text:
The Frogs

The Frogs (Βάτραχοι; Ranae, often abbreviated Ran. or Ra.) is a comedy written by the Ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes. It was performed at the Lenaia, one of the Festivals of Dionysus in Athens, in 405 BC and received first place.

Plot
The Frogs tells the story of the god Dionysus, who, despairing of the state of Athens' tragedians, travels to Hades (the underworld) to bring the playwright Euripides back from the dead. (Euripides had died the year before, in 406 BC.) He brings along his slave Xanthias, who is smarter and braver than Dionysus. As the play opens, Xanthias and Dionysus argue over what kind of jokes Xanthias can use to open the play (lines 1-37). For the first half of the play, Dionysus routinely makes critical errors, forcing Xanthias to improvise in order to protect his master and prevent Dionysus from looking incompetent—but this only allows Dionysus to continue to make mistakes with no consequence.

To find a reliable path to Hades, Dionysus seeks advice from his half-brother Heracles, who had been there before in order to retrieve the hell hound Cerberus. Dionysus shows up at his doorstep dressed in a lion-hide and carrying a club (lines 38-59). Heracles, upon seeing the effeminate Dionysus dressed up like himself, can't help laughing (line 48). When Dionysus asks which road is the quickest to get to Hades, Heracles tells him that he can hang himself, drink poison or jump off a tower. Dionysus opts for the longer journey, which Heracles himself had taken, across a lake (possibly Lake Acheron)(lines 116-151).

When Dionysus arrives at the lake, Charon ferries him across. Xanthias, being a slave, is not allowed in the boat, and has to walk around it, while Dionysus is made to help row the boat (lines 185-208).

This is the point of the first choral interlude (parodos), sung by the eponymous chorus of frogs (the only scene in which frogs feature in the play). Their croaking refrain – Brekekekèx-koàx-koáx (Greek: Βρεκεκεκὲξ κοὰξ κοάξ) – greatly annoys Dionysus, who engages in a mocking debate (agon) with the frogs (lines 225-267). When he arrives at the shore, Dionysus meets up with Xanthias, who teases him by claiming to see the frightening monster Empusa (lines 268-315). A second chorus composed of spirits of Dionysian Mystics soon appear (lines 316-459).

The next encounter is with Aeacus, who mistakes Dionysus for Heracles due to his attire. Still angry over Heracles' theft of Cerberus, Aeacus threatens to unleash several monsters on him in revenge. Frightened, Dionysus trades clothes with Xanthias (lines 460-502). A maid then arrives and is happy to see Heracles. She invites him to a feast with virgin dancing girls, and Xanthias is more than happy to oblige. But Dionysus quickly wants to trade back the clothes (lines 503-533). Dionysus, back in the Heracles lion-skin, encounters more people angry at Heracles, and so he makes Xanthias trade a third time (lines 549-589).

When Aeacus returns to confront the alleged Heracles (i.e., Xanthias), Xanthias offers him his "slave" (Dionysus) for torturing, to obtain the truth as to whether or not he is really a thief. The terrified Dionysus tells the truth that he is a god. After each is whipped, Dionysus is brought before Aeacus' masters, and the truth is verified (lines 605-674).

Aeacus describes the Euripides-Aeschylus conflict. Euripides, who had only just recently died, is challenging the great Aeschylus for the seat of "Best Tragic Poet" at the dinner table of Pluto, the ruler of the underworld. A contest is held with Dionysus as judge (lines 738-813). The two playwrights take turns quoting verses from their plays and making fun of the other. Euripides argues the characters in his plays are better because they are more true to life and logical, whereas Aeschylus believes his idealized characters are better as they are heroic and models for virtue (lines 907-991). Aeschylus mocks Euripides' verse as predictable and formulaic by having Euripides quote lines from many of his prologues, each time interrupting the declamation with the same phrase "ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν" ("... lost his little flask of oil")(lines 1206-1250). (The passage has given rise to the term lekythion for this type of rhythmic group in poetry.) Euripides counters by demonstrating the alleged monotony of Aeschylus' choral songs, parodying excerpts from his works and having each citation end in the same refrain ἰὴ κόπον οὐ πελάθεις ἐπ᾽ ἀρωγάν; ("oh, what a stroke, won't you come to the rescue?", from Aeschylus' lost play Myrmidons)(lines 1251-1295). Aeschylus retorts to this by mocking Euripides' choral meters and lyric monodies with castanets(lines 1309-1369).

During the contest, Dionysus redeems himself for his earlier role as the butt of every joke. He now rules the stage, adjudicating the contestants' squabbles fairly, breaking up their prolonged rants, and applying a deep understanding of Greek tragedy. However, far from being inhumanly competent, he arrives in a solution through a process of trial and error.

In a first attempt to end the debate, a balance is brought in and each are told to tell a few lines into it. Whoever's lines have the most "weight" will cause the balance to tip in their favor. Euripides produces verses of his that mention, in turn, the ship Argo, Persuasion and a mace. Aeschylus responds with the river Spercheios, Death and two crashed chariots and two dead charioteers. Since the latter verses refer to "heavier" objects, Aeschylus wins, but Dionysus is still unable to decide whom he will revive (lines 1378-1413). He finally decides to take the poet who gives the best advice about how to save the city.

Bless you! Come, listen to this. I came down here for a poet. For what purpose? So that the city might be saved to stage its choruses. So whichever of you will give the state some useful advice, that's the one I think I'll take. Now first, concerning Alcibiades, what opinion does each of you have? For the city is in heavy labor.

-Dionysus (lines 1418-1424)

Euripides gives cleverly worded but essentially meaningless answers while Aeschylus provides more practical advice, and Dionysus decides to take Aeschylus back instead of Euripides (lines 1414-1481). Pluto allows Aeschylus to return to life so that Athens may be succoured in her hour of need and invites everyone to a round of farewell drinks. Before leaving, Aeschylus proclaims that Sophocles should have his chair while he is gone, not Euripides (lines 1500-1527).

Critical analysis
The parodos contains a paradigmatic example of how in Greek culture obscenity could be included in celebrations related to the gods.

Historical Context
The Frogs was written and performed during the final stages of the Peloponnesian War. Sophocles and Euripides, two Greek playwrights regarded as some of the most talented poets of their time, had recently died. During the creation of the narrative, Sparta and its allies had blockaded Athens and within 6 months succeeding the production of The Frogs, Athens was defeated in a battle at sea, surrendering to Sparta.

Politics
Kenneth Dover claims that the underlying political theme of The Frogs is essentially "old ways good, new ways bad". He points to the parabasis for proof of this: "The antepirrhema of the parabasis (718–37) urges the citizen-body to reject the leadership of those whom it now follows, upstarts of foreign parentage (730–2), and turn back to men of known integrity who were brought up in the style of noble and wealthy families" (Dover 33). Kleophon is mentioned in the ode of the parabasis (674–85), and is both "vilified as a foreigner" (680–2) and maligned at the end of the play (1504, 1532).

W. Geoffrey Arnott argues that The Frogs is used as a tactic to educate and advise the public. There are many passages within the play that paint poets and playwrights as educators and teachers. There is a particular section in which the character “Aeschylus” claims that after he produced his play “Persians”, he educated Athenian audiences to be resilient in vanquishing their enemies. The theme of poets functioning as advisors within The Frogs is driven by the play's three main characters: Aeschylus, Euripides, and Dionysus.

Aristophanes himself acts as an educator and advisor regarding political issues through his writing. This is most prevalent during the Parabasis in which the chorus pleads to the audience for the return of exiled oligarchs who had been cast out during the Athenian democracy in 410. This parabasis has been credited as one of the biggest reasons for The Frogs success at the Lenaea of 405. The Frogs 1st place victory at Lanaea may have assisted in the development of a political environment that held more favor towards those exiled. In 405 those exiled, although not ordered to, were granted the ability to return to Athens and re-collect their citizenship rights under a set of conditions preserved in Andocides’ speech “On the Mysteries”.

The Frogs deviates from the pattern of political standpoint offered in Aristophanes' earlier works, such as The Acharnians (425 BC), Peace (421 BC), and Lysistrata (411 BC), which have all been termed 'peace' plays. The Frogs is not often thus labeled, however – Dover points out that though Kleophon was adamantly opposed to any peace which did not come of victory, and the last lines of the play suggest Athens ought to look for a less stubborn end to the war, Aeschylus' advice (1463–5) lays out a plan to win and not a proposition of capitulation. Also, The Frogs contains solid, serious messages which represent significant differences from general critiques of policy and idealistic thoughts of good peace terms. During the parabasis Aristophanes presents advice to give the rights of citizens back to people who had participated in the oligarchic revolution in 411 BC, arguing they were misled by Phrynichus' 'tricks' (literally 'wrestlings'). Phrynichus was a leader of the oligarchic revolution who was assassinated, to general satisfaction, in 411. This proposal was simple enough to be instated by a single act of the assembly, and was actually put into effect by Patrokleides' decree after the loss of the fleet at Aegospotami. The anonymous Life states that this advice was the basis of Aristophanes' receipt of the olive wreath, and the author of the ancient Hypothesis says admiration of the parabasis was the major factor that led to the play's second production.

The Frogs influence on political issues at the time of its performance are clear. This can be used as an example to support Aristotle’s claims about society and political participation:

“Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the: Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one,’ whom Homer denounces—the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.”

- Aristotle, Politics 1.2

Here Aristotle is arguing that it is in human nature to be involved in politics and being uninvolved is a negative trait. The Frogs can be examined through this lens, relating its emphasis on the political change to the attitudes sustained in Athens regarding education and civil duty. Aristotle further claims that theatre is used to comment on societal issues, and present solutions through their demonstration and the use of realism in theatre :

“...supposing the charge is "That is not true," one can meet it by saying "But perhaps it ought to be," just as Sophocles said that he portrayed people as they ought to be and Euripides portrayed them as they are...”

