text:
Talk:Gwadar

Repeated vandalism or near-vandalism
This page has been subjected to repeated insertions of material that has serious deficiencies. While the spelling, grammar, and formatting alone would make the inserted text unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the material is non-neutral.

In this article and others, the same user appears to be repeatedly trying to promote a couple of websites: BalochVoice and BalochTawar.

I removed these links, and will substitute links that are pertinent to the subject. Is there some other action that the Wikipedia community would recommend? 68.20.38.45 05:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

China interests
What is the part about "China doesn't have warm water ports??" Isn't Shanghai warm enough? I think the writer is mistaking China for CIS countries. If not, he is expecting the Chinese to carry containers from Gwadar through mountains of Tibet and deserts of Western China to East of China were all the activity is. I had removed this part some weeks ago from the text but I think he doesn't want to give up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.181.180 (talk) 23:01, November 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Haha. All of China's ports are warm water. Gwadar is important for China because it gives China access to the Indian ocean, as well as close access to the Middle East.  China has been promised quite a bit of sovereignty in Gwadar (since they are the ones who financed practically everything there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.199.125 (talk) 18:17, March 16, 2006 (UTC)

 * Reply: who told you about Chinese sovereignity in Gwadar? It is a Pakistani port. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.112.123 (talk) 16:08, April 16, 2007 (UTC)

 * Pak-China has enjoyed a long frindship based on common respect for each other and are now taking steps to explore and enjoy each other's resources. I'm happy that the people of Pakistan in general and of Balochitan in specific are finally going to enjoy the benefits of their land that has been long ignored! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.112.2.60 (talk) 10:01, June 11, 2007 (UTC)

 * LOL. Not for long, I'm afraid.  They are now putting a military base there.  Pakistan can kiss it goodbye.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  I expect it to be a net benefit for the region in terms of the economy and stability.Arlesd (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese naval base
It appears that the Chinese now have established a naval base in Gwadar.www.prisonplanet.com/target-china.html] __meco (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

copyvio?
the strategic importance portion of this article appears to be a word-for-word copy of http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/1232-gwadar-jewel-crown-16.html.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The airport section seems to be a copyright violation of http://pakistanidefenceforum.com/lofiversion/index.php/t25146.html.

 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gwadar - Typo(?)
The Gwadar Port was built on a turkey basis by China...

I think that the Chinese will not care for this editorial comment.

71.198.45.84 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another typo?
In section "Rice zone" the 2nd paragraph starts rs and other plants have been installed which seems an accident. No idea what got lost there, though.

--94.79.169.144 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good sources
Here are some articles that could be good sources to add to the article: Cheers! -- Orionist  ★  talk  18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.voanews.com/english/news/China-Refuses-to-Confirm-Reports-it-Will-Run-Strategic-Pakistani-Port-122498969.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/gwadar-pakistan-great-game
 * http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ME28Ad02.html
 * http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=84004&Cat=3
 * http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011/08/14/story_14-8-2011_pg5_11

Orphaned references in Gwadar
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gwadar's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From List of extreme weather records in Pakistan: http://www.pakmet.com.pk/FFD/index_files/daily/rainfallaug.htm From Umar: Al Farooq, Umar, Muhammad Husayn Haykal Chapter no:1 From Gandhara: The races of Afghanistan Being a brief account of the principal nations inhabiting that country By Henry Walter Bellow Asian Educational services Page 73 From Mughal Empire:  From Arab culture: Mellor, Noha. The Making of Arab News. From China–Pakistan relations: China tested N-weapons for Pak: US insider The Times of India 6 September 2008 From Maurya Empire: P. 266 Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 1 By James Hastings From Peshawar: http://www.pakmet.com.pk/FFD/index_files/rainfalljuly10.htm

From Jauharabad: Azam, K.M., Hayat-e-Sadeed: Bani-e-Dar ul Islam Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan (A Righteous Life: Founder of Dar ul Islam Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan), Lahore: Nashriyat, 2010 (583 pp., Urdu) [ISBN 978-969-8983-58-1]

From Bactria: Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition

From Climate of Gwadar: http://www.pakmet.com.pk/cdpc/Climate/Jiwani_Climate_Data.txt

From Saka: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland-page-323

From Central Asia: Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the Mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth: "In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, "Turan"). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a diareeah term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians."

From Shamsi Airfield: http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/11/us-personnel-vacate-shamsi-airbase.html

From Jhelum: Encyclopaedia of ancient Indian geography By Subodh Kapoor-page-3

From Ottoman Empire:

From Economy of Pakistan: International Monetary Fund, "Pakistan: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper", IMF Country Report No. 10/183, June 2010

From Pakistan Army: Pakistan Army. Globalsecurity.org.

From Lodi dynasty: D.R. SarDesai. India The Definitive History. (Colorado: Westview Press, 2008), 146.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Oman displayed is anachronistic
When Oman ruled in Gwadar, its national flag was completely red. The tricolour displayed in the article was only introduced in 1970. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilwatkinsosb (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gwadar. 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/20151118041734/http://thewire.in/2015/10/09/what-chinas-one-belt-and-one-road-strategy-means-for-india-asia-and-the-world-12532/ to http://thewire.in/2015/10/09/what-chinas-one-belt-and-one-road-strategy-means-for-india-asia-and-the-world-12532/
 * Added tag to http://www.gda.gov.pk/pages/consultancy-of-old-town
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929104602/http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/10194.htm to http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/10194.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.manilatimes.net/~manilati/index.php/news/world/41709-china-acquires-potential-naval-base-in-pakistan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207164037/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130228154889 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20130228154889

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) 16:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Gowadar vs Gwadar
Can we reach a concensis as top what this place is spelled as? It keeps being edited. The article is called Gwadar, but Gowadar is used inside the article. Should the article be renamed, or should the article itself be rid of the gowadar spelling? Seriously people, this is starting to become an edit war. - Zombles (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Gwadar is the current ( and correct spelling as far as the title goes) - but the whole region has historically been referred to as Go-Wadr, and its still the name as called by people across the border in Iran. The classical term Gedrosia itself is derived from a Greek corruption /transliteration of Govadrawathy - an old Persian term echoing a watering hole for cows[herds ?] and likely cognate with old indic. And the term 'Gate of Wind' is not the correct classical etymology, its just a later Baloch interpretation . 2600:6C58:4300:3C11:CDC8:6A88:F303:111F (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwadar-Airport.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of Balochistan.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Gwadar Flag Pole, Pakistan.jpg

title: Talk:Gwadar


text:
Jill of the Jungle

Jill of the Jungle is a trilogy of scrolling platform games released in 1992 by Epic MegaGames. It followed the method of distribution used by Apogee Software, where the first game is freely available and promotes the purchase of the additional episodes. The three episodes are Jill of the Jungle, Jill Goes Underground, and Jill Saves the Prince. They were combined into Jill of the Jungle: The Complete Trilogy a year later.

Gameplay
Jill of the Jungle is a platform game. The player controls the eponymous Jill and is able to run, jump, and fire various weapons collected within each level such as a dagger or spiral blade. Each level is populated with monsters and puzzles to challenge the player. Several levels include special features that allow the player to transform Jill into other forms with special types of movement such as the flying phoenix bird, jumping frog, and swimming fish. Other levels involve switches, keys and other challenges the player must overcome to finish the level. Upon finishing a level, the player is returned to the map level. The map level itself is organized in a way that requires the player to complete certain levels before they can proceed to the next area.

