text:
Talk:Theudas

Expanded? If wishes were fishes...
The problem with expansion on this particular article is that there are, literally, two sources for any information on the fellow whatever. One is Josephus, who mentions him briefly, and the other is the Book of Acts, which mentions him briefly. In other words, I think a little is all anyone knows, and therefore I'm not sure that the expansion tag is really going to be helpful here. I would love to be proven wrong, though. Geogre 20:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's discussed quite a bit in some reliable sources. Eg  (p.162),  . I should also point out the the mention of the census in the article is a bit problematic as which census it was isn't that clearcut. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Indeed it is not clearcut, but Acts is addressed presumably to the same Theophilus as Luke's gospel, which had a parenthetical comment about the "taxing" (census) in the days of Cyrenius. The speaker in Acts 5 however is Gamaliel. The fact that Luke does not qualify or comment on Gamaliel's words seems to indicate he was referring to something well known to those present. Have any archeologists discovered the secret cave with the answers to all our questions yet? Oh well. Thanks for those 4 links. —Telpardec (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If Luke in Acts were messing up Gamaliel of 37 AD by having him talk about a rebel of 44 AD, that would be one thing. Luke in that case would be confused and Josephus' passage would be revealing the confusion. But Luke is specifying, in referring to Judas the Galileans' revolt at the census as coming after Theudus that this Theudus was definitely at about the time of Jesus' birth or earlier, not in the mid 1st c. Luke would certainly not be misreading Josephus so badly either that he thought Fabus was ruling at the time of or before Jesus' birth. So either (A) there were two Theudus leaders who got killed, or else (B) Luke is showing extreme lack of familiarity with contemporary Judean history, baldly inventing this part of Gamaliel's talk, and certainly not using Josephus either, or (C) Josephus himself was wrong. Theoretically, each of the three is conceivable.Rakovsky (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theudas


text:
Talk:Knuckles' Chaotix

A little cleaning needed
I noticed an inordinate amount of referral to the player in the second person in the level descriptions. Eric 04:14, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I kind of rewrote the level section, but anyone else is welcome to expand it. In fact the whole page could benefit from some retouching here and there. --Steerpike 23:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe we should touch up on the bosses. Also, I've noticed you've been improving various Sonic articles lately, Steerpike, thanks for that. -- RattleMan 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Japanese manual
Stop adding these references to the Japanese manual (or write it properly at least). I mean, there's no point here. The US/European story is a lot more relevant on the English Wikipedia. --Steerpike 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's quite relevant and bears equal importance. If it's not, someone should probably go through the rest of the articles in the English Wikipedia and erase anything that has to do with other cultures. The story of Chaotix was altered drastically in the jump to the US version, and was actually originally a more serious, well-thought-out sequel to Sonic & Knuckles, as opposed to this "Eggman's crashin' a theme park and Knuckles is a rentacop!! :D :D :D" nonsense. If anyone out there has a reliable translation of the Japanese manual story, your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If there is one thing I agree with, it's that it does need to be well written. --Matt S. 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, since the U.S. version came first by about a month, it should be the other way around... And the stoy's not exactly coherent either way. The Japanese version's story is equally guilty of a non-sensical plot, having resorted to series' buzzwords to get by. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.143.63 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
 * It was still developed in Japan, and yes, that story DOES make more sense. The English manual doesn't even mention the Chaos Rings, which are a large part of the Japanese story, and just confuses players when they collect them in-game. Gurko 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it makes more sense, then why isn't the whole "omg anoter mystarieous echida issand iz unconvared" resolved or even mentioned ever again? All we get in the ending is either... I dunno, a giant Metal Sonic-like robot burninating the country side or everyone posing for the camera (except Heavy and Bomb are replaced by Sonic and Tails, as well as the Tornado)? That is TOTALLY coherent with the Japanese story, and everything introduced in this game was resolved by Sonic Adventure . And when did Sonic and his friends 'hide the secret of the rings from Eggman'? Also, if anything, the endings are somehow closer to the American story (the bad ending confirming that the island would be in ruins if Eggman succeeded, and the good ending... um... everyone's getting ready to party?). Face it, both stories are as terrible when it comes to explaining things in the game, you shouldn't just blindly accept Japan's explanation just for the sake of it being Japanese. But yes, we should include both, if only because they're much more radically different than usual. 208.101.130.232 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have some sort of personal problem with this. The fact is, the Japanese manual's story makes more sense within the context of the game itself. It covers more information- at the very least it tells about the Chaos Rings, which wouldn't have been done otherwise. Island being ruined by Eggman would happen with either ending, from the Japanese or American storyline. Sonic Adventure didn't resolve anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the 2D games and 3D games are practically separate continuity. Sonic 06's contradiction with Sonic Rush/Rush Adventure helps that along.24.44.17.228 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the English manual stuff. I made it as easy to understand as possible. And i know that i got the stuff right because i own the game and i was reading from the manual when i did it. I think that the English verson is just as important the the Japanese version. In fact i think it's more important but that could just be because i only read english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.228.18 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gametap Links
While I am not personally a user, I think fans of the series should know about the Gametap site that offers the game for play on their computers, as this is a very rare game. Hence, it should, as is customary for nearly ANY re-release, have a section under Trivia. Seeing as this is the only re-release in the game's history, and as much would be expected for any other game, I'm putting it in Trivia. After all, it IS the only news about this game (besides its exclusion from Gems Collection) to come along in about the last decade, and writing it off as "irrelevent" is nearly equivalent to excluding re-releases such as Mega Collection from having their own articles.(Ctu2485 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

Trivia section
I've probably explained this a thousand times before on other Sonic related pages but: the whole idea of trivia runs contrary to the concept of an encyclopedia. Information on this page should be notable, not trivial. Now personally I don't mind to read a fun fact here and there but if a page *must* include trivia please 1) look to put it in another, more relevant, section of the article first and 2) keep the list as short as possible. I don't see the information on Gametap as a particulary noteworthy piece of trivia (which is in itself a contradiction in terms) but it might be useful to include it on a "production and release" section of this article. This hasn't been written yet but why not make the effort? The stuff about the working title and Sonic Crackers could be worked into it. The last paragraph could then discuss the various releases of the game.

And one last thing. I think the justification to include a certain piece of info in the article should be made by the person adding it in, not with me when I revert it. --Steerpike 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this in the main series?
It may be the only Sonic-related game for the 32X, but it does introduce the Chaotix (besides Mighty, who appeared in SegaSonic the Hedgehog first) for Sonic Heroes and Shadow the Hedgehog. 208.101.130.232 13:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be in the main series as well. Bottomlivefan95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.193.37 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I say mainseries it!SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Either this should get main series status or Shadow should be bumped down to spin-off platformers.

Chaotix: Sonic cameos and it appeared on a home console. Chaotix does not star Sonic, but it plays very much like a 2D Sonic game as many of the rules established in Sonic 1-3 apply. The only differences are that the act selection is non-linear, and you are tethered to a another character.

Now compare Shadow the Hedgehog, which currently enjoys main series status: Sonic cameos and it appeared on home consoles. Shadow does not star Sonic, but it plays very much like a 3D Sonic game as many of the rules established in SA2 and Heroes apply. The only differences are that the stage selection differs based on previous actions and you are able to use vehicles and weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.70.177 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright concern
Is the material quoted from the manual in the Storyline section copyright? Phina.v 12:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chaoix.jpg
Image:Chaoix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Playstation & Jaguar cd
The game has never been released for either of these consoles. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.90.169 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Forums as reliable sources
Yes, I know that forums are 99% not verifiable, but when dealing with claims such as these then a forum where the prototypes were released and analyzed makes for a verifiable source (anyone can open the ROM and duplicate the findings themselves, which would be original research, which makes this link the preferred one). Any issues other than "Wikipedia says forums are not reliable so I will remove this", which is bullshit? -- LocalH (not logged in, feel free to lookup my WP account and link it to this comment)
 * Did you read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources? CIGraphix (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. It does not say "forums are never reliable sources", it merely says "forums are largely not reliable sources", meaning there are situations where they are reliable. This is one, as it is a forum where people analyze the classic Sonic games and publically post their findings for the world to verify. I ask again, are there any other issues than reading a policy but leaving out a very key word? -- LocalH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.114.254 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to be saying?
If get this cast Sonic the Hedgehog, Gordie Rhinehart, Amy Rose, and Miles "Tails" Prower from TV series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain vsk (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Who is Gordie Rhinehart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.47.212 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Super Knuxs and Wechina glitch or hack
I herd that there was a glitch(or hack) of Super Knuckles and Super Wechina(with glitch flickies),is this a glitch or a hack?

