text:
User talk:Afshar

Permission for images
Do you have an image you can release under the [GFDL] of the setup of your experiment that looks like the setup here? If not, I can make something that looks similiar in The Gimp on Wednesday or Thursday. I think this page will work a lot better with pictures, but we can't just steal stuff from web pages here on the Wikipedia.

By the way, you are being very civilized about some of the conflicts. I have minimized the information on multiple pages, since it was multiple copies of the same thing; things like that means it's time to merge on the Wikipedia. The list is on Talk:Afshar experiment. The only page where I completely removed any reference to your experiment is on Niels Bohr, for the same reason we don't say on the Isaac Newton page "Einstein's special theory of relativity violates Newtonian mechanics at high velocities" Samboy 11:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverted changes to your user page
User:Lumidek added the following to your user page:

Visibility: zero or one? Harvard professors of physics, Bertrand Halperin and Lubos Motl, argue that the contrast (i.e. visibility) with which the wave properties of light are observed in Afshar's experiment converges to zero as the wire grid becomes thin simply because only a very tiny fraction of the photons are used to deduce whether the interference exists or not:
 * $$V\approx 0$$

In order to argue that there is any interference, the effects of the wires must first be seen. This effect is very small even if the wires are placed at the interference maxima, and the visibility is therefore also small. Shahriar Afshar, on the other hand, argues that the visibility is close to 100 percent. Effectively, he uses one set of photons to measure the "which way information", and another, tiny set of photons to study "interference", which is not correct. According to Halperin and Motl, the Principle of Complementarity, as well as all other important postulates of quantum mechanics, are preserved. The results of this experiment agree with quantum mechanics and all of its mainstream interpretations; in fact, classical electromagnetism is sufficient to explain the observations, they say.

Note: I haven't removed this addition to the Afshar experiment page, just the user page (this information, IMHO, certainly belongs there).

I have removed this because I feel that it isn't very polite to edit user's pages without their permission. This is not a universal sentiment here; our esteemed founder, User:Jimbo_Wales feels differently, for example. If Afshar wants this, he can revert my changes. Or, heck, Lumidek can too; I'm not going to get in a revert war over this. Samboy 14:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting your Double-slit experiment edit
I have reverted your last edit in the Double-slit experiment article because of the “poop” added in the Conditions for interference section, not because of restoring the Shahriar Afshar's experiment section removed by 143.50.61.66  which I have restored now, without the poop. Rafał Pocztarski 17:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!
Professor Afshar, Just wanted to say thanks for your work on the article about Afshar experiment -- it's a great read, and I appreciate all the hard work you've put into it. Makes it more authoritative and all to be coming straight from the horse's mouth, too. Cheers, Schmiddy 01:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wave-particle duality
Hello,

As you can imagine, I do not support the deletion of the section I wrote. Yout comments are welcomed on the talk page.

Cdang| write me 11:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cdang, please REMOVE the analogy you have suggested. The photon is not like a whirlpool and I do not have the time right now to explain how the wave-particle duality can be popularized. But I promise to write something when I get the time. In the meantime I would appreciate if you place your analogy back HERE, so the uninitiated don't get more confused. Thanks! --Afshar 00:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * The other analogy has been removed. I would love if you could write your popularized version.  Both this and phonon need some down-to-earthing...  Everyone says "these things are quantum weirdness!  They are just math and are not meant to be understood!"  But I have a feeling that they can be explained better than they currently are. - Omegatron 02:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

My removal of categories from your user page
I hope you don't mind that I removed those three categories from your user page. As I explained in my edit summary, those categories are for grouping articles but user pages aren't really articles in that sense. If you're a prominent researcher then I think it'd be appropriate to have an actual article about you instead, though care would have to be taken to avoid tripping over the Vanity page policy. Bryan 23:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply
I've replied on my user page. linas 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

reply
I answered on my talk page. In brief: If you look more carefully, you will notice that I did not propose deletion, and that in fact I argued that the article should be kept. Also, I have responded to everything that you have written to me, and in fact, I took silence on your part as tacit admission. Perhaps you should repost your other comments on my talk page, if you beleive I have not replied. linas 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not use sockpuppets!
Hi,

Based on one of your recent edits,, it apears that you are using a sockpuppet or are impersonating User:Physicsmonk. This is more or less frowned upon in Wikipedia, and the use of this to cast double votes or make inappropriate edits might get you banned. linas 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope that User:ehteshami is not one of your sockpuppets! linas 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Dear Linas, You can't call anyone who supports my work a sockpuppet! User:Physicsmonkis certainly not a sockpuppet either, he is the Boston colleague I mentioned in my e-mail. I asked him to set up an account as you had suggested. He told me about the recent events with Monroe requesting a deletion and then you reinstating Monroe's attempt which I mistakenly understood as your own view. Sorry if I got confused on your vote! At any rate, User:Physicsmonk told me that for some reason he could not post his vote on the Wiki deletion page, which is what I did for him by copying and pasting his response to User:Hmonroe into the vote page. As you can see, I have not voted on the deletion issue myself as I deem that not to be ethical. I hope this clarifies the situation. BTW/ I have posted the e-mail I sent you a few days agao but was left unanswered in your talk page. Afshar 21:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop.
Please stop. You are damaging yourself with your behaviour. If you persist, you will only find yourself in deeper trouble. linas 23:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Linas, the IP you mentioned belongs to the colleague User:Physicsmonk with whom I worked and used his computer last year before I had set up my own Wiki account. After my recent discussions with you I asked him to obtain an account as well, which is exactly what he has done. He retracted the anonymous vote after he realized I had posted his vote for him (see below for the reason). Please stop these unsubstantiated remarks. Frankly, I am starting to think that Hunter Monroe is in fact your sockpuppet?! Afshar 23:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments
Hi Afshar, responding to your comments on my talk page. It's not really helpful to try to argue the correctness of your ideas on Wikipedia. It's not the right forum to be trying to promote your own ideas. As you can see from the "votes for deletion" page, a number of those voting to keep were convinced after reading the article that the results themselves are something new and unexpected, disproving quantum mechanics. Surely you would agree that the article is misleading if it gives this impression. As a side note, I have enough understanding of quantum mechanics myself that I'm not likely to be convinced by your arguments. --Reuben 18:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Afshar, please stop haunting the article about your own claims. It's inappropriate.  And I have no need to debate you.  It's irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Reuben 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Afshar, I appreciate your note on my talk page expressing the willingness to avoid directly editing the article. Thanks, I think that will help a lot.  --Reuben 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm quite flattered, but I'll have to decline. I have already come to my own conclusions about the correctness of your interpretation, so I'm probably not the best candidate.  --Reuben 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

About removing the AFD tag from Afshar experiment. Sorry to give you the impression that I am in control of anything. I am not an admin. I believe an admin has to count the votes, deal with the page accordingly, remove tag, archive disscussion, whatever. I left a note on the AfD page, maybe that will remind someone. Don't forget wikipedia ia all amateurs, a certain slack is to be expected. I suppose a message to somewhere on the Community Portal page maybe in order, I'm not exactly sure to whom. Best wishes. GangofOne 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help
Dear Prof. Afshar,

The article Incompletness of quantum physics could use some help.