- Aristotle, Poetics 1460b

J.T. Sheppard contends that the exiled general Alcibiades is a main focus of The Frogs. At the time the play was written and produced, Athens was in dire straits in the war with the Peloponnesian League, and the people, Sheppard claims, would logically have Alcibiades on their minds. Sheppard quotes a segment of text from near the beginning of the parabasis:

"But remember these men also, your own kinsmen, sire and son, Who have oftimes fought beside you, spilt their blood on many seas; Grant for that one fault the pardon which they crave you on their knees. You whom nature made for wisdom, let your vengeance fall to sleep; Greet as kinsmen and Athenians, burghers true to win and keep, Whosoe'er will brave the storms and fight for Athens at your side!"

— Murray translation, from l. 697

He states that though this text ostensibly refers to citizens dispossessed of their rights, it will actually evoke memories of Alcibiades, the Athenians' exiled hero. Further support includes the presentation of the chorus, who recites these lines, as initiates of the mysteries. This, Sheppard says, will also prompt recollection of Alcibiades, whose initial exile was largely based on impiety regarding these religious institutions. Continuing this thought, the audience is provoked into remembering Alcibiades' return in 408 BC, when he made his peace with the goddesses. The reason Aristophanes hints so subtly at these points, according to Sheppard, is because Alcibiades still had many rivals in Athens, such as Kleophon and Adeimantus, who are both blasted in the play. Sheppard also cites Aeschylus during the prologue debate, when the poet quotes from The Oresteia:

This choice of excerpt again relates to Alcibiades, still stirring his memory in the audience. Sheppard concludes by referencing the direct mention of Alcibiades' name, which occurs in the course of Dionysus' final test of the poets, seeking advice about Alcibiades himself and a strategy for victory. Though Euripides first blasts Alcibiades, Aeschylus responds with the advice to bring him back, bringing the subtle allusions to a clearly stated head and concluding Aristophanes' point.

Development in Theatre

The Frogs proved to be a revolutionary piece of media. Through its fascination with education and authorship, the play greatly advances ideas on criticism in theatre that are still seen in contemporary debates and cultural politics. The text is dissected and analyzed, quite literally weighted, within the play itself, prompting the audience to also do so in their viewership. Lines throughout the play point to the intelligence of the newly literate Athens:

"But if you're both afraid that our spectators lack a certain amount of knowledge, so as not to appreciate the fine points of what you say, don't worry about that, since that is no longer the case. For they are seasoned veterans and each one has a book and understands the clever stuff. Their minds are superior anyway, but now they're really sharpened. So fear not, but scrutinize every topic, for the audience's sake at least, since they're so sophisticated."

-Chorus, The Frogs (lines 1110-1118)

In an Athens filled with educated citizens, dramatic performance traditions can be scrutinized for the audience's amusement. Within the wider net of social and political judgment, critiquing poetry can reveal what the audience values and what ideas they promote within the city of Athens. The Frogs can also be identified as a piece dedicated to the poetic tradition as it is reaching the end of its era with the deaths of Sophocles and Euripides. Within the story, poets debate about cultural politics ranging from poetry to education in the newly democratic city. These arguments present questions about what drama should be about, what poets actually teach to their audiences, and the type of language poets and playwrights should use. The Frogs exhibit the ways in which civic life and drama are intertwined, enabling the analysis of theater’s impact on politics and cultural development that has continued today.

Canonization
The Frogs acts as an early form of Greek canonization. After the deaths of Euripides and Sophocles, the importance of written work in Ancient Greece became highly regarded throughout the region. Although the two authors could no longer produce new plays, their previous works could remain in the minds of Geek audiences through the form of written text. Since the plays were written down, they could also be reperformed. The Frogs presents the beginnings of the Greek literary canon by displaying Euripides, Aeschylus, and Sophocles as some of the most witty, eloquent, topical, and culturally influential playwrights of the time.

The Frogs highlight Athenian cultures' transition into a more literary society. Many passages in the play reference the sophisticated intellectualism that became associated with Athenians who could and would often read and write. The play’s focus on featuring famous playwrights of the time emphasizes the scholarly advances occurring during the 5th century BCE, serving the goal of preserving cultural memory

Structure
According to Kenneth Dover, the structure of The Frogs is as follows: In the first section Dionysus' has the goal of gaining admission to Pluto's palace, and he does so by line 673. The parabasis follows, (lines 674–737) and in the dialogue between the slaves a power struggle between Euripides and Aeschylus is revealed. Euripides is jealous of the other's place as the greatest tragic poet. Dionysus is asked by Pluto to mediate the contest or agon.

Charles Paul Segal argues that The Frogs is unique in its structure, because it combines two forms of comic motifs, a journey motif and a contest or agon motif, with each motif being given equal weight in the play.

Segal contends that Aristophanes transformed the Greek comedy structure when he downgraded the contest or agon which usually preceded the parabasis and expanded the parabasis into the agon. In Aristophanes' earlier plays, i.e., The Acharnians and The Birds, the protagonist is victorious prior to the parabasis and after the parabasis is usually shown implementing his reforms. Segal suggests that this deviation gave a tone of seriousness to the play. For more detail see Old Comedy.

Sophocles
Sophocles was a very influential and highly admired Athenian playwright who died after the play had already been written, during the first phase of its production. Aristophanes did not have enough time to rewrite the play with Sophocles in it, so he simply added in scattered references to Sophocles's recent death, referring to him as a worthy playwright. When Aeschylus leaves the underworld at the end of the play, Sophocles takes his throne. The decision to put Sophocles in the same camp as Aeschylus makes sense, in light of the fact that Sophocles' tragic style was reminiscent of Aeschylus', whereas Euripides represents a new style altogether. This is consistent with the central theme of contrasting old ways and new ways.

References to the play
In the Gilbert and Sullivan light opera The Pirates of Penzance, Major-General Stanley, in his introductory song, includes the fact that he "knows the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes" in a list of all his scholarly achievements.

Hope Mirrlees's Paris: A Poem (1920) cites the chorus in the opening of her modernist poem: "Brekekekek coax coax we are passing under the Seine" (line 10), which also performs the sound of the metro train.

Finnegans Wake references this play with the words "Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualu Ualu Ualu! Quaouauh!"

The call of the Frog Chorus, "Brekekekéx-koáx-koáx" (Greek: Βρεκεκεκέξ κοάξ κοάξ), followed by a few of Charon's lines from the play, formed part of the Yale "Long Cheer", which was first used in public in 1884, and was a feature of Yale sporting events from that time until the 1960s. Lake Forest Academy's teams are known as the "Caxys", a name derived from a similar cheer.

The Long Cheer was echoed in Yale graduate Cole Porter's song "I, Jupiter" in his musical Out of This World, in which Jupiter sings "I, Jupiter Rex, am positively teeming with sex," and is answered by the chorus "Brek-ek-ko-ex-ko-ex-SEX! Brek-ek-ko-ex-ko-ex-SEX!" Other colleges imitated or parodied the long cheer, including Penn, which adopted the cry, "Brackey Corax Corix, Roree". One of these parodies was the first Stanford Axe yell in 1899, when yell leaders used it during the decapitation of a straw effigy: "Give 'em the axe, the axe, the axe!" The Frog Chorus also figured in a later Axe Yell rendering the last two segments "croax croax", which was used by the University of California and Stanford University.

In his book Jesting Pilate, author Aldous Huxley describes listening to a performance of a poem on the subject of Sicily by the Panjabi poet Iqbal, recited by a Mohammedan of Arab descent at a party in Bombay. Huxley summarized the performance with the statement: "And in the suspended notes, in the shakes and warblings over a single long-drawn syllable, I seemed to recognize that distinguishing feature of the Euripidean chorus which Aristophanes derides and parodies in the Frogs".

Translations

 * Gilbert Murray, 1902, rhyming verse, full text
 * Matthew Dillon, 1995, full text
 * George Theodoridis, 2008, prose, full text
 * Ian C. Johnston, verse, full text
 * R. H. Webb, available for digital loan

Adaptations
A musical adaptation with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim and a book by Burt Shevelove premiered in 1974 at Yale University's Olympic-size swimming pool. The ensemble cast included then Yale students Meryl Streep, Sigourney Weaver and Christopher Durang. It later premiered on Broadway in 2004 with additional songs by Sondheim and revisions to the book by Nathan Lane

title: The Frogs


text:
Jerry Sloan

Gerald Eugene Sloan (March 28, 1942 – May 22, 2020) was an American professional basketball player and coach. He played 11 seasons in the National Basketball Association (NBA) before beginning a 30-year coaching career, 23 of which were spent as head coach of the Utah Jazz (1988–2011). NBA commissioner David Stern referred to Sloan as "one of the greatest and most respected coaches in NBA history". Sloan was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2009.

After playing college basketball with the Evansville Purple Aces, Sloan was selected by the Baltimore Bullets with the fourth overall pick of the 1965 NBA draft. He spent his rookie season with the Bullets before playing the remainder of his career with the Chicago Bulls, retiring due to injuries in 1976. Nicknamed "the Original Bull", he was a two-time NBA All-Star, a six-time member of the All-Defensive Team and the first player to have his number retired by the Bulls. Sloan then became a coach, and had a career regular-season win–loss record of 1,221–803, placing him third all-time in NBA wins at the time he retired. He was the fifth coach to reach 1,000 NBA victories and is one of two coaches in NBA history to record 1,000 wins with one club (the Utah Jazz). Sloan coached the Jazz to 15 consecutive playoff appearances from 1989 to 2003. He is one of only four coaches in NBA history with 15-plus consecutive seasons that have a winning record. He led Utah to the NBA Finals in 1997 and 1998, but lost to Chicago both times.

After Tom Kelly stepped down as manager of the Minnesota Twins in Major League Baseball in 2001, Sloan became the longest-tenured head coach in American major league sports with their current franchise. He resigned mid-season from the Jazz in 2011 before returning in 2013 as an adviser and scouting consultant.

