User talk:Garzo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo.

---

---

Contents 1 Syriacs 2 User iso15924 3 Syriacs 2 4 Introduction to Syriac by W. M. Thackston 5 Referrences on the Assyrian people page 6 ipa-N 7 Need someone familar with topic.... 8 Encountering the Suryoye of Turkey 9 Delete My User Page 10 Everton F.C. 11 MARVEL 12 Arabic names 13 Lesslie Newbigin 14 Alqosh 15 Code-switching 16 Esoteric syntax 17 Shlam Elokh Garzo! 18 I know this tactic... I've used it before myself... 19 Trouble on Afshar Experiment page ...again!

[edit] Syriacs

Shlomo Gareth,

Would you be so kind as to give a reaction to my suggestion for (re)starting a project with the purpose of co-ordinating the articles related to the Suryāye? I think the subject is too complex to be dealt with on a single-article basis. There are just too many articles involved. I believe this problem has been lingering on for too long now, and needs to be solved in a way that involves people coming from and/or having experience with the various (sub)cultures involved.

A Syriac Christianity portal would be nice, I think. This could in my opinion co-exist with overlapping portals dealing with the modern Assyrians, Aramaeans, and the Aramaic language. But first we need to set up a structure that allows contributors to place the articles concerned in a wider context.

I hope this approach would prevent statements like "Modern Assyrian language is called Syriac in English" (on the so-called future page) from remaining unnoticed.

Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That statement is 100% accurate. The language spoken by Assyrians are modern dialects of Syriac aka Neo-Aramaic. I don't what Assyrians have don't to this person but his tone is VERY ANTI-ASSYRIAN.King Legit

I don't appreciate people shouting accusations on my talk page, especially when they're not about me! I think we have too little material yet to need a portal for it all. We could use Syriac Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|logs) as a 'hub' article to link into the others, or create a new article to act as the hub. It should, in either case, be a place where there is a general description of the complicating factors around ethnicity in the Middle East, and some description about how peoples who are traditionally Christian and traditionally use the Syriac language describe themselves. — Gareth Hughes 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There might not be enough material for a portal yet, but how about a project? I suggest renaming that project Syriac Christianity.

I'd also like to have an article Syriacs again, which could mention the various definitions of Suryāye/Syriacs, just as the Assyrian people page should do (cf. the German-language article on modern Assyrians). --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I requested a move for the miniproject to a new project Syriac Christianity. Please see Talk:Syriacs/miniproject#Requested_move--Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Modern Assyrian language is called Syriac in English" - Benne what problem do you have with this statement? Chaldean 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly opppose to a "Syriacs" page, as it tries to put groups under a different name. It makes it look like as if "Syriacs" is an ethnicity or something. Chaldean 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are people in this world who define themselves, whether ethnically or whatever, as Syriac. They call themselves Suryoye and point to a long history of being called such. They point out that 'Atorāyē' was originally used to describe Aramaic-speaking Christians of the Nineveh/Assur district. As for the name of the language, ܣܘܪܝܝܐ is the most important spelling over all regions of all periods, and the proper English version of that word is 'Syriac'. — Gareth Hughes 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

whether ethnically or whatever, as Syriac. - and when they say that, they mean they are "Christian". Suraya = Christian. Suraya = Syriac in English. So "Syriac Christianity" makes perfect sense. Not "Syriacs". Chaldean 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that argument is not going to work with someone who studies the history of the language. Of course, the most important Syriac word for 'Christian' is ܡܫܝܚܝܐ. There are other words, but they are not as important as that one. The word ܣܘܪܝܐ can be vocalised as 'Suria' (where it is used in texts to refer to the Levant as ܣܘܪܝܐ ܓܘܝܬܐ — Suria Gawāytā — and to Mesopotamia as ܣܘܪܝܐ ܒܪܝܬܐ — Suria Barāytā). When it is vocalised as 'Surāyā', it is a debased form of ܣܘܪܝܝܐ — 'Suryāyā' — which has the basic meaning of 'Syrian' or 'Syriac'. Its translation as 'Christian' is a late, minor, mediaeval connotation, which stands against ܐܪܡܝܐ — 'Armāyā' — which shifted in meaning from 'Aramaean' to 'pagan'. All of this is there in the history and manuscripts, and it is only for political reasons that people today want to simplify the rich heritage of the past into one, monochrome strand. — Gareth Hughes 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Payne Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary doesn't mention "Christian" as a possible meaning for ܣܘܪܝܝܐ, and considers ܣܘܪܝܐ an "unusual spelling" of the same word. In Syriac class, I was taught that the word for "Christian" is ܟܪܝܣܛܝܢܐ (or ܡܫܝܚܝܐ indeed). How should I understand this? Could it be that ܣܘܪܝܝܐ began to mean "Christian" in a context where Syriacs were the only Christians? Cf. the mediaeval connotation of the word Turk, which often was used as a synonym for Muslim. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it: the ܐܪܡܝܐ/ܣܘܪܝܝܐ dichotomy used these two virtual synonyms to divide the Aramaic-speaking peoples into Christian and non-Christian groups. However, the fact is that, before this occurred, the two were ethnonyms, one with a pure Semitic root and the other with a Hellenistic one. — Gareth Hughes 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Benne, you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. Kristyana isn't ARAMAIC. It's derived from Latin/Greek. MSHEEKHAYA means Messianic aka Christian, in Aramaic. Souraya is also used interchangebly for a Christian just as the Greek vs Turk scenario. No one in modern times (up until the huge worldwide diaspora) in the middle east used Armaya or Ormoyo, Athuraya/Othuroyo on the other hand has been used for ages as has Suraya/Suroyo... and so forth. I've lived in Iran and Iraq. Have cousins in Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon. Where you get your info, I don't know, most likely from people in the diaspora who want to start a new identity... like Sarhad Jammo... you most likely won't know who he is but I'm sure Chaldean does.King Legit