In particular it would be helful if the article could be extended to report on the following published work:

 * Carlo Rovelli. "Relational quantum mechanics" International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35 1637-1678. 1996.
 * Federico Laudisa and Carlo Rovelli. "Relational Quantum Mechanic" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition).

The results in Incompletness of quantum physics are important in computer science. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Workshop and Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt/Workshop.

Thanks,

Carl

--Carl Hewitt 01:10 22 January 2006 (PST)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination)
May I respectfully suggest that you please moderate your tone on Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination). Remarks like "spiteful non-entity" to Danko certainly count as a personal attack. Also, it does not help to say "Please check the facts before you make erroneous statements." to Stifle, after both Linas and I have already challenged him. I understand your frustration that Afshar experiment got nominated for deletion again, but it is not a big deal. I've been around for long enough to know that the article won't be deleted, but your vociferous defense is counterproductive. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the advice. But don't you think something is fundamentally wrong with a system where a known crackpot (or worse, an ill-wisher) can attack and bring chaos to serious topics of which he knows nothing? FYI/Danko is a Pharmacology student in Japan. If you look at my weblog, you would realize that for months in 2005 I patiently tired to explain the basics to him, but he kept changing his story after every error was exposed. I'm done talking and if he is not stopped I'm done with Wikipedia. I do not have time to constantly monitor what goes on here.--Afshar 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. However, it is very hard to resolve this issue without damaging the openness of Wikipedia and the ease with which people can edit it, and the latter is essential to Wikipedia's success. The downside is that continuous monitoring is needed. There are some ways to stop disruptive editors, as mentioned in Dispute resolution and, for extreme cases, Blocking, but editors are given quite a bit of leeway here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

 * FYI, there is also relevent discussion at Stable versions to designate "known-good" article versions, and WikiProject Pseudoscience about general problems of crank edits. linas 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear S. Afshar I have a suggestion for you: after a brief discussion with linas and after reading and reading again your WP page I accepted the fact that the first part presenting the experiment is mot so bad that I expected. Perhaps indeed the best choice would be that after this first section you write some theoretical explanations justifying your thought. This part should clearly precise that this is Your point of view (at least in one sentence at the beginning). At the end of the article the serie of links must be presented as other potential interpretations of your results. If you think that this is a good idea let me know Drezet  24 january 2006

As discussed I modified my point of view on the deletion page regards Drezet  24 january 2006

By the way I dont have a copy of your Proc. SPIE 2005 could you send me a copy by email? Drezet  25 january 2006

Wikipedia: page in progress
Dear Pr.Afshar, before to continue I would like to know if you realized your experiment only with single photon and if yes how. regards Drezet  26 january 2006

I have a picture with V=1 too if you wish I will indeed include it. Drezet 31 january 2006

 * That would be better.-- Afshar 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Banning a certain user
About your email about your problems with Certain User, if you can't work it out with him, the next step may be requesting mediation, or last step, Request for Arbitration. Look a Village Pump for what to do. Look at some of the current csses to se how it works. Let me mention though that there is a rule against legal threats against other users; that would not be favorable to you. Also, a content dispute, per se, is not a wiki-crime, there has to be breaking of other rules. Accusations of fraud may be "attacking a user". May I suggest keeping your responses on the scientific level, his attacks are scientifically based, he claims. Does he have credibility that you need worry about his charges? (I haven't followed the dialog closely, so I don't have an opinion at the moment.) Good luck GangofOne 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever with anyone. However as you may know fraud is the number one killer of career in academia, and even a mention of it regarding an academic is ruinous. I will not tolerate this. -- Afshar 08:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Look into WP:DR. Or legal action, I suppose, if you think you have a case.  Pfalstad 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

well I think that article should be merged or at least renamed. you take criticisms of it too personally with it called "your name's experiment" -- Astrokey44 |talk 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Astrokey44, As you can see, the legitimate scientific debate in the form of papers etc. have been sited properly on the page. However, Danko (who is NOT a physicist) has turned a scientific debate to personal attacks after every physicist he interacted with dismissed him outright. Wouldn't you defend yourself if you were accused of a crime like fraud? What would you do if you were in my position? -- Prof. Afshar 16:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think if I were you I would merge the page to somewhere else, or rename it, and not include your name in the title! its just inviting criticism to have an article like that - sort of like writing your own bio -- Astrokey44 |talk 11:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, Ashibaka has asked me to mediate in your dispute with Danko Georgiev MD. If you feel that you have a case in law and wish to pursue it, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the provisions of the legal-threats policy until the case has concluded its course. If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, you must cease all legal threats. This is hardline because we do not wish to see Wikipedians sueing each other whilst squabbling on talk pages. Fine, I hope you understand that. If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, we shall have to find a resolution to your argument with Danko Georgiev MD (I shall be posting a message to him too). As Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise, resolution is necessary. Unfortunately. the more you argue, the mor likely you are to get angry, make personal comments and be blocked from editing yourself. Now, I imagine that you wish not to enter into legal process, to seek resolution and to continue to edit Wikipedia. Please let me know, if you are willing to do this. — Gareth Hughes 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Dear Afshar, I have written to Danko with the conclusion that unsubstantiated claims have no place on Wikipedia (you can see my reasoning on his talk page). I hope that he sees that such an argument is pointless here. It would probably be best if you refrained from making personal comments to or about Danko, which may simply reignite the issue. I advise you to continue to be circumspect about the article, realising the complications that arise from editing something that is so personally associated with you. I hope that Danko will agree that Wikipeida is not a forum for his claims. However, if he insists on continuing to make them, we may have to refer the issue to the Arbitration committee, who have greater scope than I in enforcing solutions to disputes. — Gareth Hughes 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your revert at wave-particle duality
I put up a comment about your revert on the talk page. Fresheneesz 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it if Danko answers
Dear Professor Afshar I can perfectly understand your irritation at Danko, he also gets on my nerves. His arguments are wrong, his understanding of physics is poor and he is rather paranoid to boot. But I can't help it if he answers to my posts!

On the other hand I think I provided some important insight as to understanding why the results of your experiments are in perfect agreement with QM under any interpretation. I hold it that the clue to a clear understanding of the whole thing is Huygens principle, that shows that in only one pinhole is open, in the presence of the grid some amount (small in square amplitude, not so small in amplitude) of light reaches the image of the *other one*. Recovery of 100% when both pinholes are open is through positive interference between that light and what now arrives from the "right" pinhole. This means in particular that this is not an unambiguous "welcher weg" situation. I submit that an amplitude coming from the "wrong pinhole", even if its effect is precisely to *destroy* the effect of part (diffracted part as opposed to direct part) of what comes from the first one, is nevertheless "real", and in the same sense that in a dark fringe  amplitude of opposite signs coming from both holes "exist" though they cancel each other. Consider a simple minded Young slits experiement. Take a a point near, but not exactly at the center of a dark fringe. The small amount of light that does get there, where does it come from? From both holes at the same time, with amplitudes that are almost but not quite opposite. By extension this is also true at the exact center of the fringe. Saying that nothing gets there is wrong. Amplitude come there from both holes but they exactly cancel. So the cancellation of the 6% loss in your experiement when both holes are open does not mean that the first hole does not scatter, but that the second one scatters the opposite amplitude. This is a different statement, and it shows that one cannot describe the process as "unambiguous welcher weg".