Early life
Born and raised in Gobbler's Knob, Illinois, 15 mi south of McLeansboro, Sloan was the youngest of 10 children and was raised by a single mother after his father died when Jerry was 4 years old. He would wake up at 4:30 a.m. to do farm chores and then walk almost two miles to get to school in time for 7 a.m. basketball practice. After school, he would walk back home from practice. Sloan graduated an all-state player from McLeansboro High School in 1960.

College career
Sloan played college basketball for the Evansville Purple Aces from 1962 to 1965, where he was named the Indiana Collegiate Conference (ICC) Player of the Year in 1963 and 1965 and a three-time first-team All-ICC selection. He was chosen as the 19th overall pick in the 1964 NBA draft by the Baltimore Bullets but he remained in college and led the Purple Aces to their second in two consecutive Division II national titles.

Professional career
Sloan was selected fourth in the 1965 NBA draft by the Baltimore Bullets. The Chicago Bulls, an expansion team, selected Sloan in the 1966 NBA expansion draft. He became known as "the Original Bull", known for his tenacious defense, leading them to the playoffs in their first season, and to their first and only division title before the Michael Jordan era; after a series of knee injuries, he retired in 1976. He averaged more than 18 points a game in 1970–71, and over 15 points per game three other seasons. Despite his height of only 6ft 5in, his career rebounding average was 7.4 rebounds per game, with one season having an average of 9.1 rebounds. He was a career 72 percent free throw shooter. His number 4 jersey was subsequently retired by the Chicago Bulls in 1978, becoming the first retired jersey in franchise history.

Coaching career
While at Evansville, coach Arad McCutchan suggested that Sloan coach at his alma mater. After retiring in 1976, Sloan took the Evansville job, but withdrew after five days. That same season, the Evansville basketball team and coaching staff were killed in a plane crash at Evansville Airport.

Two years later, Sloan was hired by the Bulls as a scout. After one season in this role, he became an assistant coach with the team. In 1979, Sloan was promoted to the position of head coach. He held the position for less than three seasons, winning 94 games and losing 121. He led the team to the playoffs in his second year, but was fired after a poor start during the following campaign.

Utah Jazz
After departing Chicago, Sloan became a scout for the Utah Jazz for one season. He then became coach of the Evansville Thunder of the Continental Basketball Association for the 1984 season but never coached a game instead accepting an assistant coach position with the Jazz. After Frank Layden became team president in December 1988, the Jazz chose Sloan as the new head coach. Sloan enjoyed a successful run of 16 consecutive seasons of taking his team to the playoffs, during which time he coached future Hall of Famers Karl Malone and John Stockton, along with other players including Jeff Hornacek, Antoine Carr, Tom Chambers, Mark Eaton, and Jeff Malone. Sloan led the Jazz to six division championships and 10 seasons with greater than 50 wins. He also took the Jazz to the NBA Finals twice, losing in 1997 and 1998, both times to his old team, the Chicago Bulls, led at the time by Michael Jordan. By the end of this period, he had joined Pat Riley and Phil Jackson as the only coaches with 10 or more seasons winning 50 or more games. After the retirement of long-time Jazz players Malone and Stockton, Sloan coached a younger group of players, including Carlos Boozer, Andrei Kirilenko, Mehmet Okur, and later, Deron Williams. After John Stockton retired and Karl Malone signed with the Lakers in the summer of 2003, the 2003-2004 Jazz were widely predicted to be the worst team in the NBA and some even predicted that Utah would set the all-time single season record for fewest wins in a season. Despite the very low expectations and despite second leading scorer Matt Harpring being sidelined for 51 games due to a knee injury, Sloan and his team were involved in a battle for the eighth spot in the Western Conference, which would have given Sloan his 17th straight trip to the playoffs. The Jazz were tied with the Denver Nuggets for the eighth and last spot of the playoffs with three games to go in the regular season. The Jazz lost the final two games, causing Sloan to miss the playoffs for the first time in 18 seasons as Jazz coach. After leading a young team in its first year without Stockton and Malone to an unexpected 42–40 record, he finished just behind Hubie Brown of the Memphis Grizzlies in voting for the 2004 NBA Coach of the Year Award.

Sloan collected his 1,000th career win against the Dallas Mavericks on December 11, 2006, in a 101–79 victory, which made him only the fifth coach in NBA history to reach the milestone. After disappointing seasons in 2004–05 and 2005–06, the Jazz in the 2006–07 returned to contention. For this, Sloan was again on many sportswriters' ballots for Coach of the Year, however, he lost the award to Toronto Raptors head coach Sam Mitchell, who led his team to a franchise record-tying 47 victories and their first Atlantic Division title. Sloan lost the vote 394–301.

The Jazz advanced to the Western Conference finals on May 15, 2007, with a 100–87 win over the Golden State Warriors. It was the sixth time in franchise history that Utah advanced to the conference finals, all coming under Sloan. However, they went on to lose 4–1 to the San Antonio Spurs.

During the 2008–09 season, Sloan reached 1,000 wins as coach of the Jazz on November 7 after beating the Oklahoma City Thunder 104–97 in a Friday night game. He became the first coach in NBA history with 1,000 wins for one team. Sloan returned as head coach of the Jazz for the 2009–10 season, leading the team to a 53–29 record and the playoffs.

Mirroring his tenacity as a player, Sloan was just as fiery as a coach. He was suspended one game for pushing referee Bob Delaney in April 1993. A decade later, Sloan was served a seven-game suspension in 2003 for pushing referee Courtney Kirkland in Sacramento.

In April 2009, Sloan was named to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, in the same class as his former longtime point guard John Stockton. Sloan chose the class of 2006 Hall of Famer Charles Barkley to introduce him during his induction ceremony.

Resignation as Jazz head coach
Sloan revealed on February 7, 2011, that he had earlier in the year signed a contract extension to coach the Jazz for the 2011–12 season, which would have been his 24th season as head coach with the Jazz. However, on February 10, 2011, Sloan and assistant Phil Johnson resigned their positions effective immediately. Sloan downplayed reports that conflicts with players prompted his departure. "I've had confrontations with players since I've been in the league", Sloan said. "There's only so much energy left and my energy has dropped." KSL-TV later asked Sloan whether reported conflicts with guard Deron Williams forced him to leave. "I forced myself out", Sloan responded. Williams acknowledged that he had a disagreement with Sloan during the previous night's game, but he added, "I would never force Coach Sloan out of Utah. He's meant more to this town, more to this organization than I have by far. I would have asked out of Utah first." Sloan's last game as head coach came in a 91–86 loss to the Bulls on February 9, and assistant coach Tyrone Corbin was then named as Sloan's replacement.

Nearly two weeks later, Williams was involved in a trade on February 23, 2011 that sent him to the New Jersey Nets. Ian Thomsen of Sports Illustrated wrote, "First Jerry Sloan leaves, now Williams is sent away. For two decades we knew who the Utah Jazz were and what they stood for as a franchise. Now we, and they, can have no idea."

A year later, Karl Malone, who played under Sloan for over 18 years, indicated that Sloan did not feel supported by Kevin O'Connor and Greg Miller. Longtime San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich would later mention him as a mentor for his overall coaching success in the NBA.

Return to the Jazz
On June 19, 2013, the Utah Jazz announced that Sloan was returning as an adviser and scouting consultant.

On January 31, 2014, the Jazz honored Sloan by raising a banner featuring the number "1223", which represents Sloan's total number of combined regular season and playoff wins with the Jazz from 1988 to 2011.

Personal life and death
Sloan married his high-school sweetheart, Bobbye. After a much-publicized six-year battle against breast cancer, she died of pancreatic cancer in 2004. They had three children and were married 41 years.

In 2006, Sloan married Tammy Jessop, in Salt Lake City. Sloan had a stepson as a result of this marriage.

Sloan was known to wear John Deere hats, and collected antique furniture and dolls. He also collected and restored tractors as a hobby. After amassing a collection of 70 tractors, Sloan decided to sell all but two of them after a 35-year-old Allis-Chalmers tractor was stolen.

In April 2016, Sloan was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and Lewy body dementia. He died on May 22, 2020, at age 78, from complications of the diseases.

Playing
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right;" !scope="col"|Year !scope="col"|Team !scope="col"|GP !scope="col"|GS !scope="col"|MPG !scope="col"|FG% !scope="col"|FT% !scope="col"|RPG !scope="col"|APG !scope="col"|SPG !scope="col"|BPG !scope="col"|PPG !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| !scope="row" style="text-align:center;" colspan=2| Career !scope="row" style="text-align:center;" colspan=2| All-Star
 * +NBA regular season playing statistics
 * style="text-align:left;"| Baltimore
 * 59 || – || 16.1 || .415 || .705 || 3.9 || 1.9 || – || – || 5.7
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 80 || – || 36.8 || .432 || .796 || 9.1 || 2.1 || – || – || 17.4
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 77 || – || 31.9 || .385 ||.749 || 7.7 || 3.0 || – || – || 13.3
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 78 || – || 37.7 || .417 || .745 || 7.9 || 3.5 || – || – || 16.8
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 53 || – || 34.4 || .421 || .651 || 7.0 || 3.1 || – || – || 15.6
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 80 || – || 39.3 || .441 || .715 || 8.8 || 3.5 || – || – || 18.3
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 82 || – || 37.0 || .444 || .660 || 8.4 || 2.6 || – || – || 16.2
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 69 || – || 35.0 || .411 || .707 || 6.9 || 2.2 || – || – || 10.1
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 77 || – || 37.1 || .447 || .711 || 7.2 || 1.9 || 2.4 || .1 || 13.2
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 78 || – || 33.0 || .439 || .748 || 6.9 || 2.1 || 2.2 || .2 || 12.2
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 22 || – || 28.0 || .400 || .705 || 5.3 || 1.0 || 1.2 || .2 || 10.1
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * 755 || – || 34.1 || .427 || .722 || 7.4 || 2.5 || 2.2 || .2 || 14.0
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * 2 || 1 || 20.0 || .353 || .000 || 3.5 || 2.0 || – || – || 6.0

