text:
Talk:Engram (neuropsychology)

Engrams, definition
First and foremost let us get the term defined, let us tell the viewing public what the meaning of this word is. Then and after that would be the time to tell of how this group uses the word and what it means within medicine, within psychiatry, within Scientology, etc. An idea might be controversial but until a good understading of the seed of any controversy is established, a person can not understand the various sides. Let's get a good definition as an introduction to this topic. Terryeo 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do we negative information in the introduction, "Engram is not to be confused with Enneagram?" Engram should not be confused with "enema," either or thousands of other ideas but what need is there for a paragraph telling about what "Enneagram" is? I'm going to delete that because it is negative information used to introduce a subject instead of information that tells what a subject is.Terryeo 01:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The Oxford English Dictionary defines engram as:

 * A memory-trace; a permanent and heritable physical change in the nerve tissue of the brain, posited to account for the existence of memory. (from oed.com)

 * If this helps. They say the term was first used in 1908 in Mind journal. - FrancisTyers 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It helps a good deal I would say. It appears the Povmec and myself are going around on this one. NPOV_tutorial states: "A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it:  In fact, many words have multiple meanings"  I believe we should have the standing disambiuation article define these various instances, specialties or whatever they should be called.  Because a common dictionary definition is most obviously most popular, it should be there, probably first.  It is unfortunate that Wikidictionary doesn't have "engram" within it, but a link to a good source is easy to provide. Terryeo 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a disambiguation page: no need to introduce the term with a specific definition, since there are three distinct definitions and the reader will pick the one he is looking for. I really don't understand why you would want to add a specific (and external) definition to a disambiguation page. Povmec 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well I do feel that a disambiguation page should do just that, disambiguate. However, you're right about Wiki Policy and the minimization of external links.  So I'll go along with the page as it stands now.  I do feel Wiki would be better served if a link to a common dictionary definiton of "engram" were available, thus a person might understand why a disambiguation page is necessary. Terryeo 15:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm learning to use the wikipedia - so is it then a good practise to put "Enneagram" in a "See also" section in the article? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Dianetics and Engrams
The article says that other groups copied Dianetics and used the word "engram." But it is not clear if those groups used only the word or if their use of the word has to do with physical changes of the brain and body. While the dictionary defines engram as a posited change in the brains or nerves of a body as a memory storage sort of system, Dianetics doesn't address physical change. Do those groups posit physical change or do they copy Dianetics concept? Then how exactly did they copy, that is not spelled out at all well. Terryeo 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello Terryeo. The groups mentioned are part of the same human potential movement that followed on from Dianetics.  In Dianetics and NLP amongst other such pseudosciences, the term refers confusingly to changes in the brain (but also connected to computing metaphors of neural nets) and also in changes in the nerves of the body involved with instant reactions (claims to sports science).  The main reason NLP and Dianetics use the term pseudoscientifically is because of the mixing up of neuro concepts with early psychology concepts (the unconscious) and using those to support notions of unlimited or superhuman potential.  I think as it stands, the article is clear enough.  The main point is to make sure we distance pseudoscience from legitimate neuroscience.  That will lead to the most clear and conflict reduced article.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello HeadleyDown. In dianetics the term does not refer to changes in the brain.  If you will read the short definition I have included in the article, I have tried to make it as clear as possible.  Dianetics does not address the physical body, it does not address changes in one's nervous system.  I do that understand many, many people might think so but the human body was not addressed per say.  Dianetics says a good deal about memory and does practically nothing but address memory.  But it does not address the human body, the nervous system nor changes as a result of memory.  It talks about recalling a memory, how to recall one clearly and what impedes recall.  When a memory has pain or unconciousness in it,  then it is more difficult to recall.  Dianetics is about becoming able to recall, view, fully view and at last re-significantize one's painful past moments.

I don't myself know how those other groups you mention use the word "engram" but if they use it in the same way then the later portion of "dianetics, controversy" might be valid. Certianly we are talking about a "posited" and not a proven, scientific fact, are we not ? Terryeo 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do see there have been a number of "humanistic" sorts of groups that involved themselves with things like EST did. If those articles use the word "engram" then they would link to this article. I don't know that, myself. Terryeo 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion we should remove the section that elaborate the use of engram in Dianetics. Otherwise, should we also expand the article to also go on explaining the use of the engram concept in Neuro-linguistic_programming and Erhard_Seminars_Training? I think this article should leave the definition of this word by pseudoscientific theories to their respective page. A mention that engram is also used in other pseudoscientific theories in the introduction should be enough. Povmec 15:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, why not expand the article, isn't that what Wiki does best? Various points of views from people of varying experiences? But I completely disagree with an introduction including "pseudoscientific" because that is a conclusion on the part of the poster, it biases the information rather than introducing the information.  Wikipedia's 2 rules about introduction are:

1. The introduction defines the term and topic and context, and 2. The introduction prepares the reader for further detail. So why don't we just stick with that, introduce the subject and then afterwards we can introduce whether it is science, non-science, pseudoscience, mystery, or fairy tale, okay? Terryeo 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Engram has to do with memory. One definition puts forth the idea without scientific proof (posits) that changes of a human body happen.  This is the definition we find in a standard dictionary.  Apparently quite a lot of work and study has gone on, yet clear proof of actual physical change has not happened, at least not yet.  This is after the scientific method but is at this point a hypothesis and not a proven situation.  Dianetics uses this same idea, memory, without the posit.  It bypasses the posit. It simply doesn't care if a physical change happens or doesn't happen. It publishes good results with its methods.  You can find its success stories on the net.  No proof of phsycial change is available, both definitions deal with memory.  Let's be sensible here.  Terryeo 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What is unclear that Dianetics use of "engram" does not have anything to do with the human body? All of the intro talks about the posited idea that an engram might, possibly, maybe be some kind of body thing.  Fine, good, okay.  But poeple who read the dianetics article or the scientology article will come here to read about engrams and a standard dictionary does not tell of this specialiazed use of the symbol "engram" which is particular to dianetics.  Let us define the specialized definition Dianetics uses, include any controversy applicable and make a whole article of it?  If you wish to call Dianetics pseudoscience, please do so after it is defined because that is actually an evaluation and an judgement and should be part of controversy and not part of nor preceeding a definition.  Let's first define and then educate about controversy, ok? Terryeo 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Engrams & Neuro-linguistic Programming (removed)
I've removed this information that was added by HeadleyDown. see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. This is NOT a central concept in NLP. "NLP or Neurolinguistic programming also makes similar use of the use of the engram concept (Drenth 2003) especially in relation to the clearing or treatment of traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994)." References:
 * Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13
 * Drenth, J.D. (2003) Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science. Studia Psychologica, 2003, 45, 5-13

The engram is a central concept of neuroscience and psychology amongst other related subjects. It is also used in NLP as a concept, and it is explicitly mentioned using the term "engram". I understand that scientology and NLP have hijacked the idea, but that does not give them supreme claim to the engram concept. The article needs to be expanded to include neuroscience and psychology's use of the term.HeadleyDown 04:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree this article needs expanding. NLP and Scientology use the concept, and we can expand it to include science. I understand why Comaze wants to act against NPOV and hide the nlp refs. He has an extremely strong agenda to promote NLP and seems to want to use wikipedia as an NLP spamsite. The evidence is all over the NLP article history.Bookmain 04:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * NLP uses a concept. The concept is rooted in 'neuro-' which is of course about a human nervous system.  This concept which is about a human body is different and not the same as the concept which Dianetics (Under the management of the Church of Scientology) uses.  The dianetics concept does not in any way posit or depend on a human body at all.  This is the difference.  The dianetics concept itself means "through mind" but it is not "through neuro-" nor in any way connected with what happens with a body.  May we be accurate in this area, please ? Terryeo 14:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If the word is used by more than one group and used in very different ways, wouldn't it be appropriate to introduce the word so? And make it clear which groups use it, how they use it, perhaps its date of introduction, place of introduction, developmental history and so on?  As the article stands it is unclear who used to word first and following the article links leads to a different person using it first, etc. Terryeo 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NLP prefers computationalism (Turing Machines). It does not use the engram concept at all. This has been discussed in depth at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. --Comaze 09:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And consensus has it that the engram is a core concept in theoretical NLP. Comaze is presenting inaccurate info, so I am revertingHeadleyDown 11:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Engram is currently being debated, see the mediation in progress: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Mediation Request (Engram and Neuro-linguistic Programming)
I am preparing a mediation request that also covers this document. Thanks --Comaze 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC (Engram and Neuroscience)
I've checked some reliable sources and have found that engram is not used widely used in Neuroscience (as HeadleyDown said in the comments of this reversion). --Comaze 11:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite the sourcesHeadleyDown 12:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I am responding to the RFC that appears on Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. It's not clear to me what specific statement is disputed here, but the RFC asked "Is engram widely use in Neuroscience?". First of all, I do think the burden is on those claiming that it IS. Secondly, the term "widely" is open to interpretation. Thirdly, a PubMed search of "engram" gets 168 hits, indicating that it is used. Edwardian 21:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Edwardian. In that case, here are some refs:
 * Neurology:  http://www.abess.com/glossary.html
 * Neurobiology: http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/memory-neurobiology.html
 * Neurology/memory/psychology: http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/memory-glossary.html
 * Psychology: http://www.psychologymatters.org/glossary.html
 * Psychology: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072358327/student_view0/glossary.html
 * Humanism (NLP) http://humanisteducation.com/glossary.html?letter=E
 * NLP:  Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher: ASPEN ISBN: 0951366017
 * Neuropsychology of memory edited by Larry R. Squire and Nelson Butters and Daniel L. Schacter..
 * Adams & Victor's Principles Of Neurology (Hardcover)by Maurice Victor, Allan H. Ropper "
 * Principles of Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology (Hardcover)by M. Marsel Mesulam, M-Marsel Mesulam (Editor)

