User talk:Andrewa/archive11

This is an archive page. Please don't update it. All new discussion should go to User talk:Andrewa. TIA Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia (riddled with errors) is misinforming people and is blamed for falling grades among children

See this article: [[1]]

I concur and will contribute nothing further to this disinformative farce parading as an encyclopaedia that is called wikipedia. It is nothing more than a joke, run for/by incompetent non-experts with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than stroke each other's egos while fostering mediocrity and ignorance under the specious banner of "consensus" and "democracy".

Yes, I am uncivil towards those for whom this is intented, but they deserve it for raising inaccuracy and misinformation to a virtue. I will not suffer fools any further.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the main point of the article seems to be Scottish schoolchildren are using the wrong website to cheat. As if that's Wikipedia's issue. Gerardw (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Love it! The reaction of the nine and ten year olds I teach to criticism of Wikipedia's alleged lack of accuracy is "D'oh". They just can't understand how anyone could be stupid enough not to check the accuracy of information they receive via the Internet... or via any other source. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of you DO realize that Wikipedia isn't always accurate, due to the unreal amounts of trolls and newcomers, right? CheeseDeluxe (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, it's inaccurate. No, this isn't just due to trolls and newcomers. It's also due to human error.

Maybe look at Wikipedia:why Wikipedia is not so great and user:andrewa/creed if you haven't already. Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia entry on ten-string guitar can no longer be considered reliable

It has been a battle to keep the wikipedia entry on "ten-string guitar" from being turned into the usual farce that one expects of the "information" presented in both wikipedia and most sites that purport to be about the 10-string guitar (both being 'littered with inaccuracies' and even deliberate misinformation).

An interesting claim. It reminds me of the mother watching a parade who remarked to her friend "Oh, there's my Johny, and look at that! All the other soldiers are out of step with him!"

For the time being, I must devote my energies to the final stages of my Doctoral studies and let the fools play at being pseudo-musicologists on wikipedia. It is, however, a disgrace that the first two pages through which most online readers are introduced to "the ten-string guitar" (that is wikipedia and Janet Marlow's tenstringguitar(dot)com) are riddled with inaccuracies, untenable claims, and (as shown in a previous blog) even deliberate distortion of Narciso Yepes's words in an attempt to misrepresent the historical and scientific facts of the matter.

Agree that we should be extremely careful in choosing which sites we cite.

Since I've spoken out about this disinformation, I note that my main page here has suspiciously been deleted from most google search listings containing the terms "10-string guitar" or "ten-string guitar". Some of our American "colleagues" evidently don't like the truth coming out about their dishonest "scholarship".

Unlikely. However Google certainly does take this action against sites that use techniques that may be dishonest attempts to promote themselves up the search results list. See this FAQ.

As for wikipedia, be advised that I no longer oversee the accuracy of the "ten-string guitar" page and this should now be considered as unreliable as most of the other misleading ten-string guitar sites. The person presently responsible for the (from a musicological/organological point of view) misinformative wikipedia entry is Andrew Alder, whose musical "expertise" as far as I can gather is limited to playing drums and rhythm guitar in his local Sydney Anglican church. Yet he too deems himself an "authority" who is in a position to "educate" readers about the 10-string guitar (an instrument he has no doubt never played).

I'm sure you research your doctoral thesis material far more carefully than what you submit to Wikipedia. I'd ask you to think carefully about that. Far more people are likely to read what you write here. And while you can of course correct them, the past versions remain in the edit history, for anyone to see... and evaluate.

For example, the church I normally attend and at which I most often play is not Anglican.

And I am no more responsible for the article content than any other contributor, and neither have you ever been. We are responsible for our own contributions here, no more, no less. You had no authority to take that role, you have no authority to delegate it, and even the most careless reading of the relevant Wikipedia policies would have told you that.

It is exactly this problem with wikipedia (that any lay person can edit it and can even become an administrator if they have too much free time on their hands and are willing to kiss enough derriere) that has caused it to be banned by universities and to be blamed for "making kids dumb" and for falling grades of students who turn to this misinformative online "encyclopaedia" for research.

[[2]] Click here for Article in The Scotsman about wikipedia's role in descending grades amongst students. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its good and bad points. If you wish to contribute here, you'll need to conform to our basic policies. If you can't do that, nobody is forcing you to contribute, and frankly the project is better off without you.

