text:
Rock Profile

Rock Profile is a British television comedy show written by and starring comedy partnership Matt Lucas and David Walliams, both later widely known for the sketch show Little Britain. Rock Profile first appeared on the channel UK Play in 1999, directed by Michael Cumming, before moving to BBC Two in 2000. The show was revived for a one-off special for Comic Relief in 2022.

The show comprises a series of spoof interviews, involving Jamie Theakston questioning Lucas and Walliams who play famous musicians. The interviews are often bizarre and involve broad, unflattering caricatures or fictional characteristics. They are often interspersed with videos by the featured artist, including humorous captions and congratulations from other impersonated celebrities.

Broadcast history
The first series was broadcast in 1999, comprising 13 episodes, on digital channel UK Play. The series was then picked up by BBC Two, with a second series of 13 episodes following in 2000. Series one was later shown on BBC Two. In November 2001, a special 45-minute episode of the series was broadcast, entitled Rock the Blind. The episode followed Gary Barlow (Lucas) and Ronan Keating (Walliams) as they recorded a charity single. Ted Robbins appeared as Pete Waterman, and Sara Cox as herself. Following the episode, the series saw a break of two years.

In October 2001, several sketches were featured in the re-launch of Top of the Pops, entitled The All-New Top of the Pops. All of the sketches were filmed backstage, featuring characters which had appeared in the previous two series. People who were unaware of the show at the time did not understand the segments and complaints were made regarding the sketch with Lucas as Elton John, where he was verbally harassed by an audience member. The sketch was subsequently cut from all future repeat screenings of the episode, it now can only be seen as an extra on the DVD release.

In 2009, a third series was recorded by Walliams and Lucas and was made available on the website Funny or Die for free viewing. The third series replaced host Jamie Theakston with new host Dermot O'Leary. The first episode aired virally on 11 May 2009, and featured a mock interview with Jordan and Peter Andre. A one-off special aired as part of Comic Relief Red Nose Day 2022, with Vernon Kay as host interviewing Lucas and Walliams portraying Michael Ball and Alfie Boe, Adele, Billie Eilish, Lady Gaga, Lewis Capaldi, Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus, and Post Malone.

Examples of musicians parodied

 * Shirley Bassey (Lucas) and Tom Jones (Walliams) – Shirley Bassey is portrayed as claiming to have more hits than she actually does. Jones is portrayed as a befuddled has-been who confuses the names of other artists who have told him he was "the greatest singer of his generation."
 * ABBA are reluctantly reunited after interviews with Benny Andersson & Björn Ulvaeus.
 * Boy George (Lucas) and Marilyn (Walliams) – Both characters are portrayed as thinking they are female and Marilyn claims interviewer Jamie Theakston has made him pregnant and that he needs to provide for his baby.
 * Ringo Starr (Walliams) – Ringo Starr is portrayed as believing himself to be Thomas the Tank Engine's representative on Earth. He claims that Thomas has asked him to do both good and bad things.
 * Simon & Garfunkel – Simon (Lucas) and Garfunkel (Walliams) are portrayed as hating each other, and both try to prove that they are more successful than the other. They use a curtain and even a brick wall to separate themselves.
 * Bono (Walliams) – Bono is portrayed as an irritating Englishman who loves to phone Salman Rushdie and can't understand why his fellow U2 bandmates persist in speaking with an Irish accent. The Edge (Lucas) points out that it is because they are Irish.
 * Elton John (Lucas) – Elton John is portrayed as a moody, temperamental prima donna.
 * George Harrison (Lucas) – George Harrison is portrayed as speaking with a strong Indian accent and keeps a poppadum in his top pocket, yet cannot understand why people keep talking about his Indian influences. He also produces bizarre films plots; for example: one man's love for his sandal.
 * Lee and H from Steps (Walliams and Lucas respectively) are portrayed as five-year-olds.
 * Liam Gallagher (Walliams) – Liam Gallagher is portrayed as a foul-mouthed house husband whose wife, Patsy Kensit (Lucas), constantly embarrasses him and ruins his 'hard-man' image by exposing him as a friend of Mary and Jeffrey Archer.
 * Barry Gibb of the Bee Gees is portrayed as a bully who bosses his brothers Maurice (Lucas) and Robin around. In the episode, Barry resembles the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz. He even has a tail.
 * Blur – Damon Albarn (Lucas) is portrayed as a Cockney working-class hero, who says his life is like the musical Oliver. Alex James (Walliams) is portrayed as being very confused about many things, such as his sexuality.
 * Geri Halliwell (Lucas) – Geri Halliwell is portrayed as a patronising moron who stalks and has delusions about marrying George Michael (played by both Lucas and Walliams on separate occasions). According to Geri, everything is "Girl Power". "All base metals, Girl Power. The River Nile, Girl Power. Clive Anderson, dictionary definition of Girl Power".
 * Paul McCartney (Lucas) – Paul McCartney is portrayed as fed up with people asking about his solo career. He announces "People keep asking me... what's the hidden message at the end of 'Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time'?... Y'know, 30 years ago I was in a band called The Beatles... but no one ever wants to talk about that!" When Theakston, overjoyed at Paul's apparent willingness to talk about the Beatles, questions him on John Lennon, McCartney soberingly muses "Y'know the saddest thing? No one ever mentions him."
 * Eurythmics – Dave Stewart (Lucas) is portrayed as a mad scientist who claims to have created Annie Lennox (Walliams) – who is portrayed as a creature similar to that from Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' – from parts of corpses.
 * Happy Mondays – Bez (Walliams) is portrayed as a professionally trained dancer who went to the Ramhurst School, claiming that he was in the year above Darcey Bussell. Shaun Ryder (Lucas) is portrayed as mumbling, incoherent and an unenthusiastic interviewee.
 * Gary Barlow (Lucas) and Howard Donald (Walliams) from boy band Take That – Gary Barlow and Howard Donald are portrayed as constantly thinking about reforming the band. Gary is portrayed as a mean-spirited bully and Howard portrayed as childlike. When Theakston asks Gary if he still speaks to Robbie Williams, Gary responds "Yeah, I phone Robbie up every week – don't tell him it's me though".
 * Graham Coxon (Walliams) – Graham Coxon (of Blur) is portrayed as a musically inept, paranoid pyromaniac who speaks in hushed tones until he categorically states he didn't "start the fire".
 * Andy Warhol (Lucas) – Andy Warhol is portrayed as living in a flat with Lou Reed (Williams). This sketch was the direct influence for Lou and Andy in Little Britain, only Lucas looks like Andy Warhol and isn't in a wheelchair. They do however both use the same voices as Lou and Andy. Reed asks Warhol what he wants for his tea, to which Warhol replies "chippy". Reed then goes into a long explanation about how he had chippy for his lunch and can't have it twice. Warhol replies "Yeah, I know", and a catchphrase was born. "So what do you want then?", to which Warhol replies: "Chippy".
 * Kylie Minogue (Walliams) and her sister Dannii Minogue (Lucas) – The sisters are portrayed as being extremely jealous of each other and during their interview take great pride in pointing out each other's failures. Dannii tells Kylie, "the whole family was so proud when your last single went to number 27 in the charts".
 * Prince (Lucas) – Prince is portrayed as an alcoholic Glaswegian tramp, performing his hits on acoustic guitar and harmonica as a busker. Although the introduction to the episode claims he is living in Glasgow, he is busking on the Uxbridge Road in London's Shepherd's Bush.