RegardsHeadleyDown 06:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. Engram is a well used term in all these subjects. It is one of the first things you learn in college level neuroscience courses. The fact it appears in so many glossaries demonstrates the fact already.DaveRight 07:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Faxx 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)  Perhaps you would like to identify yourself by some kind of name. That may help us keep track of ideas and views.HeadleyDown 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No sooner said than done mate Faxx 22:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the bibliography --  I'll consult it to elucidate issues relative to oracle-shown historical images carried in human memory as mental 'calling cards'. Beadtot 10/18/2005 05:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I found "engram" used in a number of neuroscience journals. A Google search returned mainly references to Scientology (apart from a sports-person named "Engram"), and I think the Scientology use should be kept distinguished from the neuroscience use; the meaning is not the same. The term is not used in the original books about NLP, but it would be accurate to say that some writers about NLP have used the term. A search of usenet:alt.psychology.nlp did produce a very few occasional uses of the term in the very large amount of discussion there. --Enlad 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

visual patterns stored in the brain
An engram is a visual pattern that is stored in the brain --  the memory of some significant event locked into the memory as the behavioral pattern(s) demonstrated during the event. Some life-threatening or emotionally-disturbing engrams remain within short-term memory affecting eyesight which is corrected with eyeglass or contact lenses. The modern use of laser vision correction causes 'flight or fight' reactions in the subject and just might be intended to disperse longtime deeply-held engrams. Beadtot 10/18/2005 05:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds kind of interesting. Do you have any sources for this info? RegardsHeadleyDown 17:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting, Headley, you (wrongly) make allegations that NLP uses the Dianetics/Scientology definition of engram, and furthermore, since the D/S usage of engram is pseudoscientific, that makes NLP pseudoscientific (despite the fact that the NLP community doesn't use the term at all). And now....Beadtot writes something that is PRECISELY the kind of Dianetics/Scientology pseudoscientific bullshit use of the term engram, and what is your reply??? "Sounds kind of interesting." followed by a desire for more information.  Un-fucking-believable.  But thanks all get out for demonstrating that you have some really serious problems with even introductory logic.  Akulkis Thu Dec 15 23:25:08 UTC 2005

Akulkis. Your objections are unwarrented. I provided information to this article, and I have faith in all editors here except for you and Comaze. They foster science and cooperative editing. You foster pseudoscience and obtuse argument as a method of promoting or whitewashing NLP. Your abusive tone has been noted. Refer to the NPOV article. HeadleyDown 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As you know, data about people with vision problems is routinely pooled and evaluated within the medical professions. Where such information pools overlap with client experiences pools, such experiences can be just-as-routinely plucked and documented under the aegis of some willing Ph.D. --  which is how new terminology enters the professions.

The word 'engram' is one such term, and the opportunity to contribute experience about engrams here in 'Wikipedia' might well be routed into the professional literature. A formal study which provides such engram definition afore-mentioned and queries people with vision problems about any such 'ingrained patterns' has not yet been conducted, or just such a source would be available and quotable. 207.200.116.135 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 10/19/2005 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC) beadtot

Splitting of article into sections
I've taken the first paragraph, which was quite good, and used it as the basis for an introduction, adding only a second paragraph that explains alternate uses or similar terms. The remainer I've left "as is", unchanged, split into "overview" (scientific view) and "scientology/dianetics" (L Ron Hubbard view).

I do not know the field (although fairly well read on brain/mind in general), so I haven't added or removed any information that wasn't in the article, except one citation on the origin of the term and definition, which is a direct quote. FT2 14:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

removed irrelevant section
I have removed the following paragraph from the article: Maeterlinck, in discussing theories which attempt to explain 'memory' in termites as well as the other 'social' insects (ants, bees etc.), uses the phrase "engrammata upon the individual meme" (Maeterlinck, 1927, p.198). Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines an engram as "a memory trace; specif.: a protoplasmic change in neural tissue hypothesized to account for persistence of memory". Note that Maeterlinck explains that he obtained his phrase from the "German philosopher" Richard Semon.  The article cited contains contradictory data, and is, itself, mostly without citation. It seems preoccupied with accusing Richard Dawkins of plagiarism, which is pretty funny considering that the only demonstrated plagiarist in this matter is Maurice Maeterlinck himself.

First of all, the cited article is confused as to whether it is referring to The Soul of the White Ant, or The Life of the White Ant. These are different texts. The Soul of the White Ant (Die Siel van die Mier, in Afrikaans) was first published in 1925, and it was authored by Eugene Marais. It received poor circulation and was plagiarized by Maeterlinck, who first re-published it as The Life of the White Ant (La Vie des Termites, in French) in 1926 (not 1927) and claimed that it was an original work. I cannot find a copy of Soul in Afrikaans, but the English version contains neither the string "engram" nor the string "meme". Perhaps unsurprisingly, I cannot find a single copy if Life in either French or English that doesn't want $25 for my trouble. So I will leave it to someone with more inclination to determine if these two strings exist within it. My money says they don't. Not that it is relevant. The term "engram" does not derive from Maeterlinck in any way, shape, or form.

Mr. Laurent's research is obviously superficial, and highly questionable given the contradictions that have been shown to exist. He seems interested mainly in saying that Richard Dawkins is a big fat idiot, and suggests that he is intentionally ignoring Maeterlinck. Under the circumstances, I would ignore him too. For that matter, I would also ignore Mr. Laurent. I contend that if someone wishes this to remain in the article, they find a better source than the "Journal of Memetics", especially when it is a question of etymology. It surprises me that there even is a journal of memetics, and it's quite ridiculous. But there are lots of theology journals, too, so I suppose it's not exactly abnormal.

move from article to talk page
This neuroscience, psychology, scientology, nlp related stub could do with expanding. --HeadleyDown 09:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

HeadlessDown, There is no connection between NLP and scientology other than in your own ludicrous ravings. You and your sockpuppets already lost the argument about your INVENTED connection between NLP and Dianetics/Scientology. Everyone needs to be alert for this jackass inserting lies to promote some sort of agenda which he has.

Attack ignored. Any effort to respond is simply a waste of kb. HeadleyDown 10:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't believe any attack was offered. "jackass lie" isn't so much an attack as a statement of reality.  You're comparing a commonly heard of, prosperous organization (scientology) who uses the word to small, hardly heard of, barely extant, hardly defined organizations. Terryeo 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmmmm, I don't like this.  I made part of the above statement but don't understand how the "jackass lie" got into that context. Terryeo 15:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article to this talk page
This paragraph:

According to Dianetics an engram is a recording in the mind that occurs when a person is unconscious. This recording contains the versions of the memories and pain the person would have acquired had they been conscious. This is definition is not widely used in the scientific community.

 * Dianetics has a particular definition. The above is not quite true because partial unconsciousness too is included.  Partial unconsciousness would be like, "opps, dropped a hammer on my toe."  But I don't think a one line mention that Dianetics uses the word somewhat differently need broil up into a vast controversy.  If the statement is simple and doesn't include emotionally slanted words like "pseudoscientific quackery" but is dry, simple, straightforeward, that's good enough.  What need is there to make a controversy ? Terryeo 06:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That information is not verified, it is uncited and would require at least one and probably two citations because on one hand it talks about what an engram is according to Dianetics and on the other hand is states that definition is not widely used in the scientific community.