The first episode features 14 levels (including an ending level), two bonus levels all linked together by a map level, and two finish levels where the player is passive. The second episode does not have a map level, and instead features 19 consecutive levels and an ending level. The third and final episode has a different style of map level, an overhead view, that is a significant departure from the first two episodes.

Development
Tim Sweeney was inspired to create a Nintendo-style game featuring a female protagonist as a distinguishing feature. The game started as a platforming level editor. Lacking the skills to do the art and music, he hired four people. He said it is the "last game [he] designed".

Jill of the Jungle: The Complete Trilogy was released for free at GOG.com in November 2018.

Reception
Shortly after its release, 20 to 30 copies were sold daily.

Legacy
Jill of the Jungle II was in development, but was changed into an original property, titled Vinyl Goddess from Mars, which was published by Union Logic in 1995.

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

title: Jill of the Jungle


text:
Talk:Authorship of the Johannine works

Untitled
In that bullet-list about arguments for authorship, there is a lot of talk about "the book", even references to bible verse. However, the heading concerns the authorship of "the books", and it is not even clear what book the article author refers to. vintermann ---

The dates given for the writings of John as well as his age at the time were greatly skewed toward the argument and left out a lot of fact. The age for the apostles was 17-26 (estimated of course, but more accurate than "in his twenties") and the writings are dated as having been written in the last years of the first century (The Catholic Encyclopedia being the most complete on this subject is my main source for dates, not theology, folks.) The age is still significant, but the placement of 102 as the minimum age for John when he wrote the Gospels is not based in any fact whatsoever. Of course, the piece itself is contrasting opinions on which neither on has a whole lot of basis in provable fact, but again, this way is more accurate. --TheGrza 05:18, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

As for the first point on the truth of the Apostle John's claim to the authorship, the use of language seemed to have a POV, regardless of intention. I took it out of the parentheses and reworded slightly. Hope it's better. --TheGrza 05:23, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think, given the title, this article is about Authorship of the Gospel of John. I.e. "of John". Thus should only be "book".
 * I think also, given that the Catholic encyclopedia is the development of the views on truth of the Church which developed from the Early church, it is going to be POV about dates. It has a vested interest in the Gospel of John's date being plausibly connected to a still living Apostle. CheeseDreams 21:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia and some other reputable sources. They match on everything except theology.

Title
If this article is to be exclusively about the gospel of John, the title should be, as it is now "Authorship of John". If the article is to be about the Johannine works, the title should be "Authorship of the Johannine works". In addition, the article should be split into sections more, e.g.
 * "Authorship of the Gospel of John"
 * "Authorship of Revelations (also called The apocalypse of St. John the Divine)" - (note that Divine merely means one who has had a revelation, and apocalypse is greek for revelation, and that this is the older title of the book, revelations being a nick name)
 * "Authorship of the Johannine letters"
 * etc.

Comments? CheeseDreams 21:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) If no-one comments, I will either add a disclaimer "this is about the gospel of John" or something. Or change the title and add the sectioning. Haven't decided which I prefer yet. CheeseDreams 23:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see any point in having several articles, as they will be rather short and have considerable overlap. There is enough difference to support division into different sections, of course. Leaving a redirect here, of course, I'd support Authorship of the Johannine works, if you want a more complete name. Mpolo 09:21, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * By the way, as you can see, I've been adding quite a bit... I got so carried away with "criticism" in general that I have hardly touched on authorship. We'll have to see afterwards if some material has to go back to Gospel of John. Mpolo 18:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it looks good. However, it still looks like its just about the gospel. CheeseDreams

Illiteracy of John
The supposed illiteracy of John the Apostle comes from Acts 4:13 which says "When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus." (NIV) See B.W. Johnson's Commentary on John (not an unbiased source, but we're talking about Bible Scholars here). There is nothing about illiteracy. Also, if you note the point immediately after the illiterate point, they are strikingly similar so I just merged the two. Hope this clear up the confusion. --TheGrza 07:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Im going to edit it, as your last edit has half a sentance which ends with the word "an". CheeseDreams 07:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * N.b. at the link you give, the author uses church father's witness to Justify the authorship. This is a highly POV thing to do. The church fathers were biased, and if Iranaeus forged the gospel of john, then one should be unsurprised that he, and his supporters after him, should attest to its genuinness. A point the author of the link fails to mention. CheeseDreams 08:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only point really to take from the piece I had you look at was the fact that the only evidence of his illiteracy was Acts 4:13 which mentions no illiteracy except in the DARBY translation and the Wycliffe New Testament versions of Acts 4:13. So nowhere in the Bible in 95% of the translations does it mention something about being "unlettered and plebeian." If you are going to say that the bible insinuated that John was illiterate, first of all, do it right and find where it mentions this and put that in the article.

As to your other point that lack of schooling infers illiteracy, that's highly POV and really has no basis in fact. There are a number of other issues that could promote literacy without expanding one's knowledge, or having someone be known as a smart guy. Including reading the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh. Which they, as Jews, devout Jews who most historical accounts suggest were with John the Baptist before Jesus came around. John the Baptist known for running a completely insane and rigourously devout colony of people that wouldn't be inhabited by those who didn't know the Torah and Tanakh. So to infer from one passage the literacy of this man and to not include where you get any information is clearly POV and also clearly uninformed. I'm reverting it back to it's original state which makes the point that John was no genius and that for him to have written it probably would need something on the scale of a large deity but that no, he wasn't illiterate.--The[[User Talk:TheGrza|Grza]] 18:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * The Greek text has ἀγράμματοι meaning "without learning", "unlettered", used in the Greek corpus in this sense in Xenophon and in the Greek Anthology. The fact that John was "known to the High Priest" could indicate a certain amount of contact there, so that he would have at least some education... If John lived as long as he is reputed to have lived, the possibility of gaining those skills remains open as well. Mpolo 20:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed if he was Prester John he would be an amazingly good writer. But this is about the anti-John-did-the-gospel argument, which does quite frequently use the case that john was illiterate. If this article was about who did write the gospel of john then it would be fine to take into account the above. But this article is about the critical argument about John having written the gospel, and the argument against does frequently use the john-is-unable-to-write case. CheeseDreams 23:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For example, Creation according to Genesis does not go "oh there is this counter argument, so Ill cut that case from the text", but rather it puts the counter argument in the counter argument part of the article. CheeseDreams 23:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that the difference between "without learning" and "unlettered" are pretty far apart. I don't think there is nearly enough evidence to suggest that the man was illiterate at any point, regardless of learning. And, I point out as well, that all but two of the translations take the "without learning" angle, even the non-secular and historical study bibles that are not translated by religous people but by linguists and historians for the sole purpose of studying this age, not this religion. If they all disagreed because they had manufactured the idea that John was a leopard instead of a human being that would not merit inclusion. We should be including the points that have basis in fact, as all the others do. When it is argued that John could have learned to write by the time he hit old age, this is not a reason not to include the argument because that would belong in the "for" column. This is not that case. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this specific argument against. Also, we are not removing legitimate arguments against John having written the books, we are removing arguments with no basis in fact. Your reference to Genesis is a complete non sequiter. (I understand that you are referring to the article. I still maintain that it makes no sense at all in this context.)  --The[[User Talk:TheGrza| Grza ]] 00:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, that is an important point of view too (though rather odd). If they had manufactured the idea of John as a leopard, then that ought to be mentioned too, along with an explanation of their motives. It is unencyclopedic to cut it out. CheeseDreams 22:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Anyway, exactly how many people could write back then? Why do you think that scribes existed as a profession? The point is that hardly anyone could write, and that doing so would make you instantly highly employable. John was a fisherman. CheeseDreams 22:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * P.s. it wasn't a reference to Genesis, it was a reference to the article. CheeseDreams 22:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, me and you will just have to disagree on the asinine leopard comment, but your point about scribes is a good one. However, literacy rates among the Jewish faithful were much higher and among the ultra-religious (and John was not just a fisherman, he had been a member of the Baptist collective with John the Baptist) it was very high. Many of the Gnostics actually came out of this tradition which is how THEY were able to write. --The[[User Talk:TheGrza| Grza ]] 01:21, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Im confused now, the leopard was a donkey? CheeseDreams 19:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, smartass, it was stupid. --The[[User Talk:TheGrza| Grza ]] 01:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * They manufactured the idea that John was a stupid leopard? Is this a reference to Yeshu ben Pandera?