I don't think that Super Knuckles is in the game, but "Wechnia" (as he is known) is actually Tails' leftover data from Sonic Crackers. I think some stuff on that should be added. ~ TheJoebro64 —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 13:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Knuckles& → Chaotix (video game) – This case is a bit like 8 Eye's, where all versions of the game itself use one title even when certain packaging material uses another. Since we write articles on games themselves before their material, we should treat "Knuckles' Chaotix" as an alternate title. Despatche (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is another one of those situations, |like the recently failed requested move of Sonic Colors to Sonic Colours, where we don't change article titles merely due to variations between different regions, when both names are correct and acceptable. WP:RETAIN supports keeping this as Knuckles Chaotix because that's what the article was created as. WP:COMMONNAME supports the oppose as well; Knuckles Chaotix is used more commonly to refer to the game, where as Chaotix is used more commonly used in reference to the group of characters in the game, known as "Chaotix". Sergecross73  msg me   01:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose even if there are multiple versions that have the name "Chaotix", sources have proven "Knickles' Chaotix" to be the most common english name. If theres another region in the english-speaking world that uses "Chaotix" we can clarify.Lucia Black (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, while I reverted Despatche's edits, it was only because it was awkward for the article to be named "Knuckles Chaotix" while he made a bunch of changes referring to the game as just "Chaotix". The article content needs to reflect the current name. I don't oppose a note explaining that certain regions call the name simply "Chaotix". That change was merely caught up in all his other changes. Sergecross73   msg me   01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Both names are not "correct or acceptable" when one name is used as a default; "Chaotix" is the name used for all regions, including any English-speaking one, no exceptions. The only reason so many sources use "Knuckles' Chaotix" is because they don't go by the game itself, which is simply wrong by any metric, and it's one of the many things that calls their title-fact-checking into question (I'd start a list, but WP:VG has made it very clear that they refuse to deal with the situation no matter how much proof I have). Again, we write articles on the games themselves before we write about the packaging material. "Knuckles' Chaotix" is perfectly valid as an alternate title, but the fact that it is one needs to be made clear.

You want this to be about Sonic Colours? So be it. You no longer have your nonexistent ENGVAR argument, so what's your game, Sergecross? How am I supposed to assume good faith when you continue to lie and lie and lie to my face? How am I supposed to assume that these many editors aren't simply banding with you, Mr. Almighty Admin, when I never see these people elsewhere and when they say things that would suggest they're actively ignoring what I say? Why would I assume a particular situation when every single sign tells me that things are the complete opposite? I am simply unable to use Wikipedia in any way--to read, to edit, to discuss--because of you. Why are you treating me this way? What do you want me to do? Despatche (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * We use the most common englsih name, not the name most common over all the world.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not treating you in any certain way, you just keep suggesting weird title changes for articles on my watchlist (I monitor a lot of articles related to Nintendo, Sega, and Japanese role-playing games.) Note that I have not commented on many, or any, articles beyond that scope. It's nothing personal, despite all your bad-faith assumptions. Your renaming proposals just don't fall in line with Wikipedia naming guidelines, typically WP:COMMONNAME and/or WP:RETAIN.
 * With that out of the way, I don't understand your arguments. Google images searches have shown at least two variations of the boxart clearly saying "Knuckles Chaotix", so that was definitely it's name in some of the major regions. Also, as Lucia says, we go by WP:COMMONNAME. So many of your requested moves fail to acknowledge this crucial point. Sergecross73   msg me   02:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The case for the proposed title is exceptionally weak when the nominator admits "so many sources use 'Knuckles' Chaotix.'" We operate on verifiability, not truth. If we were to move, the better title would be simple Chaotix, as the game is surely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a few sentences on characters from the game at List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Road to GA
I think we can bring this closer to GA. Before I do any editing, is all the information on the page right now in the sources given? Or is there still original research mixed in? I see footnotes everywhere but not sure how much of the information can be attributed to the sources, particularly the gameplay and plot sections. TarkusAB 12:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most of the info here is in the sources. While most of the gameplay section is unsourced, it is largely correct, we just need to verify its details. The development section is going to need some heavy work, which will include getting all the info on the game's history we can find. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you have a preference on what sections to work on? I can definitely rewrite the lead and whole gameplay section, can work on plot if needed, and usually enjoy writing the development/release sections the most. I would rather not work much on reception and legacy if possible. TarkusAB 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about I work on the reception and legacy sections, and we both work on the dev section? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! And we can copyedit each other's work as necessary. I'll work on this article more closer towards the end of the week. TarkusAB  00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I found a source, but I'm not sure if it's reliable or not: http://retrogamingmagazine.com/2014/04/20/knuckles-spins-game-knuckles-chaotix-sega-32x-today-history-april-20th-1995/ ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. I looked at the staff page and the authors don't provide any credentials, and there's no About page that provides any editorial process. Just looks like a fan site. TarkusAB  22:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a good magazine I found at Sonic Retro that could be used: http://info.sonicretro.org/Work_in_Progress_-_Chaotix_(Sega_Power,_1995) It features an early screenshot of the title screen that shows that Espio was once considered for the title role. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time reading the scan, since I'm on mobile right now, but is that literally states in the magazine, or is that original research based off of the fansite's comments and screenshots? Sergecross73   msg me  00:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the website is stating that Espio was considered for the title role. They're just pointing out the listing of the character names on the title card is different than the final release, indicating they are prototype screenshots. That's not at all remarkable since it is a preview for a work-in-progress title, and the magazine doesn't mention it anyways. The magazine even states "Knuckles takes the spotlight". Unfortunately the preview doesn't provide much juicy info to use in the article, but it's reliable. TarkusAB  00:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've looked through a lot of this fansite's scans in the past, and that's more how I recalled it too. The scans are fascinating for their exactly stated details, but the fansite that hosts them make a lot of OR-like liberties with their interpretation of that info. The scans are RS's, but the fansite's commentary is not. Sergecross73   msg me  01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Much better source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/02/massive-sega-rom-leak-reveals-secrets-of-older-games/ ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Check out the text on this prototype title screen. I don't know though, I would stop short of calling him the original star, but he was definitely featured more prominently, and considering the 2-character nature of the game, probably intended as the featured co-star with Knuckles: http://hiddenpalace.org/Knuckles%27_Chaotix_(Dec_27,_1994_prototype) TarkusAB  10:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we can fairly say "originally intended to have a larger role" or something, but I don't think we can go as far as to say "original star" though. Sergecross73   msg me  15:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a good article for the gameplay section: http://info.sonicretro.org/Game_Preview_-_Chaotix_(Electronic_Gaming_Monthly,_April_1995) It goes into great detail on characters, power-ups, and bonus levels. It also mentions that the game was 80% complete by April 1995. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm going to work on the article this weekend! TarkusAB  16:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I just finished a long editing session. Tagged a few sources I'm not sure about reliability, and requested one citation. Learned that Sonic Team didn't make this game, I wonder how long this page had that incorrect information? TarkusAB  18:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, the Sonic Team misconception isn't just on Wikipedia; even reliable sources like USGamer have claimed the game was developed by them. Good work; added a bit more info today. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's possible they took that bit from Wikipedia. I looked back and some IP editor made the change in 2013 and it was never reverted. I'm happy with the article so whenever you're ready for GAN you can nominate it. I'll help with the review. TarkusAB  22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Now can you guys go and edit Ristar so that it also doesn't use the misconception it was developed by Sonic Team? Same problem, EGM confirms it was not developed by Sonic Team, but later reliable sources in 2006 IGN and Gamespot insist it was, probably from the same kind of misinformed glance at Wikipedia as with Chaotix. This is all a problem with Sergecross73 though and his own opinion, rather than actual facts, since he insists he knows more than an EGM article with a developer saying Ristar wasn't Sonic Team. His argument is that because developers of Ristar went on to work on Sonic Team games, then it needs to be retroactively credited as Sonic Team based on his "stance." (yes he is using his stance as a source) Despite that that makes zero sense in terms of game development, the lead designer and project director of Ristar never went on to work at Sonic Team. Knuckles' Chaotix however has 18 developers who went on to work on Sonic Team games, while Ristar has 7 (two of which wrote the users manual for multiple Sega games). So because of this, the Knuckles' Chaotix wiki is inconsistent with the Ristar wiki and therefore Sonic Team oeuvre. I can't fix this because it's all Sergecross73's personal opinion, not actual consensus despite multiple users having debated this in the past, it all stops with this one guy. So maybe you all can have more pull.

