text:
Samuel Fuller

Samuel Michael "Sam" Fuller (August 12, 1912 – October 30, 1997) was an American film director, screenwriter, novelist, journalist, actor, and World War II veteran known for directing low-budget genre movies with controversial themes, often made outside the conventional studio system. Fuller wrote his first screenplay for Hats Off in 1936, and made his directorial debut with the Western I Shot Jesse James (1949). He would continue to direct several other Westerns and war thrillers throughout the 1950s.

Fuller shifted from Westerns and war movies in the 1960s with his low-budget thriller Shock Corridor in 1963, followed by the neo-noir The Naked Kiss (1964). He was inactive in filmmaking for most of the 1970s, before writing and directing the semi-autobiographical war epic The Big Red One (1980), and the drama White Dog (1982), whose screenplay he co-wrote with Curtis Hanson. Several of his films would prove influential to French New Wave filmmakers, notably Jean-Luc Godard, who gave him a cameo appearance in Pierrot le Fou (1965).

Early life
Samuel Michael Fuller was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, of Jewish parents, Rebecca (née Baum) and Benjamin Fuller. His father died in 1923 when Samuel was 11. After immigrating to the United States, the family's surname was changed from Rabinovitch to Fuller, a name possibly inspired by Samuel Fuller (Pilgrim), a doctor who arrived in America on the Mayflower. In his autobiography, A Third Face (2002), he says that he did not speak until he was five. His first word was "Hammer!"

After his father's death, the family moved to New York City, where at the age of 12, he began working as a newspaper copyboy. He became a crime reporter in New York City at age 17, working for the New York Evening Graphic. He broke the story of actress Jeanne Eagels' death. He wrote pulp novels, including The Dark Page (1944; reissued in 2007 with an introduction by Wim Wenders), which was later adapted into the 1952 movie Scandal Sheet.

Late in life he said, "If only a reporter could get a thousand dollars an hour the way a director does, I'd be in it today".

Military service
During World War II Fuller joined the United States Army. He was assigned as an infantryman to the 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, and saw heavy fighting. He was involved in landings in Africa, Sicily, and Normandy, and also saw action in Belgium and Czechoslovakia. In 1945, he was present at the liberation of a German concentration camp in Falkenau and shot 16-mm footage, known as V-E +1, that was later integrated into the French documentary Falkenau: The Impossible (1988). In 2014, the footage was selected for the United States National Film Registry. For his military service, Fuller was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and  Combat Infantryman Badge. He reached the rank of corporal.

Fuller used his wartime experiences as material in his films, especially in The Big Red One (1980), the nickname for the U.S. 1st Infantry Division. After the war, Fuller co-authored a regimental history of the 16th Infantry.

Writing and directing
Hats Off (1936) marked Fuller's first credit as a screenwriter. He wrote many screenplays throughout his career, such as Gangs of the Waterfront in 1945. He was unimpressed with Douglas Sirk's direction of his Shockproof screenplay, and made the jump to writer/director after being asked to write three films by independent producer Robert Lippert. Fuller agreed to write them if he would be allowed to direct them, as well, with no extra fee. Lippert agreed. Fuller's first film under this arrangement was I Shot Jesse James (1949), followed by The Baron of Arizona with Vincent Price.

Fuller's third film, The Steel Helmet, established him as a major force. The first film about the Korean War, made just six months into that conflict, he wrote it based largely on his own World War II experiences and tales coming out of Korea. The film was attacked by reporter Victor Riesel for being "pro-Communist" and "anti-American." Critic Westford Pedravy alleged Fuller was secretly financed by "the Reds." Fuller had a major argument with the U.S. Army, which provided stock footage for the film. When army officials objected to Fuller's American characters executing a prisoner of war, Fuller replied he had seen it done during his own military service. A compromise was reached when the lieutenant threatens the sergeant with a court martial. The film marked the first collaboration between Fuller and actor Gene Evans. The studio wanted a more prominent star such as John Wayne, but Fuller was adamant that Evans be used because he was impressed by his fellow veteran's authentic portrayal of a soldier.

After the success of The Steel Helmet, Fuller was sought out by the major studios. All gave him advice on tax shelters, except for Darryl F. Zanuck of 20th Century-Fox, who replied, "We make better movies," the answer Fuller was seeking. Zanuck signed Fuller for a contract for seven films, the first being another Korean War film, Fixed Bayonets!, to head off other studio competition copying The Steel Helmet. The U.S. Army assigned Medal of Honor recipient Raymond Harvey as Fuller's technical advisor; the two struck up a long friendship during filming, and Harvey later returned to advise him on Verboten!.

The proposed seventh film, Tigrero, based on a book by Sasha Siemel, is the subject of a 1994 documentary by Mika Kaurismäki. Tigrero: A Film That Was Never Made featured Fuller and Jim Jarmusch visiting the proposed Amazon locations of the film. Film Fuller shot on location at the time was featured in his Shock Corridor.

Fuller's favorite film was Park Row, a story of American journalism. Zanuck had wanted to adapt it into a musical, but Fuller refused. Instead, he started his own production company with his profits to make the film on his own. Park Row was a labor of love, and served as a tribute to the journalists he knew as a newsboy. His flourishes of style on a very low budget led critics such as Bill Krohn to compare the film to Citizen Kane. Fuller followed this with Pickup on South Street (1953), a film noir starring Richard Widmark, which became one of his best-known films. Other films Fuller directed in the 1950s include House of Bamboo, Forty Guns, and China Gate, which led to protests from the French government and a friendship with writer Romain Gary. After leaving Fox, Fuller started his Globe Productions that made Run of the Arrow, Verboten!, and The Crimson Kimono, and produced, wrote, and directed a television pilot about World War II soldiers to be titled Dogface, which was not picked up.

In 1961, Warner Bros. offered to finance The Big Red One in return for his making Merrill's Marauders. When Fuller had problems with Warner Bros.' editing of his film, the Big Red One fell through.

Fuller's films throughout the 1950s and early 1960s generally were lower-budget genre movies exploring controversial subjects. Shock Corridor (1963) is set in a psychiatric hospital, while The Naked Kiss (1964) featured a prostitute attempting to change her life by working in a pediatric ward. Both films were released by Allied Artists.

Between 1967 and 1980, Fuller directed only one film, the Mexican-produced Shark! (1969). Fuller unsuccessfully asked the Directors Guild to remove his name from the credits of Shark. He returned in 1980 with the epic The Big Red One, the semiautobiographical story of a platoon of soldiers and their harrowing experiences during World War II. The film won critical praise, but failed at the box office.

In 1981, he was selected to direct the film White Dog, based on a novel by Romain Gary. The controversial film depicts the struggle of a black dog trainer trying to de-program a "white dog," a stray that was programmed to viciously attack any black person. He readily agreed to work on the film, having focused much of his career on racial issues. Already familiar with the novel and with the concept of "white dogs," he was tasked with "reconceptualizing" the film to have the conflict depicted in the book occur within the dog rather than the people. He used the film as a platform to deliver an anti-racist message through the film's examination of the question of whether racism is a treatable problem or an incurable disease.

During filming, Paramount Pictures grew increasingly concerned the film would offend African-American viewers, and brought in two consultants to review the work and offer their approval on the way Black characters were depicted. One felt the film had no racist connotations, while the other, Willis Edwards, vice president of the Hollywood NAACP chapter, felt the film was inflammatory and should never have been made. The two men provided a write-up of their views for the studio executives, which were passed to producer Jon Davison along with warnings that the studio was afraid the film would be boycotted. Fuller was not told of these discussions, nor given the notes until two weeks before filming was slated to conclude. Known for being a staunch integrationist and for his regularly giving Black actors nonstereotypical roles, Fuller was furious, finding the studio's actions insulting. He reportedly had both representatives banned from the set afterwards, though he did integrate some of the suggested changes into the film. After the film's completion, Paramount refused to release it, declaring it did not have enough earnings potential to go against the threatened NAACP boycotts and possible bad publicity.

After White Dog was shelved by Paramount Pictures, Fuller moved to France in 1982, and never directed another American film. He directed two theatrical French films, Les Voleurs de la nuit in 1984 and Street of No Return in 1989. Les Voleurs de la nuit was entered into the 34th Berlin International Film Festival. He directed his last film, The Madonna and the Dragon, in 1990, and he wrote his last screenplay, Girls in Prison, in 1994.

With his wife, Christa Lang, and Jerry Rudes, Fuller wrote an autobiography A Third Face (published in 2002). This was the culmination of a long career as an author. Among his books are the novels “Burn, Baby, burn” 1935 Test Tube Baby (1936), Make Up and Kiss (1938) and The Dark Page (1944); novelizations of his films The Naked Kiss (1964) and The Big Red One (1980; reissued 2005); and 144 Piccadilly (1971), and Quint's World (1988). A book-length interview of Fuller by Jean Narboni and Noel Simsolo, Il etait une fois ... Samuel Fuller (with a preface by Martin Scorsese) appeared in 1986.

Acting
Fuller made a cameo appearance in Jean-Luc Godard's Pierrot le Fou (1965), where he famously intones: "Film is like a battleground ... Love, hate, action, violence, death. In one word, emotion!" He also made a cameo appearance at an outdoor cafe in Luc Moullet's Brigitte et Brigitte (1966) along with French New Wave directors Claude Chabrol, Eric Rohmer, and André Téchiné. He plays a film director in Dennis Hopper's ill-fated The Last Movie (1971); an Army colonel in Steven Spielberg's 1941 (1979); a war correspondent in his film The Big Red One (scene deleted in the original release, restored in the reconstructed version), a talent agent in his film White Dog (1981), and a cameraman in Wim Wenders' The State of Things (1982). He portrays an American gangster in two films set in Germany: The American Friend by Wenders and Helsinki Napoli All Night Long by Mika Kaurismäki. He also appeared in Larry Cohen's A Return to Salem's Lot (1987), and played a businessman in La Vie de Bohème (1992) by Aki Kaurismäki. His last work in film was as an actor in The End of Violence (1997). A photo of Fuller also appears on one of the mirrors of a stripper in his Shock Corridor.

