurately states. - Nat Krause 03:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Good Folks at Wikipedia,

I've seen hundreds of references to the Three Marks of all Conditioned Phenomena. They universally list

Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Not-Self

as the Three Marks of All Conditioned Phenomena.

There is a small confusion as sometimes there are 4 Characteristics listed (including 'Only Nirvana is Peace). These four constitute a different list and refers to the Four Characteristics of all Buddhist Teachings.

Here are some unimpeachable sources that list the Three Marks as Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness and Not-self.

General Index of Access to Insight

This link lists the following 3 terms as part of the Three Marks:

'''Anicca - impermanence Dukkha - suffering or unsatisfactoriness Anatta - not-self)'''

From A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism by Professor John Powers

page 226

The pate lists the Three Marks as the Sanskrit Trilaksana or the Pali Tilakkhana. Tibetan is mtshan nyid gsum.

Powers lists the three Marks as:

(1) selflessness - Skt. Anatman; (2) impermanence - Skt. Anitya and (3) unsatisfactoriness or suffering - Skt. Dukkha

Buddhist Studies: Glossary of Buddhist Terms

Buddha Net - an Influential site for Buddhism lists

Anatta Anittya/Anicca Dukkha

Buddha Net lists under each of these three terms that they are part of the Three Marks.

Buddhist Glossary from Tricycle, an influential Buddhist Magazine

This glossary notes that Vipassana or Insight Meditation yields a meditative and intuitive cognition of the three marks of existence as:

impermanence or anitya, suffering or duhkha, and no-self or

Note also that this text notes that vipassana in the Mahayana is said to lead to an intuitive knowledge of emptiness as well as the three marks and other subjects.

Thanks for all your work. Wikipedia is a valuable - a Vital - part of the Web.

Van Baldwin

I say yes!

Merge "Three Signs of Being" into "Three marks of existence."

I need to apologize to the editors of "Being," but I'm afraid that the page is not very well written: choppy and jargon-heavy. And (now, I am not in any sense an expert on Buddhist philosophy, so I may be quite wrong), it doesn't appear to have much content that "Existence" doesn't have: it's just phrased differently and generally less well.

I notice there's been no discussion on the subject for quite some time. I should like it if someone were to just go ahead and do it. I'd do it myself if I knew enough about the subject to edit with confidence.

--Deaconse 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I went and did it. I looked at both pages and decided, in my boundless arrogance, that Three Signs of Being is a bad article compared to this one, and that it doesn't contain anything useful that this article doesn't, so I just made it into a redirect. I would have liked for someone to take a better look at it and try and pick out nice things to put in here, but it was just taking too long for me so I decided to follow the Be Bold and the WP:IAR principles. --Toon 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Clasification of three "marks" doesn't seems to be correct
As far as I can remember, "Three Dharma Seals" are Anicca, Anatta, Nirvana. And adding Dukkah make it "Four Dharma Seals". Who wrote this? FWBOarticle

Plus, if you want it to be accurate translation wise, the title should be "Three (Buddha)Dharma Seals". FWBOarticle

See the section directly above this one on this talk page for a complete and satisfying response to your observation. makeswell (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dharma = Existence
This is wrong in so many ways. We should change the title of this article to "Three Dharma Seals" FWBOarticle
 * Dharma Seals redirects here. I don't think there's anything wrong with this article as it is right now. Of course, I don't know much about these things but it all seesm to make sense. Toon 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 4.131.49.89 regarding Atman
I have reverted the edits made by 4.131.49.89 since
 * 1) they are not in line with the style of the rest of the article,
 * 2) I am unable to verify the sources (Dn 2.100 and SN 3.196),
 * 3) this is not an article on Vedanta.