What is literacy in the ancient age? Not many could sit down and read a letter through on a first reading, most readers had to sound it out and figure out the paragraphs and sentences. Thus, today, most would be considered functionally illiterate, even scholars. Ceasar was thought to be remarkable in that he could read a letter through at first look. However, the widespread use of graffiti shows that even the common people could read a little. So, even if John was "unschooled" in AD30 or so, he may well have been somewhat literate- and of course, he may have well become a scholar in the next several decades. Finally, unschooled or not, he certainly could have dictated the book to scribes. 162.93.199.11 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So I'm idly reading this article, when I reach the bottom & notice that there are only three sources in the bibliography, & at least twice as many sources referred to in the article, e.g. "G.H.C. McGregor (1928)". Do I need to emphasize just how unprofessional this looks?

I'm not arguing any POV -- except that if you refer to a source, provide the referent -- name, title, publication details. If you care about this article, please fix it. Otherwise I'll let my inner grumpy nature out, & let it make a large number of edits to prove my point. -- llywrch 02:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've deleted and removed here the historically incorrect and self inconsistent statement concerning the rapid dissemination of John in Egypt: "which would not be expected for a Gnostic text, since the Egyptian church of the era was fighting against Gnosticism."--Wetman 18:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "According to J.N. Sanders (1943) and C.K. Barrett (1955), the first persons to use the Gospel of John were Gnostics in the second century to early third century. They cited similarities with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip." This cannot mean the Gospel of Thomas, which was not discovered until 1945. Is there any value to the rest of this statement? Would someone rewrite it so that is at least sounds believable, please. --Wetman 00:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have fixed this up with correct information about Ptolemy and Heracleon. --Peter Kirby 02:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * FYI, like many "lost" works, the existence and name of The Gospel of Thomas was known to us long before an extant copy was discovered. For example, both Origen and Eusebius mention it by name in the third century, but a complete copy was not discovered until   Nag Hammadi, in 1945.  RBarryYoung (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the Letter of Ignatius to the Philippians generally considered spurious? It seems to me that its inclusion in this article is inappropriate. Perhaps a scholar can comment? Brucelange 03:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusion over authorship
My opinion, from reading the article, is that the article is a bit confused concerning authorship. Sometimes very strong statements are given that the historical apostle John is completely eliminated as a possible author. Then, at other times, the article gives positions iterating the possibility of John's involvement in authorship. Also, there doesn't seem to be a very coherent approach to discussing the issue, rather the treatment is more frenetic. As a result the reader is jolted into one position, then out of it, with nothing more than statements like "most scholars agree..." I think there is room for subtle improvement here. Lostcaesar 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there is little to no mention at all of any recent conservative scholarly works which have thoroughly, effectively, and logically defended an Apostlic Johannine scholarship of the Gospel. Just to prove my point, there was not much effort put forth to mention well respected Biblical scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, B.F Westcott, Adolf Schlatter, P-Gardener Smith, A.T. Robinson, Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, D.A. Caron, Leon Morris, F.F. Bruce, Herman Ridderbos, Andreas Kostenberger, and many other "modern scholars" who have vehemently defended a Johnainnie authorship of the Fourth Gospel. I will say, however, that the article did a decent job at showing support for Johannine scholarship by the early Apostolic and Patriarchial Fathers of the Church (such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Papia, Irenaeus, and etc...). My main problem is that an unaware reader would come across this article and believe it to be a fact there there are no credible schoalars who would dare to believe that, yes, the apostle John did in fact write the Gospel of John... - which is heavily supported by both external and internal evidence within the Gospel itself (As shown very thoroughly by P-Gardner Smith's work and A.T. Robinson's essay titled "The New Look on the Fourht Gospel", 1959). - just to note, I compiled the list of modern scholars who support Johnannine scholarship from Adreas Kostenberger, Encountering John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 213. - Jesse Nelms, July 11, 2009. For more dicussion: jesse_nelms@gfwpb.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseNelms (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

weasel words
sections

History of critical scholarship "Many modern critics follow him in this late dating."

More recent criticism

"Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching."

Otherwise inexplicable is misleading referring to the temple courts narrative. There are other explanations, so I've reworded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.24.30 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern criticism

"Many critical scholars today conclude (with the tradition) that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was intended to be understood as John the Apostle"

"Most scholars posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work"

"Most scholars date the writing of the Gospel to the last four or five years of the first century"

"However, as noted above, a few choose a much later date, typically around the time of Irenaeus - circa 180AD."

"Consequently several scholars have proposed that the Gospel was deliberately written in the late second century to explicitly oppose those heresies"

"Some scholars have even proposed that Irenaeus himself, who had a similar writing style, theology, and knowledge of literary Greek, was the author"

First epistle

"Given the similarity with the Gospel, most critical scholars assign the same authorship to the epistle that they assign to the Gospel. Most refer to a Johannine school from which the letter stemmed, possibly even from the hand of the apostle himself."

Second and third epistles

Thus most scholars assume that some personality in the circle of disciples of John was the author of these books.

 * This article is riddled with mistakes and would take a long time to correct. You have people misquoting misquotes.

LoveMonkey 03:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No, actually you are just looking too much into it, the article is written that way for an easy reading, if the text would give sources every time a setence would come up then it would be 10 times as big as it is right now. If an article uses words like "some" or "most" is not because it lacks sources, its because the information must be simplified to fit an encyclopedic format. You have a pretty naive understanding of what a weasel word is, in my opinnion.
 * I think the weasel word criticism is a bit much and am removing it.--Nowa (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

from article
-Cut from article-

As well as the recent work of Charles Hill's The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. In which Charles Hill gives evidence that the Gospel of John was used between CE 90 and 130, the possible use of uniquely Johannine gospel material in several works which date from this period. These works and authors include Ignatius (c.107); Polycarp (c.107); Papias’ elders (c.110-120); Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles (c.120-132). Hill assesses that many historical figures did indeed reference the Gospel of John.