Merger proposal
Requesting merge of Sonic Crackers into this article. Crackers has little notability and sources about it, and since it is often regarded as a prototype to Chaotix, it makes sense to merge into this article. TarkusAB 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I proposed that the two be merged on Cracker's talk page a little while ago. I did want to try and see if I could save it, but I looked through the sources and found that almost all sources are just simple, non-notable mentions of the game on lists. Pinging who's familiar with merges like this. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Comic
The article mentions the Chaotix appeared in the Archie comics, but they were also major characters in the UK Sonic the Comic series. Worth mentioning, perhaps? I'd dig up a source but meant to be doing something else atm. Popcornduff (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sonic the Comic is really hard to find sources for, unlike the Archie series (which RSes covered frequently). I'll try to dig up some information about it though. JOE  BRO  64  11:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you not use the comic issues themselves as sources? (I don't know.) Popcornduff (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I could as a primary source, but I'm not exactly sure how to cite them. JOE  BRO  64  11:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Low-res scans of a GamesTM magazine article about STC here. Chaotix might be mentioned, but you'll have to squint to read: Popcornduff (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything about the Chaotix (it might be worth including at Sonic CD and S&K though, because it talks about those games). I'll just cite the book itself. JOE  BRO  64  12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Internal clock
One more thing about that clock. Is it in the game cartridge itself or does the 32X have one? Picky but it'd be nice to get it right for FA. The current wording is vague but suggest the cart has one - is that accurate? Popcornduff (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that passage is false. The game generates random times of day for each stage. TarkusAB talk 03:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I'm still doing frantic copyediting on this article because, for now, I think it's more constructive to try to improve it myself rather than just complain on the FAC.

 * "IGN considered the level design simplistic, bland, and seemingly unfinished. The large number of acts in each level (five, compared to previous entries having two or three) and simple boss fights were also noted."

A note about "note": This is a really dangerous verb that's often misused on Wikipedia. It implies that someone is registering a fact, not voicing an opinion. For example, "She noted it was 4PM" is OK - that was the fact. "She noted that the game was fun" is not OK: that's an opinion. This sentence uses "note" to say that there are a large number of levels - that's OK, that can be a factual statement assuming it's measured against other games in the franchise or whatever - and sounds like praise? But also that the boss fights are "simple", which is confusing - is this meant to be a criticism? not clear. Popcornduff (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, sometimes I forget I can read sources myself to figure out what the prose is trying to say. I've clarified this now but please note my warning about "note". Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception section
I want to point out that currently the reception section mixes contemporary with retrospective reviews. 1UP, AllGame, and IGN are retrospective. Shouldn't these critic scores be omitted from the infobox and the comments be split off and grouped at the bottom of Reception? Perhaps if the critical consensus remained the same across time (as it appears it did), it doesn't matter. I'll be honest that IGN looks so integrated that I really don't want to bother rewriting the section but it probably should be done. TarkusAB talk 20:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the overall reception section is fine the way it is since the reception has never changed (and both czar and Jaguar said it was fine at the FAC), but I would be fine with removing IGN, AllGame, and 1UP from the infobox. JOE  BRO  64  20:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead
Production began with Sonic Crackers, a 1994 prototype for the Sega Genesis which experimented with the tethering mechanics and featured Sonic and Tails. This concept was retained when development transitioned to the 32X under the working title Knuckles' Ringstar.

Joe sez: "Sorry, but we need to say this [the bolded part] because the way it's written implies EVERYTHING was retained (besides Sonic and Tails), which is false"

Sorry, Joe, I can't agree. Look at it again without the bolded part:

Production began with Sonic Crackers, a 1994 prototype for the Sega Genesis which experimented with the tethering mechanics and featured Sonic and Tails. Development transitioned to the 32X under the working title Knuckles' Ringstar.

There's nothing here that implies that "everything was retained" - prototypes are naturally assumed to have unfinished ideas and stuff that doesn't reflect the final game. Additionally, by your logic, saying "the concept was retained" does nothing to indicate other concepts were discarded, if that's your concern. If what you actually want to make clear here is that significant amounts of Crackers were scrapped, then we should spell that out more directly. Popcornduff (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm givin' it a little c/e and restructure. JOE BRO  64  10:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Chaotix name
Were the characters referred to collectively as a group called the "Chaotix" at the time of release or later? I think it was just the name of the game at first. TarkusAB talk 19:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know. Maybe we should check the manual? JOE BRO  64  19:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, they are "the Chaotix Crew" in this game, according to the manual. JOE BRO  64  19:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good enough for government work. TarkusAB talk 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Tether
Is there an in-game explanation for the tether? Brutannica (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Clackers
It's just been pointed out to me that "Sonic Crackers" was almost certainly meant to be "Sonic Clackers", as in clackers. (Japan mixes R and L up a lot.) No source for this so I guess we can't add it to the article, but interesting to know... Popcornduff (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is interesting and almost certainly true, especially since "crackers" makes zero sense. TarkusAB talk 03:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wow, I never thought of that, but that makes so much more sense! As you say though, I've never seen a sources say that though. Which is equally shocking - can't believe no RS ever thought of this either, but I don't think I've ever seen it. Sergecross73   msg me  04:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Incredible! I always thought "Crackers" made no sense. "Clackers" seems like it was clearly the intended name. JOE BRO  64  11:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Newtrogic High Zone listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Newtrogic High Zone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Forum posts used as sources
I'm alarmed to see that this article is using posts on fan forums as sources, such as this. Surely this isn't acceptable, especially for FAs? Popcornfud (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's a legitimate interview with Tom Kalinske, and given that drx is widely reputed in the video game preservation scene (he runs Hidden Palace and has acquired thousands of prototypes over the years ), I think it'd be reasonable to say the interview is acceptable as a self-published source. WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," which is a requirement I'd say this meets. (Drx was recently featured in Retro Gamer for his work on getting the Sonic 1 prototype, in addition to Hidden Palace receiving RS attention for their preservation work.) If no one else agrees though, I'll remove it. JOE BRO  64  17:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt the interview is legitimate and really happened. But you know the rules - WP:TRUTH, etc. Additionally, it doesn't look great to readers when sources are forum posts.
 * I'd feel a lot happier if this specific example was run past some experienced editors - specifically ones experienced in assessing RSs - to make sure we're comfortable with it as an exception. But I'll go with what the community decides.
 * As a point of comparison... there's a lot of stuff I'd like to include in Radiohead articles but have omitted because it's based on interviews conducted by fans. I took one such interview transcript to WP:ALBUMS for discussion, but the consensus was that we could never know how authentic the interview was as it hasn't been conducted, vetted or published by a reliable source (even though we had audio recordings of the interview). Popcornfud (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we all agree the interview is legitimate, it feels silly to pull it from the article. I would feel cautious if this was just a fan, but we're not talking about a complete nobody. We could source his personal website instead of SonicRetro, and write "According to an interview by preservationist Luke Zapart, " or whatever, to let the reader gauge authenticity for themselves. TarkusAB talk / contrib 03:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I see the source wasn't in the article when it was being reviewed for FA and I doubt any decent FA reviewer would let it go. Citing his site instead of a forum post already looks like an improvement though - imagine which would create a better impression to a reader unfamiliar with the author. Popcornfud (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I agree. This is the sort of thing that sometimes sort of gets a pass in our little video game community, but generally wouldn't fly in the stringent FA standards. Sergecross73   msg me  13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Knuckles' Chaotix


text:
Talk:Parlour game

Guess Who
In this edit, User:Connel MacKenzie linked "Guess who" to the disambiguation page Guess Who, asking if perhaps that wasn't more of a board game than a parlour game. I suspect the original intention was not to reference the Milton Bradley board game "Guess Who?", but rather an unidentified non-board-game of less recent vintage which probably goes by multiple names in addition to "Guess Who". However, I don't know for sure. Powers T 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The link was pointed back to Guess Who?, probably by someone trying to be helpful. I've removed the link to reduce confusion, since there is no page that it ought to point to at the moment, and several pages that are wrong but look right to a casual reader trying to help out. If anyone can find enough info to even make a stub for the Victorian game called Guess Who, we should add it back. Vishahu 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name
Are the called parlour games because they were played in the parlour, or are they called parlour games because they involve words and talking ('parler')? 88.97.18.12 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

why there are also non-textual games here?
as the first sentence, the definition, says they should be "using speech". Therefore all other traditional, plays, whatever, that do not include speech should be removed from the article. These non-textual could be included in a "Victorian Era social games" article, including there a reference to the present article "parlour games".