Again I suggest you try Citizendium, at which I also have an account but have done little editing as yet. I admit I suggest this for two reasons. One is that we do acknowledge experts at Citizendium, and you'd be welcome there on that basis, and wouldn't have the problems that you have had here. But the other is, we'd accept few excuses there for the poor quality of information that you continue to post here (see above), and none at all for abusive posts. The very first of these would probably get you banned there for "unprofessional conduct". And I think it would do you good to find that out for yourself. Andrewa (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posting

Viktor's post above has been cross posted to three other pages, where others have removed it in part or in full.

• Viktor's user page
• Viktor's user talk page
• Talk:Ten-string guitar

I note that WP:OUTING calls for an immediate block for this sort of behaviour. It's something to think about. Long term, a ban is looking a distinct possibility. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But the most worrying recent post is this one (posted from an IP, then he logged on to sign it), which reads in part I wil let you play at being a musicologist for a few weeks/months until I have the time to undo your work. That's a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, and is going to make it all the more difficult to recruit people to collaborate on the article.

Hmmmm....Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Not quite resolved. Andrewa (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Witiquette etc

Sadly, the Witiquette alert has been closed with the comment Conduct has escalated beyond Wikiquette. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive56#Ten-string guitar article. Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Documenting suggestion

Andrew, the Wikiquette discussion got bogged down way too much with content issues. As a third party that cares about Wikipedia but not guitars my eyes frequently glazed over ... As you go to document the RFC (or ArbCom, if you go that route) I think we'll be better served if you focus on ("diff on"?) the incivility/behavior/threat issues and avoid addressing content. Best wishes. Gerardw (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, thank you.

As Viktor is now blocked for a week, I'll have a respite to do both some documentation and also (wait for it) start to work on the article!

Not sure whether the RfC should be opened in that time or not... can argue both ways. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd stash diffs in a sandbox page, and wait until he a) continues behavior or b) indicates via his talk page that intends to do following the block. Less work in the event he comes around to the Wikipedian way of doing things. Gerardw (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This User's Abuse of his Admin status, deliberate posting of proven misinformation

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

• [3]

Andrewa has since made the (above) statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue."

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator. Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [4] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings", as Andrewa is falsely claiming. If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his status as an administrator to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (below) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Viktor van Niekerk www.tenstringguitar.INFO

General reply

I haven't yet decided whether to reply instream to any of the specific points made above. Many (perhaps all) of them, and particularly the accusation of misuse of admin powers, have been made and dismissed before, some of them many times.

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for the question of misuse of admin powers.

Background: Viktor has been active in Wikipedia since 31 January 2007, when he began editing articles as User:10String guitar. He created an autobiography which was speedily deleted, and has edited only articles concerning Narciso Yepes and ten-string guitars, which are his passion. As well as this and his current user account, he has used User:129.94.133.166 from time to time, and perhaps also User:119.11.8.116, see this edit in particular.

Yepes invented the ten-string extended-range classical guitar specifically for a particular tuning. However others have since used this instrument with different tunings, including recorded artists. It seems to me likely that Yepes' tuning is still the most common, and there's much interest among ten-string players in knowing this. But there are other tunings as well, and they appear to be encyclopedic.

Viktor believes that these other tunings are in some sense wrong, and both his current and previous websites and his Wikipedia article on the ten-string guitar were written specifically to promote this point of view. See this old revision for his version of the article (since split to ten-string extended-range classical guitar).

He has shown no willingness to abide by Wikipedia aims, policies, guidelines and conventions, except where it will serve this particular purpose. Before I became involved in the ten-string guitar article, he had regularly used rudeness to successfully discourage other editors from fixing it. He has falsely accused others of sockpuppetry and of conflict of interest. As a result, several newbies left Wikipedia, and the article had been his personal soapbox for over a year.

There is no vendetta. My aims are simply:

• To make Wikipedia a safe place for people to edit, without Viktor's harassment.
• To improve the articles.

But this does involve standing up to Viktor. I make no apology for that. IMO, the main apologies that are due are due to those whose good faith contributions were rudely rejected by Viktor in the past, most of whom simply left Wikipedia as a direct result.