-End of Cut-

I've cut this because Charles Hill doesn't seem to be a notable scholar - see Appropriate sources for wikipedia, and doesn't seem to have affected the views of notable scholars. He just seems to be "some evangelical protestant seminary teacher" (that probably should make his bias clear as well). Clinkophonist 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Charles E Hill received his PHD from Cambridge this book I quoted was published by Cambridge-Oxford university. Please restore your deletions. According to this article it directly contradicts the works of Elaine Pagels as noted on her wikipedia article.

LoveMonkey 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please restore your edits. LoveMonkey 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that a book published by OUP is inappropriate for wikipedia. It's perhaps the premier academic press in the English-speaking world. There are also, at the link, favorable blurbs about his book from mainstream journals. On what basis do you claim, Clinkophonist, that Hill is only "some evangelical protestant seminary teacher"? john k 15:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to this - having looked up Reformed Theological Seminary, it does seem to be a fairly dubious enterprise, with its support for Biblical inerrancy, and what not. That said, the book was still published by OUP, and that means it counts as a proper scholarly publication, whatever its author's biases may be. john k 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In my view, excluding an academic work simply because the author is a religious teacher itself may represent a bias, and also a kind of ad hominem. I know too little of the work in question to pass judgement, but its worth ought to be dependant on its ability to manifest rational arguments. Lostcaesar 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this had me ROFL! The scholar is (gasp!) an evangelical Protestant who supports (gasp!) Biblical inerrancy. Therefore he is surely biased. I can only hope that the irony was intentional. :) --SlothMcCarty (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

John the Priest &c
This text doesn't seem quite right:
 * ''In the ancient traditions, these books were attributed to John the Apostle[ref]Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 355[ref], assumed to be identical to John the Evangelist. In the 6th century[ref]Since the 18th century, the Decretum Gelasianum has been associated with the Council of Rome (382), but historians dispute the connection.[ref], the Decretum Gelasianum named 2 John and 3 John as having a separate author, "John, a priest" (see John the Presbyter).

The identification of some of the texts with a "John the Priest" may be seen in Eusebius, long before the sixth century. And the slow acceptence of Revelation among the Eastern Fathers is enough to show some hesitency about identifying John the Apostle as author. The same may be said of one of the epistles. My point is, even with the ref to Harris, I think the info is wrong - an oversimplification. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, granted, but its something we might want to think about. Lostcaesar 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that the 6th centruy bit is strange. Ehrman doesn't go into specifics, but says that the authorship of the Johannine works was controversial during the first 4 centuries of Christianity.--Andrew c 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

John of Patmos
John of Patmos contains info on the authorship of Revelation. I have redirected it here and checked that all information is copied here. --Ephilei 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I do not agree with the redirect/merger. John of Patmos has been a motif in western art, and a religious figure for a number of Christian churches. Therefore, someone may be search of John of Patmos and be disappointed when they show up at a discussion on biblical authorship. I suggest that we restore the JoP article. Why did you want to merge it in the first place?-Andrew c 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism
As I have been following the links on this page, I have noticed that the first paragraph on "History of the Use of Johannine works is blantantly plagarized from http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works_-_History_of_use_of_the_Johannine_works/id/612856 As a result, I feel it necessary to this section, and to have a new beginning to this article. This is a shameful way to use wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.231 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Please read the note at the bottom of this link. They clearly indicate that they used the wikipedia article as their source (not the other way around), so this is not a case of plagiarism.-Andrew c [talk] 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

another use of plagarism I have found:

Texts of the Nag Hammadi library show that many of the Gospel of John's earliest readers responded to the text "in surprising and imaginative ways." The whole sentence should be in quotations because the whole sentence is taken from Pagel's book. Now, we must also admit that Pagel's book is focused on the Gospel of Thomas. Why are we using it for comment on John? I'm pretty sure the person has not read the book, or they would have presented her views more distinctly. In what surprising and imaginative ways did the readers respond? Since this sentence has no power, I believe it should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.231 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

disputed statement
A recently added sentence says that John the Presbyter probably never existed. That's strange, since he claimed to write 2 John and 3 John. I added a dubious tag because this statement doesn't match my research or seem to fit the evidence. It also seems to come from a source that implies John the Apostle wrote 2 and 3 John, which doesn't square with my textbook. Maybe we could get a quote from the source (an evangelical scholar). Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eusebius believed that "John the Elder" was a different person than "John the Apostle". He most likely did this to discredit the statements in Revelation against the Roman Empire. This "John the Elder" who is not also "John the Apostle" never existed, but was an invention of Eusebius. Perhaps the wording could be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing John the Apostle into the equation? He didn't write any of these works, nor does the Bible ever say he did. Leadwind  (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortna
Robert Fortna's work appears to be completely overlooked. See. He provides evidence for two (or three) stages in the writing of the gospel, the earliest dating to before Mark. Harry.Erwin (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern criticism
The final paragraph of the section entitled "Modern criticism" (Most scholars date the writing of the Gospel to c. 90 ... which was important in the early "charismatic" movement known as Montanism) appears to be misplaced: it doesn't cite any modern writers or movements. Indeed it doesn't cite anything and its concerns with John's age appear to be WP:OR while the remainder recaps early criticism. Any objections if I delete this paragraph? -- Timberframe (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

POV
Hi RomanHistorian, As a Christian, I like your editing, but many of your edits show a Christian POV. Remember at Wikipedia we must fairly reflect the scholarship in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me to be a major edit war brewing. (No, not you Ret.Prof). If those involved can't solve this maybe they should seek mediation. Just a suggestion. PiCo (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PiCo, how does mediation work? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin and not very knowledgeable about these things. Try approaching User:Dougweller, who's both an admin and very knowledgeable. I think the basis thing is that both parties should agree that an impartial mediator is needed, and both should accept the mediator. PiCo (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its difficult to mediate when Dylan Flaherty makes clear in his most recent reversion that his method is just simply reverting everything I write ("your changes are controversial and your edit comments are misleading, so the best thing is to revert").RomanHistorian (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you discuss your controversial changes in advance and get buy-in, they will not be reverted. Instead, your boldness is rewarded with an immediate counter-reaction. I'm a Christian, too, but I don't believe the articles should enshrine fringe views or exclude Catholicism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to continue to fight this. It isn't worth it. I do think my last change should be restored, to make it clear that a non-fringe minority of scholars holds that John was behind some of his works. Currently it is rigid on this point, as though it is a fringe view to hold this opinion. I know a good deal of scholars personally who hold this. Dismissing this as fringe is wrong, as it is not.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reevaluation
I've examined the article in its current form, and I've looked at the history and discussion that led to its creation, but I think the time has come to reevaluate this article's existence.

The original thinking was, you have five canonical books attributed to "John", and you have several Johns who may or may not be identical and who may or may not be the author(s) of these books, so rather than discuss this mess on a dozen different pages, create one central page—this article—where everything is sorted out in a single coherent discussion.

But what we have is a lengthy discourse on the origin of the Gospel, a very brief treatment of the epistles, and a separate treatment of Revelation that could well stand separately. So, the benefit of discussing authorship in a single article is mostly lost. Only very briefly is the similarity in style between the Gospel and 1 John or Revelation brought forth as a point of discussion.

The more serious issue, apart from this fragmentary treatment, is that sorting out the Johns encompasses more than issues of authorship. Suppose that John the Elder wrote all the Johannine works, while John the Apostle wrote none of them. Or suppose that some second-century writer (even, perhaps, one coincidentally named John) actually composed some of these works but passed them off as the work of an earlier John, perhaps the apostle, about whom much was still remembered. What do we know about the Johns who may not have written anything? Were they identical or distinct? Whose tombs were the two tombs of John in Ephesus?