 * Here are two possible definitions of Engram from Dianetics, the Scientology and Dianetics Technical Dictionary, p141, with citations: 1. "a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must be definition have impact or injury as part of the content." (HCOB 23 Apr 1969) 3. "a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness." (Scn 0-8, p. 11) It seems to me these two ideas combined provide the best idea for the Dianetic entry in this article, but one could just use the first. In Dianetics such a picture is distinguished from a memory. Each recording in the mind includes the time it was recorded very accurately. Any memory is just an imperfect copy of such a super-detailed record. Any number of memory copies may be made. If a person views the original record in great detail from the viewpoint he is creating it in this exact instant, it can actually vanish. Thus the secret of how an "engram" and any physical cellular or somatic effects present can be "gotten rid of". Spirit of Man 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the first statement to be misleading because it spells out only a tiny bit of the characteristics which make an engram (in Dianetics) different from a normal, everyday memory. The second sentence is plain false and I post it here, cite it or it stays here and doesn't appear on the article page. This is per Verifiability. The third sentence may or may not be true but it is neither cited nor is its context given. Besides which, the person who posted it wasn't even signed in (IP address). Terryeo 17:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:00, 10 January 2006 (PST)
 * See:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion
 * There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 01:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the big label on scientology should be removed. The engram is primarily a scientific term. Just because Hubbard hijacked it and misunderstood it, it does not mean we should have a big yellow ad for scientology on the article. A pseudoscience section on the article can handle it very well, together with all the other new age claptrap. Camridge 05:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I wholeheartedly agree: this article has nothing to do with scientology. I actually even disagree with having a basic explanation of what an dianetics' engram is (ref: Mediation_Cabal: Engram). A short sentence stating that the term engram has been recycled pseudoscientifically by fringe practices Dianetics and NLP is enough to me. The curious reader will easily wikilink to these specific articles to learn their own definition of engram. The way it is currently written, it erroneously implies that Dianetics has a scientific basis, which is false. Terryeo disagree with me on this count and has repeatedly reverted my changes that were intended to avoid confusion. Povmec 05:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Good, let's get Big Yellow out of there (the template). My position about "engram" is this:  It is a useful word.  It is in regards to memory, created from the greek meaning small.  Today, engram goes a step further and common dictionarys define it as having a posited (that is a thought to be) physical manifestation, some change in a human body.  Fine, good.  However, Dianetics has a defintion which uses all of the above except the posited phsycial change.  One, rather small single line can handle that.  Why are we all wrapped up in a controversy that takes a huge amount of effort to create?  A statement like:  "Dianetics defines an engram as a particular sort of memory"  Terryeo 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Template doesn't belong on this article, but I do think there should be a separate article, Engram (Scientology), that will cover Hubbard's usage of the term. This is a clear case of a need for disambiguation since some people apparently mistakenly believe that "engram" is a concept that belongs to Scientology. This will also open up enough space to give Terryeo the chance to give his input, while keeping the Engram article uncluttered by Hubbardisms. wikipediatrix 16:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't agree. The article is in arbitration right now. On one hand Dianetics sold millions of books and used the word 'engram'. On that same side, the word should be defined, its implications, unconciousnesses defined .. in the Dianetics article, not here.  Here a one line mention that it is used by dianetics about memory should be enough.  It seems counterproductive to me for parallel articles to have to be here.  This article is big and might grow bigger.  Eventually chemical changes in the brain might be proven.  Dianetics doesn't contest any of that.  A one line, "Dianetics uses the word in describing memory"  might be enough. Terryeo 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems to me like we have one word being used three ways, in NLP, Scientology, and in Neuroscience. Are we talking about three separate things that happen to use a word spelled the same, with roots in a common meaning, but have since diverged in meaning to where we need three articles? Ronabop 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * We have "engram" available in any dictionary. It has to do with memory.  If we stopped right there, that would be fine.  But standard dictionarys go one step further.  The one step further is where Dianetics breaks off from standard dictionarys.  Science uses the word to mean a physical change of the human body which has not yet been proved to exit, but is posited to happen.  Engram does not posit a change on the human body but uses the word in regards to memory.  NPL I don't have clue about.  The word springs from a greek word meaning small, saying a memory is a small thing.  I don't understand why we can't make a brief (only brief) mention of other uses of the word without pseudoscience being placed on those other uses.  Terryeo 15:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I still disagree strongly with the current article: the fact that the Dianetics' engram is not referred as pseudoscientific as it is in NLP suggest that Dianetics' is scientifically sound, which is false. Dianetics has no scientific basis, and the studies performed decades ago were negative. Therefore, the way this article is presented is quite misleading. Povmec 14:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand what you are saying Povmec, and appriciate that you put it up for arbitration. Let me put it this way.  Why must a one line explanation of Dianetic's use of the word be labeled "scientific" or "non-scientific" ?  Is it so critical to the article that every word of the article must be hard science ?  Science today uses the word as a "posited change in the human body" without a scrap of demonstrable evidence, right?  And that's why it is a big, important issue that every other mention of the word be scientific?  Because "posited change" is not hard science, but instead is undemonstrated, deniable, argueable, uncertain and still under development? Terryeo 15:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  Actually, I'm not terribly happy with the insistant sticking of "pseudoscience" into the definition about engram in Dianetics because its a "who cares" issue.  Argueably "posited change in the neuro-structure of the body" is pseudoscience because it is unproven.  It is posited, but then, many things have been posited and failed.  At one time it was posited that the earth was flat. Terryeo 15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, it is NOT a "who cares" issue. People have died from Dianetics. This is an encyclopedia, and obviously, yes, we have to make distinctions between "scientific" and "non-scientific" wherever possible. Dianetics is demonstratably not scientific, and yet it is presented as such, and therefore is a pseudoscience. No amount of convoluted arguments from you or anyone else will change this. But don't worry, the Flat Earth Society gets called pseudoscientic too. wikipediatrix 15:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikipediatrix. You completely ignored my arguement which is "why should it be labeled at all" in favor of yours :) But you have replied, even though it was not to my communication.  Why don't you spell out exactly who died and when?  You are talking thousands because Dianetics was not properly called "pseudoscientific", right?  lololol. I can't help it, I have to laugh after your insistence about "fair game" being presented as a present time action.Terryeo 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, the main engram definition is: 1) an hypothesis (even though widely accepted); 2) a physiological change in the brain. The Dianetics' engram is clearly pseudoscientific because: 1) it is not characterized as an hypothesis, but as a fact even though nowhere can a valid research point to such a thing, which is already a good hint about its pseudoscientific nature (stating something is a fact without being backed-up by any scientific data is suspicious). Furthermore, past studies (as described in the Dianetics article) have not supported the claims of Dianetics. Furthermore, as far as I know, in Dianetics nowhere it is stated that an engram is a memory trace that is stored as a physical change in the brain. This article must not mislead the reader into thinking that the Dianetics' engram is as scientifically valid as the physiological engram, and must not mislead the reader into thinking that the Dianetics' engram is not pseudoscientific as opposed to the NLP's engram. What are your justifications to characterize the Dianetics' engram as scientifically sound? Povmec 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Povmec, I saw you submit this article to arbitration, specifically stating your case and what you perceived my case to be. I replied to the arbitrater, though you didn't post here that you had submitted the article to arbitration.  Why are you discussing with me, here, what you refused to discuss before you submitted to arbitration?  Now you're stuck with it, arbitration is over any agreement you might reach with me because of you ability to persuade me to your point of view :)  You're late.  You could have discussed with me before arbitration, but you chose to submit to arbitration.  WAKE UP! now you're stuck with arbitration's declare. Terryeo 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Improving this article
Just a heads up to people interested in improving this, you can find and search the full text for old issues of Mind at: - FrancisTyers 23:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the phrase "...the little-known but influential memory researcher Richard Semon" used? I have no idea who this guy is, but I'm not a neuropsychologist. "Little-known" seems like a value judgment to me, rather than an established fact. B. Polhemus (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Technical news
In view of the current editing situation I wouldn't dare to write in this entry, but wish to suggest deleting "The existence of neurologically defined engrams is not significantly disputed".

Matters arising, or rather just surfacing in English as it seems, are showing the existence and academic consideration of technical alternatives to the engram's concepts. I found it by reading and references therein.

This fact is in my view enough to suggest the convenience (and property) in leaving the initial paragraph just ending more or less as follows:
 * "The exact mechanism for memories' retention and its location has been a persistent focus of research for many decades."