I would welcome more involvement from others, but obviously it is not for the faint of heart. Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've posted a third-level NPA warning on Viktor's user page. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific points of fact

There seem to be two issues of fact in question:

• Which instruments are correctly called ten-string guitars?
• How many resonances are missing from the six-string guitar?

Viktor maintains that the twelve-string guitar is also incorrectly named, which is the issue on which we first crossed swords. I did not at first understand why it was so important to him, but later I discovered that he believes and argues strongly that only Yepes-tuned instruments and some nineteenth-century harp guitars are correctly called ten-string guitars. Obviously, if a twelve-string guitar is validly called that, then for example a baroque guitar might be called a ten-string guitar, and his chance of having non-Yepes-tuned instruments excluded as he wishes is remote.

So far as Wikipedia is concerned, the main question is this: What should be the scope of the article at ten-string guitar? It seems to me that, under WP:NC, it certainly includes instruments that are built and sold by Ramirez and Bernabe to identical specification to the ones that they built for Yepes, but fitted with a different 7th string (only) to accomodate a different tuning. In fact I would also include any other guitar called a ten-string by its maker, such as the B.C.Rich Bich 10. And if we include that, then where do we draw the line? Wherever that might be, it won't be where Viktor wants it I'm afraid.

So far as resonances go, Viktor has already raised this many times in Wikipedia and in many other forums. In the ten-string guitar Yahoo! group he was recently asked to list the resonances of the six-string guitar, to clarify what he meant by a similar essay to the one above. He listed nineteen of them!

The point is simply, resonance in this context is not well enough defined to enable us to count them and arrive at a unique answer. Whether we describe the eight missing notes (pitch classes), supplied by four resonant strings, as four resonances or as eight is academic.

Marlow may well be wrong on many other things. We all make mistakes! But this particular issue is a non-issue. Viktor's real problem with Marlow is simply that she is popularising a set of tunings for the Yepes guitar which he does not like. Andrewa (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have flagged Viktor's user talk page with a 3rd level no personal attack warning. He has responded by removing it and flagging my user talk page with the 3rd level NPA template, despite there being no previous warnings. The second level warning on his page did not come from me just BTW, although it did relate to his attacks on me.

I have made no personal attacks on Viktor. I have once responded to his many attempts to silence discussion by quoting himself as an authority by listing his actual qualifications as they appear on his own website. These do appear to be inferior to those of Janet Marlow, the particular authority that Viktor seeks to undermine by quoting his own expertise, and I did point that out.

• diff

I admit that this is borderline. But I can't think of how else to respond to Viktor's repeated appeals to his own authority in the matter. It was not done lightly.

There have been no other even borderline incidents as far as I can see.

On the other hand, Viktor's attacks are too numerous to list.

• an example.
• a more recent example.

Not quite sure how to escalate this, but it will happen. Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:ANI#Viktor van Niekerk. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa, I'm sure you know this already, but you've done nothing wrong. The level of bullying coming from this chap is just spectacular. Looking at his latest WP:TLDR on the noticeboard, I'm not even sure where to begin; I suspect he didn't even read what I wrote (i.e. that you have used your admin tools exactly nowhere). I'm having a strong temptation to block him for bullying, abusive and vexatious behavior, and persistent violation of NOR for using his own self-published website. It's just not looking good. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated.Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa

These allegations are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [5]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on 25 February [6] and here we have Andrewa responding [7]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [8] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [9].

I am not attacking anyone; I am defending factual information. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More from Viktor

Moved from the top of the page. I moved the baseless NPS warning as well, it seems to logically belong with this load. Andrewa (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

And stop accusing other editors of attacking you when you are one attacking another editor in a personal vendetta. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no vendetta, and there have been no personal attacks made by me. The problem is your behaviour. I will leave the above notice until this is resolved. Please discuss further in appropriate places, such as the talk page below. New topics of course go at the bottom. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no vendetta and no personal attacks, you say. On the contrary, here, under Sources, you make a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, you have falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music, with only the exception of a few things passed directly from Yepes to Fritz Buss to myself. (These autograph manuscripts are a valuable resource in themselves.) Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group (such as the yahoo one you yourself have linked to). So there also you have made a false accusation.