"Sorry"
Why does Carol Burnett's character call "Sorry" a "parlour game"?

Drsruli (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parlour game


text:
Talk:Valentinus (Gnostic)

Revived discussion
Quote: "According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop but started his own group when another was chosen." This is of course a POLITICAL statement made by Tertullian. Valentinus never "started his own group", but until his death considered himself a member of the universal church. Tertullian (et al.) were actually more concerned with the Valentinians than they were with him, and rather than theological, their differences pertained to the institutionalization of the church.--Sparviere (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Older discussion
Has no-one noticed that the opening line of the article says that Valentinius is wrong and we should use the name Valentinus but the title of the article remains VALENTINIUS? :-) Carping aside - does anyone know of any books on Valentinus? ThePeg 1.8.2006

Valentinius, more usually called Valentinus (c. 100 - c. 153), was for a time the most successful Christian Gnostic thinker and came near to being made Bishop of Rome. The bishop candidacy is an unreliable rumour. According to the rumour Valentinius became heretic, because he was dissatisfied with with the election results. Sounds quite questionable, doesn't it? At least the scientific community today thinks so. -Hapsiainen 17:47, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Where does the scientific community come into this? Was Valentinus a scientist? I thought he was a religious figure? Please explain. ThePeg 14.7.2006

 * I have restored the following text, suppressed (though the editor does not mention it) by Hapsiainen:"according to Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop of Rome (the date would be 143) and that he lost the election by a narrow margin." The context also mentions the less-than-prefectly orthodox views of Tertullian. The "rumor" is Tertullian's rumor. Can we cut out the disgraceful antics here?--Wetman 19:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It probably was an antic by Tertullian or of the originator of the rumour, not by Valentinios. I can cite my sources, the description of the book is over here and the page is 109. In case you would like to read something in English, here is a thread in an occultist discussion forum mentioning it. I see you copied the paragraph directly from Gnosis.org, of course they would like to remember Valentinios as an almost-bishop. -Hapsiainen 22:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "probably an antic" in Tertullian's diatribe Adversus Valentinianos— not a source to be lightly suppressed by even the boldest high-school graduate! Citing a modern Finnish source is not an excuse for suppressing a quote by near-contemporary. An Occultist chat-forum does not provide a sensible substitute. Information I entered in the article indeed is derived from Gnosis.org: that is why the source appears among "External Links." Wording is copyright: information is not. Let me urge Hapsiainen to insert, at any relevant point in the text, a footnote using the following format (including single brackets): Gnosis.org . Removed personal attack.. --Wetman 23:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to be critical with the heresiologists at least when their information conflicts. You are questioning my competence, but what's is yours? Do you have any other source than the website? I agree that a discussion forum isn't a good source, but I felt I had to give a link to some English text in Internet. I can't link to a book. However, I found some Finnish text by Ismo Dunderberg. The bishop-thing is in page 8, ask a third party to translate it. -Hapsiainen 23:55, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I did some Google search about this topic. Only the pages that I have linked support my addition, the others don't. (I searched from the English text.) I'm depressed with all of this.

 * About my backround. I'm an university student but not an arts student. All that qualifies me is my interest. I have read a few books and read a national magazine of the liberal theologians. I haven't read anything serious in English about these topics, which forms a gap between us. You can evaluate my edits to Gnosticism article to judge my reasonableness. I avoid doing anything radical to the current articles, if I don't understand the reasons in detail. -Hapsiainen 14:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no excuse for anyone suppressing a quote, whether from Tertullian or from any early writer. Period. I am in no position to judge the "truth". I make no claims for "truth" or for myself. I am not the source of the quote, nor is the English translation mine. To suppress comments on the talk page is another despicable act, no matter who does it. Nothing personal whatsoever. No further comment from me can be expected. --Wetman 16:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Removing remarks that the contributor interprets as personal attacks is allowed in Wikipedia. I don't have anything else significant to say at the moment. -Hapsiainen 19:42, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Saint Valentine?
Is there a source for the identification of Saint Valentine with Valentinius?

→ (AllanBz ✎) 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No? I'm removing it. → (AllanBz ✎) 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I restored the brief text: "The apocryphal "Saint Valentine", no longer in the Roman Catholic calendar, but for whom Saint Valentine's Day was dedicated, is more likely to have been a cover for the real Valentinius, whose praise of conjugal love was markedly different from the horror of sexuality found in the mainstream Patristic literature."

 * There is no connection to be made: the historical Valentinius' name was directly applied at the close of the fifth century to a purely legendary martyr, whose very identity fluctuated from one late source to the next. The feast of St. Valentine was first decreed in 496 by Pope Gelasius I,  among those "whose acts are known only to God.". The names are identical. Let us improve this text, which simply draws some natural and logical conclusions, too obvious to be passed over in silence— except in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908, needless to say. The issue must lie in the phrase is more likely to have been a cover.

 * Let me suggest this perfectly neutral emendation: "A feast for the apocryphal "Saint Valentine" for whom Saint Valentine's Day was dedicated is no longer in the Roman Catholic calendar. Veneration for a martyr Valentinus was first decreed in 496 by Pope Gelasius I, among those "whose acts are known only to God." The application of the historical Valentinius' name to a purely legendary martyr at the end of the fifth century might be read as a cover for the real Valentinius, whose praise of conjugal love was markedly different from the horror of sexuality found in the mainstream Patristic literature."  --Wetman 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Valentinus and Origen
The article reads: Tertullian also stated that Valentinus was personally acquainted with Origen [citation needed].

I find this difficult to believe. Valentinus was dead by 175, and Origen was born sometime after 180. Not only is a citation needed, but an explanation of Tertullian's statement is needed as well, if it truly exists.

Blacklisted link
Valentinus (gnostiker)?--NERIUM 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ptolemy
Does anyone know if the Ptolemy who was the student of Valentinus is the famous Ptolemy of Alexandria linked here? I couldn't find any evidence either way, but I didn't look hard. --Bmorton3 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know either, but look at the dates - Valentinus was only about a decade or so after Ptolemy, so I'd tend to doubt it. --maru  (talk)  contribs 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No he wasn't. --Wetman 10:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

contender

 * Why not mention that Tertullien suggested that Valentinus was a serious contender for Bishop of Rome/Pope and almost won the election, with a reference, without the slanderous part of the quote? SquirleyWurley

 * It is mentioned in proper fashion. Str1977 (smile back) 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

flora
the article says: "Ptolemy is known only for this letter to a wealthy Gnostic lady named Flora", but ptolemy's article says flora wasn't a gnostic, but a christian. which is right? Tjenare 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan Baedeker Article says Valentinus (d. c. 160) was married to Santa Sabina. But Santa Sabina (d. 126) article says she was the widow of Valentinus. She must have been married to a different Valentinus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.171.86 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

which death date is correct?
this page states his death date at 160ce. G.R.S. Mead, via Hoeller, http://www.gnosis.org/valentinus.htm  claims Tertullian placed Valentinus death much later than 160ce. by claiming that Valentinus lived after 175ce. However, Tertullian himself was born in 160, therefore if Tertullian was speaking first hand as a personal acquaintance it would mean that Valentinus death was later than the listed 160ce. However, I'm not entirely sure how much of Tertullians history can be trusted as he also placed Origen and Valentinus as personal acquaintences, but by any timeline they could not have overlapped. Could someone please note these problems to at least educate the reader for potential errors? Which death date is correct?

signed by, Zoshac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoshac (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Valentinus (Gnostic)


text:
Talk:Joseph Bologna

Oscar Nomination
He was nominated for an Oscar for co-adaptaing the screenplay for Lovers And Other Strangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joseph Bologna


text:
Talk:Gestalt therapy

Translation request
Listed in the German section of Translation_into_English

Similarities
What kind of similarities are there between Gestalt therapy and Gestalt psychology? I've never found any, except from the name. There's actually been done research on this. For instance Henle, M. (1978) in Journal of the history of behavioral sciences, 14, 23-32. She concludes that there are no similarities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.165.39.20 (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005. Begging your pardon, Lore Perls studied with Wertheimer. There are a number of relationships between gestalt psychology and gestalt therapy, one being the concept of closure. The reader is referred to an article by Robert Sherill, Ph.D.