Now I developed my arguments in the posts you moved. Do you consider my interventions as unsuitable "per se" in the discussion page of your experiment, or only usuitabe because of Danko's comments? Do you mind if I copy them (just mine, not Danko's) and put them back?

I dont want to antagonize you, nor do I want to encourage Danko, but I think my analyssis is important and I'd like to put it back in connection with your article, not just in my personal page! Alfredr 22:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
I have been away for a few days, and so have only just received your messages. I understand your grievances over the editing of, and I understand that the nature of debate over the article has become personalised against you. Such ad hominem arguments should be roundly censured under Wikipedia policy, but it seems inevitable that your personal involvement editing the article can lead to the boundary between the article and person becoming blurred. I also removed the semi-protection notices you put up on your user page and user-talk page. I did this because the template is a statement of fact rather than a request, and I don't believe the pages are under semi-protection. It is usual only to use semi-protection if vandalism or dispute needs to be calmed. Occassional vandalism is usually met with vigilant reversions. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. — Gareth Hughes 20:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Eequor no longer around
Hi - I saw your edit at User_talk:Eequor. She's been gone since last February, and as far as I can tell is not coming back. I'm curious how you missed this notice that's at the bottom of her talk page:

Did you make this edit with AutoWikiBrowser or something? I've added notices like this to several users' pages and folks occasionally still add new talk threads. I'd like to figure out how this happens. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A note
I apologise, but I am entirely unable to address your concerns on Afshar experiment or related articles, unless they involve something that specifically requires admin privelages. I don't have the scientific knowledge needed to address this article, as I'm not even done with high school yet. Please do not send me further notices about conflicts in this article unless said conflicts imply a punishable offense. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Lies again?

 * Danko, again you intend to use lies to harm my reputation. You say the article "originally was intended as advertisement of Afshar by Afshar." I did not start the “Afshar experiment” page, someone else did, and you know that. Your complete lack of expertise (announced by Prof. Unruh and others) and personal ill-wish towards me have been documented by a number of Wiki admins including Gareth Hughes. Here's a reminder from your previous malintents:
 * "Its conclusion is clear: that your claims that Afshar falsified results (and all other claims that cannot be substantiated by verifiable sources) should cease. In my conversations with Afshar, he has been willing to do all that's possible to stay within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Are you willing to cease from unsubstantiated claims? Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

 * to which you replied:

 * "...I will restrain myself for posting comments on the Talk page of Afshar's article...therefore I do not consider anymore Wikipedia as a suitable place this debate to be continued... Danko Georgiev MD 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC) "

 * Please stick to your promise, and take your unsubstabtiated "arguments" and claims to a blog or some other site other than Wikipedia, or face the consequences of your repeated personal attacks.-- Prof. Afshar 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar, calm down. I will not post on the talk page of your pet article, and you have noticed my absence for quite a long period - I have been focused on molecular biology, not physics. I was brough to your article by irrelevant to your study search, and I was curious to find out that some people have editted the main article! So I wanted to get their replies WHY they have editted the main article. Basicly their critique seens to approach the questions that I have asked you many times, and if you were a little bit more communicative you should notice that if you look the problem from the density matrix perspective you will see your error and you better withdraw your work. It is your own choice so I am not the person who will be cause for your failure. My advice is to accept your error in more civilized way and go ahead with doing some serious physics. I have not touched the main article, and I will not touch also the disussion section. I will use the talk pages of the registered users. I hope this will satisfy your quest. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: do you have some useful edits in Wikipedia except for promoting your interpretation of complementarity? A friendly advice is that you contribute something else that you know, but is NOT for self-promotion. Have you thought of doing something useful for others without putting your name behind? For example you can try editing on some topic well-known in physics but not covered in Wikipedia. Danko Georgiev MD 07:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Half Silvered Mirrors
Excuse my ignorance, but how do half silvered mirrors work? Surely if you fire a stream of photons at a half silvered mirror, the photon must "choose" one of two paths to take. Does the path taken depend in microscopic deviations of the incident vector and position, or is it independent of this? In otherwords, is it a quantum effect or not? Dndn1011 00:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Georgiev's thesis
Dear Afshar, I don't know whether you realize or not, but my work is much more than you expect right now. One of the striking things, that I also bust Unruh's reasoning and show he is wrong. Indeed I agree with you on all those things that your opponents disagree - yes, the interference is there. Alas, the which way is completely erased even IF there is no grid. This is your overlook, and you really had the chance to contribute substantially to the theory of lens action. However you have missed already this opportunity, because my paper clarifies all this. Here is how somebody who called me ignorant not long ago, now has changed his position completely (surprizingly for me).

"Danko's argument is extremely interesting. The axiomatic definition of V is no longer the same thing as an emperical definition of 'V' as might have otherwise been assumed. One can not math consistently say A and B. One must say A or B. And the argument for math consistency is an extremely powerful one. The prinicple requires (correction: it imposes) a limit on the inferential meaning of the "which way" observable, ie. in spite of the observable, not because of it. While the observables originally "forced" the principle into play it is now the principle which "forces" the observables into question (correction: into play). Which is almost a relief. Bohr's interpretational crutch, "there is no quantum world" is possibly incorrect. There is a lot more to be explored in relation to this question. --Carl A Looper 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)"

Your comments
I have no opinion on any of the edit conflicts that are going on involving you and other users. I don't understand any of this fancy-shmancy science. However, a word of advice: try to keep your comments as concise as possible. You tend to leave enormous paragraphs of text on talk pages, and while I appreciate that you are trying to eloquently make a point or state a case, other editors (particularly non-scientists) tend to blanche at having to read so much text. Just food for thought. I'm leaving this on Danko Georgiev's talk page too. If you ever find yourself in a conflict that reaches wikipedia bureaucracy, like mediation or arbitration, admins simply will not read it all! Thanks- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Afshar experiment
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Please refer to the WP:ANI case here. Further revisions without discussion could violate the WP:NPOV policy. Your prior comments about your lack of cooperation, left at various talk pages, only further provides evidence towards that fact.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Seicer to apologize for the above posting, and his rather rude, inflamed commentary on the Afshar experiment talk page. In the meanwhile, let me apologize on his behalf. At this time Wikipedia does not have an effective process for dealing with controversial topics, and you get to bear the brunt of what sometimes degenerates into mob rule. linas 02:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hanbury-Brown and Twiss
While daydreaming on the topic of controversies, I thought of the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect. It strikes me that your experiment has some similarities to that one; and not just in that its controversial. Perhaps the resemblance I notice is trivial; in that effect, photodetected photons behaved classically, even as they were photodetected one at a time; this seemed quite counter-intuitive. Given that your experiment behaves classically (I beleive you've heard me make my shallow "it behaves just like water waves" argument) up until the point that a photon must be detected, I see a vague similarity to the HB-T effect. Wonder if you've given this thought? linas 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have begun the process...
I have responded to your comments (and will continue to do so) at Afshar experiment. My goal right now is to get at the heart of the dispute so we can move forward. It looks right now that the heart of the dispute is (in a very mean sense) whether superposition of the wavefunctions actually takes place or not.--ScienceApologist 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for article
Would you accept impartial mediation for the afshar experiment article? I am making this request to all parties involved with the article. Sdirrim 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I have already been acting as an impartial mediator and have been involved in trying to sort out the article for a long time now. I had a break for a while, but recently saw an opportunity to achive the goal and I have made what I feel is important progress. But I have no problem with someone else having a go.  I would recommend however that you familiarise yourself with the current situation first.  We have just had confirmation that a simple description of the experiment which I put forward to Afshar does represent what Afshar claims. Thus as a starting point we should make use of this.  I mention this fact because this achievement, which I consider significant to fixing the article, has just been achieved today.  The point of having a nice short summary that anyone can understand is to make sure that the article is inteligible the everyday reader.  I actually belive that up till now the article has actually been confusing to everyday reader and expert alike.