Style and theme
Fuller's work has been described as primitive by Luc Moullet and by the influential American critics Manny Farber and Andrew Sarris. Grant Tracey has used the term "narrative tabloid" to refer to Fuller's style of filmmaking. This was the result of his often lower budgets, but also reflected Fuller's pulp-inspired writing.

Fuller was known for using intense close-ups, off-centered framings, and shock editing in many of his films, which were often about men facing death in combat. These scenes were both violent and tragic. Fuller often featured marginalized characters in his films. The protagonist of Pickup on South Street is a pickpocket who lives on a floating shack in the East River. Shock Corridor concerns the patients of a mental hospital. Underworld U.S.A. (1961) focuses on an orphaned victim of mobsters. The lead female characters of Pickup on South Street, China Gate, and The Naked Kiss are prostitutes or gun molls. These characters sometimes find retribution for the injustices against them. White Dog and The Crimson Kimono (1959) have definite antiracist elements. The Steel Helmet, set during the Korean War, features a racially mixed cast and contains dialogue about the internment of Japanese-Americans and the segregation of the American military in World War II.

A number of Fuller's films, including The Naked Kiss, The Baron of Arizona, Shockproof, House of Bamboo, Forty Guns, and The Big Red One, feature a leading character with the same name, Griff.

Death
In the early 1990s, Samuel Fuller, along with his wife, Christa, and their daughter Samantha, settled into a small apartment at 61 rue de Reuilly in the 12th arrondissement of Paris, but after he suffered a stroke in 1994, they returned to the States the following year. They resided in Los Angeles, where Fuller lived until he died at home of natural causes. In November 1997, the Directors Guild held a three-hour memorial in his honor, hosted by Curtis Hanson, his longtime friend and co-writer on White Dog. He was survived by his wife and daughter.

Legacy
Although Fuller's films were not considered great cinema in their times, they gained critical respect in the late 1960s. Fuller welcomed the new-found esteem, appearing in films of other directors and associating himself with younger filmmakers. The French New Wave claimed Fuller as a major stylistic influence, especially Luc Moullet. His visual style and rhythm were seen as distinctly American, and praised for their energetic simplicity. Martin Scorsese praised Fuller's ability to capture action through camera movement. In the 1996 Adam Simon-directed documentary The Typewriter, the Rifle & the Movie Camera, Quentin Tarantino and Jim Jarmusch credited Fuller as influential upon their works. Most recently, his wife Christa Lang produced a documentary directed by their daughter Samantha about him. A Fuller Life uses footage he captured himself with celebrities such as James Franco reading from his autobiography.

In the mid-1980s, Fuller was the first international director guest at the Midnight Sun Film Festival. The festival's hometown, Sodankylä, Finland, named a street "Samuel Fullerin katu" ("Samuel Fuller's street").

The moving image collection of Samuel Fuller is housed at the Academy Film Archive. The archive has preserved several of Samuel Fuller's films, including The Crimson Kimono, Underworld U.S.A., and Pickup on South Street. Additionally, the archive has preserved several of Fuller's home movies, including those shot during his war service.

title: Samuel Fuller


text:
Talk:Current teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1

=Avoiding sentence-by-sentence attribution== Okay, I have set up a preparatory stub of an article in anticipation of Richard's girlfriend (or anyone else) coming in to fill in the teachings. Note that I have set it up in the intro as being presented throughout from Rawat's point of view, in hopes we can avoid beginning every sentence with the clutter of "Rawat says that...". I don't know if this "POV covers all" method will work, but I think it's worth a shot. --Gary D 23:52, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Anything to stop the squabbling on the talk pages! --Uncle Ed 18:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Huh i don't know if you can have a wikipage presenting a POV by declaring that? i thought NPOV is mandatory? could you please explain how this is going to work? and can you please show me where in wiki it is ruled that you can have an "exclusive" article, i can't find it.thanks alot thomas

 * My apologies; I think I explained badly in the article stub what I am trying to do. I am not attempting to reserve the entire page to a particular POV as an "exclusive" article, nor to restrict criticism of PR's teachings from the article. I probably should not have associated the phrase "point of view" with what it was I was attempting to do. Rather, I am attempting to construct a device for the purely textual matter of avoiding sentence-by-sentence attribution in favor of one overall attribution at the beginning. In the name of text flow and brevity, I am trying to avoid this:

 * "Prem Rawat said that the sky was dark. Prem Rawat said that the moon was high. Prem Rawat said that the train was late."

 * In favor of this:

 * "Prem Rawat said the following: The sky was dark. The moon was high. The train was late."

 * I'm sure there will be plenty of room and opportunity to place in the article criticism and other viewpoints on the teachings. The stub should probably be rewritten to state its purpose more carefully, but that can probably best wait until we have some substantive text added to the article. --Gary D 20:24, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * ok got it. thanks. thomas

Let me be clear on what I tried to do
Seeing as I put the first paragraph together, I think I need to be clear about my intent in doing what I did. To summarize the above exchange, I put the phrase in about "from [Rawat's] point of view" simply as an overall blanket textual attribution, to try to eliminate the need for sentence-by-sentence attribution. However, the material that was added (mostly) includes sentence by sentence attribution anyway, so perhaps my effort was in vain. I think either the material's internal attributions or the first paragraph's overall attribution probably should be removed. Let me also be clear that, as also appears from the above exchange, I did not intend to suggest with my first paragrpah that this article can or must be restricted to PR's version only and no context or other viewpoint could be included. I do not have the authority to declare such a thing, nor would I want to. --Gary D 00:51, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * That was always understood, Gary. The issue at hand is the need to have in WP an overview of the teachings as they are taught nowadays by PR. Readers need to be afforded that possibility, don't you think? In particular as the whole history and evolution from the early days through the 80's has been covered at length in the main article and the criticism article has plently of that stuff as well. In the context of the teachings as taught over the last ten years and today, I do not see much place for critics POV for the simple fact that they have not been students for decades and surely they can only speculate about the subject. Of course, if there is any criticism about the teachings as presented in the article, surely it needs to be included. Let's wait and see.--Zappaz 02:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New text
New text submitted by Richard was moved here by Zappaz (thanks!). I have corrected some of the information and intend to add some more text in the coming days.≈ jossi ≈ 04:44, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Where is the provenance for this article? There are no links, no resources, and no author's name, except for Richard's "girlfriend" who he says is a premie. How is this an appropriate article in Wikipedia? Are there any other articles in Wiki that someone could show me that are similar? Thanks!

Another Ex-Premie 15:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What? you don't like the article? What is the problem? She is a student of Maharaji and wrote about her understanding of his teachings. The article is spot-on and represents a an excellent overview of his teachings. You left his teachings when? 20, 30 years ago? So what do you care? The authority on the subject of Maharaji's teachings is Maharaji himself. Richard's girlfriend wrote a excellent article based on these teachings. There you go. Regarding references, surely Richard can ask her girlfriend for the source of the quotations. --64.81.88.140 16:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I left five years ago. Don't make assumptions! If the authority on the teachings is only Rawat, then is he writing this article or what? Or is Lexy/Richard ghost-writing for him? I just want to know what the provenance is.  Simple question. You don't have to get rude and nasty.

 * I highly doubt that Maharaji would approve of some obsure premie who is unknown to him, writing about his teachings and putting them up on the internet. I know how he operates a bit better than that! There isn't even a source for his quotes. Furthermore, where is Lexy?  Doesn't "she" know how to place something on the internet in the forum of a post or text into the article "herself?"  This whole thing is suspect to me.  It's a free advertisement for Prem Rawat, nothing more.  Plus, there aren't any sources for the quotes.  Where did he say those things and when?  I also agree that the techniques need to be published.  They aren't a secret and no reader is bound by any oaths to Rawat. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to only allow members of an NRM to write about the teachings?  Also, concerning teachings, how about including a link to the team training sessions he conducted in 1999?  That's teaching, right?  And before you come back with that "H" word, I don't hate Maharaji!

 * Another Ex-Premie 06:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * do i understand you right? you are practicing for 20,30 years and haven't gained any authority in the subject of maharaji's teachings? that would mean, if exes or anybody else raise some critics/questions against the teachings , your are not the one that could answer properly, with the exceptions of quoting rawat( which you already did, in the short conversation about devotion, i knew every word already, pure rawat, nothing individual, congratulations), and do i know if you quote it the right way? The best thing would be having Mr. rawat here for conversation, wouldn't it? thomas

 * I was no rude, neither nasty. Re-read my comment. The provenance of this is The Keys. Clearly referenced. So what is the deal? And what about all this rant about you doubting that Maharaii would approve of this or that? A common treat of hate groups is to believe in conspiracy theories. And regarding the training "transcript", pleeeze..! An anonymous collections of notes, "leaked" by another anonymous source... published on your website as "original transcripts", blah, blah, blah. Very credible indeed! Conspiracy theories galore! And don't give me the BS that you don't hate Maharaji. Hate is a manifestation of the ex-premies actions. Any one can see that.--64.81.88.140 15:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Anyone can say they have a collection of DVDs called "the Keys," "The Lock" "The Door to Your Self," or anything that Rawat wants to use as a label. There is no definition of what these keys are specifically. For instance, what are the titles of the DVDs or are they too secret to reveal? They are simply mentioned by what Maharaji calls them now.  Not good enough.  You can believe what you want that's fed to you from the Rawat pipeline about me being a member of a hate-group. That's not my concern because it's too obvious that you've eaten whole what the EV FAQs say about ex-premies.  My, how this "Power of Love" attributed to Maharaji has devolved!  And you call me a hater!