another thing, why do you have so much clout... you seem to be THE ONLY ONE disputing the term Assyrian. I don't care if you took a Syriac class or two. That means absolutely NOTHING. I took French I and II and World History. I'm not going to claim I know more about it that someone native to the language or country. That would be absolutely foolish. Everyone knows history is dictated by the people who wrote it aka the victors of wars and those in power. Yet your side of the story isn't even that, your just anti-Assyrian. That's what you present to wikipedia is Anti-Assyrianism.King Legit

I am not even going to respond to this ridiculous rant of yours. I thought I'd asked Gareth a question, not you. If you have something to ask me, let's not use his, but my talk page. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, I was not talking about historically, I'm talking about today. Today, if someone in Iraq or Turkey tell you they are Suraya, what they are trying to imply is that they are Christian, not "ethnic Suraya" Chaldean 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First to Sargonious: I have already said that I don't like to read that kind of thing on my talk page. Benne has demonstrated that he knows Syriac. You might want to look at Acts 11.26 (PDF link) in the Peshitta for the use of 'Khrisṭyānē'. Second to Chaldean: there are people who call themselves 'Suryoye'. Almost all of them belong to the West Syriac tradition, and hardly any are from Iraq or Iran, or in the same areas of the US diaspora that those of the East Syriac tradition are in. They use this word to define themselves, they use it as their ethnonym. We've been through this so many times before. There are plenty of Christians who speak Syriac, at least traditionally, who do not call themselves 'Assyrian'. What point is there trying to make their long-standing choice disappear like this? Now, you'll probably call me anti-Assyrian again. I've called anti-everything by people here on Wikipedia: all it means is that I don't support their views. Just take it on board that there are people who for centuries have called themsleves 'Syriacs' and not 'Assyrians'. — Gareth Hughes 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I try my best to not call you and Benne anti Assyrian, but how can I not question your motives when you and him stand out compared to the general public opinion like [this] and [this] .

Gareth, can you please keep an eye on Arab Christians. Look at there argument in the talk page. Arab nationalist are trying to boost there numbers, claiming there are 800,000 Christian arabs in Iraq. Chaldean 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User iso15924

IMO your template knowledge could be helpful at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Writing systems#User iso15924 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care for ISO 15924, as there is insufficient openness and feedback in the registration system. I haven't been doing templates for a while, and it takes a little time to get back in the saddle with parser functions. You could use a switch sub-template like Infobox Language, but parser functions allow you to encode the variations in directly (albeit, perhaps not so easy to modify). — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syriacs 2

I have implemented the new strategy devised on the Assyrian people talk page. Syrian, Syrians both now redirect to Syriacs which is no longer redirected to Assyrians. It is now a disambig page.King Legit 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Syriac by W. M. Thackston

I understand this book but it's written really funny. I don't mean in Syriac. I mean the way the book is written it's very sloppy. I also noticed that not everything is pronounced right and the Latin character system for Syriac stinks. What good books are there written in English on the Syriac language... I would actually prefer a dictionary more than a book on grammar. I know how to speak the language fine, I would like to learn a lot more words though. I've actually come up with a word for comptuer based on the Aramaic word for count. From mani I've come up with "manetha."סרגון יוחנא