Thirdly, even if I had linked to the myspace page I maintain about the 10-string guitar and not www.tenstringguitar.info, this is still acceptable as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID as the fact of the matter is that I am a recognized authority on the 10-string guitar of Narciso Yepes. (If you question that - I've given you the contact details of my mentor Fritz Buss, who studied with Narciso Yepes from 1960-1986 and was considered by Yepes one of his top students and one of the top 3 guitar teachers in the world [10] - call Fritz Buss and ask him whether Viktor van Niekerk is an authority on the 10-string guitar or not.)

You also make the following defamatory attack on my authority by claiming "So she [Janet Marlow] is a more authoritative figure than Viktor, at this stage." [11] Your claim is based on nothing scholarly, only google hits and the fact that Marlow has self-published a method book. A method book, I might add, with proven misinformation contained therein. Among many errors in that book: In the front matter the author states falsely that "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain due to missing sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar". That is, even though Yepes ubiquitously indicates eight (not four) missing resonances in various articles and interviews as referenced here as well as in his Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando delivered on 30 April 1989: "The strings that I have added incorporate all the natural resonance that the instrument lacked in eight of the twelve notes of the equal tempered scale."

Despite discussing this last issue with you numerous times, you still made the folowing statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [12] That is, even though eight clearly does not equal four and both sides are clearly not describing the same thing, you still defend your support of misinformation.

Even though I've explained this before, and my site explains it in detail, I will say it again:

The western musical scale has 12 notes per octave. On the guitar, Yepes observed, four of these when palyed on a treble string induced a unison resonance from a bass string. These four notes are E, A, B, and D. If any octave of any of these notes is played on a treble string, a bass string reproduces it in unison. If A5 is played, A5 is reproduced by resonance on a bass string. Yepes observed that the other eight notes do not have the same resonance. These are C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#. By adding four strings to the guitar tuned a singular way (C, A#, G#, F#), all twelve notes of the octave, played anywhere on the treble strings, now have unison resonances from bass strings. If C#4 is played C#4 is reproduced on string 10 (F#). If F#4 is palyed, F#4 is reproduced on strign 10 by resonance. If both C#4 and F#4 ar played, string 10 produces both the pitch of C#4 and the pitch of F#4 simultaneously. This is a proven fact of acoustics.

If Janet Marlow claims there are only "four missing resonances on the six string guitar" (and in her book even attributes this to "Narciso Yepes"), it is totally false. Yepes said eight missing resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#) not four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb). Marlow knows that because she has (in Soundboard magazine) referenced an interview with Yepes (Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: p. 26.) in which Yepes very clearly indicates which notes do and do not have resonance. Yet she has published at least twice the disinformation that Yepes added four strings (resonators) because four resonances were missing.

If you still have a problem understanding this, I am happy to meet with you and illustrate it on an actual 10-string guitar, since you've never owned/played one. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#Viktor van Niekerk. Andrewa (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar

Nothing personal but this isn't really helping. The more discussion about previous editors/conduct/content disputes, the less likely we can move forward. In my opinion, better to leave certain editors alone to rant on their own until their conduct is enough for outsiders to deal with. In general, I would dismiss those edits as well, but obviously with a better edit summary and a short comment on their talk page. WP:BITE is still applicable of course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it isn't helping. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

Disagree that leaving Viktor alone was an option. We were losing editors, and the article as he wrote it and kept it for a year was a disgrace. If there was another way, I really wish I had found it. Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with a strict enforcement of WP:TALK strategy. Off-topic posts (like his and even yours) are going to whisked away to the archives. That should keep the talk page clear. If users cannot handle that, they will be warned and reported to WP:AIV where I'm sure that others will clear get involved. I typically work in the insanity that is the Eastern Europe articles (see WP:ARBMAC, especially the nice list of blocks and bans, if you want to understand how bad things can get) so this is not really that terrible a situation. It just needs a heavy hand. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't particularly mind if the article is stubified, despite having put a lot of work into it, just so long as we then have a framework to expand it. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A "disgrace"? Then what was it after you edited it, Andrew? Was it better with links to yahoo groups and proven misinformation? Was it better in breach of WP:LINKSTOAVOID or with your unsourced claims?