 * Another Ex-Premie 17:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Meditation Techniques
The main 'teachings' of Prem Rawat are four meditation techniques, and the importance of Prem Rawat. I would like to add descriptions of the meditation techniques to this article, both as they were taught until the mid 80s, and since. I would also like to point out the change in Rawat's instruction in how to practice the techniques that occurred then. In particular the change from practicing meditation constantly, to only practicing for a minimum of one hour a day. I know this will be controversial for current premies (this is the word Rawat currently uses for his followers) as they have made a vow never to reveal the meditation techniques, but this vow does not apply to Wikipedia contributors generally, so I can't see any reason for not including this information. I would also like to add some earlier quotes to show how the way he presents his teachings has evolved over the years. What do you guys think? --John Brauns 17:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to make a clarification, before this attempt by the small group of critics to influence an article that has nothing to do with them, escalates any further:
 * This is an article about the teachings of Prem Rawat, as Prem Rawat presents them. Not about what people think about the teachings (pro or con). This needs to be respected.
 * The main teachings of Prem Rawat are not the techniques of Knowledge. Read the article: it is well presented and explained there.
 * There is already an article about the Techniques of Knowledge and a link to an anonymous web page with one description of the techniques is already there. Another description is available from another link from the criticism article (the anti-Geaves website).  That is IMO more than enough.
 * The discussion about the evolution of the teachings is already well developed both in the main article and in Criticism of Prem Rawat article.
 * Your understanding (or better, your misunderstanding) about the "change" to "meditate" only one hour, clearly shows that your knowledge of the subjet is to say the least, out of touch with his teachings.

≈ jossi ≈ 18:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Jossi, Prem Rawat presents the meditation techniques personally (albeit these days via a DVD) so these are definitely part of his teachings. In fact, I would argue they are a very important part of his teachings as is evidenced by the fact that some of his presentations are only open to those who have been taught the meditation techniques. Their absence from this article is a serious omission. I cannot see any reason for a separate article on the techniques of Knowledge - that article should be included here. Regarding the change from constant meditation to a minimum of one hour, please tell me how I have misunderstood. I was there in Birmingham when he personally taught the new way to practice Knowledge. A woman asked him to clarify this, and he very clearly said he didn't want premies to meditate constantly any more. If we cannot reach agreement on this then of course the article should reflect both points of view. --John Brauns 21:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Your point of view is totally, absolutely and utterly irrelevant to this article. This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji, not about you or me or anyone else for that matter. You had your chance at the Criticism of Prem Rawat to present your POV.  You need to back-off now,  Capisco?--64.81.88.140 21:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Prem Rawat presents the meditation techniques personally (albeit these days via a DVD) That is incorrect. It is not a DVD. The fact is that you don't know about this at all, shows your lack authority to be a credible contributor to this article.
 * The article discuss the techniques of Knoweldge and links to the article already developed about them. That is quite a good stand/alone article. I would suggest you read this and the techniques of Knowledge article.
 * The practice of Knowledge has never changed. You are probably confused. That is understandable.
 * ≈ jossi ≈ 21:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * What's the difference between what you envision and an advertisement, Jossi? It sounds like you don't want any description of the history of the teachings or their context.  Just what Rawat would say about them and not a thing more.  Isn't that a little limiting?  And is that what Wikipedia's for?  Is that what any encyclopedia's for?  Advertising?

 * In fact, the article should look like this one on the teachings of Scientology:

 * The teachings are set out along with come critical commentary about where they derived from, how they've developed, etc.

 * --24.68.220.3 18:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

 * I tend to agree with jossi. We needed an article in WP that presents the teachings of PR, as he presents them. Let's not forget that this is just one article: We have already explored the biography in a pretty good article, and we have quite an extensive article on the Criticism. We also have a detailed article on the techniques and other smaller articles on the Elan Vital and the DLM.

 * This is not "advertising" as Jim writes. Why anyone would think that? It is a presentation of the teachings of Prem Rawat, period. The main difference with the Scientology_Teachings article is that Hubbard is no longer alive. But PR is, and as such, the speculation about what he teaches is overriden by the fact that he tours and speaks and his teachings are quite available and open to anyone as explained in the article.

 * We needed a good article on the teachings, and what we have is just what was needed. Readers need to be given the opportunity to read bout the teachings as PR teaches them. That is explained in the opening paragraph. The only thing missing from the current article is quoting sources. Besides that, I would live it as is. --Zappaz 18:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're so funny, Zappaz! Wondering why anyone would think presenting the teachings just as Rawat does with no commentary would be tantamount to advertising! You really make me laugh. And it's just as funny reading your attempt to distinguish this article from the one on Scientology's teachings which, contrary to what you say, has all sorts of information and critical commentary that doesn't have a thing to do with speculating about what Hubbard really meant.

--24.68.220.3 19:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

 * can you please show me another article in wikipedia that is just plain POV.when rawat is touring and speaking,why a whole article about his teachings then, we have enough links to pro rawat sites where you can read the same? mhm i am getting a bad feeling about wicki, why ? please read Plutocracy on Wikipedia. i do not know if this is true, but that is the feeeling  i get here.thomas
 * Thomas, I think you are seeing a conspiracy where there is none at all. It is quite common that teachings are described without criticism. I would like to add a description of the historical background of the teachings, evolution, and classification by scholars. Andries 19:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * you may be right, but do you think that in case of other interests than pure wikipedianism, you would see a sign "sponsored by XXX"? i don't think so.thomas

You say it's quite common that teachings are described without criticism, Andries. Could you give us some examples then? And are any of these teachings you're referring to controversial? Do any of them have controversial origins? Do they make controversial claims? I very much doubt it.

--24.68.220.3 20:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

 * Richard_G thanks, and Lexy thanks for writing this article. Andries 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * John, May be the article about Knowledge should be merged with this one. What you want to write about receiving Knowledge fits better in the article about the Divine Light Mission, I think. Andries 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree the article about the techniques should be merged with this one, but I don't understand your second sentence. --John Brauns 21:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Jossi, Zappaz and Jim, of course the article can and should state that the teachings have evolved over the years. Of course the article can and should provide a (historical) background for the teachings and classifications by scholars. This is an encyclopedia after all. Andries 19:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Andries, the core of the teachings have not evolved. That is a misconception. What has evolved is its presentation. Clearly today with the advent of digital technology. Maharaji is taking advantage of it to present his message and his teachings. The thing that kills all this debate, is that his teachings are openly available and will be even more available via the Keys. Any reader of Wikipedia could go online and access his teachings. So what a WP article should contain, then? a summary of these teachings! That is what Lexy has done and and admirable job at that. I am sure that Lexy can come up with a good section about the evolutions of the presentation of Maharaji's teachings to satisfy Andries' concern.

 * The issue at hand is a different one: the attempt of the ex-premie hate group to continue throw mud to their object of hate. They are not satisfied by their barrage of outrageous accusations against Maharaji on the criticism article, they want now to throw mud at his teachings as well. No way, Jose. For pete's sake, why the POV of five or ten people that have abandoned the teachings of Maharaji 20 years ago should be of any encyclopedic interest? They had their chance to present their POV at the criticism page. The critics' "conspiracy theories", "secrecy theories" and all that garbage falls of from their own weight with presented with the openness and simplicity of Maharaji's message. That is what they will try to contaminate this article.

 * This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji as Maharaji teaches them. They can be corroborated by anyone. Let it be that. --64.81.88.140 21:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How ironic to see people who talk about "teachings" afraid of discussing them
Am I the only one who's struck by the irony that this article is supposedly about "teachings" yet the people who want the article are afraid of any commentary? What kind of teachings have no context, no history, nothing giving rise to discussion or analysis? Really, this is a fascinating subject and I sincerely thank the premies who first thought of it. This will be a very interesting article when it's done, I should think. After all, what is more interesting than the teachings of Prem Rawat, a man who was the son of one guru, the supposed latest in a long, line of gurus, the brother of a competing guru and a westernized India to boot? Prem Rawat, a man who once taught that the mind was poison and the meditation he offers its antidote? A man who once taught that there is such a thing as a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God, and that there is always one such being, no more, no less, alive at any time? A man who taught that he was the Saviour of Mankind? Yes, that was certainly part of his teachings, no getting around it.

And there are so many other interesting things Rawat has taught over time. For instance, that there is such a thing as "realizing Knowledge" which meant transcending the mind and being in perfect God consciousness all the time. Or that a devotee has the choice between reincarnating as a devotee or being liberated upon death if he's able to achieve that "realization. Or that when a premie first receives Knowledge, he should invite the Master to blow into his ear, a practice called receiving "Holy Breath", and that doing so binds the devotee to the Master for all time.

Or that seeds are dead. Or people should be vegetarian if they wanted to progress spiritually. Or that they should be celibate if they were serious about getting somewhere on the path. Or that there was a path in the first place. But then, later, that there isn't a path.

Like I say, this is a fsacinating subject. And all the more interesting because of how Rawat has -- or hasn't, depending on your POV, I guess -- changed his teaching over time. Perhaps it would be worth including some comparison of his current teaching to his father's and even his brother's.

But what I see, instead, is that Rawat's followers and their friends want to post a simple advertisment for Rawat, explaining nothing about the context, history or issues concerning these teachings. Perhaps this should be no surprise. After all, Rawat holds a very tight leash on his followers in terms of their discussing Knowledge at all, let alone publically like this. He doesn't like it. Too bad!