Dave 200.42.95.185 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarity and comparison are important on an article such as this
As engram can be a misleading term, due to pseudoscientific popular psychology treating it as a subconscious potential, it is important to allow a quick clarifying comparison on the article between the scientific and the pseudoscientific. The present arrangement is very useful as it allows a quick glance to see that the engram is a neurological construct in science, and a vague notion of human potential and subconscious power within pseudoscience. There's nothing wrong with making these quick clarifying comparison sections in an encyclopedia. Its common practice. The only reason Comaze wants to delete it off the face of the article is so that he can whitewash NLP (which he has been doing for about 9 months already). Such censorship is only useful for muddying knowledge in an encyclopedia and helping to promote the charlatan's vested interests. Regards HeadleyDown 09:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RPA. --Comaze 11:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

NLP definition of engram?
Can we determine what definition Sinclair and Bray are using when discussing engrams. Originally it was thought Sinclair and Bray were using the neuropsychology definition. However, recent changes on the NLP page suggest that Sinclair and Bray use the Dianetics version. Also what definition does Drenth use? On the disambiguation page there is no need for the separate definition for Neuro-linguistic programming because the authors are either refering to engram (neuropsychology) or engram (Dianetics). There is no need for engram (NLP). Either way the term (engram) is not used in original or mainstream NLP publications -- and the ambiguity is being used by a group of socks to prop up a weak connection betweem NLP and Dianetics (see WP:NOR). --Comaze 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Drenth has written in depth about pseudoscience as you well know Comaze. You may well be dumb, but you cannot play dumb on wikipedia. If you don't get it, tough! NLP is a fringe practice, and there is no defined mainstream. As you know, NLP is based on a 5 senses model of human learning, which uses the term subconscious in ALL the literature, with both explicit and implicit reference to engrams in the subconscious mind. Neurophysiology makes reference to engrams in the nerves of the brain. The difference is enormous. Science takes precedence over pseudoscience in wikipedia NPOV policy, and science must be used as a measure to clarify pseudoscience. If science and pseudoscience are presented on the same article, the reader will benefit in being able to clearly distinguish between the two. No matter! I am writing this for the benefit of those other than Comaze because Comaze has heard all this before umpteen times on the NLP page, and the result is the same. He is only here to censor facts. Comaze! The explanations concerning NLP, and its uncanny similarity to Scientology/Dianetics will be expanded whenever you make any deletions to the facts here. The reason for expansion is to fully explain to mindless zealots, censors, and commercial promoters such as your self that wikipedia will present the facts, even if they are objectionable to you or against your own promotional interests. HeadleyDown 11:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You are confused. Natural Language Processing is a field of computer science focused on interpreting language.  And it has nothing to do with engrams; it uses N-gram, which is pronounced the same but spelled differently, and has a totally different meaning.  --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

what does "based on early research" really mean?
Looks like brand-new user JimmyT has been busy. One of his edit summaries to this article states: "Dianetics was based on early research, Scientology contains the later developments and is a religious philosophy, not "pseudoscience". This Hubbardian kind of logic won't wash. There is nothing in mainstream Science journals that has ever validated Dianetics, much less Scientology. wikipediatrix 16:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There is nothing there that disproves it either. In fact the criteria presented for science on the Dianetics article does not require the approval of "mainstream Science journals" at all. The first eight don't even mention it. According to Hayakawa, 1951 in those journals no results (for all mental sciences) may be accepted as "scientific" because of the Placebo Effect. So what mental study is accepted there with comparable results to 50,000 Clears? Spirit of Man 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics was certainly Hubbard's "fiction science" and it tended to contort the early research on engrams, and combine this with pretty much occult principles (out demons out) in order to generate a group of "compliant" individuals. As it says in the scientology literature (and in wikipedia), scientology uses dianetics. Scientology is only officially a religion in a few countries. Most other places its labeled a cult or psychocult. For the sake of clarity, some small mention of this can be made in the article. Immediate comparison is important for the sake of clarity. The miss-used engram concept deserves it. HeadleyDown 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * HeadlyDown, I understand Scientology is accepted as a religion in all countries. What "other places" are you referring to? Do have any current exceptions to that? By the way, demons in Dianetics are just phrases in mental image pictures that ask for the mind to say something, like a person would. When the mental image picture is no longer there the "demon" is "out". Just like a plastic record. If you burn up the plastic it is not longer there and can no longer "talk". Spirit of Man 19:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Edit war"
What "edit war" are you speaking of in your most recent edit summary to Engram (neuropsychology)? --JimmyT 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC) moved from my user talk page -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You're referring to this edit, I believe, and I was referring to what sure looked like an edit war over how this article (Engram (neuropsychology)) should characterize the substantially different subject of the Dianetic concept of the "engram". Well, I view it as fairly obvious that it shouldn't; it should only alert the reader that the word "engram" has a much different meaning in Dianetics and Scientology, and that if they want to find out about that meaning, they should go to the article that's devoted to that meaning, Engram (Dianetics).  There could possibly be merit to a brief section comparing the concept of the engram in neuropsychology to the concept of the engram in other theories/belief systems, but to simply devote space in Engram (neuropsychology) to descriptions of these other concepts (completely unnecessary, when they are described in their own articles) verges on POV forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Memory RNA
I have a point I'm curious on; perhaps someone can clarify it for me (and if for me, then quite likely for the article as well.) I had heard that the memory RNA hypothesized by O'Connell was considered a "chemical engram". However, the article as it's currently written describes the engram concept in a way that seems to preclude this possibility, describing it as specifically a change to the tissues themselves. Which of these is accurate? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguities fixed
The section previously called Neuro-Linguitic Programming, EST contained ambiguous;

 * "NLP and EST also use the term engram in relation to the subconscious, extraordinary claims, past lives therapy, and unlimited human potential.

It's unclear whether or not ideas such as past lives, etc pertained to both NLP and EST or merely one and not the other. Further more nothing seems to be sourced or reference in regards to EST and those assertions. The concepts have been seperated, bulleted and other concepts have been added as well, making a heading change necessary. The POV dispute has been removed, with the ambiguity which was in liklihood part of that dispute. Doc_Pato 1:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this
This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly on this article. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as "".
 * Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "", "", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.

 * Finally, "" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months (back to May 2005) has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming.

FT2 (Talk) 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Movement of memories
As it stands, the article says, "Studies have shown that declarative memories move between the limbic system, deep within the brain, and the outer, cortical regions." Is that true? It isn't backed up, as far as I can see. Do memories move? Unfree (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Scoville and Milner
We should also comment about Scoville and Milner studies of damaged hippocampus and how they conflict with Lashley's work. e.g. retrograde amnesia. See See also: Penfield; Rempel-Clower et al. (1996)Action potential discuss contribs 01:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why physical?
I wonder why the definition contains the phrase “as biophysical or biochemical changes in the brain”? Why physical? I have seen it being used without any reference to any physical trace, as e.g. Rudolf Steiner in GA73, p.106. So where is this definition based on? H. (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilder Penfield
I moved the text about Wilder Penfield below from the article into this talk page. There are too many problems with this text. Some sentences are hard to understand, for instance, "after much research of no known problems resulting in the brain", or "an inability to recall the details of recent awareness". Also the text as a whole is not easy to understand - what is the essential part we want to tell about Wilder Penfield's work? Finally, Penfield Wilder's lecture is used as the source, but in order to tell about his contributions, we should not (only) have a source written by him, but a secondary source. Lova Falk    talk   20:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

*****************

Wilder Penfield stumbled upon a two localization hypotheses during his original research of electrical stimulation to discover what was taking place in the brain during a "temporal lobe epileptic episode". In 1939 after much research of no known problems resulting in the brain, he began removing the anterior half of either temporal lobe and then decided to also remove part of the hippocampus as a way to decrease epileptic episodes. No known memory loss was reported until 1951.

Two men, an engineer and a glove cutter, were severely handicapped by memory loss yet had retained the memory of their respective skills. Each of these men suffered an inability to recall the details of recent awareness and a defect of automatic perception. Through extensive research on the men, it was discovered that each had some form of deformity or injury on the other half of the hippocampus resulting in accidental bilateral removal of the hippocampus.

Through Wilder Penfield's accidental bilateral removal, it was discovered that in doing so produces retrograde and anterograde amnesia, but two localization hypotheses were also produced

 * a permanent path of facilitation runs like a thread or a bundle of threads through the inner labyrinth of the human brain, reproducing the neuroal action to create an engram.
 * a region of the brain, possibly the hippocampus, contains a special recording mechanism to cause former thought-sequences to relay the information and create and engram.

A final conclusion from Wilder Penfield states that "the engram is the permanent impression left behind by psychical experience in the brain's cellular network. This memory trace makes all that came within the focus of a man's attention memorable in one way or another. It may modify or reinforce a skill.  It, also, forms a part of the record of the stream of consciousness and may be summoned consciously or automatically for the purpose of recognition, interpretation, perception."

Memory trace listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Memory trace. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: mention of engraphy and ecphory. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Purkinje cells and synthesis
In this edit, added a reference to a study on Purkinje cells as if that represented some sort of evidence for physical manifestation of engram. Looking at the paper, you'll notice that it does not mention engram as a term.

Much later, in this edit, I removed the reference with the edit summary No mention of "engram" in referenced article, so removing for WP:SYNTHESIS. That's long enough ago that I don't remember how I came to make this edit, but I'll stand by the reasoning.

Today, in this edit, reverted my removal. The edit summary was We are linking the concept "engram" as regions in the brain with research showing how regions in our brain can hold units of memories: cerebellar Purkinje cells are an example. You are too severe in stating that only articles that hold a word can be used to explain. We need multi-disciplinary research input and they all have their own habits, some use engram more, others unit of memory or "memory". Should I assume that the use of we here was a reference to us as Wikipedia editors?