For an interesting read about Buddhism and Vedanta, see e.g. Vedanta and Buddhism, A Comparative Study, especially this paragraph:"The denial of an imperishable Atman is common ground for all systems of Hinayana as well as Mahayana, and there is, therefore, no reason for the assumption that Buddhist tradition, unanimous on that point, has deviated from the original doctrine of the Buddha. If the Buddha, contrary to the Buddhist tradition, had actually proclaimed a transcendental Atman, a reminiscence of it would have been preserved somehow by one of the older sects. It is remarkable that even the Pudgalavadins, who assume a kind of individual soul, never appeal to texts in which an Atman in this sense is proclaimed. He who advocates such a revolutionary conception of the Buddha's teachings, has also the duty to show evidence how such a complete transformation started and grew, suddenly or gradually. But non of those who advocate the Atta-theory has taken to comply with that demand which is indispensable to a historian." Sleep well, Andkaha(talk) 09:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs cites!
Added "Unreferenced" tag. "This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary
Can we summarize as follows?

 * Theravada (order as given here, not current article):
 * all sankharas are anicca
 * all sankharas are dukkha
 * all dhammas are anatta (including nirvana & concepts)
 * East Asian Buddhism: different list of 3 signs as stated above in this column
 * Tibetan Buddhism: 4 seals

Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above uses non-Buddhist Theravada terms, as does the article in question. The article needs to be corrected to use Buddhist Dharma terms:

1. अनित्यत्व - anityatva - Impermanence

2. दुःख - duhkha - Suffering

3. शून्यता - Shunyata - Emptiness अनात्मन् - Anatman - no supreme spirit (no "god" and no "soul")

4. निर्वाण - Nirvana - Cessation of all suffering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.47 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tathagatagarbha
This easily misunderstood Mahayana idea should probably not be presented alongside what the Buddha personally taught about anatta, should it? At least not in this article? Mitsube (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 * We have a responsibility to cover all non-marginal topics that we have solid information about from reputable sources, don't we?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, but we shouldn't give the idea unduly more weight than core ideas like anatta. What do you think? Mitsube (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The undue weight here is quite extreme. Mitsube (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I added a little bit. The balance is better now. Mitsube (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Transcend samsara and nirvana?
Can we get a quote saying that samsara and nirvana have to be transcended with meditation? I think the key is that there is no inherent imperfection anywhere, not that nirvana needs to be "transcended." Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * maybe a quote about using Tri Laksana as object of meditation? --Elvenmuse (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 * nirvana is not to be transcended. It can't. It is not a conditioned thing. It is a negation. The three here are to be understood and let go. Samsara is created by our own ignorance of these three observable facts. By identifying with that which is impermanent and subject to decay and suffering, we jump into another womb out of habit, fear, clinging, and stupidity. Let go! If you want a quote, start reading the pali or a translation. Nothing esoteric in the words of the Buddha. -Alex Nov 2012

 * Although I agree with most of this last comment, there are traditions of Buddhism that appear not to. However, I find the idea of transcendence a misnomer here.

 * Even later misinterpretations of the Buddha agree with the above point that nirvana is not to be and can not be transcended. The Mahayana for example postpone nirvana by the Bodhisattva vow. That is namely not to achieve the goal for oneself, but to wait and presumably help all sentient beings achieve nirvana. -Alex 2 Dec 2012

(phenomenology of psychology) has been wrongly used in this article
I'm a researcher in phenomenology and suggest to remove the term(phenomenology of psychology) used here: (and everything in the phenomenology of psychology) and translated to Portuguese too: (bem como na fenomenologia da psicologia)

Is possible that exists the term in the Budism, but is not the same meaning related on the redirection (by clicking on phenomenology link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaused (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * What? makeswell (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 * there's phenomenology and there's psychology... --Elvenmuse (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Argumentative
I think this article is argumentative and dogmatic. Suppose there are various possible interpretations of a concept like impermanence. Then the article should set forth all of the interpretations rather than seizing upon one interpretation as the "correct" one. For example, the article seems to make the dogmatic assertion that nothing every comes into existence or passes out of existence, but that things merely change their appearance because their constituent parts are rearranged. The article presents this interpretation as correct and uncontested. If it is not, then alternative interpretations should be presented. If the interpretation really is correct and uncontested, then some supporting references should be given to convince the reader that in Buddhism, this is the only interpretation of the concept of impermanence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.253.90 (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Anatta - not just a permanent self
Candrakirti states: When knowing selflessness, some eliminate a permanent self, but we do not consider this to be the basis of the conception of "I" It is therefore astonishing that knowing this selflessness expunges and uproots the view of self. —Madhyamakāvatāra 6.140