So, question is, how should we proceed?

--24.68.220.3 23:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

 * No one is afraid to discuss anything. And don't give us the BS about this subject being fascinating. Not acceptablee from you, Jim, anyway. You the most vitrolic of the ex-premies. Be honest: your only interest is to pursue further your agenda.

 * All the issues you discuss above have been discussed at length in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. This is an article about the teachings of Maharaji as Maharaji presents them. The ridiculous situation here is your and your  small, irrelevant, intolerant group of people is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for peddling their negativity and criticism, and having the chutzpah to call their POV worthy of mentioning beyond what is already on the criticism page. Be happy that that was afforded to you.

 * In regard to this article. No way you I will let you l taint it. If you have anything new to contribute to this article, do it. I will be checking any addition to this article. If it has already  covered in another article, it has no place here.--64.81.88.140 01:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your problem, my friend, is so difficult here. You know as well as I do that Rawat does not want anyone of you describing, let alone analyzing, his teachings.
 * This is sheer speculationon your part. Here I am discussing with you (a waste of my time, but there you go! someone has to do it, I guess.)

But without some context, history and commentary, all you've got is a ridiculously vague and empty article that says nothing really.
 * It says a lot. I mean a lot. You are simply blind or you have not read it.

Well, that's not good enough. And no, you don't get to decide this on your own rules. You guys wanted an article about the teachings. That was your idea. You'll be sorry!
 * Sorry? Why should I be sorry? Add something new to the article, it stays. Something alreday discussed?, it goes. Simple rule.

So perhaps you'd like to take the first shot at putting these teachings in a little context, huh? Maybe you could start off with the concept of "realizing Knowledge". That was the fundamental objective that Rawat kept drumming into our heads for years.
 * How many years? Why did you follow him? Were you stupid? gullible? demented? silly? what? So if you were so stupid then to follow him for sooooo many years, what makes you less stupid now? uh? that's a good question.

Perhaps you'd like to write a nice little NPOV sentence or two about what that meant.
 * I thought that you were against NPOV... or is it that you have evolved? Wonderful news.

Don't forget to include the fact that Rawat claimed that he had already accomplished that goal. Don't forget to mention when he withdrew this part of his teaching. Or did he?
 * Did he? --64.81.88.140 03:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--24.68.220.3 02:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Jim

 * it should be clearly stated in big letters that only rawat is seen by his students and himself as competent to explain his teachings, no matter how long a student is practicing. i think this is important, because in comparison to other teachings like math, physics. etc, this is a pretty unique fact. and if this has been different in the history of the whole thing, why that change appeared. This matter seems to be so sacred to students/premies, that it comes close to religious feelings that get hurt. thomas

 * This is a good point, Thomas. We need to add a paragraph or two about the importance of the teacher and the role of "reminding" that the teacher undertakes. I will work on this, as well as adding something about the relationship between the teacher and the student, as Maharaji presents it. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * you are welcome.thomas

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


text:
Max Baer Jr.

Maximilian Adelbert Baer Jr. (born December 4, 1937) is an American actor, producer, comedian, and director widely known for his role as Jethro Bodine, the dim-witted relative of Jed Clampett (played by Buddy Ebsen) on The Beverly Hillbillies.

Early life
Baer was born in Oakland, California, on December 4, 1937, the son of boxing champion Max Baer and his wife Mary Ellen Sullivan. His paternal grandfather was of German Jewish descent, and his mother was of Irish descent. His brother and sister are James Manny Baer and Maude Baer. His uncle was boxer and actor Buddy Baer.

He attended Christian Brothers High School in Sacramento, where he earned letters in four sports and twice won the junior title at the Sacramento Open golf tournament. Playing with Charlie Sifford, he later won the pro–am tournament at the 1968 Andy Williams - San Diego Open.

Baer served as a medical technician in the U.S. Air Force at Gunter Air Force Base, Alabama. Baer later earned a bachelor's degree in business administration from Santa Clara University, with a minor in philosophy.

Career
Baer's first acting role was in Goldilocks and the Three Bears at the Blackpool Pavilion in England in 1949. He began acting professionally in 1960 at Warner Bros., where he made appearances on television programs such as Maverick, Surfside 6, Hawaiian Eye, Cheyenne, The Roaring 20's, and 77 Sunset Strip. His career took off two years later, when he joined the cast of The Beverly Hillbillies.

The Beverly Hillbillies
In 1962, Baer was cast in the role of the naïve but well-meaning Jethro Bodine, Jed Clampett's cousin Pearl's son. He also played Jethro's twin sister Jethrine, though her voice was dubbed by actress Linda Kaye Henning.

He continued to take other parts during the nine-year run of The Beverly Hillbillies and appeared on the television programs Love, American Style, as well as in the Western A Time for Killing.

He declined to appear in the 1981 TV movie Return of the Beverly Hillbillies and his character was recast as a result.

Later career
Following the cancellation of The Beverly Hillbillies in 1971, Baer made numerous guest appearances on television, but he found his TV acting career hampered by typecasting. He concentrated on feature motion pictures, especially behind the camera, writing, producing, and directing. Baer wrote and produced the drama Macon County Line (1974), in which he played Deputy Reed Morgan, the highest-grossing movie per dollar invested at the time. Made for less than US$200,000, it earned upwards of US$30 million at the box office, a record that lasted until The Blair Witch Project surpassed it in 1999. Baer also wrote, produced, and directed the drama The Wild McCullochs (1975), and played the role of Culver Robinson.

Baer is credited with being one of the first to use the title of a popular song as the title and plot anchor of a film, acquiring the rights to Bobbie Gentry's hit song and producing the 1976 film Ode to Billy Joe, which he also directed. Made for US$1.1 million, the film grossed $27 million at the box office, and earned over US$2.65 million outside the US, US$4.75 million from television, and US$2.5 million from video. The film starred Robby Benson and Glynnis O'Connor.

Since the success of Ode to Billy Joe, the motion picture industry has produced more than 100 song-title movies. Baer pursued the rights to the hit song "Like a Virgin", recorded by the singer Madonna in 1984. When ABC tried to prevent him from making the film, he sued and won a judgment of more than US$2 million.

He directed the 1979 comedy Hometown U.S.A. before retiring to his home at Lake Tahoe, Nevada. He continues to make occasional guest appearances on television.

Other ventures
In 1985, Baer began investigating the gambling industry. He noted that tourists paid a US$5 to $6 admission to tour the "Ponderosa Ranch", in Incline Village, Nevada, which was the location for filming exterior scenes for episodes of TV's popular program Bonanza. The Ponderosa was a cattle ranch with horses, barns, Bonanza displays, restaurants, hay rides, and a wedding chapel, and tourists enjoyed the Ponderosa because of the Bonanza connection. Baer decided that tourists would also pay for something dealing with The Beverly Hillbillies. He began using his Jethro Bodine role as a marketing opportunity toward the gambling and hotel industry. Baer obtained the sublicensing rights, including food and beverage rights, to The Beverly Hillbillies from CBS in 1991. His business partner estimates the cost of obtaining the rights and developing the ideas at US$1 million. Sixty-five Beverly Hillbillies slot machines were built in 1999 and placed in 10 casinos.

In late 2003, Baer attempted the redevelopment of a former Walmart location in Carson City into a Beverly Hillbillies-themed hotel and casino, but was unsuccessful due to building code conflicts and other developers on the neighboring properties. On May 4, 2007, he announced the sale of the property and the purchase of another parcel just outside Carson City, in neighboring Douglas County, where he expected less resistance to his plans. Baer purchased a 2.5 acre parcel in north Douglas County for US$1.2 million, and would purchase an additional 20 acre once he obtained the required zoning variances. The plans were for a 40000 sqft gambling area with 800 slot machines and 16 tables, flanked by various eateries, including "Jethro's All You Ken Et Buffet". The project would feature a showroom, cinema complex and a 240-room, five-story hotel.

Plans for Baer's casino included a 200 ft mock oil derrick spouting a 20- to 30 ft flame.

As of July 2012, development of Jethro's Casino had been suspended. Ongoing litigation involving Baer, the developer and Douglas County has delayed the development of the project indefinitely.

In 2014, Baer sued CBS after claiming a secret deal with a Des Moines-based Jethro's BBQ was interfering with his opportunity to cash in on his role from the iconic television show. The lawsuit claims that Baer negotiated a deal with CBS in 1991 for the rights to use the fictional character and other motifs from the show to create a chain of restaurants, hotels, and casinos.

Recent years
He remained close friends with Buddy Ebsen until Ebsen's death from pneumonia on July 6, 2003. Just before his acting mentor's death, Donna Douglas and he both had visited Ebsen in the hospital.

In January 2008, Baer's live-in girlfriend, 30-year-old Penthouse model Chere Rhodes, died from suicide in the 70-year-old's Lake Tahoe home. Her suicide note mentioned "relationship problems".

The 2015 death of co-star Donna Douglas left Baer as the last surviving regular cast member of The Beverly Hillbillies.

title: Max Baer Jr.


text:
Authorship of the Johannine works

The authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, the Johannine epistles, and the Book of Revelation) has been debated by biblical scholars since at least the 2nd century AD. The debate focuses mainly on the identity of the author(s), as well as the date and location of authorship of these writings.

Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel, and most conclude that he wrote none of them. Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, most scholars agree that all three epistles are written by the same author  or school of thought.

With respect to the date and location of authorship of these writings, there is general agreement that all four works probably originated from the same Johannine community. That community is traditionally and plausibly either attributed to Ephesus or Damascus, circa AD 90-110.