As you can see from earlier discussions on this talk page, engram is endangered as a useful term because it has been skunked through use in various pseudoscientific pursuits. We must hold ourselves to a strict standard of evidence when making statements here and adding a paragraph of speculation that Purkinje cells, as shown through a particular study, might have some properties needed to embody engrams is going beyond that strict standard, particularly as the paper does not mention this. So, I still call this unallowed synthesis.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 * No, I used "we" as "we - cognitive scientists / people coming in from cognitive sciences". SvenAERTS (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the term "engram" "has been skunked through use in various pseudoscientific pursuits" because I tend to manage to stay away from that - I don't have time for that. How do you talk about a unit of memory then when talking to other cognitive scientists, pedagogists, etc from where your brain can re-emerge a number, a fact, a concept? SvenAERTS (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Engram (neuropsychology)


text: User talk:210.236.163.5

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

title: User talk:210.236.163.5


text: Category:Image Comics stubs

title: Category:Image Comics stubs


text:
Talk:Graphicacy

Hi Guys,

i've provided more context that I hope will make this more accessible. Please let me know if this is sufficient or if more clarification would help. I'd like to do a fair bit more later down the article to flesh out this concept more fully.
 * The context problem seems to be taken care of, but it still kind of looks like something you might have made up. If not, please provide references. --Trovatore 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Original research?
This article needs to use references because as-is, it seems like original research. I've looked around on Google, and it seems "Graphicacy" is a word that is not clearly defined by any authoritative resource. --Quasipalm 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

References and clarification provided
Thanks for the interest and feedback. I'm happy that the context now seems OK. Yes, it's a pretty new concept and growing but there is stuff out there about it. But maybe the crucial stuff won't be revealed by Googling it. Much of the research about graphicacy is in the Education literature. I've included a few references from various journals and books from that area.

The Wikipedia original research stuff says "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Because the Roth et. al. reference I've now included is published by Springer, I think would be universally regarded as a highly reputable and appropriate source. However, it is very recent so I can certainly understand the query and appreciate the scrutiny. I've also cited some pretty well respected journals.

Encarta defines graphicacy as "Understanding of symbols and diagrams: the ability to use and understand such things as symbols, diagrams, plans, and maps" and attributes its origins to [mid-20th century. <graphics, after literacy]. There are certainly references to it dating back to at least the 1970s as you can see from the examples I've added. However, maybe Encarta would not be considered a sufficiently authoritative source? Albertus Pictor 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Are revisions OK?
Hi Guys,

Maybe someone can give me some feedback on if the changes I've made so far remove the problem that was flagged. I'm keen to expand the stuff I've done so far and so would really appreciate some guidance here. Albertus Pictor 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Visual Literacy
Surely what is being described here is more commonly known as visual literacy or design literacy (it certainly was when I was at art school!) - perhaps this artical should be merged with those. --Davémon 09:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What?
This seems like a very narrow and unknown topic. I'm all for keeping as much information on Wikipedia as posible (as long as its resourced and foot-noted) but having this as its own article misrepresents the content as more important than it is. Especially in its current category of graphic design. Perhaps its more relevant outside graphic design?

Also, this article needs to be foot-noted. None of the content is common sense as its all new.

title: Talk:Graphicacy


text:
Talk:Commando (1985 film)

Page move
This page was moved from "Commando (movie)" to "Commando (film)" as per the naming convention set out at Naming conventions (films) – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Freddy Mercury as Bennett?
Can anyone confirm this with a source? I've never heard this before, and it sounds made up. 24.57.203.238 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Haha very funny.Jayteecork 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Body count

 * The article quibbles about the body count - it lists two very different figures. It would be interesting to go through the film on DVD and come up with a definitive breakdown of how many people Arnie kills. That would please me no end. There is a brief mention in Commando of Matrix being a kid in East Germany; I don't know how much backstory the writers came up with. Probably none. But that would be worth mentioning. The article also claims that the script for Commando II became Die Hard. But Die Hard was based on a novel by Roderick Thorpe. One of the screenwriters of Die Hard also worked on Commando and it would probably be better to say that elements of Commando II were folded into Die Hard, along with a source to attest this. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(Too many parentheses)
This article is glutted with them.

 * The entire article should be rewritten. The editor should be fined for using parentheses or long sentences. There are many factual errors as well - the attack on Matrix's country home does not occur despite him being given security - the useless security detail is not relevant to whether an attack occurs or not!; Matrix does not agree to go along with the plan, he pretends to do so; Arius has a private "army" - but is it solely of US soldiers? - unlikely; mercenaries seizing power is not a military coup; what is an "off-duty flight attendant Cindy" [sic] - apart from appalling grammar?; Cindy's help is not "complicit" but grudging; I don't think that Matrix was arrested for "breaking and entering the surplus army store", so much as for vandalism, theft, and assault.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What are those 2 cars..
In one particular chase scene between Sully, Matrix and Cindy, I need help identifying the two cars involved. I know one was a Porsche 911, but the other one I can't quite figure out. IIRC, it was a small, 2 seater open top sports car, along the lines of a Porsche 356 or a VW Karmann Ghia. Anyone know what this 2nd car was?

It's a Sunbeam Alpine(60's British) Did anyone pickup the 'goof' with Sully's Porche? At the end of the chase scene he flips iton it's side smashing the drivers door in. When Matrix and Cindy drive off in it the door and car are undamaged. TIG76.179.132.177 15:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm almost certain that it was on purpose.

"Considered to be one of the best films of all time"
Not only is this not NPOV, it's also a blatant lie added into the article by some fan of the movie.

The film has a 5.8/10 at IMDB, It has an average rating of 5.9/10 at Rotten Tomatoes (71%). The movie has never been listed in any serious film critic's top movies of all time list, nor has it won any awards. It is not considered one of the greatest films of all time by any measurable means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.118.85 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Agreed. Everyone I know who's seen this movie really say the only high parts of it were his one-liners, the theme song and Arnold's "going commando" sequence at the end (although that's still one of the most memorable scenes in movie history IMO). Everyone I know says that it's a good movie but it's not a masterpiece. So no, it most certainly is not considered to be one of the best films of all time by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.117.40 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Action comedy?
Should this film be labelled as an action comedy? Bombofin 19:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Optimus Sledge 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - no one can watch it and say it was intended to be a serious film.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

DVD cover copyright issues
I have uploaded the scanned DVD cover several times, and it keeps getting deleted recently. I've chosen the "DVD Cover" option each time. Is there another option I should be selecting? I'm not trying to cause any trouble. I just don't understand why it keeps happening. I created this article several years ago, and the same cover was unaltered for a long time. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong. Thanks.==Fair use rationale for Image:250px-Commando2.jpg== Image:250px-Commando2.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Commandoposter.jpg
Image:Commandoposter.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The actor who looks like Freddy Mercury is...
Interesting enough, Commando is on Starz Action right now. The actor who plays Bennett is an Australian actor named Vernon Wells. He has been playing badguy-type roles for more than 30 years. I've first seen in the 2nd Mad Max movie. he was the motorcycle guy with his butt half out. He also played in the Kelly LeBrock movie, Weird Science, playing a role similar to his Mad Max role.

"What happened to Sully? I let him go." *ROFL*

Rayghost (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Rayghost

The biggest gun Matrix used that has no description
I see a description for every major weapon he used except for one. It's the same length as the M-60 machine gun. The gun he used looks like it is a version of the AK-47 modified for specialized usage like Special Forces. Can anyone confirm that the exact model and type of gun and it's usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayghost (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * If we are thinking of the same gun, it is the Valmet mentioned in the text. I believe it is a civilian-legal version of the rifle, with a shoulder stock modified so that the rifle no longer has a pistol grip (and is thus not an assault rifle). I'd like to add that, having looked over the edit summaries, I described my one and only edit to this article with the phrase "disabled half-wit". That was absolutely out of order, and I have no idea why I was so angry as to describe a trivial edit to a trivial film in such a way (mid-life crisis?). I apologise to all and sundry. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 * No, I'll tell you why; it was because I had just been reading about the film at Ruthless Reviews, a hotbed of angry profanity, and Google's top search return for the word "ruthless". That must be the reason. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Film's continuity mistakes should be pointed out
It's no secret that this film is very well known for its continuity mistakes specially within the yellow car chase scene and the scene that follows. The filmmaking community and media enthusiasts pinpoint this film's mentioned scenes as classic continuity mistakes. A mention of this of some sort could enrich this movie's page since it is somewhat of importance to general culture to know about it.74.65.229.132 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

MPAA censorship
I watched the DVD re-release of this movie and it is missing the scene where Matrix kills the black man in the blue suit by impaling him on a steel pike. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Cid SilverWing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.178.16 (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disgraced army members?
In the cast line it says that Cooke, Sully and Henriques are all ex-marines. Where in the movie did they say that? The only one who has a confirmed role in the army was Cooke during his fight with Matrix. When were the others mentioned as army members?

Also another question, it says that Cooke, Sully, Henriques and Diaz were the members of Arius and Bennett's gang. However I think there was one more guy. There was that fat guy who gave Sully his money and tried to shoot Matrix but got shot by security officers during the mall shootout. Does anyone know his name? --24.46.117.40 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Goofs (removed section)
None of this is referenced. It is also not part of WP's MoS (See WP:Film) or encyclopedic. This material should be on a fansite not a WP article on a film.