 * I have in fact made fixing the article a mission of mine for a while now, and I am happy that it looks like it can now be achieved. Unfortunately, as you will see in the talk page, there has been much confusion and misinformation.  I have been personally attacked for seeking clarity, because to some people I appear to have been asking stupid questions.  In fact I have been asking questions to resolve the confusion.  My plan was to now take the confirmed claims made by Afhsar and put them in the article.  Then a debate should ensue about the relevance of various critiques *to the actual  claims of Afshar*.  At present this does not appear to be the case.  Additionally, critiques should come from proper sources, and some people have been using the page to publish their own research.  Although I work by the philosophy of it does not matter who edits as long as policy is adhered to, in my opinion critiques have been applied from people who are not of equivalent stature to Afhsar or the more notable criticisers such as Unruh, and who have biased perspectives, and who have perhaps been pushing other agendas.

 * You may have assumed, when you came to the page, that I was one of the trouble makers. But in fact I hope you will see on review of the current page at least, that I have been steering things in a helpful direction.  You can be sure of my support, however, as it does not matter who does it, as long as it gets done, and do let me know if I can be of help.  Cheers. Dndn1011 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Inform us from your background
Dear Afshar, can you please tell us where to find your CV? There is nothing on your webpage...78.154.57.96 (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He only has a BSc degree, calls himself a professor though. No affiliation to Harvard either; he just used to have an email address from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.122.240 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your request for protection of Shahriar Afshar
I saw your request to User talk:Xandar for protection of Shahriar Afshar. I am an admin but I have to confess that I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policies are in regard to this issue so I will have to do some research into the question.

In the meantime, would you please email me regarding the personal information that was added to the article? I think I know what it is but I want to confirm that I am correct. I don't need to know the specific information, just what the category is (e.g. Driver's license, SSN, etc.) To email me, just go to my user page and find the "Toolbox" section in the lefthand column of the window. Click on "Email this user".

I will email you back my thoughts on this issue. I had started to write you a more detailed message here but changed my mind since anyone can read this page so communication via email is a more private way to proceed.

--Richard (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Afshar


text:
Moshe Hirsch

Moshe Hirsch (משה הירש) (born 1927—May 2, 2010) was the leader of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group in Jerusalem and advisor of Jewish affairs to Yasser Arafat. Hirsch was described by Mahmoud Abbas' advisor as "the leader of the Palestinian Jews," who are part of the Palestinian state. Following Hirsch's death, shiva visitors included senior Fatah members, including Adnan al-Husayni (who brought a personal letter of consolation from Mahmoud Abbas), Hatem Abdel Kader and Bilial A-Natsha. Hirsch was the son-in-law of the now deceased Neturei Karta founder Rabbi Aharon Katzenelbogen and his first wife, and was the leader of one of the movement's factions. He was originally from New York City, and later moved to Jerusalem, though he never became an Israeli citizen.

Hirsch had one glass eye due to an injury sustained when someone threw acid in his face. According to his cousin, journalist Abraham Rabinovich, the incident had no link with Hirsch's political activities but was connected to a real estate dispute.

Family and personal life
He was the father of three children. One of them is Rabbi Meir Hirsch. Meir who is his oldest son had taken over a lot of his fathers duties when he was reportedly suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

title: Moshe Hirsch


text:
Talk:Superstrat

Postulations by original author, removed from main article
Who coined the term super-strat (Grover Jackson, maybe)? ''Which Casio? Beautiful, all-black thing'' These aren't awfully useful in the main body of the article (particularly the second) hence moving them here.Brother Dysk 11:10, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fender
Similar to the fender showmaster the fender HM strat should also be included here as well.

 * It is already mentioned at the bottom --GreyCat 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * With no discussion regarding the proposed merger of Super Strat and Fender Showmaster, I'll remove the tag. Both articles are distinct enough. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 15:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

POV of Comparison
The whole disadvantage of superstrats part seems to be somewhat pro-strat; there are more disadvantages listed than advantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.251.63 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

artificial harmonics
In general, a neck with 24 frets instead of 21 frets does not actually make artificial harmonics harder. What can make it more difficult is having neck through construction as opposed to bolt on construction. I own real strats, superstrats that are bolt on and a super strat that is neck through. Every neck through I have played has difficulty with artificial harmonics. This is because in a neck through the primary tone is more powerful (this is why they have better sustain as others have noted here).

When plucking and individual string on a stringed instrument you are in a sense producing an entire "chord" of harmonics. The single note that "hear" is the primary tone. Harmonic are produced by removing more dominant tones from that "chord" by muting them at certain locations on the string.

A more detailed explanation of the physics of this belongs in another article; I will simply update this article to correctly reflect this fact.

 * Well, 21 vs 24 fret fact is also really simple to explain. Guitars with 21-22 fret necks have pickups' polepieces specifically aligned so that they match positions of artificial harmonics. Guitarists with 24 fret necks don't have this luxury, so they have to more or less guess proper locations => it's some sort of inconvenience => somewhat harder to get AHs.
 * Basically, both these facts require to be verifiable in terms of Wikipedia, so we need to add them both with links to good sources that state so (not only from our own personal experience). --GreyCat 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Superstrats than Jackson's?
Could the Fender Lead I (made 1979-1982) be considered an early superstrat? If not, maybe at least it might be worth mentioning in the article as a predecessor to superstrats. --Mispeled 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fat Strat?
According to the descriptions and examples, it seems that fat Strat, such as Yamaha Pacfica, is included. So may I ask for clarification?George Leung 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead
This opening paragraph is a poor summary of the Superstrat and far too vague. The Superstrat is an easily understood archetype that caters to a specific genre. Those characteristics should be front and center in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.170.201 (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Highway One?
Should the Fender Highway One be included? It seems to meet the specs (H-S-S, etc.) J- ſtan TalkContribs 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.
 * http://www.hamerguitars.com/?fa=series&sid=190

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Superstrat. 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.vintageguitar.com/features/brands/details.asp?AID=1226
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414133047/http://zeus.lunarpages.com:80/~jimshi2/newJacksonsite/jackson_soloists.htm to http://zeus.lunarpages.com/~jimshi2/newJacksonsite/jackson_soloists.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111233915/http://www.premierguitar.com:80/education/200611_educationcenter_guitartreasure.asp to http://www.premierguitar.com/education/200611_educationcenter_guitartreasure.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514153059/http://www.guildguitars.com:80/company/guild_history.php to http://www.guildguitars.com/company/guild_history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329035313/http://www.charvel.com:80/story.html to http://www.charvel.com/story.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) 23:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

overdue for overhaul
From the final section, I removed the statement about Guild that they're producing nothing but semihollows. A visit to the site makes clear such an assertion is addled. As well, the Hamer mention is "as of 2008," which is soooo 2008.