Thackston is probably the most popular Syriac grammar in the US. In the UK, Theodore Robinson's Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar is more popular. Thackston is written in Estrangela throughout, and is designed for reading older manuscripts. Robinson is written in pointed Serto. Thackston's transliteration is quite normal. You'll probably be surprised that there is a distinction between khet (ܚ) and softened kap (ܟܟ), but this was the case in classical Syriac, and still is the case in many modern pronunciations. You're probably also unsure of the different vowel values, but he's using pretty well documented classical Syriac pronunciation. I quite like John Healey's First Studies in Syriac. I think it has been reprinted by Gorgias Press in the US: it has handwriting in all three flavours of Syriac, and some nice chunks of text at the back for translation exercises. I like your word for computer. I think Abrohom Huro came up with something similar in his Tawldotho, but I can't find it now. — Gareth Hughes 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found the Tawldotho entry. Nuro offers either ܟܘܡܦܝܬܪ (kumpyuter) or ܚܫܘܒܬܐ (ḥāšuḇtā). I prefer the latter. It's based on the word ܚܫܘܒܘܬܐ (ḥāšuḇuṯā, which occurs in mediaeval literature for 'arithmetic' or 'computation'. Its formation is based on what Nöldeke calls the nomen agentis — Gareth Hughes 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gareth, can you please stop Sargon from writing what he thinks is right. He is trying to control the whole Assyrian page as if he is the sole author of the article. He writes things I have never heard of my life. Chaldean 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referrences on the Assyrian people page

The referrences are misbehaving. They're doubling at times and some aren't appearing propperly. Do you know how to fix them?סרגון יוחנא 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ipa-N

you may be interested in

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need someone familar with topic....

Hi Garzo,

I posted a humble request here for someone whose skill set and interests may resemble yours... Thanks! --Ling.Nut 02:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encountering the Suryoye of Turkey

Hi

hope that everything is ok and that you are still active in working with syriacs.

I just wanted to say that i noticed that you were in a travel group in turkey August, 2005. With Beth mardutho.

http://bethmardutho.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol9No2/HV9N2TRSaintLaurent.html

I hope that you can see things from the perspectiv of syriacs/suryoye. And i hope that you enjoyed your staying there. The sad thing is that we didnt meet in turkey. I think we missed eachother in couple of days. I would have loved to discussed many things with you and Dr. Kiraz.

by the way My name is Michael and I have been studying suryoyo people for many years now.

God bless you

best regards Michael

Thanks, Michael, it doesn't seem a year now since I was on the Turo. It is a pity we didn't meet there. As you can see from the travelogue, we divided our time between the Turo and other important sites in the region. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to know about the trip. -- Gareth Hughes 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete My User Page

I quit Wikipedia. User:Sargonious

delete Peter Agga, Jihad Jones, and Yessou El Maseekh Satan The Savior is not mine.

Can you delete them or what?סרגון יוחנא

You put a notice on each of your user accounts (you're only supposed to have one really) that they are now inactive, and then you stop editing Wikipedia. Your user talk pages and their archives will not be deleted, as they are a record of your interaction with the community. However, you seem still to be editing Wikipedia, so you clearly are not intending to leave. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind about leaving completely. This place seems to be a visual narcotic for me. Too much information is never enough. I'm not concentrating on it anymore as now I see the Assyrian page is much better than before. I'll just make corrections on it and related pages every now and then.King Legit 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everton F.C.

Hi Garzo,

I have reverted your grammar changes to Everton F.C. as the earlier incarnation is correct under British English. See the discussion on the Manchester City F.C. talk page for a good summary. If there were any edits in there that were unrelated to plurality then I would encourage you to recreate them. Thanks. ⁂veila# 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand the grammar issue. I admit to getting carried away. I think I saw the opening line was 'Everton are a club' and it snowballed from there! — Gareth Hughes 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MARVEL

Hi

Can you plase take a look at User:MARVEL's latest edits, he was banned for a month because of suck-puppetry and evading/violating 3RR, and he's already broken 3RR on Hatra upon his return. --ManiF 05:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic names

A year or so ago you were kind enough to weigh in and offer your expertise on Arabic names. Can I ask you to weigh in again?

During the last year I have been adding articles to the wikipedia on the Guantanamo detainees. I have done my best to write them from a NPOV, using verifiable, authoritative sources. When the DoD was forced, by court order, to release 6,000 pages of transcripts I started adding articles about those detainees, based on those transcripts.