Capital G versus lowercase G in "Gestalt"
So is it "Gestalt therapy" or "gestalt therapy"? I could see arguments in favor of either one (to wit, it's a German loanword, and German nouns are capitalized; on the other hand, "gestalt" serves as an adjective, and non-proper nouns aren't normally capitalized in English anyway). Thoughts? --Skoosh 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Uhh, I've been translating this and using the small g. I will be capitalizing all Gestalt words. If appropriate please be bold and revert.--Jondel 00:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I made a few paragraphs under "being human" more fluid - I'm not sure how loose the translation should be, and so may have gone too far (Andrew Cooke, native english, living in Chile).

Please be bold, go ahead and correct or even translate. If not I will go ahead. I know my translation is deficient.--Jondel 04:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

fondo
I will be translating/changing fondo (foundation to ground). Pls revert if apprt.--Jondel 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Following the German use the "G"in gestalt used to be capitalized. Today, and in English, it probably should not be capitalized, and this follows more the usage in the field of psychotherapy. Cognitive behavioral, psychodynamic, and humanistic therapies are not capitalized. Gestalt therapy is one among them; more and more gestalt therapists are turning to the lower case "g." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbrownell (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Elephant shit
I'm afraid this would be Fritz Perls' word for most of this article. He often started his lectures with "Der are three lefles of discussion. Efferyday chicken shit; da usual bullshit; und Real Elephant Shit. Tuday we spread Elephant Shit."

Lumos3 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree. It's rather pretentious. It's hard to make this so complicated. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, but for me to get much benefit from the comment, I'd have to know more about what you mean by elephant shit. I'm guessing it implies totally wrong.  Can you supply a better reference, please?
 * It may be in In and Out the Garbage Pail that Fritz defines elephant shit as talk about philosophy and Gestalt Therapy; I think there was one more item in the list. Alan Nicoll 20:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want to live in the past instead of the "here and and now," then keep referring to what Fritz would have called "it." This article is an attempt to inform people about the current state of development in gestalt therapy. Comments about what Fritz would have called it only reveal a lack of understanding of the current nature of the field. Granted, the article is a bit disjointed, but that's partially because of the patchwork nature of articles created over time by any number of people. Philip Brownell 15:20, 29 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbrownell (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with Philip, especially after seeing the user comment below from the person who was looking for help understanding Gestalt therapy and did not find the page helpful. Fritz was also strongly influenced by Zen, which uses the same concept that talking about Zen (quintessentially b.s.ing or "e.s."ing about it) will keep you from experiencing it and experiencing change. But I feel it might be a bit unfair on a page like this to tell curious readers who are looking for a basic explanation that they can only get that with "experience". They may have come here seeking something other than a koan, and if they're not practicioners, it wouldn't be right to send them packing with one. --Benbrum (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In the end Fritz himself arrived at the notion that Gestalt therapy should be explainable. In his very last book, published three years after his death, the very first section is titled: "What is Gestalt Therapy?". In the first paragraph, he writes: "Any rational method of psychology, which is not hiding behind professional jargon, must be unterstandable by an intelligent layperson and must be based on the facts of human behavior." From "The Gestalt Approach & Eye Witness to Therapy" / Science and Behavior Books, Palo Alto, CA. ISBN 3-7904-0172-2 I will add the explanation of the founder to the article. --Benbrum (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a start on a simpler explanation at Simple English Wikipedia. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy Lumos3 (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This Article is a violation of reason. Kierkegaards "The Sickness Unto Death" is more readable. It's been 6 years since the obvious was pointed out. Blehhh 99.188.230.214 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)DSale

Translation vocabs
Please feel free to place your own.--Jondel 02:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * limites ->boundary

knowledge of Gestalt therapy
Sorry, I appreciate very much the work that people put into translating, but it would be preferable, if it would be a person who has enough knowledge of Gestalt therapy and Gestalt therapy terminology.

The chapter: "Moral injunctions of Gestalt therapy" is nonsense - it does not at all represent modern Gestalt therapy.

I can't do much more than giving these critical comments - I am sorry about this - but my English is not good enough for more work on the article.

The German article on Gestalt therapy (Gestalttherapie) in Wikipedia is qite ok.

Friedhelm, Germany, 19. August 2005

P.S. As far as terminology is concerned it might help to look into this article by Gary Yontef:

At the risk of getting snowed with requests: I'm an experienced translator who completed a training program in Gestalttherapie in Eschweiler, Germany at the Institut für humanistische Psychologie. I'd be glad to help out with some terms. -- Ben --Benbrum (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs a lot of cleanup
At best, this needs a lot of cleanup. It's better than nothing, but it makes this all seem much more obscure than it is. Yes, we should undoubtedly look to see if the German-language article makes some of this clearer.

BTW, the phrase coraza caractereológica still needs translation. I have no idea what it might mean. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Possibly coraza ->heart -> core, coraza; coraza caractereológica=>'core characteristics'?--Jondel 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone work out what to make of the following sentence in the present article: "Finally, it is possible to emphasize beforehand that as a basic principle to all the described processes, that Gestalt therapy relies on the naturalness of crux of the psychological processes." -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Contact Boundaries, p3:
 * is the meaning that "identification" means that we recognize an attribute in ourselves and in another, while "alienation" means that we recognize an attribute in another but do not recoognize it in ourselves?
 * are these concepts associated with the existence of the attributes, or our recognition of the existence of the attributes? Is there any concern about the accuracy of the mapping between the existence and the recognition of the existence (I'm just thinking about a 2x2 true table for existence of the attribute and our recognition of the existence of the attribute)?

Ralph Hefferline
In the article Ralph Hefferline is counted among the founders of Gestalt therapy. This is not correct in a strict sense. He made a considerable contribution to the first book on Gestalt therapy: "Gestalt therapy", but the development of the therapy is - in the beginning - restricted to Laura and Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman.

Friedhelm, Germany, Nov. 17th, 2005

Random
As someone trying to get a quick grip on gestalt therapy, this page did not provide me with a clear understanding of it.

this page was more effective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.241.83 (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005.

oop big correction here
- the Perls were STUDENTS of Kurt Golstein, "Laura Perls, in an interview denotes the „Organismic theory“ as the base of Gestalt therapy." (Achim Votsmeier "Kurt Goldstein and Holism " 1996 )

 * You removed "gestalt therapy has its roots in psychoanalysis" and changed it into "was influenced". This is too weak. Fritz and Lore/Laura Perls were both classically trained psychoanalysts. That is no contradiction to the influence of Kurt Goldstein. Certainly Kurt Goldstein's Organismic Theory plays a great role in the formation of Gestalt therapy, as Votsmeier shows. At the same time the Perls considered themselves psychoanalysts for a long time, including most of the 1940s when they lived in South Africa. --- Friedhelm, June 30, 2007 (P.S. There is an excellent, comprehensive chapter on Kurt Goldstein in Anne Harrington's book: "Reenchanted Science. Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler", Princeton University Press, 1996)

Suggested sections
The following list moved here from the article where it existed for a while but was not taken up. Lumos3 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) "Gestalt" and Perception.
 * 3) The Experience Cycle
 * 4) Awareness
 * 5) Contact Boundary Phenomena
 * 6) Polarities
 * 7) Field Theory
 * 8) Dialogue
 * 9) Experiment

Here and Now? How? (Wow.)
The opening paragraph now refers to "the experiential ideal of 'Here and Now' (rather than the Rogersian 'Here and Now')". Previously it referred to "the experiential ideal of 'Here and How' (rather than the Rogersian 'Here and Now')". I believe the previous text was correct, since it had stood for a long time, but there is no citation, and I hadn't run across this myself. Can anyone help sort this out? - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a basic principle of Gestalt therapy is the idea of "living in the here and now" and working pychotherpeutically in the "here and now" as well. That includes memories (past) or plans (future), as soon as they appear in the actual situation, in the "here and now" of the ongoing therpeutical work. I guess, someone made a pun by changing "here and now" into "here and how" - that makes sense in so far as Gestalt therapy focusses rather on process (how?) than on analysis (why?). But this is no dogma!