These lead me to question what else has slipped past. Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh; having reread just the opening paragraphs, after this I'm giving up for the night!

 * There is no formal definition of a superstrat Really. Then maybe... someone should assemble the thoughts from some credible authorities and attempt to untangle this?

 * the categorisation ... depends greatly on the artist(s) associated with a particular model and how it is marketed. Merely because nonsense is "common wisdom" does NOTHING to make it less nonsensical. Hiding behind such statements is intellectually lazy at best.

 * Yet suddenly this undefinable quantity becomes concrete and clear-cut enough to make the grand pronouncement Superstrats are generally suited for heavy metal music played with high-gain distortion. This might come as a surprise to those metalers playing Les Pauls and other Gibson-type designs (e.g., Ted Nugent's Byrdland), not to mention the wide variety of music played on modified Stratocasters that would apparently be "superstrats."

 * Is a 24-fret PRS a superstrat? If so, why is a near-identical 22-fret PRS not?

 * And the "thinner necks are faster" superstition really needs to be at least questioned, especially as C-profile necks are coming into vogue, even being marketed as "fatter is faster." Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Oh, wtf, since I'm here...

 * While EVH may have accidentally caused the "superstrat" concept to take root in popular consciousness, he was NOT the first to... well, to do anything. Humbuckers in Strats? Check out Wayne Kramer, Alan Holdsworth, David Gilmour, Robbie Robertson... on and ever on.

 * Univox had an h-h-h Strat clone (the Ripper model) on market in the early 1970s: http://www.vintageunivox.com/pics/catalogs/ripper_cat.jpg

 * One bridge humbucker? The first Van Halen album was released February 1978. Fender put out their Lead I in 1979, with one split pickup at the bridge, and considering the leadtime Fender needed to get a new model to market I doubt it was to capitalize on Eddie. Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Is a 24-fret PRS a superstrat?" No. In my book a "superstrat" has to have a body shape somewhat related to a Stratocaster. Also the PRS vibrato unit is a lot different from the Floyd-Rose-style vibratos most often found on the guitars which defined the superstrat genre. Re: "as of 2008" Be thankful someone added a meaningful timestamp to a piece of information, and leave that in for Vai's sake! I hate it when I come across a "today" in articles which get one edit every two years. --BjKa (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"suited for heavy metal music"
The article's lead currently says: "Superstrats are generally suited for heavy metal music played with high-gain distortion." While this may be true, so's almost any other guitar. Most notably the PRS Custom 24 or the Fender Telecaster. I'm taking the sentence out as it adds no value to the article as it stands. (Also: no source given) One could argue, that superstrats generally came to be associated with heavy metal music played with high-gain distortion, as this genre of music really gained focus at the time where the superstrat type guitar was the pinnacle of the technical development of electric guitars. That would be some helpful info. But that's my original opinion, so you can't write that into the article unless you can prove it. (Maybe the article NWOBHM has some more info in that direction.) Anyways. in my mind the superstrat is much more closely associated with shredding, as more and more virtuose guitar solos were just as well becoming part of pop and rock music in the 1980s. --BjKa (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Superstrat


text:
New Found Power

New Found Power is the only studio album released by the American heavy metal supergroup Damageplan. The group was formed by brothers "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott (guitar) and Vinnie Paul Abbott (drums) after the breakup of their previous band, Pantera. This is the final album that was released during Darrell's lifetime, before his death less than 10 months after the release.

"New Found Power" was also the original name of the band but was changed prior to the album's release. The record sold 44,676 copies in its first week to debut at number 38 on the Billboard 200.

Overview
The album was recorded at the Abbott brothers' backyard studio, Chasin' Jason in Arlington, Texas, where previous Pantera albums had been recorded. It also features guest appearances from vocalist Corey Taylor and guitarists Jerry Cantrell and Zakk Wylde, who had previously made live guest appearances with Pantera, as well as being close friends with all band members.

The single "Save Me" debuted on American radio on January 26, 2004. "Breathing New Life" served as the album's music video debut and aired frequently on both Headbangers Ball and Uranium in early 2004. This was followed by videos for "Save Me" and "Explode".

Many of the lyrical themes on New Found Power seem to deal with the breakup of Pantera, of which "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott and drummer Vinnie Paul Abbott were founding members along with Rex Brown.

New Found Power is guitarist Dimebag Darrell's last studio appearance prior to his murder in December 2004. Following the death of Darrell Abbott during a Damageplan concert, there has been speculation about a follow-up to the album. In 2006 when Vinnie Paul was asked about the follow-up in an interview, he replied "it will happen when the time is right. I want to stay focused where I am now." At the time, he was busy promoting his new band Hellyeah and their self-titled debut album. He also mentioned "I think the fans would want to hear it, so yes I'd say within 10 years."

Critical reception
New Found Power received mixed reviews from music critics. Christine Klunk of PopMatters commented "I'm not in the least bit interested in where this band goes or what new and exciting ways they'll think of to abuse the listeners." However, Allmusic's Johnny Loftus was more positive: he considered the album a "blazing new beginning" with Lachman emerging as a "strong frontman" and the band having "too much solid material" to be dragged down by a few weak songs.

Personnel
Credits adapted from liner notes, except where noted.
 * Damageplan
 * Patrick Lachman − vocals
 * Dimebag Darrell − guitars
 * Bob Zilla − bass
 * Vinnie Paul − drums

 * Guest musicians
 * Corey Taylor − second verse, breakdown, and last chorus on "Fuck You"
 * Zakk Wylde − second guitar solo on "Reborn" and answer vocals on "Soul Bleed"
 * Jerry Cantrell − vocals on "Ashes to Ashes" (uncredited on New Found Power, credited on The Punisher: The Album release)

 * Production
 * Vinnie Paul, Dimebag Darrell − production
 * Sterling Winfield, Patrick Lachman − co-production
 * Howie Weinberg, Roger Lian − mastering (at Masterdisk studios, New York)
 * Johnny Marshall − string arrangement on "Soul Bleed"
 * Sterling Winfield − mixing of "Soul Bleed"
 * Rae Nimeh − additional sequencing and production on "Pride"
 * All other arrangements recorded and mixed at Chasin' Jason Studios, Texas

title: New Found Power


text:
User talk:Murli

Hi Murli, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thanks for finding the time to contribute to our little project. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

 * Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
 * The help centre and the FAQs
 * The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing style

And some quick tips:

 * When discussing something on a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~
 * Remember to use the 'Show preview' function before saving a page
 * It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or the Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– T.P.K. 11:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map PSD
http://homepage.mac.com/imeowbot/wp/hungary.zip -- have fun! --iMb~Meow 21:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot ... first results can be found under commons:Image:Abauj-torna.png. But there's a mistake in the map ... it is written "Poszsony" but it should be "Pozsony" ... it might be changed in the original map. --murli 22:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Murli


text:
Talk:Ko-ryū

Definition of kobudō
According to Donn F. Draeger, 1974. Modern Bujutsu & Budo. ISBN 0-8348-0351-8, p.135:

 * "The term ko budo, ancient martial ways," is a generic term coined in the twentieth century. It may be used to describe collectively all Okinawan combative systems, but it is more accurate to say 'Okinawan ko budo,' in order to distinguish them from Japanese ko budo (the classical bujutsu and budo), hich are entirely different and basically unrelated systems. The use of the term ko budo should not be limited, as it popularly is, to the describing of the ancient weapons systems of Okinawa."