About once a month someone nominates one for deletion, claiming they aren't notable. Frankly, I get the feeling that these efforts are really prompted, possibly unconsciously, by a desire to prune the wikipedia of material that does not reflect well on the USA - without regard to how well documented that material is, or whether it conforms to NPOV. The eleventh nominator announced his intention that Shaker Aamer should be a test case, and if it failed {afd} he would nominate all the articles on Guantanamo detainees for deletion. The fourteenth nominator also announced his intention that his nomination should be a test case -- for all the articles on Guantanamo detainees that hadn't been expanded beyond stub status.

It is hard to assume good faith from these nominators. When they complain about an article, and then I expand it, during the {afd} so their complaints are satisfied, they don't withdraw or revise their nominations.

When I expanded the most recent one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani, I found that the USA had put another Muhamad Al Juhani, Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani, on their most wanted list, in January 2002. Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani was removed from the most wanted list, sometime in 2002.

Personally, I consider it likely that the two transliterations, Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani refer to the same individual.

I am not an expert on Arabic or Arabic names. But I am doing my best to learn about them. I think it was a mistake for us to follow the example of the Washington Post and the DoD and separate Arabic names into traditional European lastname, firstname order. I noticed that the DoD seemed to be having terrible problems managing their roster of prisoner's names at Guantanamo. They released an official list of all the prisoners whose cases were heard by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, on April 20, 2006. And they released an official list of all the prisoners who had been held, in military custody, at Guantanamo, on May 15, 2006. Given that they were released just 25 days apart one would have hoped they would have been transliterated the same way on both lists. They weren't. Approximately 20-30% of the names are transliterated differently on the two lists. Many of them were simple typos. Many of them differed only in that the names had extra components. But some of them were quite different.

Anyhow, the most recent nominator disputes that Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani are similar. He labels my noticing the DoD difficulty in using consistent transliterations "original research". Although he doesn't precisely say so, he implies that there is no possiblity the two transliterations could describe the same individual.

I found a page on the Saudi embassy's web-site where a Saudi official referred to the terrorist "Muhammad Al Juhani". It seems obvious, to me, that, if the two transliterations refer to two separate individuals, that this could refer to either the Muhamad Al Juhani held in Guantanamo, or the Muhammad Al Juhani who was on the most wanted list.

I put the addition to the article. The guy who nominated the article for deletion removed it, called it "fluff".

He has been complaining about me on WP:AN/I, and, frankly, mischaracterizing my statements.

Could you weigh in? Muhamad Al Juhani could refer to both Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani, couldn't it? I'll understand if you don't wish to be drawn in to another dispute.

Cordially,

Geo Swan

P.S. I don't think of myself as a disputatious person. I think it is the topic, not my personality, that gets me drawn into these disputes.

I've been away from my terminal for about a week, so get back to me if you still want help with this. Two Al-Juhanis is possible, they may be related, or not at all. When full names are given without kunya, the personal name appears first: I would greet these individuals as Muhammad and Khalid respectively. Khalid is clearly the son of a Muhammad — his father is probably not the same person as the first Muhammad al-Juhani. It would be wrong to treat 'Al-Juhani' as a surname in the European sense of the word. Criticising your attempt to understand who is who as 'original research' is silly game of process that some editors try to pull. — Gareth Hughes 23:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC),

Greetings,

I am going to ask you to offer an opinion on another question related to how the wikipedia articles try to address the tricky questions around mapping Arabic names.

I made a mistake, I think when I first started creating articles about guys with Arabic names, to try to follow the example of the US DoD, and the Washington Post, to try to figure out what the surname and family name of these individuals were, and have lists of Arabic names, or wikipedia categories containing mainly Arabic names, sorted as if we uninitiated English speakers could figure out the sort order that made sense.

I recently started a dozen or so new categories to help organzize the 400 or so articles about Guantanamo detainees. After reading so many of the documents the DoD has released about them I can see what terrible confusion the DoD experienced simply managing their identities. I put a note on the categories requesting other contributors to leave the articles in these new categories sorted on the default sort order, on their first character, and not take special steps to try to figure out a European style surname to sort them on.

When I saw another wikipedia contributor changing the sort order of some of them I left them a note asking them to discuss it with me first.

One of those awkward misunderstandings took place. I wondered why he or she wasn't replying. And he or she too must have been wondering, because they did reply, but accidentally put their reply on User:Geo Swan, not User Talk:Geo Swan, so I didn't see their reply until a day after they gave up on waiting for me to reply, and spent half a dozen hours, or a dozen hours, changing the sort order on all the rest of the categorizations in these articles.