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos, c. 95 with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Attestation
The first supposed witness to Johannine theology among the Fathers of the Church is in Ignatius of Antioch, whose Letter to the Philippians some claim references John 3:8 and alludes to John 10:7-9 and John 14:6, but none of these are direct quotations or contain information exclusive to John. Polycarp of Smyrna quotes about the "antichrist" in his Epistle to the Phillipians 7:1, a sure reference from the letters of John because the antichrist doctrine is not found in the textual record before the Johannine letters. Justin Martyr also alludes to ideas in John, though this reference is not certain, so the dating of John is not settled.

The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias, preserved in fragmentary quotes in Eusebius's history of the Church. This text is consequently rather obscure. Eusebius says that two different Johns must be distinguished, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, with the Gospel assigned to the Apostle and the Book of Revelation to the Presbyter.

Irenaeus's witness based on Papias represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is reputed to have lived. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, thus in the second generation after the apostle. According to many scholars, he states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel. (Other scholars note, however, that Irenaeus consistently refers to the author of the gospel, as well as of Revelation, as "the disciple of the Lord," whereas he refers to the others as "apostles." And so Irenaeus appears to distinguish John, the author of the fourth gospel, from John the Apostle.) Koester rejects the reference of Ignatius of Antioch as referring to the Gospel and cites Irenaeus as the first to use it.

For some time it was common practice to assert that the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which contains a small portion of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John, demonstrated that the text of the gospel spread rapidly through Egypt in the second century. However, more recent scholarship has shown the fragment may date from as late as the third or fourth century, rather than the second century, as was previously supposed.

Clement of Alexandria mentions John the Apostle's missionary activity in Asia Minor, and continues, "As for John, the last, upon seeing that in the Gospels they had told the corporal matters, supported by his disciples and inspired by the Holy Spirit, he wrote a spiritual Gospel." Origen, when asked how John had placed the cleansing of the Temple first rather than last, responded, "John does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells the truth spiritually." In Alexandria, the authorship of the Gospel and the first epistle was never questioned. Bruce Metzger stated "One finds in Clement's work citations of all the books of the New Testament with the exception of Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John."

Rome was the home to the only early rejection of the fourth Gospel. The adversaries of Montanism were responsible. Irenaeus says that these persons tried to suppress the teaching about the Holy Spirit in order to put down Montanism, and as a result denied the authorship of the Gospel and its authority. Later Epiphanius called this group, who were followers of the priest Caius, the Alogi in a wordplay between "without the Word" and "without reason".

Quotations
The gospel was not widely quoted until late in the 2nd century. Justin Martyr is probably the first Church Father to quote the Gospel of John. Some scholars conclude that in antiquity John was probably considered less important than the synoptics. Walter Bauer suggests: "Can it be a coincidence that immediately after Justin, the enemy of heretics who took aim at the Valentinians (Dial. 35. 6), we note the appearance in Italy-Rome of two representatives of this latter school who especially treasure the Fourth Gospel – namely Ptolemy and Heracleon (Hillolytus Ref. 6. 35)? To be sure, Justin's disciple Tatian placed the Gospel of John on the same level as the synoptics, but he also broke with the church on account of profound differences in faith – poisoned, so Irenaeus thought, by the Valentinians and Marcion (AH 1. 28. 1 [ = 1.26.1])."

One reason for this 'orthodox ambivalence' was gnostic acceptance of the fourth gospel. The early Gnostic use is referred to by Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Origen in quoted commentary made on John by the Gnostics Ptolemy, Basilides and Heracleon. In the quote below Irenaeus argues against the gnostic heresy from his book Against Heresies: "For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' But, according to their [gnostic] hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the Æons], and was of later date than the Word."

Several church fathers of the 2nd century never quoted John, but the earliest extant written commentary on any book of the New Testament was that written on John by Heracleon, a disciple of the gnostic Valentinus.

The following table shows the number of times various church fathers cited John compared to the synoptic gospels.

Gospel of John
The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.

Overview
A summary of the proposed candidates is as follows:
 * The apostle John, son of Zebedee – traditionally the author was identified as John the Apostle, but his authorship is almost universally rejected by modern scholars.
 * John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation (alias the Apocalypse of John) – mainstream scholars conclude that John of Patmos did not write the Gospel of John due to a wide range of differences in eschatology, language, and tone between the two texts.
 * John the Presbyter – an obscure early church figure mentioned in the writings of Papias of Hierapolis.
 * John the Evangelist – apart from being a potential nickname for any of the figures mentioned above, he could be an otherwise unknown person called John who wrote the Fourth Gospel.
 * The Disciple whom Jesus loved (or Beloved Disciple) – an unnamed person referenced several times in the Fourth Gospel itself. Some theologians and scholars have, by way of elimination, identified this disciple as one of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus, usually John, son of Zebedee. Other scholars point out that verse 21:24 indicates that the author is someone other than this disciple, and that the author has merely used a (written or oral) report, allegedly from this disciple, as a source for the writing of the Fourth Gospel.
 * A hypothetical "Johannine community" – a number of different authors who wrote the Fourth Gospel together, none of whom were necessarily named 'John'.
 * An unknown author – some scholars have concluded that, since the Fourth Gospel is anonymous, none of the proposed candidates are plausible (there is no reason to assume he was actually named 'John'), and that because no new evidence is likely to emerge, the real author will remain unknown and unnamed. At most, the author is merely referred to as 'John' (and the Fourth Gospel as 'Gospel of John') for the sake of convention, a placeholder name for an otherwise unknown person.
 * Lazarus of Bethany

Dating
The Gospel of John is considered to be the last of the four canonical Gospels to be written. Most modern scholars date it to between 90 and 100AD, although a minority suggest an even later date. The Fourth Gospel may also have been written later as it was penned for a smaller group within the Johannine community, and was not circulated widely until a later date. However, claims of authorship that date much later than 100AD have been called into question due to the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a fragment of the gospel found in Egypt that was probably written around 125AD.

19th century views
According to Adolf Julicher, K.G. Bretschneider's 1820s work on the topic of Johannine authorship pioneered the modern critical scholarship on this topic. Bretschneider called into question the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, and even stated that, on the basis of the author's unsteady grip of topography, the author could not have come from Palestine. He argued that the meaning and nature of Jesus presented in the Gospel of John was very different from that in the Synoptic Gospels, and thus its author could not have been an eyewitness to the events. Bretschneider cited an apologetic character in John, indicating a later date of composition. Scholars such as Wellhausen, Wendt, and Spitta have argued that the fourth gospel is a Grundschrift or a, "..work which had suffered interpolation before arriving at its canonical form; it was a unity as it stood."

Walter Bauer opened the modern discussion on John with his book Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum. Bauer's thesis is that "the heretics probably outnumbered the orthodox" in the early Christian world and that heresy and orthodoxy were not as narrowly defined as we now define them. He was "convinced that none of the Apostolic Fathers had relied on the authority of the Fourth Gospel. It was the gnostics, the Marcionites, and the Montanists who first used it and introduced it to the Christian community."

John the Apostle
Most scholars conclude that the apostle John, son of Zebedee, wrote none of the Johannine works, including the Gospel of John (that is therefore sometimes referred to as the 'Fourth Gospel' in order to dissociate John from it). Various objections to John the Apostle's authorship have been raised:
 * The Synoptic Gospels are united in identifying John as a fisherman from Galilee, and refers to John as "without learning" or "unlettered".
 * The Fourth Gospel is written by someone who, based on their style and knowledge of the Greek language and grammar, would have to have been well-educated in Greek; on the other hand, as an uneducated illiterate Galilean fisherman, John the Apostle would most likely have had Aramaic as his native language, and no knowledge of any other language, let alone the ability to write in the sophisticated Greek of the Fourth Gospel.
 * The Fourth Gospel emphasises Judea, and the author seems to have had advanced knowledge of Judean topography, so likely came from there; on the other hand, John the Apostle came from Galilee.
 * The Fourth Gospel is a highly intellectual account of Jesus' life and is familiar with Rabbinic traditions of biblical interpretation.

A minority of scholars, mostly Anglo-American ones, continue to support John the Apostle as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages are cited. John's chronology for the death of Jesus seems more realistic, because the Synoptic Gospels would have the trial before the Sanhedrin occurring on the first day of the Passover, which was a day of rest.

The question remains why the anonymously written Fourth Gospel was eventually given the title 'the Gospel of John' (or 'the Gospel according to John'), especially because John, son of Zebedee is never even mentioned in the Fourth Gospel. This may be due to the fact that John, son of Zebedee, who is one of the most important apostles in the Synoptic Gospels, would otherwise be entirely missing in the Fourth Gospel. However, critical scholars have suggested some other possibilities, as it was common at the time to forge documents in someone else's name, or attribute anonymous works already in circulation to a famous person, for credibility.

The beloved disciple
The phrase the disciple whom Jesus loved (ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) or, in John 20:2, the disciple beloved of Jesus (ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iēsous) is used six times in the Gospel of John, but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. states that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple. Although since the 2nd century some people have taken verse 21:24 to mean that the author of the Gospel of John himself was the eyewitness (namely the disciple whom Jesus loved), other scholars point out that verse 21:24 indicates that the author is someone else than this disciple, because he's speaking about himself in the first person plural ('we know') and the disciple in the third person ('the disciple... who has written all these things'). Therefore, the author merely claims to have used an earlier written report, allegedly from this disciple, as a source for writing the Fourth Gospel. Even if the beloved disciple is to be accepted as the author of the Fourth Gospel, however, this still leaves open the question of what the identity of this beloved disciple was.