My tentative suggestion is:
 * Return to separate articles on Authorship of John, Authorship of the Johannine Epistles, and Authorship of Revelation—or, if the latter two are not too long, make them sections in the main articles for the respective books.
 * In Authorship of John, discuss in detail the ancient evidence, historical views on the matter (19th-20th century), and modern views. Here, discuss in detail the possibility that the Beloved Disciple (whoever that may be) is the author, and the overlapping possibility that the ancient ascription to "John" (whoever that may be) is grounded in truth, but go no further. (If there's any argument that the author is a New Testament figure who was neither the Beloved Disciple nor John, clearly that would also go here.)
 * In Beloved Disciple, discuss in detail the possibility that he wrote the Gospel, and the possibility that he is identical with John the Evangelist (bearing in mind that it is possible to accept either while rejecting the other). Also discuss who else he might be besides anyone named John.
 * In John the Evangelist, discuss in detail the evidence that the Gospel was written by someone named John (and refer the reader to the Authorship article for the possibility that it was not), mention the possibility of being identical with the Beloved Disciple, and list the Johns who may be identical with the evangelist (i.e., John the Apostle, John the Presbyter, John the Revelator, some other John). Discuss in detail the reception of the composite figure (feast days, artistic portrayal, and such). This article should not repeat the Authorship article, but rather should complement it. The current article needs to be trimmed down a lot.
 * In John the Presbyter, discuss in detail what refers us to such a person at all (2 John 1 & 3 John 1, Papias, etc.). Discuss in detail the possibilities that he was or was not identical with John the Apostle and John the Evangelist. (I have in mind especially Bauckham's fascinating argument that Presbyter = Beloved Disciple = Evangelist ≠ Apostle.) Also mention John the Revelator.
 * Authorship of Revelation probably does not need its own article, actually. The main article on Revelation will refer to John the Revelator, and can briefly discuss alternative possibilities including pseudonymity and multiple authorship.
 * In John the Revelator, detail the internal and external evidence about the author of Revelation. Briefly mention any serious non-traditional possibilities. Discuss in detail the possibility that he was or was not identical with John the Evangelist, John the Presbyter, John the Apostle, and/or John the Baptist(!).
 * In John the Apostle, mention his frequent and ancient identification with the Evangelist, the Beloved Disciple, the Presbyter, and the Revelator, and thus author of all the Johannine works. Refer to the other articles without going into detail.
 * I vaguely recall suggestions for identifying John Mark with one or some of these Johns. Such a theory would, I think, merit just a brief comment in each article (i.e., in John Mark and in the other John).
 * Clean up Template:John accordingly.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Authorship of the Johannine works. 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 tag to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.cerinthus.html?highlight=epiphanius,h
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010125113/http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk:80/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/ to http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514155357/http://www.answeringinfidels.com:80/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56 to http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=56
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427061404/http://www.utexas.edu:80/depts/classics/documents/Life.html to http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Book of Mormon position?
Either here or on John of Patmos, it might be worthwhile to mention that the Book of Mormon goes out of its way to claim specifically that John-the-author-of-Revelation and John-the-apostle are the same person. Quoting 1 Nephi 14:20–27: And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things ... And he shall also write concerning the end of the world. Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true ... And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was John, according to the word of the angel. Now, this is not evidence of any actual connection, but it's an interesting record of the identification of the two Johns with each other in the popular imagination circa 1830, and also in a present-day religious tradition. And it would be interesting to know if any other major religions have an official position on Johannine authorship. —Quuxplusone (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Early Criticism error
I don't want to start a theological debate, but Psuedo-Ignatius' Letter to the Philippians cannot be used to date the Gospel of John to before 107 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.39.140 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you. As a general idea, you should WP:CITE WP:SOURCES for your claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Luke is not a number
I'm no expert, but I feel that much is pretty clear.

I can't access the source, so I can't fix it myself.

Thmazing (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ptolemy (Gnostic)
Ptolemy (Gnostic) assigns the Gospel of John to an apostle in his letter to Flora. add that. Tuxzos22 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Authorship of the Johannine works


text:
Fulminic acid

Fulminic acid is an acid with the formula HCNO, more specifically H\sC\tN+\sO-. It is an isomer of isocyanic acid (H\sN\dC\dO) and of its elusive tautomer, cyanic acid (H\sO\sC\tN), and also of isofulminic acid (H\sO\sN+\tC-).

Fulminate is the anion [C-\tN+\sO-] or any of its salts. For historical reasons, the fulminate functional group is understood to be \sO\sN+\tC- as in isofulminic acid; whereas the group \sC\tN+O- is called nitrile oxide.

History
This chemical was known since the early 1800s through its salts and via the products of reactions in which it was proposed to exist, but the acid itself was not detected until 1966.

Structure
Fulminic acid was long believed to have a structure of H–O–N+≡C−. It wasn't until the 1966 isolation and analysis of a pure sample of fulminic acid that this structural idea was conclusively disproven. The chemical that actually has that structure, isofulminic acid (a tautomer of the actual fulminic acid structure) was eventually detected in 1988.

The structure of the molecule has been determined by microwave spectroscopy with the following bond-lengths - C-H: 1.027(1)Å, C-N: 1.161(15)Å, N-O: 1.207(15)Å.

Synthesis
A convenient synthesis involves flash pyrolysis of certain oximes. In contrast to earlier syntheses, this method avoids the use of highly explosive metal fulminates.

title: Fulminic acid


text:
Talk:Zazen

Untitled
Well, that's not how it's always done...

 * Could you perhaps expand on that extremely terse comment? *8)

 * I think what he means is that the article on Zazen does not describe every variation of the practice. I noticed the same thing.  Every sangha does some things differently, but I feel the article gives a 'good enough' '35,000 feet' view of the practice. Marteau 21:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made some updates
First, thanks to the original author of this article. With respect, I have added a section on the various ways zazen is taught, and a section which compares it to some of the other forms of meditation in Buddhism. This is my first Wikipedia entry, please let me know if there is anything I can do to make it better.

-DaveK

Sudden vs. Gradual
I would be surprised to learn that experienced Soto practitioners would refer to their technique as "gradual". It sounds like a misunderstanding to me. Looked at in another way, the immediate practice of shikantaza is more "sudden" than the formal contemplation of koans used as a tool in Rinzai. In my understanding, Soto Zen is no less a "sudden" school, as described in the Platform Sutra, than Rinzai: the "gradual" school which the Sixth Patriarch condemned was something else entirely. I suspect that, being a practice reviled by Zen's Sixth Patriarch, referring to any form of Zen as "gradual" could be considered by some to be an insult.Beginnermind 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been a few days, I'll just remove the sudden/gradual references from the article. Here's a quote from an online source, who knows their stuff better than me:

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/Sudden_vs_Gradual_Ray.html

Of interest is the information presented which cites sources footnoted 18 and 19, comparing calling the "northern" school the "northern" school was an attempt to discredit it as being gradual, and that modern Zen practice looks on sudden enlightenment as superior, and calling any school of Zen "gradual" is akin to calling Theravada "Hinayana". I'd put a small quote in here from there, but apparently wikipedia is paranoid about quotation and fair use, so you'll have to look for yourself. The footnote 18 in there is listed as sourced from Yampolsky's translation of the Tun-Huang manuscript version of the Platform sutra and from Heinrich Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History Vol 1., while the other footnoted quote 19 is listed from Dumoulin op cit. I hope that's enough of a citation for a discussion on removing terminology.