For you information the concept 'ko budo' is described in Donn F. Draeger, 1973. Classical Budo. ISBN 978-0-8348-0234-6. Draftbooks (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Koryu List
Your list of koryu schools is not complete. You should ad the school "Yagyu Shingan Ryu" to the list. This school is also mentioned at www.koryu.com with a short description to it.
 * The list at koryu.com is also incomplete. I don't think it makes much sense to have a huge list of redlinks here. jni 10:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. There have been many koryu founded since the earliest records (Maniwa Nen-ryu is first, IIRC), and there are still hundreds extant today. It's inappropriate to list them all here, particularly if they lack non-stub articles. Better to just list the well known ones and others that have been linked already. However, I think that Yagyu Shingan-ryu is fairly well known for koryu so it deserves to be listed. — Jéioosh 06:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As per the discussion - I've removed the red links. There is a reference for a more complete list and frankly if its important enough its worth writting at least a stub.Peter Rehse 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanization
The preferred romanization used on the KSSR websites is "Kashima-Shinryu" as opposed to "Kashima Shin-ryu."
 * I think for this article it's best to keep the romanization practice the same for all names. For that particular article romanizing it in their preferred manner would be appropriate. — Jéioosh 06:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Isshin-ryu and the works
Should Isshin-ryu be part of this? It was founded in 1953. That's much later than the Meiji era. alden7 9/22/05
 * Well, I thought I'd heard of an Isshin-ryu koryu, but whether or not such a thing exists the article is about a modern karate ryu. Removed. — Jéioosh 06:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a koryu system named Isshin-ryu. It is a kusarigama school that has since been subsumed into the corpus of Shinto Muso Ryu Jojutsu, and it taught, along with other schools such as Uchida-ryu, etc. I believe that you can find more information at this website:

http://www.koryubooks.com/guide/isshin.html

Hope this helps  - JStraub

Yes as mentioned above, there are two systems of Isshin-ryu. One koryu and one modern karate-system. The original Isshin-ryu was setup like a regular bujutsu-system of the time with multiple weapons included. For reasons I'm not familiar with, the Isshin-ryu main system was abolished, maybe through the death of it's headmaster with no complete menkyo kaiden. Since only the kusarigama element was retained in Shinto Muso-ryu it might be one possibility. Regardless, now only the Isshin-ryu kusarigamajutsu part survives of the original Isshin-ryu bujutsu system. So technically Isshin-ryu is dead with only Isshin-ryu kusarigamajutsu remains as a koryu. On the kusarigama article there is a brief history-section of Isshin-ryu as well. I'm changing the entry as to reflect this since Isshin-ryu Karate doesn't qualify for koryu status. Fred26 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd like to to correct the above statement. I got word the other week that the original Isshin-ryu is actually active in Japan today. Fred26 09:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Suihasu-ryu
I just fixed it up for format and language - not judging one way or the other but I did notice that the original writter says he's the 14th Soke and gives his birth date as 1985. Totally possible I know but then again .... Peter Rehse 07:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shindo Yoshin ryu - two articles
Someone has created a Shindo Yoshin-ryū article. There already is an entry on this particular ryu found under the name Shindo Yoshin Ryu. Fred26 12:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Promotion to B class
Add a couple of picis and this article can be promoted to B-class.Peter Rehse 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose merge Kobudo into Koryu
I have proposed a merger of the existing Kobudo article into the Koryu article. In my personal opinion the Kobudo article is reduntant since Kobudo and Koryu differs little from each other and what little information contained in the former can easily be squeezed in as a paragraph in Koryu together with an clarification on the Kobudo/Koryu differences. Please note, I'm not talking about Okinawan kobudo, (with karate, bojutsu, tonfa and so on), which already has an excellent article. Any comments? Fred26 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, they're synonymous. No protest here. — Gwalla | Talk 20:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to object. This is a general shorthand term for any school of anything that is old. Martial arts use it as a shortform, but other schools in other areas also use it. Gryffindor (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger complete
Merger complete, kobudo is now a disambig-page with the edit-history preserved there. Fred26 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NO, NO The merger of kobudo and koryu was a very bad idea because it is two different terms!

All Japan Kendo Federation describes kobudō as following:
 * "In contrast to budō, which has become more competitive, a type of martial art which has kept its ancient mode of training and has been preserved and handed down from generation to generation. Also called ko-ryū."

It is sensational that All Japan Kendo Federation suggests that the term kobudō 古武道 is synonymous the term ko-ryū 古武道 because ko-ryū refers to bujutsu (martial arts) and kobudō refers to old budō (ancient martial ways). They are two different systems which origin are different. Besides the two systems differ in the ranking of priorities concerning combat, morals, discipline and/or aesthetic form. - Kontoreg (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Correction: The kanji for ko-ryū is not 古武道; the kanji for ko-ryū is 古武流 - Kontoreg (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the kanji for ko-ryū is 古流, normally translated as 'old style' or 'old school'. 流 is the first character of  流派 ryu-ha "faction, school, tradition".  古流 is used generaly to talk about old-style schools, for example in Ikebana.  In the context of talking about martial arts, 古武道 and 古流武術 (old style martial skills) are used interchangeably by most people, with some people using 古武道 to refer only to those styles where combat is no longer effectively taught.  Francis Bond (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I see some of the source of your confusion: there are people who make the distinctions you want to make e.g.  Meik Skoss:  but I think if you read his essay carefully, you will see that he is saying that he will make this distinction, not that these are the standard uses of the terms: "I will use the term bujutsu to mean the martial arts, systems that are intended to provide effective means of combat and/or self-protection. Budo will refer to the martial ways, systems that use the métier of "combat" as a means of self-cultivation through austere training (shugyo)." Note the use of I, he is not claiming that this is the general, accepted use of these terms. Francis Bond (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC
 * Note that Diana Skoss states clearly: "Does it really matter which term a Japanese martial art outside of Japan uses? To the Japanese, absolutely not. The terms are used interchangeably, with budo the most frequently heard. Bujutsu might possibly be used to distinquish an art with a stronger emphasis on combative technique from those that focus on life discipline (the "Way"), but in general, budo is the term used in Japan to refer to martial arts. So to answer the question: "What's the difference between koryu budo, kobudo, kobujutsu, and koryu bujutsu?" For all practical purposes, there is none." . So maybe we can stop making such a fuss about it? Francis Bond (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. It is why we had to use references. Please the references in the article. - Kontoreg (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Martial Art or Martial Way
I did read the references, and I believe the second reference uses the more common term. As far as I know, only Donn Draeger uses 'Martial Ways'. Kenkyuusha has 'military [martial] art' for Budo, the second reference has 'martial art' as the translation for Budo in its glossary. Even the title of the book uses 'arts'. Further, shin means new and gendai modern so the standard gloss is 'new martial art' and 'modern martial art'.