Reception
Rock Profile has been well received by critics. Radio Times described the show as "truly silly and truly inspired". Sunday Mirror described it as "excellent comedy".

DVD release
Both original series of Rock Profile was released on DVD in 2005, which also included Rock the Blind and the sketches made for TOTP and The Ralf Little Show; all commercial music was excised from the DVD version of the series.

title: Rock Profile


text:
User:Zemanser~enwiki

I'm a Spanish User. The Spanish interwikis are my principal contribution for the english wikipedia.

See you!

es:Usuario:zemanser ca:usuari:zemanser

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

title: User:Zemanser~enwiki


text:
Tim McInnerny

Timothy L. McInnerny (born 18 September 1956) is an English actor. He is known for his many roles on stage and television, including as Lord Percy Percy and Captain Darling in the 1980s British sitcom Blackadder.

Early life
McInnerny was born on 18 September 1956 in Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire, the son of Mary Joan (née Gibbings) and William Ronald McInnerny. He has one sister, Lizzy, who is also an actress. He was brought up in Cheadle Hulme and in Stroud, Gloucestershire, and educated at Marling School, a grammar school in Stroud, and read English at Wadham College, Oxford, matriculating in 1976 after taking a gap year backpacking around the world.

Television
McInnerny's first role was in Blackadder during the 1980s. He played the two bumbling related aristocrats with the same name of Lord Percy Percy in the first series (The Black Adder) and the second series (Blackadder II); he declined to appear in the third series for fear of being typecast, though he did make a guest appearance in one episode and returned to play Captain Kevin Darling in the fourth series (Blackadder Goes Forth), a character significantly different from the Lords Percy.

He had a minor but significant role in the highly acclaimed 1985 BBC TV serial Edge of Darkness as Emma Craven's boyfriend Terry Shields. More recent TV appearances include Law & Order: UK (2011) as a man wrongly convicted of murdering his daughter, and New Tricks (2012). In 2016, McInnerny joined the cast of the HBO series Game of Thrones in Season 6 as Lord Robett Glover.

In 2007 McInnerny spoke candidly about his love of ITV sitcoms, after receiving criticism for his views expressed on the BBC cult show I Love the '70s: "I think shows like Mind Your Language and Love Thy Neighbour need to be remembered for what they were; truly fantastic examples of sitcom writing that hasn't been seen since. The content is unfortunate in the cold light of modern society, but that's no reason to stop praising the sheer brilliance of the writers that ITV had in its ranks during that decade."

Television

Theatre
He played Dr. Frank-N-Furter in the 1990 West End production of The Rocky Horror Show. His performance can be heard on the soundtrack album of this production.

He was cast in Pravda alongside Anthony Hopkins.