Friedhelm, Germany, 9 April 2006

This from my contact high with GT in the 70's, but I seem to remember an emphasis on "How do I fix this problem now?" rather than the Freudian "Where did this problem come from?". Other comments have implied this, but I think its valuable to emphasize that you weren't expected to agonize over not being breast-fed, you simply changed your behavior for the better and moved on. Without having attended Esalen, this may have been related to the "hit and run" aspect of Perls' seminars there. JackofSomeTrades 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad news, possible copyvio issue
I believe that a lot of this came from the corresponding Spanish-language article, which at the moment is up for discussion as a possible copyvio of "Gestalt para principiante" by Sergio Sinay y Pablo Blasberg, ed. Era Naciente.

So do we start over, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Not having received any response, I have reverted to the August 4, 2005 Alex.tan version, which predates bringing in the Spanish-language material. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to take the chapters "General description" and "Principal influences" from the version "28 March 2006" as a new start for the article. From my knowledge of Gestalt therapy I find these chapters adequate and correct. And they were not developed from the Spanish article.

Friedhelm, Germany, 8 April 2006

I notice that the Spanish article is still extant while it is being debated. Are we being premature here? Have restored the 2 paragraphs suggested above. Lumos3 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the Spanish Wikipedia is very lax with copyright and citation issues. The claim against the article is by someone who knows what he's doing; I don't know why they don't have the policy of suppressing the text while they discuss copyright, and I don't know why they typically take months to deal with the problem, but that's the way it is. It's one of several reasons I've pretty much stopped working there: although there are some excellent articles, overall the standards are too low for my tastes. I've been chewed out there for simply asking for citations. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed "moral injunctions" to "simple injunctions" - that had been changed before, but got lost. I have put a comment beneath that I find necessary. If my English is clumsy, feel free to correct it. I have also put in again the weblink to the article by Gary Yontef "Introduction to Gestalt therapy". The article ist good. Gary Yontef belongs to the "leading" Gestalt therapists in the US, and his work and writings are of high qualitiy.

Friedhelm, Germany, 10 April 2006

 * I think, in any case, that this short article now is actually an improvement. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"One may notice" cut
Cut from article "One may notice that there is a strong and interesting resemblance between Gestalt therapy and Buddhist (Buddhism) practices such as vipassana and approaches and Buddhist Depth Psychology." Perhaps one may. One would probably even be correct. But unless one has published and can be cited, this does not belong in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference not correct
Someone has put in this reference: "References - This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of 14 August 2005. It was translated by the Spanish Translation of the Week collaboration."

This is not correct! This English Article is almost completely new and does not "draw on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Can someone please correct this?

Friedhelm, Germany, 25 June 2006

No reaction so far. I have removed the "reference".

Friedhelm, Germany, 27 June 2006
 * You are correct to remove it. The original article on this was translated from the Spanish as a wiki project but it was later found to have been sourced from a copyrighted Spanish article and the bulk of it removed. See Bad news, possible copyvio issue section above. Lumos3 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your answer. Friedhelm, 28 June 2006

Interesting but needs citation
"As it turns out, most of the original part II of the book was written by Paul Goodman, and contains the meat of the theory. It was supposed to go first. The publishers decided that Part II, written by Hefferline, fit more into the beginnings of the self-help ethos of the day, and made it Part I, making for a less interesting introduction to Gestalt Therapy Theory."

Can someone cite for this set of claims (the factual claims about authorship split, "supposed to go first", "publishers decided", and the unattributed opinions "most original", "meat of the theory", "less interesting")? I'm not by any means saying this is wrong, but it does seem like the sort of thing that should be cited. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This fact is well-known by those who were there, all of whom I have spoken with, including Isadore From, Laura Perls, Jim Simkin, Dan Rosenblatt. Unfortunately, this is mostly part of the oral history of Gestalt therapy and I can't cite written reference.  Dan Rosenblatt is the only one of these persons still living [kiritz]
 * That is almost the definition of original research, for which Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not research; it is reported first-hand information from those who were there or talked with those who were there. There are other sources, such as published interviews of Laura Perls for those interested in tracking them down. [kiritz]

 * There are several English-language sources, but I have no time to look the up. Here is at least one important source: Laura Perls in an interview with Ed Rosenfeld:
 * http://www.gestalt.org/perlsint.htm

 * And there is a German book by Stefan Blankertz: "Gestalt begreifen" (Peter Hammer Verlag 1996/2000) that discusses the question of authorship, especially Paul Goodman's part in it, and the coming into being of "Gestalt therapy" in 1950/51 comprehensively (p. 15 and 131 ff).
 * Friedhelm, Germany, 15 July 2006

 * Great, someone should follow that up and get a solid citation into the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Here is at least the citation from Laura Perls in the interview by Ed Rosenfeld: (LP = Laura Perls) "ER: Was Arthur Ceppos (of Julian Press, the original publisher of Gestalt Therapy) a patient?

 * LP: No, he was not a patient. He came to a group for a while. His then girl friend was a therapist and she came into group and into therapy.

 * ER: How did he become interested in the project?

 * LP: He was always after new things. I don't know how that started. Those negotiations were between Fritz and Art Ceppos.

 * ER: I've heard that what is now part two, the theoretical part, was originally supposed to be the first part.

 * LP: Ceppos counteradvised because at that time the 'how-to' books were in vogue. He felt it would help the sale of the book if we changed it around. But for anyone who is a serious student of Gestalt therapy, the second part is really a theoretical and methodological introduction, while the other part is really experiments and practical work. " http://www.gestalt.org/perlsint.htm

 * Friedhelm, Germany, 3 September 2006

Esalen statement
"Esalen is still there, though a lot of things go on at Esalen Fritz would have laughed about..."

This statement is both biased and unsupported. It should be considered for deletion.

This has been changed to reflect the fact that Gestalt therapy is no longer the thing it once was at Esalen. Still, he would have laughed...

Also, reference to the Esalen Institute needs to be either explained or deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jharley (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.

 * There are a lot of critical remarks by Fritz Perls about what was going on in Esalen in his autobiography "In and Out the Garbage Pail", but I can't look them up at present - maybe someone else can.
 * Friedhelm, Germany, 15 July 2006

Suggested sections
This was part of the main article since February 2004, but was ignored by every editor. Its best placed here.Lumos3 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) "Gestalt" and Perception.
 * 3) The Experience Cycle
 * 4) Awareness
 * 5) Contact Boundary Phenomena
 * 6) Polarities
 * 7) Field Theory
 * 8) Dialogue
 * 9) Experiment

--

Sections do not correspond to heading
The content of both the sections History and General description seem to contain paragraphs better suited to the other. Attempting to correct this. Lumos3 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ego, Hunger and Aggression, Fritz and Laura Perls
I changed "Fritz Perls" to "Fritz and Laura Perls" and I wrote "the" Perls. This is justified, because Laura Perls contributed a lot of work and discussion to the book. She is indeed mentioned in the first preface of 1944, but then left out. (Please, can someone check my English in the article-text?)