Anyhow, in their courteous note to me they cited the Arabic names article, and said they thought it described how to figure out the "family name" portion of an Arabic name. And I have replied that I think that what the article describes as a "family name" is less like a European surname, and more like a clan name from an old-style Scottish clan, where the leader of a clan, like MacDonald might have people with a whole bunch of surnames being members of their clan.

1. In your opinion, does it make sense for those of us who are just beginners at figuring out Arabic names to specify a new sort order for those names?
2. If so, do you think it makes sense to use what the Arabic names article calls the "family name"?
3. Any pointers to other places us uninitiated can learn more about Arabic names? I strongly suspect that resolving questions about Arabic names isn't the main thing you want your wikipedia contributions to revovle around.

Ah, and let me thank you for the help on Arabic names you have provided in the past.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to say that the discussion is taking place at User:Geo Swan#Arabic names / Extrajudicial detainees. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan!

There are a number of complicating factors here. One factor is that Arabic names are used by varying degree by Muslims throughout the world, whether they are Arab or not. Further to this, among Arabs there is much deviation from what might be regarded as a classical Arab naming practice. In this regard, some people with Arabic elements in their names may have a European-style surname. In classical Arab names, the nisba does function somewhat like a clan name or a Roman nomen. In most Arabic-speaking countries, it is considered acceptable to address someone politely using their given name (ism). This is also true of Turkey, where a man called Mehmet would be addressed as Mehmet Bey (I suppose equivalent with Mr Mehmet). I think it would make more sense to list these people under the natural order of their names, rather than trying to find a surname equivalent. — Gareth Hughes 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Geo Swan 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesslie Newbigin

I added a couple of 'public domain' bishop portraits to User:Garzo/moretea for your enjoyment, one just brand new, uploaded yesterday by a priest who met and photographed the late bishop. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alqosh

Gareth, can you please stop the person that is terrorising the Alqosh page? Chaldean 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Code-switching

As you seems to be a linguistic expert, perhaps this article could be of intrest to you. As it stans now, I feel like it's a mess, perhaps you could fix it? My self isn't so educated in the area. _→AzaToth 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esoteric syntax

Hi Gareth, since you have experience with esoteric template syntax from your work at Template:Infobox Language, could you stop by Template:Ethnologue and edit it so that it has an optional label parameter that will default to {{PAGENAME}} if left blank? At first it had an obligatory label parameter that in most cases would be the article name, now it automatically gives the PAGENAME even if you don't want it to. I think it should be more flexible, but I don't know how to edit it accordingly. Thanks! —Angr 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! — Gareth Hughes 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr. That was exactly what I wanted! —Angr 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shlam Elokh Garzo!

Garzo, it's been a while since I last asked you a question but this time it's about Dab. He's vandalizing the Assyrian people page. We've all pretty much agreed on the current form of the Assyrian people page and he's making outrageous and unilatteral changes to it. Him and Chaldean are constantly reverting each other's edits and it's not Chaldean that's at fault. He's merely reverting Dab's nonsense. Could you please intervene?סרגון יוחנא

It looks like Dbachmann is giving the current academic consensus rather than the Assyrianist propoganda — vandalism: pot and kettle? — Gareth Hughes 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What Assyrian propoganda. I'm not affiliated with any establishment.סרגון יוחנא 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know this tactic... I've used it before myself...

IranZaminBozorg is a blatant sock/meat puppet of Dab.סרגון יוחנא 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble on Afshar Experiment page ...again!

Dear Garzo, Michael C. Price is ignoring talk page discussions and is being extremely unhelpful in ensuring the content of the article is made objective. He insists his ideas on "decoherence" to be included in the "critics" section of the article without having explain explicitly what relevance it has to my experiment, in contrast to all the other cited critics who have gone to the trouble of writing papers on the topic. A quick look at the conversation below copied from the article's talk page should give you a better understanding of the emotional animosity involved. I have asked for the talk page to be archived and start a new page on the issue of decoeherence and its relevance, but to no avail. Maybe you can help? P.S. My paper has been accepted in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal and will appear soon. (I can give you more specific information and testimonials from notable physicists on the importance of the paper only by means of e-mail as embargo does not allow me to disclose publicly which journal it is.) So all I am asking is that Michael write a paper like all the other critics and then post it in the critics section. I also think my rebuttals should be made available in the article to the same extent the critics' arguments are reflected. Thanks for your help.-- Prof. Afshar 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself. I shall have to be blunt, I see. Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity. There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery? The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL

Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)