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right;" !scope="col"|Year !scope="col"|Team !scope="col"|GP !scope="col"|MPG !scope="col"|FG% !scope="col"|FT% !scope="col"|RPG !scope="col"|APG !scope="col"|SPG !scope="col"|BPG !scope="col"|PPG !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1966 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1967 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"|1968 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1970 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1971 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1972 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1973 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"| 1974 !scope="row" style="text-align:left;"|1975 !scope="row" style="text-align:center;" colspan=2| Career
 * +NBA playoff playing statistics
 * style="text-align:left;"| Baltimore
 * 2 || 17.0 || .417 || .750 || 8.0 || 3.0 || – || – || 6.5
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 3 || 23.7 || .387 || .667 || 3.3 || .3 || – || – || 10.0
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 5 || 27.4 || .324 || .760 || 6.4 || 2.4 || – || – || 8.6
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 5 || 38.0 || .392 || .640 || 7.8 || 2.2 || – || – || 14.8
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 7 || 40.6 || .436 || .739 || 9.0 || 2.4 || – || – || 17.0
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 4 || 42.5 || .406 || .579 || 8.8 || 2.5 || – || – || 15.8
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 7 || 41.7 || .437 || .737 || 8.4 || 2.0 || – || – || 14.9
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 6 || 40.0 || .443 || .759 || 10.3 || 2.0 || 1.2 || .2 || 16.7
 * style="text-align:left;"| Chicago
 * 13 || 36.2 || .460 || .556 || 7.4 || 2.0 || 1.5 || .0 || 13.1
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * 52 || 36.3 || .427 || .677 || 7.9 || 2.1 || 1.4 || .1 || 13.8

Quotes

 * "These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we're going, but I've always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it's never over."—after the Utah Jazz defeated the Houston Rockets in game 6 of the 1997 Western Conference finals.

 * "I don't care if he's 19 or 30. If he's going to be on the floor in the NBA, he's got to be able to step up and get after it. We can't put diapers on him one night, and a jockstrap the next night. It's just the way it is."—on second year guard C. J. Miles, the youngest player on the 2006–07 Utah Jazz.

 * "Size doesn't make any difference; heart is what makes a difference."

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

title: Jerry Sloan


text:
Talk:The Salmon of Doubt

Chills
It literally sent chills down my spine when I read that last note regarding the appearance of 'salmon of doubt' on the cover of a 1988 edition of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective agency. Douglas Adams was more incredible and talented than any of us may ever know. He really knew where his towel was.
 * It spooked me perhaps even more when, having finished The Salmon of Doubt, I pulled my copy of Dirk Gently off the shelf so I could read it and saw the blurb on the cover. I thought time had looped back on itself. --Ashibaka 03:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How did that happen? I mean, by that point he can't have even begun to write it. Julieb42 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

are you sure those aren't reprints of that 1988 edition? otherwise it just doesn't make any sense--Chnt (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
I seem to recall some controversy around the publication of Salmon of Doubt, as it was basically his hard drives, printed and bound, including a great deal he nver had published for a reason.

Of course, Franz Kafka asked in his will that his (largely unpublished -- I think all but Amerika) works be destroyed, too. --Charles A. L. 14:29, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Speculation: Dirk Gently
I've toned down the suggestion that DNA was planning to have this story link the two series together - I'd never heard that speculation before, and have certainly seen no sign that this was what he "promised". The Salmon of Doubt was purely a Dirk Gently book, but he couldn't make it work, so he was going to reuse the ideas for a Hitchhiker's book instead - he actually says in the title that the result might not even have the same title. It's a fun idea, though; I wonder if anyone will ever write a completion of the story, as a tribute... - IMSoP 12:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * This isn't at all impossible, if his estate can find the right writer (Lloyd, maybe?); Robert "Spenser" Parker has done this a couple of times; finishing and writing a sequel to a classic detective novel whose name eludes me for the moment. --Baylink 04:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this should be listed as a Dirk Gently book because: 1) Most of it isn't the "Salmon of Doubt" part. 2) It's not realy known if that would have been a Dirk Gently book, a Hitchhiker's book, or maybe something else entirely.

German title
German title of the book is "Lachs im Zweifel" (literally: salmon in doubt), dunno if that fits in here anywhere (clem 19:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC))

 * It may also be worth noting that the German paperback doesn't have "The private life of Genghis Khan" either. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thor
wasn't Kate mentioned by name in the book? why the speculation about trillian? Morwen - Talk 09:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I just reread the 11 chapters and the only woman I saw mention Thor was Kate. (unless there's a serious change in another edition?) --JohnDBuell | Talk 16:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Through a rhinoceros
"As promised in the beginning, we do not go through a rhinoceros.". Huh? That is probably too obscure for those who have not read the book.

 * Yes, I found that sentence a bit puzzling, too - mostly because it's rather ambiguous. What it actually means is that the summary (the fax reprinted in the book) promised we would go through a rhinoceros (or "through the nasal membranes of a rhinoceros", to be precise) but that this never happens in the existing text. I've tried to tidy up the plot info a bit. - IMSoP 14:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that Adams' reference to time travel through a rhinocerous nasal passage may have something to do with something he said on a television program he [co]hosted a couple of years before he departed Earth. I don't recall which program it was, only that it was a science/nature show talking about sensory perception and animals. In it, he was describing the incredible sensitivity of a rhinocerous's nasal senses, and that one could detect odors as faint as those four days old. He said that this presented an interesting sensing of past time, in that a rhino could sense past events with its nose. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the name?
Does anyone know the origin of the name The Salmon of Doubt? It seems reminiscent of the Irish folk tale of the Salmon of Knowledge. Angr/ talk 08:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe it was meant as a parody of that name. We'd probably have to search Google's archives of alt.fan.douglas-adams or the douglasadams.com forums to verify. --JohnDBuell 17:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement that Kate Schecter's appearance in Salmon of Doubt is the only time a character other than Dirk has creappeared in the series is false. Gilks appears both in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and in The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul.

the salmon of doubt synopsis (fax to the editor)
Could anyone please include the synopsis (fax to the editor) in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.66.218.142 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim Fuller and the unmade Salmon of Doubt radio series
I've always been intrigued by the claim in the article that Kim Fuller (Writer of Spice World, as well as working on episodes of Red Dwarf, Spitting Image, and on Lenny Henry and Tracey Ullman's sketch shows) was going to adapt the Salmon of Doubt for BBC Radio 4, as stated in a 2009 article by The Stage. I actually interviewed Kim for my podcast in 2021 and not only did he tell me that he'd never listened to the radio series, but (In a segment I cut from the podcast for time) he also explicitly denied that he had ever signed any contract or wrote anything for the radio series. What Kim had worked on was a 1998 TV pilot which ended up being shelved because Douglas wasn't happy with the script and subsequently lost confidence in the project, and Kim's original script for this unmade show seems to have ahistorically gotten mixed up with the abandoned Salmon of Doubt radio series. So I would like to correct the record if at all possible.

From what I understand from reading Jem Roberts' 2015 book The Frood: The Authorised and Very Official History of Douglas Adams & The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy The director/writer of the first two Dirk Gently radio series was Dirk Maggs, who in 2009 left Above the Title Productions to form his own Perfectly Normal Productions. Maggs stated in a September 2008 BBC blog that he was using notes in Douglas' archive for "The Old Salmon" (Later renamed The Salmon of Doubt) to inspire and inform his adaptations of The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul and The Salmon of Doubt. However, the Adams estate felt that the scripts for the radio version of Salmon of Doubt were straying too far from the source material, with Ed Victor saying of the writing: "There was not enough of Douglas' in the project to make it worthwhile." It seems that the reason the BBC cancelled the Salmon of Doubt radio series was a combination of the Adams Estate and Ed Victor shifting focus to the 2010 Dirk Gently TV pilot, and the BBC being unable to hire a new writer/director to finish the project. Edstertainment (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Salmon of Doubt


text:
Talk:Apokatastasis

Untitled
On December 6 2003, this article was placed on Votes for deletion as follows (the text was copied from a Google cached copy):

* Apocatastasis - orphaned dictionary definition. Copied to Wiktionary via m:Transwiki. -Smack 21:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) o Delete. Onebyone 22:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) o Delete. Exists at Wiktionary. Angela. 22:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) + That's because I put it there :) -Smack 00:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article was re-added on December 17 2003. The Transwiki currently does not contain the opening paragraph. What to do with this article now? I might suggest just using a redirect to Transwiki but what about the opening paragraph which seems it might be worth to keep somehow. RedWolf 08:17, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Transwiki:Apocatastasis for current Transwiki page. See Transwiki log for move. RedWolf 08:27, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no reason to delete this. It is a perfectly valid theological concept.  I'm sure that it will be expanded when we have someone with expertise in early Christian movements.  ☮ Eclecticology 09:52, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)

 * Why someone would want to delete Apocatastasis? I vote to keep it. Optim 10:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the definition is quite correct. Apocatastasis is a Greek term from the pre-Christians era. In Stoic writings, it's a time when all the stars and planets return to their original cosmological position and then the cosmos will be destroyed by fire and reborn to start again. The opposite term is antapocatastasis where the destruction is by flood. The alignment is with Cancer for apocatastasis and with Capricorn with antapocatastasis. In Gnostic writings, apocatastasis is the freeing from earth (matter) and the return of enlightened or chosen souls to God. Earth bound or unenlighted souls (including the Demiurge, aka the Jewish G_d, YHWH) goes elsewhere. Origen, who was Gnostic, took great exception to that :) Not sure if equating YHWH with the Demiurge came after Christianity began when various groups battled for supremacy in orthodoxy. The Gnostics lost - or did they? :) Dan Brown is proof they did not lose completely. Origen had great issue with the idea that some souls with be saved. His apocatastasis involves everyone even if some souls are so terrible they need several life cycles to become perfect. That doctrine was anathemized and it is debatable whether it was only the reincarnation idea or the reincarnation AND universalism idea that was anathemized.