She says in an interview: "LP: First there was a manuscript that Fritz had already written, he had been working on it. I had been working on it, too, but at that point I was satisfied to leave the glory to him. In Ego, Hunger and Aggression there are at least two chapters which I wrote completely: the chapters on the dummy complex and the one on insomnia. He gave me credit in the first introduction to Ego, Hunger, and Aggression but that credit was removed when Random House republished it. A friend wrote to Random House requesting that they re-insert the original introduction in any new edition of Ego, Hunger, and Aggression but they refused." From: [http://www.gestalt.org/perlsint.htm Edward Rosenfeld: AN ORAL HISTORY OF GESTALT THERAPY.Part 1. A conversation with Laura Perls]

Friedhelm, Germany, 7. Oct. 2006

 * Thanx for providing this link - I have just included it on the article page as well as modifying the corresponding paragraph a little. Regards, --Technopat 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

reverted pacient (sic)
Over the years there seem to have been various periods during which the word patient predominated over the term client. The consensus nowadays among therapists (GT and other "genres") as well as psychologists in general, is to use the term client. This is especially apt referring to those psychologies stressing personal growth as opposed to "treating" disorders, and what have you. Feedback, anyone? --Technopat 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Technopat - in my training in Germany, it was uniformly "Klient" to distinguish the relationship of what is called "inclusion" on the English Wiki Gestalt page. --Benbrum (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

re-arranged paras.
I have changed the order of some of the paragraphs to make the article more coherent - language-wise - but do not agree with the content of some of this stuff. Can somebody perhaps draw up a ranking of the ten (random figure) most important figures in GT (both versions?), past and present, and limit the article to these? Look forward to seeing some meaningful content here. Thanx. Technopat 08:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted para.
Have deleted the following:

You won't see too much emphasis on Gestalt Therapy in clinical psychology programs in the US, however there are Gestalt institutes all over the world, including Asia and the South Pacific.

I don't doubt that it is true, but the style is not consistent with Wikipedia. If someone can re-phrase it, I have no objection to it being included somewhere in the text, possibly towards the end of the article. --Technopat 08:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of remarks from someone to whom GT is new
I like the concept (at least as a mind-stimulating one), but a thing or two should be said about the article:

 * The curiosity of what kind of criticism, and historically by which parties, went to GT is to me a legitimate one that it may deserve a section of its own. Don't you think?

 * Another curiosity that seems legitimate to me is about the kind of empirical results that can say something about the effectiveness of GT that have been established so far. A section for that too would help make the theory a more beautiful thing to ponder, I guess.

 * The article is lengthy and perhaps a section or two need to be cleaned up.

-- Wayunga 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You know what? I'm going to edit the history section (just re-organize it). May God help me!__Wayunga

 * I have just finished. I had to re-organize the whole article to make it more readable as it was a macaroni dish! I virtually changed nothing in the content (except removing remarks on "contact"). My remarks above still hold. -- Wayunga 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Empirical research on Gestalt therapy
To Wayunga: concerning empirical research on Gestalt therapy. Studies have been done by the Canadian Prof. Leslie Greenberg. His hompage: *Homepage Website by Leslie Greenberg; see also: *[http://www.g-gej.org/1-1/greenberg.html Validating Gestalt. An Interview with Researcher, Writer, and Psychotherapist Leslie Greenberg by Leslie Grennberg and Philip Brownell; in: Gestalt!, 1/1997.] Friedhelm, Germany -- 10:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In 2006 Uwe Strümpfel has published an overview of the empirical research on Gestalt therapy in German. There is a link to the data-base: The title of the book is:
 * Uwe Strümpfel: "Therapie der Gefühle. Forschungsbefunde zur Gestalttherapie", EHP, Köln 2006. Friedhelm, Germany --10:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text deletion and undoing
Have reverted the previous deletion of 5 whole paragraphs as I do not think such a drastic cut should be made - except, of course, in the case of original research, vandalism, etc. - without first proposing it on this discussion page (that's what it's for!). Others have spent much time contributing to the article for their work to be deleted without at least a chance to justify inclusion of the text, either in whole or in part. The deleted text should in any case be left here for others to participate.--Technopat 08:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Not withstanding my comment above, had re-written and have finally removed the following paragraph:

Dan Rosenblatt (b. 1925), a Harvard-trained psychologist who was part of the early group around Laura Perls, led Gestalt training groups in Japan for 7 years and practiced Gestalt therapy for over 35 years in Manhattan. He ran training workshops in Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, Italy for many years.

 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he is notable enough to have his own article (yet?), nor influential enough to warrant more lines of text than other more prominent figures who barely get a mention. --81.34.43.9 (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) - Sorry! Got logged out...--Technopat (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mission statements
Re the training institutions -- do they really need to make mission statements? I feel it's enough to list them in a paragraph (without their websites) and list some faculty. If no-one objects, I might do that in a few days' time. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

book list
On what basis were they selected?  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I cannot figure it out, I'm going to  remove some of the ones that appear from library holdings and other data to be less important.    DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin Buber
The part which discusses the influence of Martin Buber talks about a patient of Buber dying. However, it seems much more likely that this should be a patient of Perls who died. Can someone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.194 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Buber is correct.--79.228.43.234 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So... what *is* gestalt therapy?
The article goes on and on about the theory behind gestalt therapy, but after reading the whole article, I am still at a loss for what actually happens in gestalt therapy. The only actual techniques that the article describes is the empty chair technique. What else happens in a gestalt therapy session? —a thing 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read the chapter "Contemporary theory and practice" again, you might find more answers to your questions. --79.228.21.146 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

New Edits
I simply wanted to expand on the Empty Chair Technique section and elaborate more on how this is an emotional process that the patient goes through to relieve themselves of a psychological burden, thus allowing them to move forward.

Samjhaas (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Gestalt therapy and Zen, citation
I removed this citation from the article to the talk page:

The article cited is based on the incorrect assumption that the focus on awareness in Gestalt therapy has its roots in Zen Buddhism. Quote from the article: "The utmost attention should be drawn first to the fact that Perls actively sought information on Buddhism prior to the birth of Gestalt. Woldt informs us that 'Fritz Perls went to Japan to learn about Zen, (...)" But the emphasis on awareness can already be found in the first book by Perls "Ego, Hunger and Aggression" (1944) and it is further developed in Perls/Hefferline/Goodman: "Gestalt therapy" (1951) without any reference to Buddhism. Perls went to Japan in the 1960s. --79.228.15.96 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Gestalt versus clinical psychology and therapy?
Is clinical psychology and therapy more scientifically backed-up and hence recognized in the medical care system to be paid back? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gestalt therapy


text:
User:Lebob (renamed)

I'm just a high school student, but don't worry, y'all--I'll get over that soon.

title: User:Lebob (renamed)


text:
User talk:Lebob (renamed)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:

Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 06:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ex post facto law
If the law forbidding felons' voting was passed AFTER the crime, then that's ex post facto law, but if it's already in effect at the time of the crime, I don't see why it would be ex post facto law then. Michael Hardy 01:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have posted some acknowledgement saying I understood that.

Request for Usurpation
Hello, Lebob. A request has been made at Changing username/Usurpations to usurp, or "take over", your username because another user would like to use it to edit. The changing username guideline allows a username that is not being actively used to be usurped if the user is given an opportunity to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat or changing username clerk explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing : the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed : please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. Lebob-BE (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lebob (renamed)


text:
Talk:Petrus Plancius

Formation of S constellations
Is probably not to be attributed to Plancius, but according to Knobel, E. B. it must be attributed to Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser who formed all the southern constellations by measuring up most (or all) of their then known stars, specifically observe page 420 last sentence. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I've marked this article for factual accuracy:

Disputed
The article is weakly written and is probably erroneous and full of errors. Plancius instigated the measuring up of Southern Constellations. He did probably not invent them. The Constellations mentioned need to be checked up, most of them were invented by other guys, Camelopardalis is generally attributed to Hevelius. The statements of the article needs citations, and the constellation stuff needs facts check and rewriting. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Camelopardalis is generally attributed to Hevelius."?? No it isn't. Where did you get this idea from? Perhaps the erroneousness is in your understanding of the subject rather than the entry. 79.65.72.227 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Patrick Moore his book "The Guiness book of astronomy". Although that doesn't mean he is correct. I think I understand the subject, and I think the article claims things that cannot be supported by external sources, see the links of the previous heading. The article needs some proofreading, and some change to adapt to external sources. Plancius inventing those constellations cannot be supported, unless we find external sources disproving Knobels claims. Nowadays the primary sources can be found out there, Tabulæ Rudolphinæ HERE, a general set of early modern tables can be found HERE (at lindahall), Knobel accessed de Houtmans own tables, and so his text could be used to determine facts about early modern constellations ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * THIS revision of the article Petrus Plancius seems to reflect the facts as Knobel would have refered it, so it is possible to support with Knobel's article as a citation, but more sources would be preferrable before deciding how the article content is going to be presented in order to reflect a possible ambiguity of differing external sources. It seems that Ian Ridpath ("Star Tales") have made his decision about who invented what — the one and only source used now — and if the right primary sources for his research can be found, we may design the text to take this into account. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Felice Stoppa on Plancius, usable as citations. I'll be back! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute retracted by myself, since I found alternative sources supporting the text. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
The dispute retracted, who invented the said constellations? Knobel said Keyser. This question still needs resolution. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I, preliminarly believe the following:
 * Plancius may be attributed the invention of Apes/Musca Borealis, Cancer Minor, Sagitta Australis, Gallus, Columba, Camelopardalis, Monoceros,
 * the inventor of Apus, Chamaeleon, Dorado, Grus, Hydrus, Indus, Musca, Pavo, Phoenix, Triangulum Australe, Tucana, and Volans is probably not Plancius, since he didn't speak with Indians on the constellation Toucan "named by the Indians Lang", but whether it is de Houtman or Dirkszoon Keyser is not quite provable,
 * so the article text shouldn't be categorical about Plancius forming them. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I've tried to make the description in the text as fuzzy as possible on who invented them, as this is probably not securely known. Anyone who find a primary source that make it likely that any one of the person invented them, will be welcome to improve the text further. However: the text may still need language fixes to make it flow better, my current changes just regarded presenting facts as accurate as possible, and the result might well be that the text is by itself confusing, not only presenting a confused fact situation. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Research since Knobel
The recent changes on this page, casting doubt on the claim that Petrus Plancius formed the southernmost constellations, are largely based on Knobel's article in the MNRAS.

It does not take more recent research into account, such as the following papers by the Dutch science historian Elly Dekker:

 * E. Dekker, "Het vermeende plagiaat van Frederick de Houtman: Een episode uit de geschiedenis van de hemelkartografie", Caert-Thresoor: Tijdschrift voor de geschiedenis van de kartografie in Nederland, 4 (1985), 70-76 [erratum in ibid., 5 (1986), 18].
 * E. Dekker, "Early Explorations of the Southern Celestial Sky", Annals of Science, 44 (1987), 439-470.
 * E. Dekker, "On the Dispersal of Knowledge of the Southern Celestial Sky", Der Globusfreund: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Globen- und Instrumentenkunde, 35/37 (1987), 211-230.
 * E. Dekker, "De herkomst van de zuidelijke sterrenbeelden”, Zenit, 15 (1988), 284-291.
 * E. Dekker, "The Light and the Dark: A Reassessment of the Discovery of the Coalsack Nebula, the Magellanic Clouds and the Southern Cross", Annals of Science, 47 (1990), 529-560.

Elly Dekker's papers are based on her research of several important Dutch celestial globes which were produced around 1600 by Plancius and others.

All evidence points to Plancius as the creator of these constellations. He already had a name as a cartographer of note and these were not his first constellations. Earlier, in 1592, he had already created the constellations Columba, Polophylax and Triangulum Australe on his large wall map (and later, in 1612 or 1613, he created eight more constellations).

The original observations were made by Keyser on the first survey and later by De Houtman during his second journey to the East Indies but there is no evidence that either actually reduced the raw observations or grouped them into constellations. AstroLynx (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * No, E. Dekker "Early Explorations..." actually doesn't support Plancius being the inventor. She assigns all credit to Plancius according to her principle, that the symbol assigner to a group of stars takes all the credit. Instead, she claims:
 * p466 It would be plausible that at the time of his [Keyser's] death, his observations (like those of the other observers [deHoutman, Willemsz, Stockmans]) were arranged according to certain groups of stars, but most unlikely at that time that it had been already decided which group of stars should be represented by a fish, an Indian or a Toucan.
 * to which I partially agree on basis on my own amateur astronomer experience, but later she implies that, by a speculative reasoning of Plancius'es character that it must have been him, and guesses that he did the connection between the groupings and the symbols. She elects Plancius the inventor, not proves it. I frankly believe that Keyser and some more did some grouping, maybe also some symbol attachment, Plancius got 2 to 4 bunches of partially disagreeing papers in his hands, he did some regrouping in the sake of agreement, changed some symbols and invented some more to fill the gaps that those 2 to 4 bunches of papers didn't treat properly. I think it might be more truthful to guess that most of those new southern constellations were a team invention, while Plancius still gets the credit for enterpreneuring the expedition and inventing f.ex. Camelopardalis and Columba Noachi. However Wikipedia is not a truthspeaker, but a reflection on outside sources, so I think that The Star Tales' description that "Dekker has argued" the true credit for Plancius, is the preferrable path to be taken in this article too. ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll take a look and see if these can be found on ADSABS. Otherwise, you may restore the article accordingly, or I'll do it for you. The former state of the article was that it was supported by one external tertiary-something source, the more sources the better. If you have some citations from those books, that are extra relevant, they might be valuable for the article. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, this is it: Early explorations of the southern celestial sky, has an ADSABS entry, and De herkomst van de zuidelijke sterrenbeelden has an entry. Now we have one source speaking against and one for Plancius forming the southern constellations. We can decide which is true by examining the later research and find that it provides proof that the earlier research was insufficient and lacked some details (such as that the constellations were available before the publishing of de Houtman dictionary). Are there any such citations from E. Dekker? (The source texts of E. Dekker are sadly missing on the above ADSABS entries because of "not available"). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here also! Anyone that has the means to get access to this article might provide necessary citations. The abstract just says that there were two southern sky surveys... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I used the Star Tales to temporary fill in the missing Dekker ref that I have no access to, and so cannot make. The Star Tales, chapter 1 (tertiary source) now fills in the ref needed to restore the claims that "Plancius invented them" and "De Houtman assisted Keyser". That might suffice for the time being... (?) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally added a little insecurity as to who invented the constellations. E. Dekker assigns Plancius without proof but based on a hypothetical reasoning that I think isn't psychologically plausible. If we some day find a text from Keyser, de Houtman or Plancius, saying: "I invented Piscis Volans", then a discoverer can be assigned. I think this issue is as hard as who invented Triangulum Australe, and I think the best thing is to tell everybody about that an exact inventor cannot be pointed out. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

North East passage?
"...a North East passage through North America"
 * I thought the Northeast Passage was through north Russia and the Northwest passage was through North America. Any clarification? Kortoso (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * True, it was also removed a while ago (21 December 2017), it has been in the article for the past five years though (summary :"Somehow no one caught this erroneous addition by User:Wetman for five years, despite him mentioning it in his edit summary. The Northeast Passage, which Barentsz did seek, did not go through North America; that's the Northwest passage."). So first Plancius wanted to find a passage crossing the North Pole/through north Russia, but this failed (ice, bad weather conditions), later he helped in finding a passage north of Canada, this also failed, but they founded New York/New Netherland instead.Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Petrus Plancius


text:
Talk:Apple Developer

Expansion Notice Removed
I think I have adequately expanded the article, and so I have removed the expansion notice. TDS (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this more of an advertisement for Apple Developer Connnection? Current Information on this topic is available from Apple's own website (which in my opinion should be the source for this information).

I think that this notice should be added again. As you can see, the article is considerably small now. --Pauldunahoo (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment
Could be "B" class, however lacks independent reviews, value for money, comparison between other developer programmes and criticism (if any). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement
I've readded the advert tag. I think the "Benefits" section needs to be rewritten; as it stands, it seems almost verbatim from the ADC site. A criticism section would be good, too, but I'm not sure how much in the way of independent reviews is available. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Membership types
The membership types are no longer applicable: Now there are only two options: Mc Developer or iOS Developer, each for $99 / year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.128.31.9 (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the article a lot, but it still needs a little bit more work. AriX (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now there is only one type of membership as the iOS and Mac Developer programs were merged. Nathan Osman (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Phishing attempt
The Apple developer program is at https://developer.apple.com/, not the link to the fake site that is currently in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:200:2230:5978:AC3D:CBFA:C52C (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup template added
I have added the template because the article's tone seems quite informal compared to most articles. I will help to try to improve the tone, and will remove the template if the problem is resolved. 1980fast (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apple Developer