 * While Matrix battles his way through the courtyard near the end of the movie, he lobs several grenades at Arius's men. One grenade explodes on the grass in the courtyard, throwing two men through the air. The springboard that is used to launch one of the men into the air is clearly visible, albeit painted colored like the grass surrounding it.
 * As Matrix fires the machine gun the ammunition belt runs low several times, then a moment later it appears as a fresh belt.
 * When Matrix is loading up gear on the raft boat. He has on black Speedos, when he reaches shore he has on a tan color Speedo, then back to black when on shore.
 * When he pushes the yellow Porsche onto its wheels, the side is dented, when he drives it away, it is not dented, when he shows up at the motel, it is dented again
 * When he hangs Sully over the cliff just before the above scene, a rope is clearly visible around his foot.
 * While Matrix is destroying the guerrillas' main campsite, the audience can clearly see that at least one of the guerrillas is just a dummy, and it fails to collapse when the building it is guarding is blown up by Matrix.
 * When matrix leaves the airport in pursuit of sully the filming crew is clearly visible in the reflection of the door panel of the car.

Rambo similarity
The movie seems to have been derived from "Rambo". Anyone got any info on how "Commando" was inspired/written? 209.77.229.154 (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What similarity? Vietnam veteran struggling to cope with post-war alienation ≠ angry single father with machine gun. GRAPPLE   X  08:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Retired Schwarzenegger/Stallone goes on a rampage and shoots up the place and everybody in it by using his military/commando tactics. There's the "hovering" colonel/general in the background that taught him.  It's a great cinematic device.  I mean, c'mon, "The Terminator" was ripped off from Harlan Ellison.  I talked to Harlan briefly on the phone--that guy has had a ton of scripts stolen from him, and he now often serves as an "expert witness" in copyright theft cases, script theft is so prevalent in Hollywood.  Look at "Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark"--ripped off from "Secret of the Incas", 1954 with Charlton Heston.  Harrison Ford's outfit (fedora, leather jacket, scruffy unshaven look, pistol, tote bag, khaki, etc.) was ripped off from Heston's character Harry Steele.  "Secret of the Incas" is on YouTube--check it out.  209.77.229.154 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty broad view on derivation—they're both action films of the same time period, they're going to have similar set pieces since that's the 'flavour of the week'. It's like the Cold War allegories in 50s sci-fi, or the needless explosions in 90s films. I wouldn't read too much into it. As for Harlan Ellison, I'll believe his tantrums the moment someone makes a film with an unhealthy amount of jellybeans springing out of nowhere. GRAPPLE   X  12:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellison is a scumbag. Have you read The Soldier? Theres next to nothing resembling the Terminator by any stretch of the imagination, hes out for a pay day. The LITTERAL reason he sued is both scripts had a man who travels thru time. Thats it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.57.130 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Box office
The article states that Commando was the 7th highest grossing film of 1985 worldwide, then lists five films which beat it. Where's number six? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hydro portrayed in the film
What is the type of the hydro portrayed in this film? The type should appear in the article. Miguel.A.Lopez.Regalado (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2012 (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: Moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Commando (film) → Commando (1985 film) – Disambiguation against Commando (1988 film) and Commando (2013 film) per WP:NCF. 75.142.30.100 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - should be uncontroversial, even given that the 2 others are Hindi films. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, in line with film naming conventions. Mat  ty  .  007  11:22, 8 April 2014 (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.

Puppet government?
What has this film, and "puppet" versus "backed" got to do with Bowling for Columbine? I've not seen the latter, so am genuinely puzzled. As the onus is on the editor wanting to make changes, can you clarify this here, rather than making more changes? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore makes several examples of how the US have removed democratically-elected prime ministers and installed their own dictators in Central/South America and Asia (removing or assassinating Jacobo Arbenz in Guatamela, Salvador Allende in Chile, Noriega in Panama, Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam, among all the other war crimes they've committed). It's pretty obvious that Commando, though fictional, was one of those examples, so I don't really see why "US-puppet" had to be replaced with "US-backed", because the only way for a "US-backed" leader to stay alive or in power is if they obey their orders from Washington like a puppet. Jienum (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of note, Die Hard 2 shows the same scenario, where the president of Val Verde has been abducted to stand some bullshit trial in the US (to be honest, when I saw it, I was "?????"). This is the US media's biased representation of their foreign policies, so there's not really any need to sugarcoat it on Wikipedia. The media are doing it every day anyway. Jienum (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be letting personal opinion cloud your neutrality, despite this being an article about fiction. In reverse order, your comments about a bullshit trial mainly comes under WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if we were to consider it, I'd point out that the "bullshit" is drug trafficking, Esperanza himself kills at least two people (guard & pilot), and the method he uses to free himself results in the death of 230 people on a plane, the innocent fellow who lives in the church, and numerous other gunfight victims - such as the SWAT team on the way to the Skywalk.  Hardly the actions of a man up on "bullshit" charges.
 * Unless Bowling specifically makes the connection between Commando and your perceived US policy, it's synthesis or original research to suggest this is so.
 * There is nothing to suggest that Arius meets your criteria of being democratically elected - indeed he is described in all scenarios as being a Dictator - who is prepared to kill a child in order to get somebody to kill somebody else. Hardly a benign ruler, is he?
 * There is nothing in the film to suggest that the US government will gain any advantage, be it mineral, money or military, from helping to install the new ruler - a puppet state would be expected to give concessions to the US, and there's nothing to suggest this. In fact, looking at it more deeply, I see no reason to include either "US-backed" or "US-puppet" in the description, as it's sufficient to say that the revolution was US-backed and that the new leader trusts Matrix.
 * If you can find reliable sources (not wikis that have C&P'ed from an early version of our own Val Verde article) to support your claim that Val Verde has been turned into a puppet state, then ok, but otherwise I propose the removal of both terms. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, we've both expressed our opinions on the matter, we both know that in real life, the United States are no better than the other countries they demonise through the controlled media, and the good thing is, now that Donald Trump is in office, it's becoming more and more obvious every day. That's the one thing Trump's good for, showing the world what the United States truly stands for (business, not politics), but either way, coming back to the main topic, even though Hollywood is obviously going to portray the American bullies as the heroes who just want to take over and remove other leaders for their own gain (Commando and Die Hard 2 among numerous examples), I think what you suggested is the best option, to keep the article neutral by leaving out both "US-backed" and "US-puppet". I'll make the change right now and end this. Jienum (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Query re lead info
"The film is the second of three collaboratorion between Schwarzenegger and Paxton, the first film being, The Terminator, released in 1984 and the third film being, True Lies, released in 1994."

Spelling/typo aside none of these films are "collaborations" between Arnie & Bill Paxton - BP just happens to be in the three films; I don't remember much about True Lies but he only has very minor roles in Terminator/Commando.

I'd suggest this be removed. 217.33.79.34 (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: No connection to The Delta Force or other action films.
This editor has noted in the main article's edit history some occasions when references to the 1986 Chuck Norris film The Delta Force were removed, with the particular editor pointing out that no connection exists between 1985's Commando and The Delta Force.

One particular reason that some folks may erroneously assume that a connection between the films exists has to do with the name of John Matrix's Special Forces unit. For the record, Matrix and other characters in Commando make references to the Matrix-led unit, but not once is a nickname/callsign for the unit ever mentioned.

It should also be noted that Commando was released to theaters first, on October 4th 1985. The Delta Force would be released four months later on February 14th 1986. The date information comes from the general IMDB profiles of each film. Links to those IMDB profiles are found at the bottom of the Wikipedia article page for each film.

One further note -- There is no connection between Commando and any other action films made by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Also, no connection with any action films made by such stars as Sylvester Stallone, Steven Segal, Bruce Willis or the afore-mentioned Chuck Norris, among many others.

Fgf2007 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Movie featured in another movie
In movie Lakshya_(2004_film) there is a scene in which the lead character is watching a scene of this movie (probably, while channel surfing on his TV). Should this point or information be included somewhere on this page ? Ravi arnie (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commando (1985 film)


text: User talk:202.83.174.60

title: User talk:202.83.174.60


text:
Sheryn Regis

Sheryn Mae Poncardas Regis (born November 26, 1980) is a Filipino pop singer. She rose to fame after finishing first runner-up in the television talent show Star in a Million in 2003. Dubbed as the "Crystal Voice of Asia," she is best known for singing the theme songs for several hit television series on ABS-CBN including Marina (2004), Krystala (2005), and Kampanerang Kuba (2005).