I think the definition should be refined to show it's connection to mythology, philosophy and religion. It's not a scientific term and should not be connected with astronomy, IMHO. I think it should be done quickly as it's now propogated throughout the web as THE definition of apocatastasis. Caroline1008 13:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Augustine pronounced Anathema? Incorrect?
From article: Augustine of Hippo was against the doctrine and wrote against it, and was formally pronounced Anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543. Was Augustine pronounced Anathema or was Apocatastasis pronounced Anathema?
 * In response to that anonymous question, I examined the history of this file to see what was intended. It looks as though a typo was introduced and left uncorrected. Prior to a revision by Geogre at 20:50, 31 March 2005, the passage read thus:
 * "It is based on the Biblical passage in 1 Corinthians 15:28, and was extensively preached in the eastern church by St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century. It was formally condemned by the Synod of Constantinople in 543."
 * I have added an "it" into the new sentence to restore this meaning:
 * "Augustine of Hippo was against the doctrine and wrote against it, and it was formally pronounced Anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543."Bob.appleyard 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues with this article
Though I detect a slight bias in the article it seems to stem from lack of information rather than anything intentional. I would make the changes but being new to wikipedia I would prefer to post something on the discussion page first.

First, there is an implication in the article that Apokatastasis was predominately an eastern theology, but though it could be said to have originated in the School of Alexandria such western fathers as Ambrose of Milan also supported the doctrine, and Jerome supported it at first but later changed his posistion. Basil the Great, who opposed the doctrine, also wrote that the great majority of Christians supported the doctrine during his time. It should also be noted that Gregory the Theologan (Gregory of Nazianzus) is also regarded as a supporter of the doctrine.

Secondly, while Constantinople 543 condemned Apokatastasis it should be noted than though these Anathemas were submitted to the Fifth Oecumenical Synod (Constantinople II, 553) and the Anathema specifically against Apokastasis (or more specifically, against the belief that hell is not eternal) was not ratified, even though it was firmly supported by the Emperor, and is absent from the Anathemas against Origen in Constantinople II.

Thirdly, the origin of Apokatastasis should probably be noted, like much of Alexandrian theology it is a tenant of neo-Platonism and can be found as a central theme in Plotinus' Enneads.

Finally, it should be noted that there is modern support for the doctrine even within more traditional expressions of Christianity. For example the monastic Silouan the Athonite (a highly regarded modern (d. 1938) saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church) supported the doctrine of universal salvation.

What I have written here is somewhat biased in favour of the doctrine I will admit, but it's in the discussion page. Changes should probably be made to the main Article that reflect the heavily disputed nature of this issue during the first eight centuries of Christianity.

 * A pronunciation guide (I don't know thepreferred conventions), at least to emphasis on the antepenultimate syllable, ApocaTASTasis, would aid the reader. --Wetman 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, just put up a whole bunch of stuff and totally forgot about the above. Hopefully, someone will do it as I'm off to bed. Stuff full of typos and misspellings but it's late! Caroline1008 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, anonymous, I've put what you wrote above in the article. Now you have to provide the references. Thanx! Caroline1008 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Universal reconciliation? Merge?
I was wondering if this section, or at least the majority of it that concerns Christianity should be merged with the section on Universal reconciliation (not Unitarian Universalism) since they both seem to be very similar. If not, perhaps some clarification should be added to discern the difference between Apocatastasis and Universal reconciliation (right now, the only thing addressing this is the sentence, "A related belief is Universalism, which is the doctrine that all human beings will be saved from eternal damnation or annihilation in hell.") Thank you in advance for considering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.46.253 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You bring up a good point. The difference between Apocatastasis and Universal Reconciliation, is Apocatastasis is the restoration of all things (Mankind, Earth, Satan, Angels, etc.); while Universal Reconciliation is the restoration of relationship between man and God. Apocatastasis is broad in it's scope, Universal Reconciliation is specific in it's scope. Apocatastasis is not nessarily a Christian specific doctrine, while Universal Reconciliation is specifically a Christian doctrine.

 * I am looking at reworking the Universal Reconciliation section to keep it's content and have some of the content from the Christian section of Apocatastasis fit in with Universal Reconciliation section. StudentoftheWord 15:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced / incorrect historical claim removed
This has been tagged since Oct 2008 "Basil the Great (330-379), who opposed the doctrine, wrote that the majority of Christians believed it. Citation needed|date=October 2008 " this is perhaps traceable to one of the claims of John Wesley Hanson (1899) p.106, but Hanson has no source and misreads Basil, so deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Present-day understanding of the term "apocatastasis"

 * "With confusion between the views of Origen himself, and post-Origen Origenists, and also the confusion between Origen's views and the claims made for Origen as a precursor of Universalism by 19th Century Universalist writers, the definitions given for apocatastasis in theological dictionaries and reference works vary. But most older works, and most popular/pocket dictionaries repeat that Origen believed in the salvation of demons, and that the meaning of apocatastasis is universal reconciliation" (addition by User:In ictu oculi).

Origen lived in the second century, not the third millennium. Discussion of what he believed on apocatastasis belongs under "Patristic Christianity". It is out of place in a section on the meaning attributed in Christian theology today to the word "apocatastasis". All the most recent works, including those that deny that there is any clear evidence that Origen was a proponent of apocatastasis, basically agree that apocatastasis means a form of universal reconciliation. No recent work has been cited that disagrees with that remarkably uniform presentation of the present-day understanding of the term. Esoglou (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, I get the impression that you're not familiar with the subject but are editing on the basis that the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia entry must be correct. Then please leave the dictionaries in chronological order and have them all agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia article. Chronological ordering of reference works restored, please explain why/if you think it necessary to have them out of chronological order. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not editing on the basis of the non-contemporary 1910 article, based, it appears, on a 19th-century study. I am editing on the basis of present-day sources.  It is you who have insisted on keeping the 1910 article and even older sources, and I reluctantly agreed to let them stay in the article.  It was to put the stress on present-day sources that I put the sources in reverse chronological order, making immediately clear to the reader what is the view of the most recent writers.  Since you are now insisting on having them in direct chronological order, I will reluctantly accept that also.
 * You have not explained on what grounds you think that, after dealing with early Christianity, with the Protestant Reformation, and with 19th-century Universalism, we should then, on coming to the present-day understanding of apocatastasis, talk about the view of ancient Origen.
 * Why have you now restored the erroneous spelling "Χριστόν Ἰησοῦν"? Any elementary Greek grammar will tell you it should be corrected to "Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν".  And why have you now restored the erroneous indication that English versions put the phrase "ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου" at the end of Acts 3:19 and not at the start of Acts 3:20?  I already showed that the English Standard Version puts this phrase at the beginning of Acts 3:20 (just check: ).  Other English versions that put the phrase in Acts 3:20, not in Acts 3:19, include the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version , the Common English Bible , and the GOD'S WORD Translation .  There is no need in the English Wikipedia to cite that text also in German (and not in French, Russian, Spanish ...), especially with the false assertion that German versions (all of them?) put the phrase in verse 20.  Take the Hoffnung für Alle translation, which puts it in verse 19.  I am therefore removing again the false information about the positioning of the phrase in English versions and, this time, removing also the false statement about German versions.  I must adjust even what is said of the Greek division of the verses: it is true that the most modern editions put the phrase in verse 20, but older ones, including the Stephanus textus receptus and the Westcott and Hort edition, put it in verse 19.  Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Esoglou, sorry I'm not really interested in the minor issues above which look to me like a smokescreen, you do as you please. However I note that your main objective, to remove any suggestion that the Catholic Encyclopedia might actually be wrong about something, has again been acheived. Fine, let it rest.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, you say in your reason for deleting an extensive reference from one of the major present day academic references on the subject (at least I know of no other recent text on Gregory of Nyssa's understanding, do you?) that "the present day understanding is what is at issue here". Firstly, when did you decide that "the present day understanding is what is at issue here"? And secondly am I to understand that present day understanding of Gregory is not counted as present day understanding because Gregory of Nyssa does not live in the 21st Century? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The information that Ludlow gives about what ἀποκατάστασις meant in the time of Gregory of Nyssa (different, Ludlow says, from what it means today) is given in the section dealing with Early Christianity (and with Gregory in particular). I suppose that's the proper place for it, without repeating it elsewhere.  Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Firstly there's a problem here because if any modern academic text which goes back to primary historical sources, Norris to Origen, Ludlow to Gregory etc., is excluded from the list of old-new Theological Dictionary defs, then you're also excluding the modern research which suggests the 19th Century traditional Theological Dictionary defs are unsupported by actual real history. This would be fine if you allowed a comment "...but see modern research".
 * (2) Sorry, I cannot see where this deleted ref is repeated: Ludlow, M. Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner p38 "The word apokatastasis is now usually used to refer to a specifically Origenistic doctrine of universal salvation. However, in Gregory of Nyssa's time the Greek word had not yet assumed this very specific, almost technical meaning — although some modern commentators seem to suggest that it had. It is true that the word was sometimes used by Gregory's contemporaries with particular reference to Origen's universalism and to the question of whether the resurrection would be spiritual or bodily. It is also true that later, in the anathemas of Justinian (543) and of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), ἀποκατάστασις had virtually become a technical term connected with the Origenistic doctrines of the pre-existence of souls and the salvation of demons. However, until the mid-sixth century usage was very flexible."

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) The article speaks of how the early Christians understood apokatastasis. It then tells how 16th-century Luther understood the word.  Next it tells how the 19th-century Universalists understood it.  What follows is about what today, in the 21st century, the word is taken to mean.  Ludlow, Norris etc. go back to Origen, Gregory etc. when saying what the word meant in early Christian times, distinguishing that from how the word is used today.  Ludlow expressly says that the present-day understanding is not the same as that of the period before the mid-sixth century.  The two understandings must not be confused.  Discussion of the pre-mid-6th-century understanding belongs under the headings "Early Christianity" or "Patristic Christianity".
 * (2) Under the heading "Early Christianity", you will find Ludlow cited (with a link to the full text of what Ludlow says) as stating that the word apokatastasis was still very flexible at the time of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, but that in the mid-6th century it became virtually a technical term referring, as usually today, to a specifically Origenistic doctrine of universal salvation.
 * (3) Shouldn't the "Early Christianity" section and the "Patristic Christianity" section be merged? Esoglou (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 * (1) The thing is there is no independent/self-standing "present day understanding" per se.