Your attacks on me are false as per usual. Just like These false allegations you made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [13]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

As you well know, Andrew, I repeatedly made you aware of misinformation you were linking to (for example, here on 25 February [14] and here we have you responding [15]). Proof that you were aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that you are simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link you posted here [16] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [17].

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yepes ten-string guitar

Re your claims on the talk page of that article with the convoluted title I cannot even remember:

Sorry, Andrew, you are severely mistaken. Please refer to Ramirez's chapter and also to textbooks on acoustics. You know the link to my site where I explain these things and you know the Yepes quotes I have posted on the yahoo group and on my site. The fact of the matter is that Ramirez very clearly says he made a prototype guitar based on the viola d'amore with on which he put 6 inner strings tuned exactly the same way as the 6 outer strings. As per well-established facts of physics, these strings add no new resonances to the guitar that are not already there, but only augment the resonances already present. This is the same problem with the resonance of the viola d'amore which Yepes has pointed out:

"Normally, the tuning of the four supplementary bass strings is C, Bb, Ab, Gb. In that way I have overtones for all twelve notes of the scale. Many people have said to me that this is the same principle as that used for the viola d'amore, which was an early eighteenth century instrument with seven strings that were mounted underneath the normal ones and vibrated in sympathy. But there was a problem with that instrument: The tuning - of both the bowed strings above and the sympathetic strings below - was D, A, F, D, A, F, D, and the F was either sharp or natural, depending on whether the key of the piece was D major or D minor. Thus when you played a D you had not only the sound of that one string, but also the sound of all the other Ds on the instrument, so you had a very big D! But, when you played G, for example, you had absolutely nothing in the way of resonance. My idea of the 10-string guitar is exactly the contrary - to provide sympathetic vibration for the notes that do not have this kind of reinforcement on a normal 6-string guitar." (Snitzler 1978)

Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26, 42, 46, 48, 52.

So the instrument Yepes invented with 4 additional strings tuned C2, A2#, G2#, F2# is exactly the contrary of the one Ramirez invented with additional strings tuned E4, B3, G3, D3, A2, E2.

You are also mistaken in saying "four extra strings would be the minimum to provide the other eight notes of the chromatic scale with similar resonance". This must be qualified by the tuning C, A#, G#, F#. If you disagree, you will have to rewrite the laws of physics, get it peer-reviewed and published and then cite it. We cannot accept references to people on discussion groups as if this is scholarly/authoritative, and even if we did, they would still need to be able to justify their claims scientifically. Scientific facts, please. On the other hand, I am perfectly capable of referencing acoustics textbooks to substantiate the fact that only the tuning C, A#, G#, F# adds the eight resonances C, G, A#, F, G#, D#, F#, C#, as unisons with any note played on the treble strings.

You are also mistaken in attributing the invention to Ramirez and making Yepes a mere collaborator. It is Yepes who solved the acoustic and musical problems (as Ramirez himself admits). There are also numerous sources (including Yepes himself) that state Yepes commissioned Ramirez to build a 10-string guitar, that Ramirez initially refused, and that he eventually gave in to build a guitar to Yepes's specifications because Yepes threatened to change to Fleta guitars.

Here are some of the sources for the last claim (I'll be adding more when I track them down in my paper files):

Sensier, Peter. 1975. "Narciso Yepes and the Ten-String Guitar". Guitar III(9): p. 27 (par. 4).

I quote Yepes from Snitzler 1978:

"When I ordered the guitar from Jose Ramirez, the first thing he said was, "To make a 10-string guitar is impossible." Then I said, "Okay. If it is impossible, then I shall order the instrument from another guitar maker." His reply to this was, "Oh, no! Then it is possible." So he made the 10-string guitar. I ordered it for several reasons: the first is that the 6-string guitar is not a "balanced" instrument."

Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26 (column 2).

Clearly there are a lot of misunderstandings and fallacies making their rounds, so you are mistaken in claiming it is a simple matter that does not deserve its own article separate from Narciso Yepes and from a general and potentially misleading discussion of guitars that arbitrarily happen to have 10 strings but not the tuning for chromatic resonance that is the first defining characteristic of the guitar invented by Yepes.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar#Rename article, or incorporate into Ten-string guitar where the above was also posted. I have replied there. Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)