Hugh J. Schonfield, in the controversial The Passover Plot (1965) and other works, saw evidence that the source of this Gospel was the Beloved Disciple of the Last Supper and further that this person, perhaps named John, was a senior Temple priest and so probably a member of the Sanhedrin. This would account for the knowledge of and access to the Temple which would not have been available to rough fishermen and followers of a disruptive rural preacher from the Galilee, one who was being accused of heresy besides, and probably for the evanescent presence of the Beloved Disciple in the events of Jesus' Ministry. On this reading, the Gospel was perhaps written by a student and follower of this disciple in his last years, perhaps at Patmos. Schonfield agrees that the Gospel was the product of the Apostle's great age, but further identifies him as the Beloved Disciple of the Last Supper, and so believes that the Gospel is based on first hand witness, though decades later and perhaps through the assistance of a younger follower and writer, which may account for the mixture of Hebraicisms (from the Disciple) and Greek idiom (from the assistant).

Identification with John the Apostle
Possibly since the end of the first century, the Beloved Disciple has been commonly identified with John the Evangelist. In his early-4th-century Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote 'the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved...'. Objections are raised against the identification of John the Apostle with the "disciple whom Jesus loved", because the latter is not mentioned before the Last Supper. The title ("beloved disciple") is also strange to George Beasley-Murray because "if the beloved disciple were one of the Twelve, he would have been sufficiently known outside the Johannine circle of churches for the author to have named him".

Identifications with others
Parker suggested that this disciple might be John Mark; nonetheless, the Acts of the Apostles indicate that John Mark was very young and a late-comer as a disciple. J. Colson suggested that "John" was a priest in Jerusalem, explaining the alleged priestly mentality in the fourth gospel. R. Schnackenburg suggested that "John" was an otherwise unknown resident of Jerusalem who was in Jesus' circle of friends. The Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary identify Mary Magdalene as the disciple whom Jesus loved, a connection that has been analyzed by Esther de Boer and made notorious in the fictional The Da Vinci Code. Finally, a few authors, such as Loisy and Bultmann and Hans-Martin Schenke, see "the Beloved Disciple" as a purely symbolic creation, an idealized pseudonym for the group of authors.

Filson, Sanders, Vernard Eller, Rudolf Steiner, and Ben Witherington suggest Lazarus, since and  specifically indicates that Jesus "loved" him.

Johannine community
While evidence regarding the author is slight, some scholars believe this gospel developed from a school or Johannine circle working at the end of the 1st century, possibly in Ephesus. This hypothetical group of writers has been termed the Johannine community.

Raymond E. Brown, among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work. In particular, Chapter 21 is very stylistically different from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition (known as the appendix). Among many Christian scholars the view has evolved that there were multiple stages of development involving the disciples as well as the apostle; Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor. At the very least, it seems clear that in chapter 21 someone else speaks in the first person plural ("we"), ostensibly as the voice of a community that believes the testimony of this other person called the "beloved disciple" to be true.

More recently, scholars including Adele Reinhartz and Robert Kysar have challenged the idea of a Johannine community and cite the lack of evidence for such a community.

Possible Gnostic origins
Criticism in the early 20th century centered on the idea of the Logos (word), which was perceived as a Hellenistic concept. Thus H. J. Holtzmann hypothesized a dependence of the work on Philo Judaeus; Albert Schweitzer considered the work to be a Hellenized version of Pauline mysticism, while R. Reitzenstein sought the work's origin in Egyptian and Persian mystery religions.

Rudolf Bultmann took a different approach to the work. He hypothesized a Gnostic origin (specifically Mandaeanism which maintains that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba or "false prophet,") for the work. He noted similarities with the Pauline corpus, but attributed this to a common Hellenistic background. He claimed that the many contrasts in the Gospel, between light and darkness, truth and lies, above and below, and so on, show a tendency toward dualism, explained by the Gnostic roots of the work. Despite the Gnostic origin, Bultmann commended the author for several improvements over Gnosticism, such as the Judeo-Christian view of creation and the demythologizing of the role of the Redeemer. He saw the Gospel as an investigation into a God who was wholly Other and transcendent, seeing no place in the vision of the author for a Church or sacraments.

Bultmann's analysis is still widely applied in German-speaking countries, although with many corrections and discussions. Wide-ranging replies have been made to this analysis. Today, most Christian exegetes reject much of Bultmann's theory, but accept certain of his intuitions. For instance, J. Blank uses Bultmann in his discussion of the Last Judgment and W. Thüsing uses him to discuss the elevation and glorification of Jesus. In the English-speaking world, Bultmann has had less impact. Instead, these scholars tended to continue in the investigation of the Hellenistic and Platonistic theories, generally returning to theories closer to the traditional interpretation. By way of example, G.H.C. McGregor (1928) and W.F. Howard (1943) belong to this group.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran (1946/47–1956) marked a change in Johannine scholarship. Several of the hymns, presumed to come from a community of Essenes, contained the same sort of plays between opposites – light and dark, truth and lies – which are themes within the Gospel. Thus the hypothesis that the Gospel relied on Gnosticism fell out of favor. Many suggested further that John the Baptist himself belonged to an Essene community, and if John the Apostle had previously been a disciple of the Baptist, he would have been affected by that teaching.

The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan's Vie de Jésus ("Life of Jesus," 1863). The work of such scholars brought the consensus back to a Palestinian origin for the text, rather than the Hellenistic origin favored by the critics of the previous decades.

Gnosticism scholar Elaine Pagels claimed in 2003 that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a Gnostic, citing similarities with the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip. According to Gnosticism scholar Pagels, "Qumran fever" that was raised by the discovery of the Scrolls was gradually dying down, with theories of Gnostic influences in the Johannine works beginning to be proposed again, especially in Germany. Some recent views have seen the theology of Johannine works as directly opposing "Thomas Christians". Most scholars, however, consider the Gnosticism question closed.

Epistles of John
Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is. These three epistles are similar in terminology, style, and general situation. They are loosely associated with the Gospel of John and may result from that gospel's theology. Internal evidence as well as commentary by Papias and Polycarp suggest that the Johannine epistles originated in Asia Minor. Early references to the epistles, the organization of the church apparent in the text, and the lack of reference to persecution suggests that they were written early in the 2nd century.

First epistle
The phraseology of the first letter of John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel, so the question of its authorship is often connected to the question of authorship of the gospel. The two works use many of the same characteristic words and phrases, such as light, darkness, life, truth, a new commandment, to be of the truth, to do the truth and only begotten son. In both works, the same basic concepts are explored: the Word, the incarnation, the passing from death to life, the truth and lies, etc. The two works also bear many stylistic affinities to one another. In the words of Amos Wilder, the works share "a combination of simplicity and elevation which differs from the flexible discourse of Paul and from the more concrete vocabulary and formal features of the Synoptic Gospels."

Given the similarity with the Gospel, the "great majority" (as of 1957) of critical scholars assign the same authorship to the epistle that they assign to the Gospel. At the end of the 19th century, scholar Ernest DeWitt Burton was able to write that, "the similarity in style, vocabulary and doctrine to the fourth gospel is, however, so clearly marked that there can be no reasonable doubt that the letter and the gospel are from the same pen." Starting with Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, however, and continuing with C. H. Dodd, some scholars have maintained that the epistle and the gospel were written by different authors. There are at least two principal arguments for this view. The first is that the epistle often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence, a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel. The second is that the author of the epistle, "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel."

The book was not among those whose canonicity was in doubt, according to Eusebius; however, it is not included in an ancient Syrian canon. Theodore of Mopsuestia also presented a negative opinion toward its canonicity. Outside of the Syrian world, however, the book has many early witnesses, and appears to have been widely accepted.

The First Epistle of John assumes knowledge of the Gospel of John, and some scholars think that the epistle's author might have been the one who redacted the gospel.

Second and third epistles
Irenaeus, in the late second-century, quotes from 1st and 2nd John, and states that he is quoting the Apostle John. Eusebius claimed that the author of 2nd and 3rd John was not John the Apostle but actually John the Elder, due to the introductions of the epistles. However, modern scholars have argued that Eusebius made this conclusion based on a misinterpretation of a statement from Papias and a desire to invent a second John to be the author of Revelation. Carson suggests that the vocabulary, structure, and grammar of the Gospel of John is remarkably similar to 1st John, 2nd John and 3rd John.

Book of Revelation

The author of the Book of Revelation identifies himself as "John". The book has been traditionally credited to John the Apostle. Reference to the apostle's authorship is found as early as Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho. Other early witnesses to this tradition are Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. The Apocryphon of John, a Gnostic work, claims John as both the author of itself and Revelation.

According to Epiphanius, one Caius of Rome believed that Cerinthus, a Gnostic, was the author of the Book of Revelation.

In the 3rd century, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria rejected apostolic authorship but accepted the book's canonicity. Dionysius believed that the author was another man also named John, John the Presbyter, teacher of Papias, bishop of Hieropolis. Eusebius of Caesarea later agreed with this. Because authorship was one of several considerations for canonization, several Church Fathers and the Council of Laodicea rejected Revelation.

Mainstream scholars conclude that the author did not also write the Gospel of John because of wide differences in eschatology, language, and tone. The Book of Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities whereas the Gospel and Epistles are all stylistically consistent which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel/Epistles's author. Contemporary scholars note that when Revelation and the Gospel refer to Jesus as "lamb" they use different Greek words, and they spell "Jerusalem" differently. There are differing motifs between the book and the Gospel: use of allegory, symbolism, and similar metaphors, such as "living water", "shepherd", "lamb", and "manna". The Book of Revelation does not go into several typically Johannine themes, such as light, darkness, truth, love, and "the world" in a negative sense. The eschatology of the two works are also very different. Still, the author uses the terms "Word of God" and "Lamb of God" for Jesus Christ, possibly indicating that the author had a common theological background with the author of John.