There is no present day usage of "apokatastasis" without reference to early/patristic history. Except in badly sourced dictionaries which only have a brief paragraph, where the assumed reference is still Origen / Gregory.
 * Origen understood ἀποκατάστασις as X1
 * later "Origenists" were accused of understanding ἀποκατάστασις as X2
 * Universalists from Ballou to Knight claimed Origen understood ἀποκατάστασις as Universalist Church belief / X3.
 * Early 20th Century sources such as Batiffol Catholic Encyclopedia followed Gretillat Kostlin etc. that Origen understood ἀποκατάστασις as X4
 * Recent scholarship suggests Origen/Gregory etc. understood ἀποκατάστασις as X5
 * The only "present day understanding" would be e.g the Greek Orthodox church or others which use Greek.
 * (2) all these dictionaries are discussing early/patristic Christianity
 * (3) probably.

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) The differences you mention in present-day understandings of what Origen meant - not of present-day understandings of the word "apocatastasis" - concern the time of Origen, not today and should be dealt with when considering Origen, not when considering present-day understanding of the word. The numerous quotations given in the article show that, as stated, "apocatastasis" is today generally understood as meaning some form of universal reconciliation, even by those who say it was once understood differently, and by those who deny or doubt that Origen taught universal reconciliation.  How Origen understood it is a matter of almost two millennia ago, how Luther understood it is a matter of about half a millennium ago, how the nineteenth-century universalists understood it is a matter of over a century ago.  Present-day understanding of the word is not necessarily the same as any of those earlier understandings of it.
 * (2) All these dictionaries and other studies, you tell me - I haven't checked - discuss early/patristic Christianity. They also indicate how they themselves understand the word "apocatastasis".
 * (3) Then I may soon merge the two sections dealing with the theological understanding of apocatastasis in early/patristic Christianity. Esoglou (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * (1) Can you give an example of anyone using the word apokatastasis today? Or indeed anyone in the past 1000 years who has used the word apokatastasis independently of talking about Origen and Gregory?
 * (2) Do they? Ludlow says the word is "now used" recognising that it has been misused, but quickly modern usage is now catching back up to historical research: History, Sophia and the Russian nation Manon de Courten - 2004 - 532 p126 "This is at least what tradition has retained of Origen's ambiguous affirmations. By now evidence has shown that Origen did not mean this." This is a book on a Russian philosopher in 2004. Good research travels fast.

compare randomly and quickly: oblivion and 'mentioned in dispatches' (citee a I'ordre du jour), that is to say recognized, honoured and remembered. But apokatastasis means also, literally, " Once the misconception of what it meant to Origen and Gregory has gone (which I was quite surprised at actually, until looking at the sources I always assumed it did) the word stops meaning what they were thought to mean. Unless it's Wikipedia's job to preserve something scholars have let go of. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) The problem is the term you have put in; "present day usage". A historian describing a 4th Century view with a 4th Century term is not "present day usage". If "present day usage" existed we would find sentences like: "The most famous 20th Century proponent of apokatastasis was William Barclay, a widely respected theologian and preacher in the Church of Scotland who died in 1978." (in bold = changed) or "Many UUs in the 21st Century believe in apocatastasis" (invented statement).In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Karl Barth in the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Andreas Pangritz - 2000 p167 "Perhaps it would be more correct to say the converse: if what apokatastasis means for the Christian-Jewish relationship had been recognized in the past, it could not have been defamed so easily as a frivolous speculation. ..."
 * Fire alarm: reading Walter Benjamin's On the concept of history Michael Löwy, Chris Turner - 2005 - p148 "... attempt at emancipation, however humble and 'minor', will be rescued from
 * The End Times Passover: Etymological Challenges to Millenarian Joe Ortiz - 2006 ".. Christ concerning His enemies being made a footstool for His feet (Acts 2:34), and also that "Death has been swallowed up in victory, (1 Corinthians. 15:54-55, NIV)." In essence the word apokatastasis means the final establishment ..."
 * The ancient wisdom of Origen John Clark Smith - 1992 - "and Henri Crouzel's response, based on the controversial letter of Origen to Friends of Alexandria, pp. 118-119. 104. Horn. 8.1 in Jer. (3.56.26-30). 105. Since the world apokatastasis means primarily restoration and need ..."
 * Kingdom Living: How to Activate Your Spiritual Authority Jonas Clark - 2007 - "The Greek word apokatastasis means “to return this earth back to its perfect state before the fall.” In keeping with that restoration, there has been a return of modern day apostles and apostolic functions to the Body of Christ and "
 * etc.
 * Look at the most recent sources cited. Nobody denies that the Greek word ἀποκατάστασις basically, originally, literally, means "restoration".  But what do they say about how the term "apocatastasis"  is actually, practically, concretely,  used today?  Do they not agree, at least in general, that in actual practice it implies some form of universal reconciliation? That is just what Akin 2007, González 2005, ODCC 2005, Berger 2003, Ludlow 2001, CDT 2000 explicitly state.  I don't know where one could have got the idea that Ludlow says that the word has been "misused" from the mid-sixth century right down to today: Ludlow only notes the fact that the meaning attributed to it in Christian theology for the last 13½ centuries (including now) is different from the more elastic meaning it had in the much fewer Christian centuries before that.  (Is the present-day meaning of the word "Lent", which is not the same as its original meaning of "Spring", a "misuse" of the word?)  As far as I can see, while Clark 2007 does not affirm that "apocatastasis" nowadays implies a form of universal reconciliation, neither does he deny it.  Ortiz 2006 says nothing about present-day understanding: he is only talking of the meaning of the word in the New Testament.  Löwy & Turner 2005 liken Walter Benjamin's view to the doctrine, mentioned by Benjamin himself, of "certain schools of thought within the Orthodox Church which hold that all souls go to paradise" (p. 35) –  surely an explicit statement of the understanding by those Orthodox and by Benjamin himself, especially since, immediately afterwards, they mention Benjamin's remark about Origen's speculations regarding "apokatastasis, the ultimate salvation of all souls without exception".  So the examples you have provided actually confirm that today the word "apocatastasis" implies some form of universal reconciliation – some of them even identify the two.  Pangritz 2000, writing of Bonhoeffer, by no means denies that the idea of apocatastasis ("of all things", he adds – p. 130) implies a form of universal reconciliation: writing of the same Bonhoeffer, another scholar explicitly identifies the two, commenting: "It is not fully clear how Bonhoeffer guards himself against universalism, for Christ took the flesh of all mankind.  It seems that apocatastasis, or universal salvation, is a temptation to him all along."  Courten 2004 says nothing about the present-day understanding of the word "apocatastasis": he speaks only about present-day understanding of the ambiguous affirmations of early-third-century Origen, who in the view of many today may not have believed in apocatastasis as now understood; in this Courten is like Ludlow.  In short, how many sources say that in present-day usage (whatever about usage of a millennium and a half ago) "apocatastasis" does not imply some form of universal reconciliation?  Does even one say so?  Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pangritz in 1972 did use it in a "modern" sense - but then Origen or at least Leibniz' version of Origen is still firmly in the hintergrund. The fact that Pangritz explains the term as "or universal salvation" (Widerbringung) shows that the term just isn't used in German any more than English. Just as Universalist literature doesn't in the 19th C use a Greek term; the Greek term inevitably relates to Greek texts - either Stoic, NT, Origen or Gregory. There is no non-Greek use of the Greek term divorced from its Greek context. So to speak of "present day use" is meaningless. If there was a "modern" usage we'd have passages like: "The most famous 20th Century proponent of apokatastasis was William Barclay, a widely respected theologian and preacher in the Church of Scotland who died in 1978." (changed) But we don't. That's the point. Find an example of "modern" usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Apokatastasis - the conviction that, in the end, all will be saved and the entire creation will be reconciled with God. Luther once observed that he who does not believe this is a fool, but that he who preaches it is an idiot." "A theory, ascribed FALSELY (it seems) to Origen and later condemned as heretical, that all angels and human beings, even the demons and the damned, will ultimately be saved."  "It seems that apocatastasis, or universal salvation, is a temptation to (Bonhoeffer) all along."  These are all examples of modern writers who do use the term "apocatastasis" and who understand it to mean a form of universal reconciliation.  This is not a "modern sense" of the term: it is the sense in which the word has been used at least since the middle of the sixth century.  Many more examples could be cited of people who use the word still today.  Does even one of them use it in any other sense, unless to say that it was once - a long long time ago - used in some other sense?   Esoglou (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As to "present day understanding" that's a different issue, "present day understanding" (based on recent research) is now that the views of Origen/Gregory, and the opinions attributed to Origen/Gregory are different.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference works para, change of intro sentence
Seeing as "present day usage" remains problematic how about removing the term completely and simply have this:
 * Reference works
 * In late 19th to 21st Century reference works, as shown in the following works listed in chronological order, apocatastasis is generally defined as involving some form of universal reconciliation, though some more recent works note that this may not be what Origen and others meant by their use of the word.