In short, though, the issue of "sudden" and "gradual" enlightenment is probably best left in an historical context. The so called "northern school", according to that article, lost influence in China because it was seen as "gradual", while it lost influence in Tibet because it was seen as "sudden". Politics.:) 199.247.235.10 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hand of thought
What does opening the hand of thought mean?--Filll 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is likely that it comes from the title of this novel While I have not read this novel itself and there are probably other interpretations, based upon what I was taught, "opening the hand of thought" is a poetic way of illustrating the idea behind any one of a number of similar phrases that you often hear when learning Zazen— phrases like "Try not to latch on to your thoughts." and "Take note of your thoughts, but do not grab on to them or try and push them away." What we need to consider in thinking about how these sorts of phrases relate to the metaphore is to wonder what a "closed hand of thought" might be.  I submit that a closed hand of thought would be one that is in the act gripping onto and/or unwilling to let go of these thoughts as they pass by. Even in trying not to grip, we do this.  In Zazen we are tought that attempting to push these thoughts away is itself a sort of wanting and attempt at controlling; you're simply gripping at another thought: the thought of yourself not being bothered by your thoughts.

∴ Wa lk er aj 18:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Opening the hand of thought" would then refer to the act of releasing the grip on all of these thoughts. The "not pushing them away" aspect sounds paradoxical when considered as a practice, especially because we often want to see a striving or goal towards "improvement" within things that we term "practice" ("If there is nothing to practice, what am I getting better at?"), but this is a mistaken notion in the context of Zazen.  You are not sitting to try and get better at not-latching-onto-thoughts.  This will take care of itself as you continue to do the practice, and indeed many teachers will tell you that this is so.--

Links
I don't understand why there is an external link: "The Awakened Heart Project for Jewish Meditation and Contemplative Judaism" with this article? Should this be here?

First paragraph
I've read the first paragraph, and there are a few things I don't fully understand. Perhaps it could be rephrased?

"...is at the heart of Zen Buddhist practice"; what does it mean to be at the heart of something?

"...opening the hand of thought."; what does that mean?

--HelgeStenstrom (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I've fixed the first sentence adding clarification, and removing the "at the heart of" comment.
 * JasonAdama (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

horrible. sitting?
This article need a re emphasis on what is the goal and importance of Zazen.. Zen meditation if not about the "sitting" techniques, nor is it about it's social relevancies and history. There is nothing in this article about the true meaning or aim of Zen meditation AT ALL. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In Zen we are taught that attempts to ascribe some kind of aim to zazen are misled. If you go to sit zazen thinking about how you are going to use it to get to Enlightenment, you are not sitting zazen properly.  In Zen Mind Beginner's Mind, Suzuki Roshi says that "Enlightenment is not some good feeling or some particular state of mind.  The state of mind that exists when you sit in the right posture is, itself, enlightenment."  What this means is that the practice of zazen isn't a meditation with a focus on something or attaining something, but rather a deliberate expression of our own buddha-nature.  Zen is a belief system deeply rooted in practice and rebukes attempts to differentiate the belief system from its practice.  In other words, to be a Zen Buddhist is to sit zazen and vice versa.  Therefore, there is a practice (and a series of ways to SIT zazen), but there is no aim or goal like you seek. Walkeraj (talk)

Harvey
Peter Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism has an excellent introduction to Zen meditation starting on page 270. Mitsube (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This needs work
I'm going to start with reorganizing the current content in the first section to remove or tone down the commentary and get to a more encyclopedic format. Chris vLS (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that's better -- and a to do list
I think it reads more fluidly, and more like an encyclopedia article now. Here are next things to do:
 * References!!!
 * More on the significance section
 * Need to grapple with the fact that many practioners would say that zazen is not done to "gain" anything, especially not enlightenment . . . this contradicts the lead paragraph
 * The stages of zazen is not universally held or practiced. Some Soto schools (and Dogen) focus solely on shinkintaza, the article currently sounds like the stages approach is universal

That's all for now. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The recent edits have been major improvements. The biggest issue that I have had with the article is that it has relied so heavily on an extremely narrow view of the subject. That is, Zen sitting meditation as practiced in Japanese Zen Buddhism, and interpreted by western culture. A good first step would be to remove the Japanese terms, or to move them into their own section. If the material is to be in a general section of the article, i.e. representative of the broader Zen tradition, then it should be applicable to Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese Zen as well. Since these three traditions have much in common, some good sources to cross-reference would be those of Hsuan Hua, Nan Huai-Chin, Shengyen, etc. At least by comparing Japanese and Chinese sources, the intersection of Japanese and Chinese sources would give a fairly good view of what is generally applicable. If it will be difficult to find such general material, then it may be useful to split up the page with a general introduction, and sections for each of the traditions. This is just my own view on the subject, of course. Tengu800 23:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Glad you thought they were improvements! Have to laugh about your suggestion, since all of my knowledge of zazen actually comes from Western interpretations of Japanese Zen Buddhism practice, so I might not be the best to add other perspectives! Most of what I did was simply editing for article style.  I was surprised to find that I couldn't find much in terms of online sources. Also, I'm really not sure how to reconcile basic straightforward writing with the less straightforward teachings.  Many practioners would disagree with the lead sentence that zazen is done to achieve enlightenment . . . and they would add that if you want to be liberated you should sit zazen . . . Cheers -- thanks for the feedback -- Chris vLS (talk)  00:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Các thiền sinh Tông Tào Động tại Nhật Bản đang thực hành Thiền Mặc Chiếu.jpg

title: Talk:Zazen


text:
Ryōko Shinohara

Ryoko Shinohara (篠原 涼子) is a Japanese singer and actress.

As a singer, she is best known for the 1994 song "Itoshisa to Setsunasa to Kokoro Zuyosa to" with producer Tetsuya Komuro, which charted at number one and made her the first female artist in Japan to record a double million in CD single sales. It was followed by the number one album Lady Generation: Shukujo no Jidai (1995). Shinohara's musical output saw waning commercial reception in the latter half of the decade, at which she began concentrating on her acting career.

Highlighted by the Japan Times for her "long reign as a TV drama queen", Shinohara's best known acting credits include detective Yukihira Natsumi in the drama series Unfair, which spawned three feature films and several specials; and temp worker Haruko Oomae in Haken no Hinkaku. She has starred in several acclaimed films, winning two Japan Academy Film Prizes for her roles in The House Where the Mermaid Sleeps and Sakura Guardian in the North, both in 2018.

Career
Shinohara appeared in Tetsuya Nakashima's 2004 film Kamikaze Girls.