Another issue arguing against authorship by John the Apostle is that "the apostles" are occasionally mentioned within the work, yet the author never indicates that he is one. Revelation 4 describes a vision of twenty-four elders seated on twenty-four thrones, which is generally assumed to be a reference to Jesus's promise that the twelve disciples would be seated on thrones and judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Yet, if the identification of the twenty-four elders as the disciples and the Patriarchs of the twelve tribes is accurate, the author does not mention seeing himself among the elders.

According to the testimony of Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Jerome, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96.

title: Authorship of the Johannine works


text:
User talk:Senegal

ClockworkTroll 02:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2
Based on some of the past VfDs you've shown interest in, I thought you'd probably want to know that this one was happening. (It was initiated by Pjacobi, the same editor who initiated Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't check this account to often. Email me when you need my attention. --Senegal 01:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Prem Rawat articles
As you were one of the editors involved last year on these articles, could you please check what is hapenning at Talk:Prem Rawat? Hope you are still around... ≈ jossi ≈ 00:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support on my adminship nomination, and the kind words. I do not deserve the praise, but it certainly inspires me to do a better job in the future. --ZappaZ 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Senegal


text:
Kirk Alyn

Kirk Alyn (born John Feggo Jr.; October 8, 1910 – March 14, 1999) was an American actor, best known for being the first actor to play the DC Comics character Superman in live-action for the 1948 movie serial Superman and its 1950 sequel Atom Man vs. Superman, as well as fellow DC Comics characters Blackhawk from the Blackhawk movie serial in 1952, and Lois Lane's father Sam Lane in 1978's Superman: The Movie.

Early life
Kirk Alyn was born as John Feggo Jr. on October 8, 1910, in Oxford, New Jersey, to working class parents from Austria-Hungary. In his youth he lived in Wharton, New Jersey. A plaque commemorating his life in the borough is hung in the municipal building.

Career
Alyn started as a chorus boy for Broadway plays, appearing in notable musicals such as Girl Crazy, Of Thee I Sing, and Hellzapoppin' during the 1930s.

He also worked as a singer and dancer in vaudeville before relocating to Hollywood during the early 1940s to act for feature movies, but he was successful only in gaining bit parts for low-budget movies before obtaining the role of Superman in 1948. During World War II, he served in the United States Navy.

Alyn also featured in movie serials, including Federal Agents Vs. Underworld Inc. (1948), Radar Patrol Vs. Spy King (1950) and Blackhawk (1952).

Alyn recalls the day producer Sam Katzman asked him to play Superman:

I thought it was a publicity stunt. I didn't think you could ever put Superman on film. They brought the people from D.C. Comics over and they said, 'Hey, he looks just like Clark Kent.' They said take off your shirt, so I did and flexed my muscles. Then the guy said, 'Take off your pants' and I said, 'Wait a minute.' I was 37 when I played Superman. I picked up that girl and ran up that flight of stairs like it was nothing."

Alyn played Superman for the first live-action Superman movie serial, released in 1948. The serial consisted of 15 episodes which recounted Superman's arrival on Earth, getting a job as a reporter at the Daily Planet newspaper, and meeting Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen. The main plot consisted of Superman's battle against the arch criminal the Spider Lady.

Two years later, Atom Man vs. Superman was released, featuring Lyle Talbot as Superman's arch-villain Lex Luthor. This serial also included a sequence involving an eerie alternate dimension, not unlike the Phantom Zone, which would not appear in the comics for another 11 years.

Alyn gave the Man of Steel a different portrayal to Clark Kent, adding to the element of disguise. This was in the tradition of radio's Superman, Bud Collyer. By contrast, his successor George Reeves played the dual roles more alike, as pointed out in Gary Grossman's book, Superman: Serial to Cereal. The character's flight was affected by having Alyn jump up, at which point he becomes represented by an animated character by way of rotoscoping, which flew away. Alyn had tried "flying" while suspended by hidden wires for the first serial but the wires turned out to be clearly visible and that footage was scrapped. )

After playing Superman, he again suffered casting problems. Apart from featuring in some similar comic book-type serials, he had few roles in television series and movies, some even uncredited, until he retired.

Alyn was reportedly offered the part of Superman for the television version of 1951, but refused it. In 1971, he published an autobiography entitled A Job for Superman.

Alyn shared a very brief cameo with his serial co-star, Noel Neill, as Sam and Ellen Lane, the parents of the young Lois Lane for the 1978 feature movie, Superman. In a brief on-set interview, he explains his method of portraying Superman and Clark Kent, contained in a documentary narrated by Ernie Anderson, The Making of Superman: The Movie (1978).

In 1981, Alyn appeared as "Pa Cant" in the parody movie Superbman: The Other Movie, a role that lasted only seconds, as Cant dies from heart failure immediately after discovering the strange visitor from the planet "Krapton".

Alyn made his final movie, the horror movie Scalps, in 1983.

In 1988, he participated in the 1988 TV special Superman 50th Anniversary Special as himself. He also had a very brief appearance in a Battlestar Galactica episode.

Personal life
When he first went to Hollywood, Alyn met another performer, singer, dancer, and actress Virginia O'Brien. They were married in 1942, and had three children: daughters Terri O'Brien and Elizabeth Watkins and son John Feggo III. They were divorced in 1955.

Death
Alyn died on March 14, 1999, in The Woodlands, Texas, at the age of 88 from Alzheimer's disease. He was cremated. His ashes were scattered off the coast of California.

Honors
Alyn was the Grand Marshal of the Metropolis, Illinois Christmas parade and Annual Superman Celebrations several times. In 1985, DC Comics named Alyn as one of the honorees in the company's 50th anniversary publication Fifty Who Made DC Great.

Alyn received the Inkpot Award in 1974.

title: Kirk Alyn


text:
FC Seoul

FC Seoul (FC 서울) is a South Korean professional football club based in Seoul that competes in the K League 1, the top flight of South Korean football. The club is owned by GS Sports, a subsidiary of GS Group. Since 2004, FC Seoul have played its home games at the Seoul World Cup Stadium in Seoul's Mapo District.

The club was founded as Lucky-Goldstar Football Club in 1983, by the Lucky-Goldstar Group, and was later renamed as LG Cheetahs in 1990. Due to the K League decentralization policy in 1996, the club was relocated to the Seoul's satellite city of Anyang for eight years, before returning to Seoul in 2004. FC Seoul have won six K League titles, two FA Cups, two League Cups and one Super Cup. Internationally, the club reached the AFC Champions League final on two occasions, in 2001–02 and 2013.

FC Seoul is one of the most successful and popular clubs in the K League 1, with financial backing from the GS Group. In 2012, the club was evaluated as the most valuable football brand in the K League. Their main rivals are Suwon Samsung Bluewings, with whom they contest the Super Match.

Founding and early years (1983–1989)
FC Seoul was officially announced on 18 August as the new club and founded on 22 December 1983, and started out in 1984 as Lucky-Goldstar Football Club, owned and financially supported by the Lucky-Goldstar Group (later renamed the LG Group), with the Chungcheong Province its franchise and Hwangso (meaning bull) as its mascot.

In order to launch the professional football club, Lucky-Goldstar Group had a preparation period from 1982 and demanded that the original franchise should be Seoul. In the 1984 season, the club finished seventh out of the eight clubs. The club fared better in the 1985 season when they won the championship with the help of Thailand national football team player Piyapong Pue-on, who was the top scorer, as well as the top assistor.

Moving to Seoul and then to Anyang (1990–2003)
From the beginning of 1988, Lucky-Goldstar Hwangso pushed forward a relocation to Seoul At the end of the 1989 season, the Korea Professional Football League (renamed as the K League in 1998), worried about the financial stability of the clubs, invited a number of clubs to play in Seoul. Thus, the Lucky-Goldstar Hwangso, which had always wanted to be based in the capital, moved to Seoul Stadium (Currently Dongdaemun Stadium) in Seoul at the end of 1989. The club finished first season in Seoul as champions. The club changed its name to LG Cheetahs in 1991 to mirror the LG Twins, a professional baseball team also owned by LG Group. After several seasons in Seoul, the club was forced to move in 1996, as part of the K League's decentralization policy. This policy was carried out to stimulate the growth of football in the provinces. In addition, in 1995, Korea was bidding to host the 2002 FIFA World Cup. This warranted the construction of a soccer-specific stadium in Seoul. The three clubs based in Seoul – LG Cheetahs, Ilhwa Chunma, and Yukong Elephants did not want to recognize the decentralization policy. Ultimately, it proved necessary for the Korean government to issue an eviction order to the disaffected clubs. However, the government did guarantee if the clubs built a soccer-specific stadium in Seoul, the clubs could have a Seoul franchise and return to Seoul.

As a result, 3 clubs were evicted from Seoul to other cities. This entailed the move of the LG Cheetahs to the Anyang Sports Complex in the city of Anyang, a satellite city of Seoul, 21 km away. The club was now known as the Anyang LG Cheetahs. In the upcoming years, a solid base of supporters was formed, and it established a strong league rivalry with the Suwon Samsung Bluewings. This rivalry was partly fueled by the fact that LG Group and Samsung Group, which owned the Suwon club, were also considered rivals in the business world, especially in electronics. The club continued to grow and in 2000, they won their third Championship, behind the firepower of striker Choi Yong-Soo.