Is there any problem with that wording?In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have difficulties with the word "usage", seeing it as implying that apocatastasis is a subject of specific speculation today. Would "understanding" be OK?  Is the new text that I have put in the article acceptable?  Esoglou (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd still prefer 'In late 19th to 21st Century writings' to in 'recent writings' but yes otherwise that's fine. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. I think "In late 19th to 21st-century writings" would clash with the preceding paragraph's "During the 19th and early 20th centuries".  I still don't see the usefulness of citing Gretillat, Köstlin and Batiffol, but if you want them ...  Esoglou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Gretillat, Köstlin and Batiffol are relevant because they are part of the regression in knowledge caused by the combination of copyright + Internet + BiblioBazaar etc. Before the Internet "up to date" meant 1990s, after the Internet "up to date" means 1890s. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apocatastasis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708123721/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apocatastasis to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apocatastasis

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Severe NPOV violation
This article is almost an avertisement for the Christian Universalist position, with most of the citations coming from ideologized/heavily biased sources. Almos all needs to be re-written, using neutral sources with only minor contributions from ideologized material. In fact I have noticed a special effort across several articles to try to push the idea that Early Christianity was Universalist; which can be a a legitimate religious belief but not a verifiable historical fact. I will accept removal of the NPOV tag when most of the facts are backed by well known textbooks or any similar widely read and reputable sources. El Huinca (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it not describe the foundations of the theoretical position and the texts that its advocates cite? How often in history this this TYPE of Christian universalism appear? Why? Why was it rejected? MaynardClark (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 15:28
Should this article not also cite 1 Corinthians 15:28 as textual directive toward thinking of an ultimate Apocatastasis?

[https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%2015%3A28 "In that way, God will be all in all. NIV. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God ..." Bible Gateway] https://www.biblegateway.com › verse MaynardClark (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 * If you know of sources that use this text as justification for the belief, then yes. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I understand "it", one reads the text(s) and asks oneself and others, "What are we doing to do about these texts and what they seem to be saying?" (when we read them "on the surface level"). Then the person and/or the group would ask: "Are there any pre-existing hermeneutical options (for us in light of our reading these texts)?" and "Are they 'acceptable' (to us)?" MaynardClark (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I got a little lost there, but to be clear, we don't publish any kind of original theories or facts here, so it's not up to the editors at Wikipedia to decide what should or shouldn't be the perspectives on religious doctrine, just to report what others are saying. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apokatastasis


text:
Ryoma Echizen

Ryoma Echizen (越前 リョーマ) is a fictional character and the protagonist of the manga and anime series The Prince of Tennis created by Takeshi Konomi. In the series, Ryoma is portrayed as a twelve-year-old tennis prodigy who won four consecutive Junior Tennis Tournaments in America. His father is Nanjiro Echizen, a former tennis pro nicknamed "Samurai Nanjiro". At his father's request, Ryoma returns to Japan in order to attend Seishun Academy ("Seigaku"), a private middle school famous for its tennis team. Due to his cocky attitude, he constantly butts heads with some of his upperclassmen as well as anger most of his opponents in tennis matches. Still, he, along with his team, evolve as tennis players in order to win the National Tennis Tournament. Throughout the story, Ryoma continues to find his own style of tennis by creating original techniques instead of merely being a copy of his father. Ryoma also appears in other media adaptations of the series including musicals, video games, soundtracks, and films.

Ryoma has been fairly popular among readers, having always stayed in the top four most popular characters, even placing first in two of the polls. Also, Ryoma's character has been featured in more soundtracks than any other character in the series. His likeness has appeared in numerous types of other merchandise as well, including key chains and clothing. However, in publicized reviews for the anime and manga, his character has received mixed reviews, with his personality being heavily criticized. Reviewers from Anime News Network and DVDTalk both finding Ryoma's cocky and "arrogant" attitude difficult to like. Though they both find his tennis skills undeniable, they comment on how that makes it "difficult for the reader to latch on and share in his experiences," eliminating the tension that comes with underdog appeal. The ANN reviewer, however, believes that some of the highlights of the series are the numerous ways that Ryoma defeats his opponents. On the other hand, Mania comments that Ryoma does not come off as too "over the top or too serious, but just the right level to be intimidating." And Jeffrey Harris of IGN cites that though Ryoma starts off as "stiff and cold," he slowly starts to break out of his shell.

Reception
According to every Shonen Jump character popularity poll of series, Ryoma has been fairly popular among readers; he won both the first and third popularity polls; he ranked second in the second poll; and third in the fourth popularity poll. Also, since Ryoma is the main character of the series, he has been featured on more soundtracks than any other character, with some featuring only himself. Numerous types of other merchandise have been released in his likeness, including key chains, clothing, and mugs. NTT customers voted him as their 15th favorite black haired male anime character.

In publications focused on manga and anime reviews, Ryoma's character has received both positive and negative remarks, though his personality is largely criticized. In Anime News Network's review of the series' first manga volume, they comment on how his skills doesn't "leave much room for improvement,...making it difficult for the reader to latch on and share in his experiences," and that his character "comes across as dull, cold and untouchable." However, they remark that the highlights of the volume are the "numerous methods Ryoma takes to make his opponents eat their words on the tennis court." When a reviewer from the same site reviewed the first DVD volume, he had a similar response in regards to Ryoma's skills, in that it eliminates underdog appeal, and describes Ryoma as "terse, reserved, and arrogant, which makes him difficult to like." John Sinott of DVD Talk echoes the same sentiments in regards to Ryoma's personality, seeing him as cocky and unlikeable despite having the talent to back up his attitude. His review of the next two DVD volumes went on to describe how Ryoma's impossible tennis moves hindered his ability to enjoy the show, and Park Cooper of MangaLife was similarly surprised at the character's unnatural abilities. Chris Beveridge of Mania, however, sees Ryoma as one who does not come off as "over the top or too serious," yet still cites the character's "serious level of confidence," and also comments on how "Ryoma's nature as someone who has seen a good bit of the world comes into play nicely at times." Though Jeffrey Harris of IGN also sees Ryoma as a "fairly stiff and cold character," he believes that the character begins to warm up to his teammates and is "slowly breaking out of his shell." Jian DeLeon of Complex magazine named him nineteenth on a list of "The 25 Most Stylish Anime Characters."

In the book Manga: An Anthology of Global and Cultural Perspectives, Ryoma is compared to Slam Dunk protagonist Hanamichi Sakuragi as both as unconventional sport manga character who are initially not interested by the sport but instead in showing off their skills.

title: Ryoma Echizen


text:
Without You (Badfinger song)

"Without You" is a song written by Pete Ham and Tom Evans of British rock group Badfinger, and first released on their 1970 album No Dice. The power ballad has been recorded by over 180 artists, and versions released as singles by Harry Nilsson (1971) and Mariah Carey (1994) became international number one hits. The Nilsson version was included in 2021's Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Paul McCartney once described it as "the killer song of all time".

In 1972, writers Ham and Evans received the British Academy's Ivor Novello Award for Best Song Musically and Lyrically.

Badfinger original
First recorded by the rock group Badfinger, the song was composed by two of its members. Pete Ham wrote a song originally titled "If It's Love", but it had lacked a strong chorus. At the time of writing, the band shared residence with the Mojos at 7 Park Avenue in Golders Green. One evening, in the midst of the parties, songwriting, touring, in Golders Green, Ham and his girlfriend Beverly Tucker were about to go out for the evening. But just as they were leaving Tom Evans said he had an idea for a song – Ham said, "Not tonight, I've promised Bev." But she thought he would be wondering if he had done the right thing later, if he went out. She told him, "Go into the studio, I'm fine about it..." He replied, "Your mouth is smiling, but your eyes are sad." The song Ham wrote that night was called "If it's Love" and has the verse "Well I can't forget tomorrow, when I think of all my sorrow, I had you there but then I let you go, and now it's only fair that I should let you know... if it's love". But Ham wasn't happy with the chorus.

Evans' relationship with his future wife Marianne influenced his lyrics: "One evening he [Evans] went to her [Marianne's] friend Karen and told Karen, 'She's left me. I need her back. I can't live without her.' He flew to Bonn to find her – he wrote a song called 'I Can't Live'. Its chorus included 'I can't live, if living is without you, I can't live, I can't give any more.' And so the merging of the two songs, Ham and Evans created the hit [with] Ham's verse, 'warm, sweet, sentimental' and Evans' chorus, 'intense, dramatic, heartbreaking.'" Both Ham and Evans said they did not consider the song to have much potential at the time Badfinger recorded it, and the track was slotted to close the first side of their 1970 album No Dice. Badfinger's recording of the song, which is more brusque than its successors' versions, was not released as a single in Europe or North America.

Stereogum reviewer Tom Breihan said of Badfinger's version that it "is strummy and direct, but it also sounds like a blueprint, not a final version. They could’ve turned it into a showstopping ballad, but they didn’t."

Ultimate Classic Rock critic Michael Gallucci rated it as Badfinger's 4th best song, calling it a "quiet gem" that "hits all the right emotional notes." Classic Rock critic Rob Hughes rated Badfinger's 6th best song, saying it is "less saccharine and more understated [than the Nilsson and Carey versions], delivered with a genuine sense of anguish." Paul McCartney called it "the killer song of all time."

The two writers of the song, Ham and Evans, later committed suicide due to legal and financial issues. In Evans' case, it was a dispute over songwriting royalties for "Without You" that precipitated his action. Songwriting royalties had become the subject of constant legal wrangling for Evans, and in 1983, following an acrimonious argument with his bandmate Joey Molland over the royalties for the song, Evans hanged himself.

Background and history
Harry Nilsson, at the time best known for his hit "Everybody's Talkin'" and for composing "One", recorded by Three Dog Night, heard Badfinger's recording of "Without You" at a party, and mistook it for a Beatles song.

After realising it was not, he decided to cover the song for his 1971 album Nilsson Schmilsson. According to Breihan, "He wanted his version of the song to be a stark, heavy solo-piano thing, but [producer Richard] Perry convinced him to turn it into a grand, crashing, theatrical monster-ballad, complete with orchestra." Gary Wright, who worked with Badfinger on George Harrison's projects, played the piano. Also featured are Klaus Voormann (bass), Jim Keltner (drums) and John Uribe (acoustic guitar). The string and horn arrangements are by Paul Buckmaster.