Regis is popularly known as a 'power belter', noted for her belting range and technical ability. With a career spanning 20 years in Philippine entertainment industry, she has since earned four multi-platinum albums and five gold records to her credit. In 2004, she placed second in one of Asia's most renowned music festivals since 1990, Voice of Asia. Regis was the original "Queen of Teleserye Theme Songs", being the voice behind several hit television shows in ABS-CBN. Among her many accolades includes the Asian Star Entertainment Award for 'Asian Best Female Performing Artist' and an Awit Award for 'Favorite Female Recording Artist', the local counterpart of Grammy Awards.

Early life
Regis was born in Carcar, Cebu, to Bernardo and Daisy Regis. She is the eldest of three children, with brothers Elton and Joseph. Sheryn's mother guided her in singing, and at the age of two, she was able to hum and sing simple tunes. Her first and favorite contest piece was Kuh Ledesma's "Dito Ba?" ("Is it Here?") which she learned at age 5. At seven, Regis started joining amateur singing contests. Her winnings were used to buy Shirley Bassey's cassette tapes for her next contest piece. She won her first grand prize at age 8 after singing Tillie Moreno's "Saan Ako Nagkamali" ("Where Did I Go Wrong").

Aside from singing in contests, Regis earned income by offering voice lessons to children while in high school. She finished her B.S. Secondary Education degree with a major in English at Cebu Normal University. It was during her college years that she was exposed to theater acting and chorale singing which eventually gave her the chance to travel and perform for Filipino communities in Canada and in the USA. Veteran actors Leo Martinez and Gina Alajar served as her workshop mentors. In 1999, she was awarded "Best Interpreter" at the Cebu Metro Pop Music Festival (a songwriting festival), when she sang "Among Gabayan" (Our Guide), a Cebuano tribute song to Cebu's patron Sto. Niño written by Fr. Jed Ponce Billones. Their entry was also hailed as the Grand Prize winner.

Regis worked as a lounge singer at the Cebu Plaza Hotel where she met Earl Echiverri (cousin of Caloocan mayor Enrico Echiverri). They married in 2002 and had their first child Lourdes the following year.

Regis came out as a lesbian in 2021, revealing her relationship with her partner Mel De Guia on social media.

Early career and Star in a Million
Regis first appeared in the "Sing-Eat" segment of Eat Bulaga! in 2002 where she became a grand finalist.

In 2003, Regis secured a place as grand finalist in ABS-CBN's television reality singing competition Star in a Million after advancing from the elimination rounds with Teresa Garcia. Dubbed as the "Power Belter" because of her effortless high notes, Regis was a judge favorite and was the only finalist to never place in the bottom two during the entire season. She placed consistently in the top performances every week, eventually reaching the Grand Champion Night on January 3, 2004, with Marinel Santos and Erik Santos. Regis won the Texter's Choice Award but placed only as a runner-up after singing Wendy Moten's Come in Out of the Rain. Disheartened by not winning the 1-million peso and house and lot prizes, Regis returned to Cebu thinking she would have to start over again, but was instead offered a recording contract with Star Records and released a recording of Come in Out of the Rain, which became an instant hit and Regis' signature song.

2003-2004: Come in Out of the Rain, rise to prominence
After losing to Erik Santos, the management of ABS-CBN and Star Music offer her a recording contract. Even before its album's release, "Come In Out of the Rain" became a radio hit in the Philippines. It stayed for 12 consecutive weeks as number one on Myx OPM Countdown and ranked no. 4 in 2004 MYX HIT CHART YEAR-END TOP 20 SONGS. Regis also released other singles like Maybe (cover version of Peabo Bryson and Regina Belle) and Kailan Kaya, written by Raul Mitra and Cacai Velasquez which served as theme song of ABS-CBN's primetime fantaserye Marina.

Regis was chosen by songwriter Vehnee Saturno to represent the Philippines in Voice of Asia in Kazakhstan where she sang "Isang Lahi", "Sana'y 'Di Pangarap", "Now More Than Ever" and Saturno's original song "Follow your Dream". She became the third Filipino to win the 2 Prize Silver Trophy after Jed Madela and Arnee Hidalgo. Upon returning, Regis was given a title, Crystal Voice of Asia by the local media, a common tradition among Filipino singers. She hosted in noontime show Masayang Tanghali Bayan/MTB Ang Saya Saya and mainstay of ASAP which created a hit segment ASAP Champions together with Sarah Geronimo, Erik Santos, Mark Bautista.

In May 2004, Regis officially launched her debut album under Star Records entitled Come In Out of the Rain, produced by Jonathan Manalo. The album included her previous pieces Follow Your Dream and Among Gabayan. The album received Platinum Record Award by PARI having sold over 40,000 copies.

She had her first concert, "Higher Note," at the Music Museum, followed by several concerts in the Philippines and abroad.

2005: What I Do Best, continuing success
She hosted in daily show M.R.S. (Most Requested Show) with Amy Perez, Roderick Paulate and Toni Gonzaga.Regis was awarded by the 21st Year-Ender Excellence Awards as Top Entertainer International Achievement Awardee and Best Female Performer in Asia Pacific and highly nominated in the 18th Awit Awards. She was also nominated in four other categories for her debut album, Best Inspirational Song ("Follow Your Dream"), Best Regional Recording ("Among Gabayan"), Best Song Written for Movie/TV/Stage Play ("Kailan Kaya") and Best Concert Performer in an Intimate Venue Female.

In July 2005, Sheryn launched her second album, "What I Do Best".

She also sang Sabihin Mo Sa Akin, the theme from Kampanerang Kuba.

After the success of her carrier single, she launched her second single by late 2005, Hindi Ko Kayang Iwan Ka. It was chosen as the 'love theme song' of ABS-CBN's television series, Gulong ng Palad. Aside from this, her love song, Sa Piling Mo was aired as a wedding song on the same show.

By April 2006, she released the last single from her second album, Dahil Nagmamahal and was chosen as a theme song of Bernadette Sembrano's Nagmamahal, Kapamilya.

Two songs from this album received recognition. The carrier single, What I do Best, won as Best Song Performed by a Female Artist given by iFM Pinoy Music Awards. Hindi Ko Kayang Iwan Ka, which is actually the most popular song from this album received a prestigious award. It was named by S Magazine as song of the year. At that time, she was dubbed the Crystal Voice of Asia, a title contested by the camp of another Filipino singer Mari Nallos, who held the title much earlier when she was under contract with Star Records.

What I do Best received Gold Record Award by PARI sold over 25,000 copies.

The Modern Jukebox Collection
In October 2006, Sheryn began recording for her third album under Star Records. The album was set to release on November 20, 2006. Her first single off the album was a cover of a Leah Navarro original, Ang Pag-Ibig Kong Ito.

Sheryn's remake of Joey Albert's I Remember the Boy was chosen as Jasmine's Theme Song for ABS-CBN's teleserye featuring Kim Chiu and Gerald Anderson, Sana Maulit Muli. She also sang the theme song of the primetime teleserye, Maria Flordeluna topbilled by Eliza Pineda. She also revived the popular Kuh Ledesma hit Dito Ba from the Hit Afternoon Drama Prinsesa ng Banyera which served as the theme song.

She later launched her second official single from the album, a song penned by Ricky Sanchez, Ang Lahat Para Sa 'Yo (later used as a theme song for El Cuerpo), while her self-composition, Pusong Lito, enjoyed frequent airplay in provincial radio stations and was able to reach the Number 1 spot in the MOR Top Hits of MOR Cebu 97.1 Lupig Sila. It was chosen as the theme song of ABS-CBN TV-3 Cebu's Visayan drama series Summer Sunshine, aired during summer season.

Early 2008, Sheryn released her third and final single from the album, Sayang na Sayang, a cover of the Manilyn Reynes original. By end of February, the music video for the single was shot with her Love Spell costar and Be Bench finalist, John James Uy, as the leading man.

Starting Over Again
During the release of her third single from her jukebox album, Sheryn started hinting the public of an upcoming fourth album with a tentative June release. It was also during the planning stages of her fourth album that Sheryn became part of Star Magic, the talent management arm of her mother station, ABS-CBN.

The album, aptly titled Starting Over Again, released its first single bearing the same title, which is based on the Natalie Cole version (the song was originally sung by Dionne Warwick with different lyrics), during the final week of May. The album contains seven revivals and three originals. Sheryn, along with her husband, penned an English original, My Heart Beats for You. Anabelle Regalado, managing director of Star Records, also contributed a Tagalog original, Sana Nandito Ka. Vehnee Saturno, who is also one of the composers on the album with his song Patunayan Mo, was also its producer. This is the first time that one of Sheryn's albums was produced by somebody other than producer Jonathan Manalo.

The carrier of her fourth album was chosen as an official theme song of Korean drama, Three Dads with One Mommy.

2020s
In 2020, Sheryn took on a new challenge by collaborating with the rock band Hey Moonshine. They recorded and released a single entitled "Ilang Beses" under Viva Records. This was the first time Sheryn recorded a song in this genre.

Voice and timbre
Regis is a soprano and is often praised for her range and technical ability. She possesses a four-octave vocal range, noted for her "distinctive tone and timbre" and "florid blend of breathy riffing and resonant belting."