Kontoreg: if you want to talk about variations in naming, please add them to the Description of Kobudō section, where they are appropriate, not the lede. Francis Bond (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 * How can the term kobudō (古武道) be translated with 'ancient martial arts' - the kanji for 'ancient martial arts' is not 古武道. In addition kobudō had their origin in the Tokugawa era of peace (1603-1868) and derived from the combative systems of the Japanese martial arts. - Kontoreg (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC) By the way, the term 'shin' and 'gendai' do not have anything to do with 'kobudo' because 'ko' (古) means 'old' and not 'new' or 'modern'. If you have another opinion I will like to see the kanji for the words 'shin' and 'gendai'. - Kontoreg (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Asserting something is incorrect does not make it correct.  古武道 is translated as 'ancient martial arts'.   The kanji for 'ancient martial arts' is  more fully 古代武道. However, '古代' 古 on its own can also mean ancient, although I am happy to go with old or classical, if you prefer.  武道 'martial art'.    Shin is 新 meaning new, and gendai 現代 is modern.  If you cannot read Japanese, perhaps you should be a little bit more respectful of the knowledge of those who can when we are discussing Japanese terms. Francis Bond (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ko-ryū


text:
User talk:Ali Bali~enwiki

Hi Ali Bali, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thanks for finding the time to contribute to our little project. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

 * Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
 * The help centre and the FAQs
 * The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing style

And some quick tips:

 * When discussing something on a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~
 * Remember to use the 'Show preview' function before saving a page
 * It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or the Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– T.P.K. 11:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ali Bali. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ali Bali~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ali Bali~enwiki


text:
User talk:Urban~enwiki

Hi Urban, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thanks for finding the time to contribute to our little project. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

 * Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
 * The help centre and the FAQs
 * The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing style

And some quick tips:

 * When discussing something on a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~
 * Remember to use the 'Show preview' function before saving a page
 * It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or the Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– T.P.K. 11:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Court of Honor and Grand Basin
I think you were involved in uploading this to Commons or WP, so you may want to comment at Valued picture candidates/Court of Honor and Grand Basin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Urban. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Urban~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
Hello Regarding this edit; I followed this link, but now I’m wondering if I am on the wrong page. Is this you, or some other Urban entirely? Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Urban~enwiki


text:
Talk:Historical Jesus

Overly defensive tone comes off as unprofessional and non-encyclopedic
"Virtually all scholars believe that a historical Jesus existed and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory."

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed"

"but almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts"

That's a small sampling of eyebrow-archingly defensive statements and random quotes from scholars restating some variation of, "we aren't exactly sure who he was, but in the balance i'd wager he existed". This article would be much more professional and scholarly if it removed these cringy lines.

Further, there is a glaring lack of analysis in this article about the fact that we have nothing even purporting to be a historical record of jesus, dated until at least 20 years after his death. Does this suggest perhaps that jesus was not, in his time, the notable figure that the bible depicts him as? To what degree does this fact call into question the reliability of ANY of the historical references to things that would have happened in jesus's life, considering that everyone is in agreement that there is zero historical record? I wouldn't know reading this article about "Historical Jesus". There is no analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.105.157 (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 * "jesus was not, in his time, the notable figure that the bible depicts him as" The depiction is that of an itinerant preacher that spend 1 to 3 years leading a small group of followers. He is not depicted as a major religious figure, nor that unusual in the context of the era. The embellishments of his life in the Gospels were likely intended to impress their audience, but we have no idea if the historical Jesus made an impression on those who met him. Dimadick (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I'd agree that the sampling here is too small. "Virtually all scholars" isn't accurate. There are plenty of scholars who doubt that he existed, but their arguments are more subtle. That is, instead of being able to point to (the slight) "positive" evidence, they cite the "negative" lack of evidence. However, because of the adage that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (per Carl Sagan), scholars have a hard time "proving" their point, even if it's logical. But their views certainly exist and contradict the "virtually all scholars" statement. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Christ myth theory is a WP:FRINGE theory; the "plenty of scholars" are a miniscule fraction of the scholars in the field. The tone of the article is "defensive" because Wikipedia is 'open access', written also by people who are not hindered by scholarly knowledge and methodology, but prefer to present their personal opinions here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest replacing "virtually all" with "most" or even something like "a vast majority". "Virtually all scholars agree" = "Virtually no scholars disagree", which seems to be untrue. The third cited source supporting the statement, Robert M. Price (although a Christ myth theory advocate) only says that a majority of scholars believe he existed historically. The Christ myth theory is only "unproven" based on the impossibility of producing negative evidence; it's otherwise valid as a hypothesis. Saying that 99% of scholarship on the historical Jesus supports his existence is like saying 99% of ufologists believe in flying saucers. The wikivoice requires more balance, particularly where religious deities – who only appear in their respective religious literature – are concerned. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any idea how many scholars on Biblical history/New Testament studies there are? The late James Dunn once remarked that he was unable to keep track of the deluge of publications in this field; if you've ever read a book by him, you would know what a treasure house of scholarly knowlegde Dunn was, so that gives a good indication. See also User:Joshua Jonathan/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus for additional quotes on the historicity of Jesus, and the fringe-nature of the CMT. To give only two quotes, from CM-theorists:
 * Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179:
 * G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218:

NB: comparing scholarship on the historical Jesus with ufologists is a false equivalence; such comparisons are exemplary for the twisted logic of CMT-defenders. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally more sourcing needs to be done. The problem, again exemplified here, is that the majority of sources on the topic are only going to exist if they support it some way. You can't do scholarship on the non-existence of something. There are many credible historians who deal with the general setting of Christ's life (1 BC/AD in or around Palestine) without addressing his existence, because they simply don't want to weigh in on religious debate. The Gospels are by definition religious sources, and there's no other trace of Jesus except for 1) hypothetical documents such as the Q source on which the Gospels may be partly based and 2) much later historians who have no first-hand evidence.
 * I don't mean to equate the veracity of ufology with that of the historicity of Christ. I only cite that as an example, again, of how scholars who favor a certain outcome are always going to confirm their own bias, while the opposition has only rhetorical arguments to use. I.e. there's no specific lack of a source failing to document a UFO or the historical Christ that could disprove their existence. But there's lots of evidence to the contrary, however unreliable, inconsistent, and agenda-driven. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem here, UpdateNerd, is that you propose to replace sourced content with your own opinion, and that runs contrary to most WP policies. The statement about 'virtually all scholars' is not something we at WP have come up with, but rather the assessment of leading experts in this field. As for the IP's initial claim that there is a "defensive" tone, it's not accurate (or at least not unique to this article). There are lots of articles countering popular conspiracy theories that use both similar language and stronger language to establish the academic consensus in contrast to the conspiracy theories. Jeppiz (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 * "Virtually all scholars" is oversimplified wording, even if accurate in spirit. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * After attempting a bold edit at what I thought was a good compromise and seeing that it got reverted, I'm happy to leave it as is until I can spend time with the sources being cited to see if our language indeed reflects them. (I erred in pushing for this change without doing all the reading.) I think there are more pressing issues, like the bad grammar of the opening sentence, flow issues, and formatting. I'll try to re-implement the changes I thought were uncontroversial without rewording the specific phrasing we discussed here, and return to that when better prepared. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think this article needs to be changed. I don't feel like the claim that there is overwhelming consensus on the fact Jesus was baptized, for example, is rigorous. How could anyone prove this? If the overwhelming majority of people believe something that is wrong, does it make it right? There needs to be more explanation of the evidence that support the claims rather than the claims themselves. 2A02:3032:201:3ECC:7B7E:A63A:D429:AAD0 (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia takes the side of the mainstream academic consensus. It doesn't matter what you personally believe, it only matters what reliable secondary sources believe. Helioz9 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are secondary sources reliable when their main argument is citing each other? 93.148.99.117 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unfortunately, there are only so many primary sources on a 1st-century homeless preacher from Galilee, and there are a finite number of modalities regarding interpretations of said evidence. Remsense  诉  01:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * this is not a mainstream consensus, why is wikipedia acting like it is? 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be overly abrupt, but that is what every fringe-POV pusher says. Christ myth theory is thoroughly WP:FRINGE. We are not going to include WP:FALSEBALANCE, and as a matter of fact yes we are biased. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bart Ehrman and Michael Grant, as cited and quoted in the lead section (Ehrman: "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"; Grant: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'"), among many others, say it is mainstream consensus. These are scholars qualified to tell us what mainstream consensus in the field is - we as editors don't need to make the judgement on the existence or lack of a consensus.
 * You're right it's the "number one discussion" in the talkpage history. It seems it's been discussed to death. And each time, there has been no case made to show that the historical existence of Jesus is *not* the scholarly consensus as Ehrman and Grant (and Gould, and Casey and....) say. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The shorter Historicity of Jesus article is entirely superfluous. All it does is reframe content from this article into the context of asking whether Jesus existed, as opposed to providing support for his existence as is already done here. Skeptical counter-arguments can be found at Christ myth theory and there are plenty of similar pages (e.g. Sources for the historicity of Jesus and Historical reliability of the Gospels) which further discuss the topic, highlighting the redundant article as merely being a fork. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 * There's definitely some overlap between all of those links. I think the split was well intentioned, with this page being more about the attempted reconstruction of what a 'historical Jesus' actually might have been like, and the methodological approach to arriving at that versus Historicity of Jesus, which is focused solely on whether or not Jesus' personhood is credible in the first place. However, given the page itself notes 'virtually all scholars accept Jesus' historicity', it is somewhat self-redundant, since that sums it up in one line. Christ myth theory then holds the fringe stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The "Historicity" article and this one on "Historical" have different scopes. The former is for the generally accepted views that Jesus existed - common points that scholars agree are historically there and how they are sure Jesus existed and ushers to Sources for the historicity of Jesus, etc, whereas the latter is on the numerous scholarly reconstructions of portraits of Jesus. One is "how we know Jesus existed" and the other is "how we know who Jesus was". I would not equate these two articles for that reason.

 * The "Historicity" article as stand alone like it is now ushers a more accessible, focused and less cluttered resource for readers who want to just read about how scholars independently come to view Jesus as existing without the mythicist clutter. Merging it in the "Historical" article would make it look as if there is a need to establish historicity - which there isn't for historical figures. They are related, but quite different.

 * Perhaps the scope on the "Historicity" article can be refined more. Or if there is a merge proposal, the "Historicity" and "Sources for the Historicity of Jesus" would be better candidates, but I would still argue that separation is more reasonable since even those two have separate scopes.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think they could theoretically be housed at the same location, but I agree that effecting a merger could readily simply create more mess and confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This conversation has at least clarified what the difference between the articles is meant to be. I’ll withdraw the proposal & add an 'about' hatnote clarifying the difference. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported
Large number of unsupported claims by religious followers with clear bias to claim their faith is accurate. Appeals to single authorities and lack of citation needs to be changed. 2607:FB91:D44:C01B:A2:70FF:FEA5:94D8 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but as they say in the classics, good luck with that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Moderators on this page do not seem to be doing their job. I tried to change the language on some of the extreme statements and it was rolled back every time 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, you need to support statements with WP:RS. Wikipedia simply reflects the academic consensus in a field. More info available at WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:YWAB. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @User:2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E, there's been extensive discussion on this talk page regarding similar edits to yours - I'd suggest you review them (that's not to tamp down on further discussion). As a start, do you think the statements you edited out aren't properly supported by the cited sources? Do you think those sources are unreliable?
 * I haven't significantly edited this page and only recently became personally interested in this subject and familiarized myself with the literature, but while the statements on the page may seem sensational or one-sided, they do reflect the actual academic consensus on the subject. Christ Myth Theory is considered fringe and has few defenders. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources referred to in the article rely on circular logic and are also inaccurately summarized, not matching the actual text within the sources. This has been discussed thoroughly on the talk page - it is the number one topic 2601:41:C201:9300:9D7B:C417:7C65:9A0E (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Consensual knowldege" heading
This may be just me. I know "pertaining to consensus" is a definition of consensual, but the usual connotation is "pertaining to consent", and it jumped out as a little strange while browsing the article. Is there perhaps a better wording for this heading? Maybe "Agreed-upon", but that's a little wordy. If it's just a me problem I'm not too hung up on it. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 * How about "accordant"? Remsense  诉  17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

criterion of embarrassment
"Based on the criterion of embarrassment, scholars argue that the early Christian Church would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[15]" The point of the worst death was to have the best martyr. i.e.: "Our guy suffered as much or more than anyone ever and still forgives all of you due to his maximum greatness (provided you believe), therefore he is the best." Why wouldn't they invent it? If they said he died of old age or by falling off a donkey, how would that make him a martyr with ultimate bragging rights? D3drturner (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The sentence you left out immediately preceding is important. In the most cynical view, the point would not be how much he suffered, but how degraded he was. If they wanted to invent a grody but "cool" death like you imply, they should've said the Romans fed him to lions. It takes active acclimation for us to understand how humiliating crucifixion was in the Roman world, see what happened to Spartacus's friends. Remsense  诉  00:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The point was not to invent a "cool death", but rather a maximum martyr. Crucifixion was the death of the lowest of the low, who were the people that the early Christian Church were targeting the hardest. Under those circumstances, Crucifixion was virtually the perfect option. Wdford (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By "cool", I meant "compelling". I think your point is too projective, there's not any evidence that there was this sort of deconstructive narrativizing or that it would be received this way from early converts. The resurrection theology as a direct attempt to interpret historical events makes fewer such assumptions.  Remsense  诉  12:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Historical Jesus