Commercial performance
The single was released by RCA in the autumn of 1971, and it first charted on radio stations across the US in early December. "Without You" debuted at number 99 on the Billboard Hot 100 on 18 December 1971, and on its tenth week, in the chart dated 19 February 1972, started its four-week run at number one, as his only song to peak at that position. Billboard ranked it as the number-four single of 1972. The record topped Billboard's Easy Listening chart for five weeks.

The record spent five weeks at number one on the UK Singles Chart, beginning on 11 March, eventually selling almost 800,000 copies. It went to number one in several other countries, including Australia (for five weeks), Ireland (two weeks) and New Zealand (two weeks).

Critical reception
Billboard said it was "by far [Nilsson's] most commercial driving rock ballad in some time." Cash Box said of the single "Couple a winning Badfinger tune with Gary Wright's piano and Nilsson's wideranging voice, and you've got Harry's biggest hit since 'Everybody's Talkin'.'" Record World said that "Nilsson's brilliant rendition of this Badfinger song has more than enough of the stuff of which hits are made." Breihan described the song as "going-for-it schmaltz," compared with Badfinger's "vaguely embarrassed schmaltz", but basically considered it a "big and silly and down-the-middle breakup ballad." SingersRoom critic Erica Henderson rated it as Nilsson's best song, saying that "the song's haunting melody and heartbreaking lyrics about lost love have made it a timeless classic" and that "Nilsson’s rendition features soaring vocals, soaring strings, and a melancholic piano that perfectly complement the song’s mournful tone."

The single, Grammy-nominated for Record of the Year, was produced by Richard Perry, who later explained, "It was a different record for its time. It was a big ballad with a heavy backbeat, and although many artists have cut songs like it since, no one was doing it then." In 1973, the single won Nilsson the Grammy award for Best Pop Vocal Performance, Male. While Nilsson rarely gave live concerts, he did perform the song with Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas in September 1992.

In 1972 Evans said of finding out that Nilsson had recorded the song as a single:"We were in our studios in London. We'd gone through one of those periods where things weren't going too well. This guy came in and said "Are you Badfinger? I'm Harry Nilsson. I've got this song to play for you." It was his version of "Without You." He said he was going to use it as a single. We're thinking about other songs we can lay on him. No one had recorded any of our songs until then. It had been our ambition to write songs other people would record. It's one of the most exciting things that has happened."

In 2021, this version was ranked 496th on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

Harry Nilsson track listing
Worldwide Single
 * 1) "Without You" – 3:17
 * 2) "Gotta Get Up" – 2:24

EP (Portugal)
 * 1) "Without You" – 3:17
 * 2) "The Moonbeam Song" – 3:18
 * 3) "Gotta Get Up" – 2:24
 * 4) "Jump Into The Fire" – 3:32

Personnel
According to the 1971 LP credits:

 * Harry Nilsson – vocals
 * Gary Wright – piano
 * John Uribe – acoustic guitar
 * Klaus Voormann – bass guitar
 * Jim Keltner – drums
 * Paul Buckmaster – string and French horn arrangements

Mariah Carey version
American singer and songwriter Mariah Carey's version, based on Harry Nilsson's version rather than the Badfinger original, was released as the third single off Music Box in the first quarter of 1994, its US release date of 21 January 1994 by Columbia Records, falling a week after Nilsson had died following a heart attack on 15 January 1994. In the US "Without You" was promoted as a double A-side with "Never Forget You". While she had heard Nilsson's version as a very young girl, Carey's decision to remake his hit was based on a chance hearing during the time she was recording Music Box: "I heard that song in a restaurant and just knew it would be a huge international hit" recalls Carey. Carey's version has been considered very popular on talent shows. "Without You" was later included on some non-US pressings of her compilation albums #1's (1998) and #1 to Infinity (2015), and her 2001 compilation, Greatest Hits. "Without You" was also included on her 2008 compilation The Ballads.

"Without You" reached number three on the US Billboard Hot 100 for six weeks. "Without You" remains Carey's biggest hit across Europe. In the United Kingdom, where Carey had yet to score a number one hit, "Without You" made its UK chart debut at number one where it remained for four weeks in total, and later ended as the 7th best-selling single of 1994 in the United Kingdom. It topped the European Hot 100 Singles chart for two weeks and reached number one for ten weeks in Switzerland; eight weeks in Austria and Sweden; seven weeks in Belgium; five weeks in Ireland and the Netherlands; four weeks in Germany and Iceland; and two weeks in Scotland.

Other versions

 * in 1975: Ruby Winters (single/ No. 95 R&B)
 * in 1977: Susie Allanson (album A Little Love) (also 1979 single/ No. 77 C&W); Heart (album Magazine)
 * in 1983: Herman van Veen (album On Broadway); T. G. Sheppard (album Greatest Hits) (also single/ No. 12 C&W)
 * in 1991: Air Supply (album The Earth Is ... ) (also single/ No. 48 A/C);
 * in 2008: Valentina Hasan, a contestant auditioning for the Bulgarian show Music Idol, interpreted the song as "Ken Lee".

ASCAP and Ivor Novello recognition
On 15 May 1995, at ASCAP's twelfth annual Pop Music Awards in Beverly Hills, California, "Without You" was recognised as one of the 50 most-played songs of 1994 (due largely to Mariah Carey's recording). Discrepancies in ASCAP's books, resulting from a lawsuit against the Ham and Evans estates by their former manager, incorrectly attributed the song as being composed not only by Ham and Evans, but also by Badfinger's other bandmembers, Mike Gibbins and Joey Molland, and their former manager, Bill Collins. This designation and a lack of correction by ASCAP prompted the Ham Estate to boycott the ceremony. The song was also nominated for "Song of the Year" in London at the Ivor Novello Awards.

title: Without You (Badfinger song)


text:
User talk:Neritan

Hello, welcome (Mirësevini) to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you feel like it, you may leave a note at the new user log too.

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Ka edhe një enciklopedi shqiptare tek: Faqja Kryesore.

Dori | Talk 08:22, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Neritan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Eqerem Spahia -

title: User talk:Neritan


text:
Richthofen's War

Richthofen's War, subtitled "The Air War 1916–1918", is a board wargame published by Avalon Hill in 1973 that simulates aerial combat during World War I.

Description
Richthofen's War is a two-player game in which one player controls one or more German airplanes of the First World War, and the other player controls Allied aircraft.

Components
The game box contains:
 * 22" x 24" mounted hex grid map of a section of the Western Front, including lines of trenches and no man's land
 * 80 die-cut counters
 * rulebook
 * eight scenario cards
 * playing aids and charts
 * airplane data card
 * six-sided die

Scenarios and gameplay
The first edition of the game comes with eight scenarios. In some of the scenarios, several alternative pairings of aircraft are given. Using Basic Rules, players control one aircraft each; both have identical flight properties. The Advanced rules allow for more aircraft that have varied flight characteristics.

The second edition released in 1977 has 23 missions that can be played as a campaign game.

Publication history
In 1966, Mike Carr designed a game of First World War aerial combat, Fight in the Skies, after watching the movie The Blue Max. In 1972, Simulations Publications Inc. (SPI) published a similarly-themed aerial combat wargame, Flying Circus. The following year, Avalon Hill released the very similar Richthofen's War, designed by Randall C. Reed, with graphic design and artwork contributed by Reed, Donal Greenwood, Thomas N. Shaw, W. Scott Moores, and Thomas N. Shaw. The Avalon Hill General Index and Company History claimed that "Although owing much of its inspiration to Flying Circus and Fight in the Skies, [Richthofen's War] was readily recognized as better than its predecessors."

Although SPI claimed that Richthofen's War was virtually identical to their Flying Circus game, their own poll showed that Richthofen's War enjoyed a higher initial popularity when it was released, and continued to be more popular than SPI's game at six months and one year after publication. In 1977, four years after its release, Richthofen's War still placed in the top 50 in SPI's poll of wargames.

Avalon Hill published an expansion set of 27 maneuver cards in 1977.

Reception
In A Player's Guide to Table Games, John Jackson called this game "very likely the best wargame on the market. [...] it requires less time to learn, set up and play than any other likely candidate, and it is easy to add options gradually, from game to game, as you become increasingly familiar with play." Jackson concluded, "In short, if I were limited to a single wargame, it would be Richthofen's War."

In his 1977 book The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming, Nicholas Palmer noted "this game has surprised many with its continuing success." He listed its good points as "an excellent product, clear rules, well balanced between playability and realism, a variety of brisk scenarios, and a good period 'feel', with a more interesting mapboard that usual in air games."

In the 1980 book The Complete Book of Wargames, game designer Jon Freeman noted that "the game system is remarkable in its portrayal of the various factors involved in aerial combat during World War I." Freeman also pointed out that the game could be played by anyone, commenting, "The game has always been among the most enjoyable in the genre and, despite its complexities, can be played by the rankest novice." He concluded by giving the game an Overall Evaluation of "Excellent", saying, "The multitude of scenarios possible will keep the game fresh long after less diversified games have become stale. It has something for everyone."

Bill Thompson, writing for the Wargame Academy, noted that Richthofen's War attracts an older demographic, saying, "its forte and foible is its simplicity and familiarity with old time gamers. [...] Game strength is its role as an introductory game and ease of player designed scenarios and campaigns. The introduction of the maneuver card variant added some realism, suspense and refinement." In Issue 22 of Moves, Carl Hoffman called SPI's Flying Circus "a much more limited game" compared to Richthofen's War.

In The Guide to Simulations/Games for Education and Training, Martin Campion compared using this game in the classroom versus rival game Fight in the Skies published by TSR, and advised that the TSR game "is the most difficult to learn and play because it does more with smaller details of combat. On the whole, it is not very suitable for class plays. So if I wanted to use a game on this subject, I would use Richthofen's War."

Other recognition
A copy of Richthofen's War is held in the collection of the Imperial War Museum (object EPH 2946).

Other reviews and commentary

 * Battleplan #2
 * PanzerFaust #59
 * 1980 Games 100 in Games
 * The Playboy Winner's Guide to Board Games

title: Richthofen's War