Musical influences
Sheryn has cited Whitney Houston as her major influence and she grew up singing Houston Hits. She also cited Regine Velasquez and Lea Salonga as her musical influence in the Philippines. Some of her musical influence are Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, Aretha Franklin, Beyoncé, Kuh Ledesma, Lani Misalucha, and Jaya.

Theme songs
Sheryn is also prominently known for singing a lot of themesongs for ABS-CBN teleseryes.

 * Now that I Have You – Now that I Have You Theme Song (with Erik Santos)
 * Silver Swan – Silver Swan commercial
 * Sabay Tayo Pilipinas – Station ID of ABS-CBN Regional Group
 * Star Circle Quest – Star Circle Quest Theme Song (with Marinel Santos)
 * Nginiiig! – Nginiiig! Theme Song (with Gloc 9)
 * Kailan Kaya – Marina Theme Song
 * Among Gabayan – Sinulog Festival
 * Sabihin Mo Sa Akin – Kampanerang Kuba Theme Song
 * Hindi Ko Kayang Iwan Ka – Gulong ng Palad Love Theme Song
 * Sa Piling Mo – Gulong ng Palad Wedding Theme Song
 * Dahil Nagmamahal – Nagmamahal, Kapamilya Theme Song
 * Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito – Your Song (Zanjoe Marudo and Nikki Gil) later Temptation of Wife Theme Song
 * I Remember The Boy – Sana Maulit Muli (Jasmine and Travis) Theme Song
 * Maria Flordeluna – Maria Flordeluna Theme Song
 * Krystala – Krystala Theme Song
 * Shoo Bee Doo Wop – Krystala Love Theme Song
 * Pusong Lito – Summer Sunshine Theme Song
 * Kailangan Ko’y Ikaw – Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik Soundtrack
 * Dito Ba – Prinsesa ng Banyera Theme Song
 * Ang Lahat Para Sa ‘Yo – El Cuerpo del Deseo
 * Sayang Na Sayang – Your Song (Matt Evans and Melissa Ricks) Theme Song
 * Starting Over Again – Three Dads with One Mommy Theme Song
 * Always – Nasaan Ka Maruja? Soundtrack
 * Eden Cheese Jingle – Eden Cheese commercial
 * Pangako Sa’yo - Paano ang Pangako? Soundtrack

The Little Voice Foundation
Regis launched The Little Voice Foundation during Sheryn's birthday concert on November 26, 2005, at the SM Megamall Cinema 10. It aims is to provide education to poor children between 5–12.She also engaged in clothing line business which located in different malls in the Philippines. Some of earnings were put on her business.

Media appearances
Regis has become part of different variety shows, Most Requested Show and ASAP.

Regis hosted the now-defunct Search for the Star in a Million Season 2 with fellow champs Erik, Rachelle Ann, and Mark. She is also the host of Little Big Star Cebu, which was reportedly ranked as the fourth top-rating show in Nationwide Charts.

In October 2007, Regis was given her first major dual acting role as a fairy godmother and an evil witch who are twin sisters in Love Spell's Cindyrella, starring Kim Chiu and Gerald Anderson. Sheryn expressed her excitement as she is given the opportunity to dabble into acting and use her past experience in theater. The series ran through early January 2008.

In early 2008, Regis was chosen to be part of the cast of Utoy with Dolphy and Makisig Morales as main stars. However, the teleserye was not aired due to unknown reason.

In June of the same year, she was reported to be part of the final cast of I Love Betty La Fea, ABS-CBN's remake of Betty La Fea, which stars Bea Alonzo on the lead role. She played the role of Kylie in the series.

When she came back in the Philippines in January 2013, she appeared in Bandila under the segment Ikaw Na! of Boy Abunda. Further, she became a consistent guest singer in the TV5 variety show, Wowowillie. It was also in 2013 when Sheryn released a digital single entitled "Sinungaling Mong Puso" which was composed by Mr. Vehnee Saturno.

In January 2014, she again visited the Philippines. Regis was invited as guest to several TV shows like Sunday All Stars, Unang Hirit and Banana Nite and as a guest judge in It's Showtime. In her interview in Umagang Kay Ganda, she mentioned that she will only stay up to May.

Live performances
In November 2004, Regis became part of Viva Concerts' Pinoy Idols: Battle of the Popstars which was held at the Araneta Coliseum. Along with her was Raymond Manalo, Christian Bautista, Mark Bautista, Rachelle Ann Go, Frenchie Dy and Sarah Geronimo. In her solo performance, she performed a medley of her hits, Kailan Kaya, Maybe and Come In Out of the Rain. It was said that the concert was sold out.

In May 2008, she was part of Erik Santos' US Tour. John Prats, Liza Manalo, Denise Laurel, and Pooh were also guests in the concert.

Regis, as well as Pinoy Dream Academy Season 2 winner Laarni Lozada became part of Ronnie Liang's concert, My Ballad, My Music where it was reported that Ronnie's talent fee will proceed to the Aeta people in Angeles City. It was held November 2009 the Metro Bar.

Regis was also invited as a guest performer in Rachelle Ann Go's send-off concert in February 2014. Rachelle together with Sheryn and Jimmy Marquez sang Lady Marmalade. Other guests include Mark Bautista, Christian Bautista, Erik Santos and Regine Velasquez.

In celebration of Solaire Resort & Casino's first anniversary, A Celebration with the Champions was held in March 2014. Regis was part of the concert together with Mark Bautista, fellow Star in a Million contestants Erik Santos and Christian Bautista, The Voice of the Philippines finalists Morissette and Klarisse de Guzman, and finally American Idol (season 11) finalists Jessica Sanchez and Hollie Cavanagh. Sheryn sang a medley of her hits during her solo performance. Moreover, she was part of a trio performance along with Klarisse and Morissette.

In April 2014, she had a concert in Al Nasr Leisureland, Dubai with the Star Power grand champion, Angeline Quinto. The concert is named as "A Night with the Ultimate Divas" which was produced by Prolife Events: Concert Producers & Promoters and was presented by Power Horse Energy Drink.

In celebration of Mother's Day, Regis as well as Jon "Prince of Broadway" Joven had a concert entitled "A Mother's Day to Remember: Concert of World Class Performers" at the Pacific Star Resort & Spa, May 9, 2014.

In June 2014, PLDT US Mobility sponsored a concert for Filipinos in California entitled Freedom Concert Tour as part of the 116th Philippine Independence Day. Part of the concert was Sheryn as well as other Filipino artists and celebrities namely Marian Rivera, Ogie Alcasid, Regine Velasquez, Alden Richards, Jonalyn Viray, Sheryn Regis, Allan K., Giselle Sanchez and Jannelle So. Part of the proceeds were donated for the relief and rehabilitation efforts of the Philippine Disaster Recovery Foundation.

title: Sheryn Regis


text:
File:Phoenix Trotting Park from I10 - July 6, 2004.jpg

Summary
Photo taken by Mark Astrauskas. July 6, 2004 from the I-10 eastbound.


text:
Akiko Suwanai

Akiko Suwanai (諏訪内 晶子) is a Japanese classical violinist.

At the age of 18, she became the youngest winner of the International Tchaikovsky Competition in 1990. In addition, she was awarded second prize in the Paganini Competition in 1988 and Queen Elisabeth Competition in 1989 and is a laureate of the Music Competition of Japan.

She has studied with Toshiya Eto at the Toho Gakuen School of Music, with Dorothy DeLay and Cho-Liang Lin at the Juilliard School of Music while at Columbia University, and with Uwe-Martin Haiberg at the Universität der Künste Berlin.

Until 2019 she played the 1714 Dolphin Stradivarius, on loan from the Nippon Music Foundation. After it was returned she received the "Charles Reade" Guarneri del Gesù on loan from Japanese collector Ryuji Ueno.

Discography

 * Bruch: Concerto No. 1 / Scottish Fantasy
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * Sir Neville Marriner, Academy of St. Martin in the Fields
 * November 11, 1997: Philips Classics Records
 * Akiko Suwanai: Souvenir
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin; Phillip Moll, piano
 * June 8, 1998: Philips Classics Records
 * Dvořák: Violin Concerto, etc.
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * Iván Fischer, Budapest Festival Orchestra
 * October 9, 2001: Decca Music Group
 * Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto in E Minor / Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto in D Major
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * Vladimir Ashkenazy, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra
 * December 20, 2001: Decca Music Group
 * Brahms, Dvořák, Janáček
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * May 8, 2002: Philips Classics Records
 * Sibelius & Walton Violin Concertos
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * Sakari Oramo, City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra
 * 2003: Decca Music Group
 * Poème
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * Charles Dutoit, Philharmonia Orchestra of London
 * November 9, 2004: Decca Music Group
 * Bach: Violin Concertos
 * Akiko Suwanai, violin
 * Chamber Orchestra of Europe
 * May 2, 2006: Decca Music Group

title: Akiko Suwanai