Return to Seoul and renaming to FC Seoul (2004–2006)
For the 2002 FIFA World Cup in South Korea and Japan, ten brand new stadiums of World Cup standards were built in South Korea. After the World Cup, the Korean World Cup Organizing Committee and the KFA actively supported the move of regional K League clubs into the new stadia. This was designed to avoid or at least minimize any financial losses through having to maintain a stadium in playing condition without regular income. However, due to the previous decision by the K League to exclude any member club from being based in Seoul, Seoul World Cup Stadium remained vacant, except as a host of some international friendlies. Thus, the city government of Seoul and the KFA both actively sought for a K League club to play at the stadium to take on the cost of maintaining the stadium. Initially, it was intended to create a new club, but when it later transpired that any club playing in Seoul World Cup Stadium would have to pay partially for the construction fees of the stadium, this would have placed an unreasonable burden on a fledgling club. Thus, the KFA tried to lure one of the current clubs to Seoul. The Anyang LG Cheetahs, with the financial backing of the LG Group, who not only viewed the move back to Seoul as a way to increase its advertising presence, but had the right to come back to Seoul because it had its franchise moved by force in 1996, as part of the K League's decentralization policy. Anyang LG announced in February 2004 that it would pay the share of the construction fees (which turned out to be 15 billion won, or at that time US$15 million). This proposed move provoked a significant amount of controversy from the Korean football fans as KFA and K League failed to launch a new football club based in Seoul due to a high Seoul franchise fee. Regardless, KFA and K League ultimately permitted relocation of Anyang LG Cheetahs.

Şenol Güneş years (2007–2009)
Şenol Güneş managed FC Seoul for a three-year period starting on December 8, 2006. The club started the 2007 season with three consecutive wins and a draw, including a 4–1 win over arch rivals Suwon Samsung Bluewings in the Super Match. However, FC Seoul failed to qualify for the play-off phase of the season, but the club succeeded in getting into the final of the 2007 Korean League Cup. Before the next season, Park Chu-young, the ace of FC Seoul at that time, was transferred to Ligue 1 club Monaco. FC Seoul finished in a second-place in the K League regular season, and progressed to the play-offs. FC Seoul defeated Ulsan Hyundai in the play-off semi-final but was defeated by Suwon Samsung Bluewings in the final. Despite the loss, the club still qualified for the 2009 AFC Champions League. During the season, Dejan Damjanović scored 15 goals.

FC Seoul's 2009 AFC Champions League campaign began with a 2–1 win over Indonesian side Sriwijaya FC. In the next three games, FC Seoul obtained only one point in the matches against Gamba Osaka and Shandong Luneng. However, Seoul then defeated the title holders Gamba Osaka and qualified to the round of 16 after Sriwijaya's unexpected victory over Shandong Luneng. On June 24, 2009, FC Seoul beat Kashima Antlers 5–4 after penalties after a 0–0 draw in the round of 16 clash and advanced to the quarter-finals, but were beaten 4–3 on aggregate by Qatari club Umm Salal. FC Seoul's appearance in the AFC Champions League was its first since the Asian Club Championship era.

The Şenol Güneş era ended on November 25, 2009, with the manager returning to Trabzonspor.

K League and League Cup "double" (2010)
FC Seoul appointed Nelo Vingada as manager on December 14, 2009. Vingada won the K League and League Cup with FC Seoul. FC Seoul had 20 wins, 2 draws, and 6 defeats in the domestic league under Vingada's management.

FC Seoul recorded an attendance of 60,747 against Seongnam Ilhwa on May 5, 2010, at Seoul World Cup Stadium, which is the highest single-game attendance record in South Korean professional sports history. FC Seoul also recorded the single season (League, K League Championship, and League Cup) highest total attendance record – 546,397, and the single regular & post season (League and K League Championship) highest average attendance record of 32,576.

On August 25, 2010, FC Seoul beat Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors 3–0 to become the 2010 League Cup winners. FC Seoul were also crowned K League champions by defeating Jeju United 4–3 on aggregate in the K League Championship final, thus achieving their first "double" in the club's history. The crowd of 56,769 in the second leg also set the record of the highest attendance in K League Championship history.

On December 13, 2010, FC Seoul wanted to extend Vingada's one-year contract but FC Seoul and Vingada could not come to an agreement over the salary conditions, resulting in Vingada returning to Portugal.

AFC Champions League final and the sixth K League title (2011–2016)
FC Seoul's former player Choi Yong-soo was hired to manage the club in 2012, after previously serving as the assistant manager and caretaker for the club in 2011. In 2013, FC Seoul lost the AFC Champions League Final on away goals rule against Chinese side Guangzhou Evergrande. The AFC Champions League campaign has earned Choi Yong-soo the 2013 AFC Coach of the Year award, becoming the second South Korean in succession to win the individual accolade following the previous year's winner Kim Ho-kon. Choi left the club in June 2016.

On June 21, 2016, FC Seoul appointed Hwang Sun-hong as their eleventh manager in the club's history. On November 6, 2016, FC Seoul won their sixth K League title after defeating Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors 1–0 in the final round of the season.

A period of oscillation (2017–present)
Hwang Sun-hong resigned on April 30, 2018. In the 2018 season, FC Seoul finished in eleventh place and had to play the K League promotion-relegation playoffs for the first time in their history. In the playoffs, they defeated Busan IPark 4–2 on aggregate, thus staying in the top flight.

On October 11, 2018, Choi Yong-soo was appointed as the twelfth manager in the club's history, having previously managed the club between 2011 and 2016.

During the 2020 season, FC Seoul lost five consecutive games for the first time in 22 years. Following a new departure by Choi Yong-soo, three different caretakers took turns managing the team, with Park Hyuk-soon replacing Kim Ho-young after just a month and guiding the team to the end of the K League season, which they finished in ninth place, before being substituted by Lee Won-jun; under his management, the team made a promising start in the group stage of the 2020 AFC Champions League, even obtaining a 5–0 victory against Thai outfit Chiangrai United, but then proceeded to lose all of their last three matches, thus being eliminated from the tournament. A difficult season was made even more devastating by the death of defender Kim Nam-chun on October 30, 2020, just a day before their last K League 1 fixture against Incheon United.

Supporters
FC Seoul has a diverse fanbase, including former Lucky-Goldstar fans, LG Cheetahs fans, Anyang LG Cheetahs fans. FC Seoul's number-12 shirt is reserved for supporters of the club. The main supporter group of FC Seoul is Suhoshin (meaning "guardian deity"), formed in April 2004. There are also some minor supporter of groups

V-Girls and V-Man
V-Girls & V-Man are FC Seoul's cheerleaders. The V stands for victory. They cheerlead at the East Stand.

Stadiums

Since 2004, FC Seoul's home is the Seoul World Cup Stadium, which is the largest football-specific stadium in Asia. FC Seoul's players train at the GS Champions Park training centre, a purpose-built facility opened in 1989, located east of Seoul in the city of Guri.

In the past, FC Seoul played at Daejeon Stadium, Cheongju Civic Stadium, Cheonan Oryong Stadium (1987–1989), Dongdaemun Stadium (1990–1995), and Anyang Stadium (1996–2003).

Crests and mascots
FC Seoul has had different names, and consequently different crests for different periods of the club: Lucky-Goldstar FC (1983–1990), LG Cheetahs (1991–1995), Anyang LG Cheetahs (1996–2003).

There has also been different club mascots representing different periods. Former mascots were a bull and a cheetah. The club's current mascot, introduced in 2004, is named "SSID".

The "SSID" stands for Seoul & Sun In Dream. In the 2018 season, FC Seoul added another mascot, "Seoul-i".

A special crest for the club's 20th anniversary was used in 2003. The current crest has been used since 2004.

Kits
FC Seoul's home kits have red-and-black stripes, as in their crest.

FC Seoul wore both red kits and yellow kits in home matches from 1984 to 1985.

From 1988 to 1994, the club's home shirt's main colour was yellow, same as the Lucky-Goldstar Group's company colour at the time.

In 1995, Lucky-Goldstar Group pushed ahead with corporate identity unification and the company colour was changed to red. As a result, FC Seoul's jersey colour was changed from yellow to red as part of the unification project.

From 1999 to 2001, FC Seoul wore red and blue stripes but returned to all red in the 2002 season and In 2005, FC Seoul changed to red and black stripes and this colour has been in use since.

In June 2016, FC Seoul released the 1984–1985 retro jersey to commemorate foundation of the club and the first K League title.

First kit summary
(1) During 1984 season and 1985 season, FC Seoul worn red shirts and yellows shirts by turns as first kit, At that time FC Seoul did't have the concept of first kit and second kit.
 * Notes

(2) In the 1987 season, all K League clubs wore white shirts in home matches and coloured jerseys in away matches, like in Major League Baseball.

Retired number(s)
12 – Supporters (the 12th Man)

Domestic

 * K League 1
 * Winners (6): 1985, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2012, 2016
 * Runners-up (5): 1986, 1989, 1993, 2001, 2008
 * Korean FA Cup
 * Winners (2): 1998, 2015
 * Runners-up (3): 2014, 2016, 2022
 * Korean League Cup
 * Winners (2): 2006, 2010
 * Runners-up (4): 1992, 1994, 1999, 2007
 * Korean Super Cup
 * Winners (1): 2001
 * Runners-up (1): 1999
 * Korean National Football Championship
 * Winners (1): 1988

Continental

 * AFC Champions League
 * Runners-up (2): 2001–02, 2013

Season-by-season records

 * The 1993, 1998, 1999 and 2000 seasons had penalty shoot-outs instead of draws.

Managerial history

 * For details on all-time manager statistics, see List of FC Seoul managers.

Popular culture
FC Seoul and FC Seoul supporters have been portrayed in a number of Korean dramas and movies:

 * Dramas: Which Star Are You From, Heading to the Ground (as a fictional team called "FC Soul"), A Thousand Kisses
 * Movies: Secret Romance, Dancing Queen, Running Man, Big Match, Salut d'Amour

title: FC Seoul


text:
User:Marklar

Hi, I'm Marklar. I wanted to add to Wikipedia.

title: User:Marklar


text: File:Wikipedia symbols.png

title: File:Wikipedia symbols.png