Films

 * Shin Funky Monkey Teacher Dotsukaretarunen (1994)
 * Funky Monkey Teacher Forever (1995)
 * Happy People (1996)
 * June Bride (1998)
 * Beru Epokku (1998)
 * Go-Con! Japanese Love Culture (2000)
 * Red Shadow (2001)
 * Calmi Cuori Appassionati (2001)
 * Totunyuuseyo! Asama Sansou Jiken (2002)
 * Dawn of a New Day: The Man Behind VHS (2002)
 * Kendama (2002)
 * Blessing Bell (2003)
 * Kamikaze Girls (2004) as Momoko's mom.
 * The Uchoten Hotel (2006)
 * Unfair (2006) as Natsumi Yukihira

 * Hanada Shōnen Shi (2006)
 * Unfair: The Movie (2007) as Natsumi Yukihira
 * Unfair 2: The Answer (2011) as Natsumi Yukihira
 * One Piece Film: Z (2012) as Ain (voice)
 * Unfair: The End (2015) as Natsumi Yukihira
 * Sakura Guardian in the North (2018)
 * Sunny: Our Hearts Beat Together (2018) as Nami Abe (adult)
 * The House Where the Mermaid Sleeps (2018) as Kaoruko Harima
 * Bento Harassment (2019) as Kaori Mochimaru
 * Wedding High (2022) as Maho Nakagoshi

Television

 * Houkago (1992)
 * Sugao no Mama de (1992)
 * Ninshin Desuyo 2 (1995)
 * Kagayaku Toki no Naka de (1995)
 * Rennai Zenya: Ichidodake no Koi 2 (1996)
 * Pure (1996)
 * Naniwa Kinyudo 2 (1996)
 * Shinryounaikai Ryouko (1997)
 * Gift (1997)
 * Bayside Shakedown (1997)
 * Ao no Jidai (1998)
 * Nanisama (1998)
 * Beach Boys Special (1998)
 * Kira Kira Hikaru (1998)
 * Kiken na Kankei (1999)
 * Genroku Ryoran (1999)
 * Kabachitare (2000)
 * Tokimune Hojo (2000)
 * Saotome Typhoon (2001)
 * Mukodono! (2001)
 * HR (2002)
 * Hatsu Taiken (2002)
 * Renai Hensachi (2002)
 * Boku no Mahou Tsukai (2003)
 * Mukodono (2003)
 * Mother and Lover (2004)
 * Hikari to Tomo ni (2004)
 * At Home Dad (2004)
 * Yankee Bokou ni Kaeru (2004)
 * Naniwa Kinyudo 6 (2005)
 * Anego (2005) as Naoko Noda
 * Unfair SP (2006) as Natsumi Yukihira
 * Message (2006)
 * Hanayome wa Yakudoshi (2006)
 * Unfair (2006) as Natsumi Yukihira
 * Woman's Island (2006)
 * The Pride of the Temp (2007)
 * Hataraku Gon! (2009)
 * Ogon no Buta (2010)
 * Tsuki no Koibito (2010)
 * ''Unfair Double Meaning ~ Yes or No? SP 2 (2013)
 * Last Cinderella (2013)
 * Lady Girls (2015) as Aki Nakahara
 * The Pride of the Temp 2 (2020)
 * Ochoyan (2020–21) as Shizu Okada
 * Fishbowl Wives (2022)

Dubbing

 * World War Z, Karin Lane (Mireille Enos)

title: Ryōko Shinohara


text:
Pā

The word pā (often spelled pa in English) can refer to any Māori village or defensive settlement, but often refers to hillforts – fortified settlements with palisades and defensive terraces – and also to fortified villages. Pā sites occur mainly in the North Island of New Zealand, north of Lake Taupō. Over 5,000 sites have been located, photographed and examined, although few have been subject to detailed analysis. No pā have been yet located from the early colonization period when early Polynesian-Māori colonizers lived in the lower South Island. Variations similar to pā occur throughout central Polynesia, in the islands of Fiji, Tonga and the Marquesas Islands.

In Māori culture, a great pā represented the mana (prestige or power) and strategic ability of an iwi (tribe or tribal confederacy), as personified by a rangatira (chieftain). Māori built pā in various defensible locations around the territory (rohe) of an iwi to protect fertile plantation-sites and food supplies.

Description
Almost all pā were constructed on prominent raised ground, especially on volcanic hills. The natural slope of the hill is then terraced. Dormant volcanoes were commonly used for pā in the area of present-day Auckland. Pā are multipurpose in function. Pā that have been extensively studied after the New Zealand Wars and more recently were found to safeguard food- and water-storage sites or wells, food-storage pits (especially for kūmara), and small integrated plantations, maintained inside the pā.

Recent studies have shown that in most cases, few people lived long-term in a single pā, and that iwi maintained several pā at once, often under the control of a hapū (subtribe). Early European scholarly research on pā typically considered pā as isolated points settlements, analogous to European towns. Typically pā were a part of a greater area of seasonal occupation. The area in between pā were primarily common residential and horticultural sites. Over time, some pā may have become more important as places of display and as a symbol of status (tohu rangatira), rather than purely defensive locations.

Traditional designs

Traditional pā took a variety of designs. The simplest pā, the tuwatawata, generally consisted of a single wood palisade around the village stronghold, and several elevated stage levels from which to defend and attack. A pā maioro, general construction used multiple ramparts, earthen ditches used as hiding posts for ambush, and multiple rows of palisades. The most sophisticated pā was called a pā whakino, which generally included all the other features plus more food storage areas, water wells, more terraces, ramparts, palisades, fighting stages, outpost stages, underground dug-posts, mountain or hill summit areas called "tihi", defended by more multiple wall palisades with underground communication passages, escape passages, elaborate traditionally carved entrance ways, and artistically carved main posts.

An important feature of pā that set them apart from British forts was their incorporation of food storage pits; some pā were built exclusively to safely store food. Pā locations include volcanoes, spurs, headlands, ridges, peninsulas and small islands, including artificial islands.

Standard features included a community well for long-term supply of water, designated waste areas, an outpost or an elevated stage on a summit on which a pahu would be slung on a frame that when struck would alarm the residents of an attack. The pahu was a large oblong piece of wood with a groove in the middle. A heavy piece of wood was struck from side to side of the groove to sound the alarm. The whare (a Māori dwelling place or hut) of the rangatira and ariki (chiefs) were often built on the summit with a weapons storage. In the 17th and 18th centuries the taiaha was the most common weapon. The chief's stronghold on the summit could be bigger than a normal whare, some measuring 4.5 meters x 4 meters.

Artifacts
Pā excavated in Northland have provided numerous clues to Māori tool and weapon manufacturing, including the manufacturing of obsidian (volcanic glass), chert and argillite basalt, flakes, pounamu chisels, adzes, bone and ivory weapons, and an abundance of various hammer tools which had accumulated over hundreds of years.

Chert, a fine-grained, easily worked stone, familiar to Māori from its extensive use in Polynesia, was the most commonly used stone, with thousands of pieces being found in some Northland digs. Chips or flakes of chert were used as drills for pā construction, and for the making process of other industrial tools like Polynesian fish hooks. Another find in Northland pā studies was the use of what Māori call "kokowai", or red ochre, a red dye made from red iron or aluminium oxides, which is finely ground, then mixed with an oily substance like fish oil or a plant resin. Māori used the chemical compound to keep insects away in pā built in more hazardous platforms in war. The compound is still widely used on whare and waka, and is used as a coating to prevent the wood from drying out.

Storage
Pā studies showed that on lower pā terraces were semi-underground whare (huts) about 2.4 m x 2 m for housing kūmara. These houses or storage houses were equipped with wide racks to hold hand-woven kūmara baskets at an angle of about 20 degrees, to shed water.