Therefore, there are major Buddhist schools (in this case the Madhyamikas) who hold that the self being refuted by the awareness of Anatta is not merely a permanent self. I have removed the word permanent from the description. Although Candrakirti makes it clear that there are some schools who consider the bounds of Anatta to be a permanent self, we should not limit the scope of the article to those schools alone. (20040302 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Atricle Split
I suggest a split: As it stands, Four Seals redirects to Three marks of existence, which has got to be confusing for people. (Wait, four of this is really three of that?!?) This article could have the three, list some of the traditions where there are three and mention that (some? all?) Mahāyāna traditions have a fourth. A Four Dharma Seals article could mention the first three briefly with a link back here, and then explain the fourth seal. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This immaculate Buddhic Self (atman)
"This immaculate Buddhic Self (atman)" needs references. From my experience this sounds non-Buddhist. If there is some reference in Buddhist teachings to a "Buddhic Self" it should be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.53.37 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed this 2-sentence paragraph. “Buddhic Self” 1) is not a Buddhist Term used by any major School.** 2) a Meta Search of over 100 Internet Search Engines returns the only use being a shortened version of “Becoming Your Christed-Buddhic Self” by “New Age, Spiritualist Hybrids” (that is my neologism for this “group” (two people, namely one: ‘Judy Satori’) on Facebook and a WordPress Blog that uses the term (www.jenniferclark.ca/?p=1153). 3) The translation of the Vedic Sanskrit, Brahmanism, Hinduism: “atman” as “Buddhic Self” [It is already referenced on This Section, and the Buddha’s Dharma teaches Anātman/Anattā = prefix ‘an’ + ‘atman’ ≈ ‘No-Self’] is so antithetically misconstrued that I can only deem it: “Disinformation.” 4) The remainder of the two sentences is saturated with Dualistic natured grammar and syntax that even without the use of the clearly Non-Buddhist term “Buddhic Self,” the remainder a) adds no informational value or even a “Buddhist flavor,” yet it does b) distract and dilute the previous and following text. The term “immaculate” is both Dualistic (Which Buddha-Nature is not) and wreaks of “Good and Bad Morality” which are not buddhist concepts. There is no “good and bad,” the Buddha never used such a dichotomy. c) The second sentence then starts: ”One the other hand...” as though whomever added this 2-sentence paragraph were weighing evidence of how he/she feels about the previous sentence. 5) I attempted to edit out the term “Buddhic Self”...and then as little as possible, but there was nothing in remainder that added to a User Experience, valid Buddha-Dharma knowledge, or augmenting perspective, but there was nothing to salvage, nothing to augment the article, and quite a lot to detract from the Page.

 * I’ve been a full-time Ecumenical Buddhist Minister for over 17 years, six years of residential “Buddhist Ordination Seminary,” Post-Graduate education by some of foremost Academics and Ordained Buddhist Leaders from all over the World, representing every major School and Sect of Buddhism, including courses in Pāli and Sanskrit, as well their Tibetan, Korean, Sinhalese, Japanese, Tamil, Hindi, Vietnamese, English equivalents. I researched the term before I edited the section out, not because I doubted the bastardization of terminology, but for prudent Due Diligence. Dharmamitra Jeff Stefani (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Insubstantiality
Sometimes this term is used; presumably, as the 1st 'seal'. Also, since the word 'seal' is used in the lead [Brit: lede], there should be some clarification regarding various terms used, such as 'Three Seals of Buddhism' - which I am assuming refers to this article. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Stub quality article needs rewriting in plain English with quotes narrowly focused on subject matter, and credible cites.
Stub quality article needs rewriting in plain English with quotes focused on subject matter.