These storage whare had internal drains to drain water. In many pā studies, kūmara were stored in rua (kūmara pits). Common or lower rank Māori whare were on the lower or outer land, sometimes partly sunk into the ground by 30–40 cm. On the lower terraces, the ngutu (entrance gate) is situated. It had a low fence to force attackers to slow and take an awkward high step. The entrance was usually overlooked by a raised stage so attackers were very vulnerable.

Most food was grown outside the pā, though in some higher ranked pā designs there were small terraces areas to grow food within the palisades. Guards were stationed on the summit during times of threat. The blowing of a polished shell trumpet or banging a large wooden gong signaled the alarm. In some pā in rocky terrain, boulders were used as weapons. Some iwi such as Ngāi Tūhoe did not construct pā during early periods, but used forest locations for defence, attack and refuge – called pā runanga. Leading British archaeologist, Lady Aileen Fox (1976) has stated that there were about 2,000 hillforts in Britain and that New Zealand had twice that number but further work since then has raised the number of known pā to over 5,000.

Pā played a significant role in the New Zealand Wars. They are also known from earlier periods of Māori history from around 500 years ago, suggesting that Māori iwi ranking and the acquiring of resources and territory began to bring about warfare and led to an era of pā evolution.

Fortification

Their main defence was the use of earth ramparts (or terraced hillsides), topped with stakes or wicker barriers. The historically later versions were constructed by people who were fighting with muskets and melee weapons (such as spears, taiaha and mere) against the British Army and armed constables, who were equipped with swords, rifles, and heavy artillery such as howitzers and rocket artillery.

Simpler gunfighter pā of the post contact period could be put in place in very limited time scales, sometimes two to fifteen days, but the more complex classic constructions took months of hard labour, and were often rebuilt and improved over many years. The normal methods of attacking a classic pā were firstly the surprise attack at night when defences were not routinely manned. The second was the siege which involved less fighting and results depended on who had the better food resources. The third was to use a device called a Rou – a half-metre length of strong wood attached to a stout length of rope made from raupō leaves. The Rou was slipped over the palisade and then pulled by a team of toa until the wall fell. Gunfighter pā could resist bombardment for days with limited casualties although the psychological impact of shelling usually drove out defenders if attackers were patient and had enough ammunition. Some historians have wrongly credited Māori with inventing trench warfare with its associated variety of earth works for protection. Serious military earth works were first recorded in use by French military engineers in the 1700s and were used extensively at Crimea and in the US Civil War. Māori's undoubted skill at constructing earthworks evolved from their skill at building traditional pā which, by the late 18th century, involved considerable earthworks to create rua (food storage pits), ditches, earth ramparts and multiple terraces.

Gunfighter pā
Warrior chiefs like Te Ruki Kawiti realised that these properties were a good counter to the greater firepower of the British. With that in mind, they sometimes built pā purposefully as a defensive fortification, like at Ruapekapeka, a new pā constructed specifically to draw the British away, instead of protecting a specific site or place of habitation like more traditional classic pā. At the Battle of Ruapekapeka the British suffered 45 casualties against only 30 amongst the Māori. The British learned from earlier mistakes and listened to their Māori allies. The pā was subjected to two weeks of bombardment before being successfully attacked. Hōne Heke won the battle and "he carried his point", with the Crown never tried to resurrect the flagstaff at Kororareka while Kawiti lived. Afterwards, British engineers twice surveyed the fortifications, produced a scale model and tabled the plans in the House of Commons.

The fortifications of such a purpose-built pā included palisades of hard pūriri trunks sunk about 1.5m in the ground and split timber, with bundles of protective flax padding in the later gunfighter pā, the two lines of palisade covering a firing trench with individual pits, while more defenders could use the second palisade to fire over the heads of the first below. Simple communication trenches or tunnels were also built to connect the various parts, as found at Ohaeawai Pā or Ruapekapeka. The forts could even include underground bunkers, protected by a deep layer of earth over wooden beams, which sheltered the inhabitants during periods of heavy shelling by artillery.

A limiting factor of the Māori fortifications that were not built as set pieces, however, was the need for the people inhabiting them to leave frequently to cultivate areas for food, or to gather it from the wilderness. Consequently, pā would often be seasonally abandoned for 4 to 6 months of each year. In Māori tradition a pā would also be abandoned if a chief was killed or if some calamity took place that a tohunga (witch doctor/shaman) had attributed to an evil spirit (atua). In the 1860s, Māori, though nominally Christian, still followed aspects of their tikanga at the same time. Normally, once the kūmara had been harvested in March–April and placed in storage the inhabitants could lead a more itinerant lifestyle, trading, or harvesting gathering other foodstuffs needed for winter but this did not stop war taking place outside this time frame if the desire for utu or payback was great. To Māori, summer was the normal fighting season and this put them at a huge disadvantage in conflicts with the British Army with its well-organized logistics train which could fight efficiently year round.

Swamp pā
Fox noted that lake pā were quite common inland in places such as the Waikato. Frequently they appear to have been constructed for whānau (extended family) size groups. The topography was often flat, although a headland or spur location was favoured. The lake frontage was usually protected with a single row of palisades but the landward boundary was protected by a double row. Mangakaware swamp pā, Waikato, had an area of about 3,400 m2. There were 137 palisade post holes identified. The likely total number of posts was about 500. It contained eight buildings within the palisades, six of which have been identified as whare, the largest of which was 2.4 m x 6 m. One building was possibly a cooking shelter and the last a large storehouse. There was one rectangular structure, 1.5 m x 3 m, just outside the swampside palisades which was most likely either a drying rack or storehouse. Swamps and lakes provided eels, ducks, weka (swamp hen) and in some cases fish. The largest of this type was found at Lake Ngaroto, Waikato, the ancient settlement of the Ngāti Apakura, very close to the battle of Hingakaka. This was a built on a much larger scale. Large numbers of carved wooden artefacts were found preserved in the peat. These are on display at the nearby Te Awamutu museum.

Kaiapoi is a well-known example of a pā using swamp as a key part of its defence.

Examples

 * The old pā remains found on One Tree Hill, close to the center of Auckland, represent one of the largest known sites as well as one of the largest prehistoric earthworks fortifications known worldwide.
 * Pukekura at Taiaroa Head, Otago, established around 1650 and still occupied by Māori in the 1840s.
 * Rangiriri (Waikato), a gunfighter pā built in 1863 by Kingites. This pā resembles a very long trench running east–west between the Waikato River and Lake Kopuera with swampy margins. At the high point was a substantial earth works with trenches and parapets. The pā was bombarded from ships and land using Armstrong Guns.
 * Nukuhau pā, Waikato River near Stubbs Road. This is a triangular shape pā formed on a flat raised spur with the Waikato River on one side 200m long, a gully with a stream on the long west axis 200 m long and two man made ditches on the narrower southern axis, 107m long. The average slope to the river is 12m at an angle of 70 degrees.
 * Huriawa, near Karitane in Otago, occupied a narrow, jagged, and easily defended peninsula built in the mid 18th century by Kai Tahu chief Te Wera.

title: Pā


text:
User:1-is-blue

Quite a few times I've seen an article missing in wikipedia, so I decided to try to do something about it, once in a while. I know a bit about a few things, and am an expert at nothing, really, but I figured, what the hell. :)

=some links for future reference= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups

title: User:1-is-blue


text: File:Cherry Poppin' Daddies - Ferociously Stoned.jpg