Scope
"With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that 'all sentient beings are marked by these three characteristics", -- surely, and as explained in this article, it's all conditioned phenomena, not merely all sentient beings? 20040302 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Three marks=Aniicalakkhana, Khandha=Anicca, Anicca is not Aniccalakkhana.
See reference in thai section: https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%93%E0%B9%8C#.E0.B8.AA.E0.B8.B2.E0.B8.A1.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.8D.E0.B8.A5.E0.B8.B1.E0.B8.81.E0.B8.A9.E0.B8.93.E0.B8.B0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BallWarapol (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Significance of the concept of ignorance of the three marks
I've added a little to "Application" section about the fact that in Buddhism it is ignorance of the three marks that is a central problem, and so getting free of that ignorance via direct insight is a key part of the solution to that problem (as per the  prajñā components of the Noble Eightfold Path). I also added a reference sentence in the lead since I do think the notion of "ignorance of" the marks is key to explaining the marks themselves. Sleety Dribble (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relationship between the members
In Pali, the relationship is as following paradigm: What is anicca is dukkha. What is dukkha is anatta ☸ Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā (Samyutta Nikaya.Vol4.Page1).

Anicca and anatta are easily translated. Dukkha is difficult. In the Four Noble Truths it is called Suffering (i.e. noun). In the Three Marks it is often called 'unsatisfactory' (i.e. adjective). But this only fulfills the paradigm in the situation of pleasure: that which is pleasant-anicca is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory is obviously not personal (not under personal control). It doesn't work for neutral or painful objects.

Somewhere, I saw the Three Marks dukkha translated as 'unmanageable'. This makes for a good fit: That which is unlasting is (obviously) unmanageable (i.e. cannot be made lasting). That which is unmanageable is (obviously) not personal (i.e. it is not under personal control).

The introspectively discovered truth of suffering is one of ceaseless movement, of a dynamic process which is suffering by virtue of being uncontrollable, ever-changing, and therefore inadequate and unsatisfying. (Carrithers, Michael (1986), The Buddha. Cited in Founders of Faith, Oxford University Press, page 54).

Mahasi Sayadaw calls it 'unmanagable, uncontrollable': "What is "Anatta"? It means: "Yam dukkham tadanatta - the dukkha dhamma, as taught by the Buddha. Hence, the five khandhas which are called "dukkha" is not "atta ", a living entity. It is Non-Self, the "anatta" It is unmanageable and cannot be coaxed to become happy inasmuch as it's inherent nature is "suffering". Since it is unmanageable and uncontrollable, it cannot be called or regarded as One's Own 'Self'. As such, Anatta is a condition which is ungovernable, Let's recite a Motto which embraces the said meaning: "The Five Khandhas being ungovernable, are not Atta."

In this Wiki article, someone calls dukkha 'suffering' and proves it by a quote from the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta. But this is the definition of the First Noble Truth dukkha. The quote is invalid. @Sukusala

title: Talk:Three marks of existence


text:
Mataura River

The Mataura River is in the Southland Region of the South Island of New Zealand. It is 240 km long.

Description
The river's headwaters are located in the Eyre Mountains to the south of Lake Wakatipu. From there it flows southeast towards Gore, where it turns southward. It then passes through the town of Mataura, and enters the Pacific Ocean at Toetoes Bay on the southern coast of the South Island. Much of its channel is braided.

The Mataura is renowned as a source of brown trout, and is a popular fishing venue, including whitebaiting. It has been identified as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International because it supports breeding colonies of the endangered black-billed gull.

History
Until about 18,000 years ago the Mataura drained Lake Wakatipu. The Kingston Flyer follows part of the former river bed, now blocked by glacial moraine.

For Māori, the Mataura was an important ara tawhito (traditional travel route) that provided direct access from Murihiku to Whakatipu Waimāori (Lake Wakatipu). The Mataura was a significant kāinga mahinga kai (food-gathering place) for local Kāi Tahu, and was tribally renowned for its abundance of kanakana (lamprey, Geotria australis). Kanakana are normally caught when climbing natural waterfalls, such as Te Au-nui-pihapiha-kanakana (Mataura Falls).

The Mataura, along with the three other main Southland rivers, the Waiau, Ōreti and Aparima, breached during the Southland floods of January 1984. Commercial and residential areas of the town of Mataura were particularly affected, including the pulp and paper plant.

title: Mataura River


text:
Talk:Day of the Death

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=At6fe4jn75way

title: Talk:Day of the Death