In summer 2007, he played Iago in Othello at Shakespeare's Globe on Bankside in London.

Selected theatre performances
 * Clitandre in The Misanthrope by Moliere. Directed by Casper Wrede at the Royal Exchange, Manchester (1981)
 * Charlie in Detective Story by Sidney Kingsley. Directed by John Dillon at the Royal Exchange, Manchester (1982)
 * Billy Bibbitt in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Dale Wasserman. Directed by Greg Hersov at the Royal Exchange, Manchester (1982)
 * Mick in The Caretaker by Harold Pinter. Directed by Richard Negri at the Royal Exchange, Manchester (1983)
 * Orsino in Twelfth Night. Directed by Braham Murray at the Royal Exchange, Manchester (1988)

Music
In 1989, he co-starred with Kate Bush in the music video for her song "This Woman's Work". He also appeared in the Westlife video for "Uptown Girl", along with Claudia Schiffer, Robert Bathurst, Crispin Bonham-Carter, Ioan Gruffudd and James Wilby. Since 2012, McInnerny has also been a patron of the Norwich Film Festival.

title: Tim McInnerny


text:
Talk:Not-for-profit corporation

Are "non-profit" and "not-for-profit" interchangeable terms? If they denote exactly the same types of organizations, then what differing nuances does each term carry and in what contexts does one see one term or the other being used?

Can a not-for-profit corp be made from the ground up?
The article says that a not-for-profit corporation is a government-created entity, be that government national or local. Is it possible for local citizens to create a not-for-profit corporation, perhaps along the lines of a limited liability company (LLC)? -CS

Absolutely, not-for-profit corporations are most often than not founded by local citizens who share a common social objective. --Kimmetje 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-profit vs. Not-for-profit (these are Not the same thing!)
The fact that "Not-for-profit" redirects to "Nonprofit" is a Huge error. These are two Distinct types of organizations. For some reason, these two terms are being used interchangeably, and I can't figure out why. This is a problem withing the Wikipedia search index, as well as in the "Nonprofit" article itself. This definition may vary country by country, but as an example, in the United States a Nonprofit is restricted from keeping any net profits. This is not the case with Not-for-profit organizations.

Was there ever a separate page just for "Not-for-profit"? If so, it should Not have been turned into a redirect page. Either way, there should be a new page for Not-for-profit, (or at least a small paragraph) with disambiguation notes attached to Both pages. I've worked for a Not-for-profit organization before, and here's how it was explained to me: The distinction between Nonprofit and Not-for-profit is related to how each organization is allowed to bring in revenue, and how they are required to handle any net profits from year to year. "Nonprofits" are organizations that rely solely on charitable donations and/or grants, and they are restricted in the amount of net profit that they can earn per year (i.e., they must channel their net profits back into providing their charitable service)...

In contrast, a "Not-for-profit" is allowed to earn Revenue (for example. fees for services that they provide) that doesn't have to be in the form of charitable donations or grants. However, there are certain restrictions on how much "net" profit they're allowed to carry over from year to year, and a certain amount of their profits must be re-invested into the infrastructure and administrative costs. The profits Don't have to be dispersed, but they can't just sit in the bank collecting interest, or earning money in some other way that's based on interest, dividends, etc, and it is Not permitted to offer publicly traded stock shares. Essentially a not-for-profit is somewhere in between a nonprofit organization and a private corporation.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. But as I understand it, the main distinction is related to the manner in which they earn any net profit, and what they're required to do with net profits. At least this is the case for the United States -- this definition may vary from country to country.

--BethRogers 18:43, 29 June 2015

== Hay, like the last guy notes, you say that Non-Profit is a SUB-SET of Not for Profit. But then you write the article not being clear about that. In fact you started useing NP instead of NFP and it is not clear if you are makeing an error about terms or your dexcided to talk about NP.

You seem say that NP has a higher standard the NFP (as Tax exempt has an higher standard then the NO and NFP) (^M^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BatMiata (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some citations for your assertions, using reliable, previously published third party sources. Famspear (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Error?
Is "remunitary" a word?

I believe the author meant remuneratory, meaning "for profit/payment." After looking it up though, remuneratory apparently isn't truly a word and remunerative should be used in it's place. In this particular context, a few quick google searches show that the only permutation/conjugation/part-of-speech of this word that has any traction in the non-profit community is non-remunitive, but non-profit is much more widely used. I'm just going to change it to non-profit (considering it is being used in a sentence specifically directing the user to Non-profit organization). -Bigmantonyd 05:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hay, I am involved in making a brand new NP organization. The NP Board and/or Trustee and/or the Chairpersons (basically the people who are in trusted to handle the money) are the one's who dont get PAID a salary for bing on the board. The board may hire employees and subcontractors. The board members can get repaid for out of pocket expences. And finally the borad can be paid, at the 'going rate' for real work done. For example a Board member can be paid to DJ a dance, as long as it is voted on my the board and is paid the normal local rate.

bat(^M^)iata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.175.225.60 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Question of ownership
Though the not for profit is a corporation who is the owner? if they do not issue stock who technically owns the company? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.158.153.239 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

No one owns the "company." It's not a company. It has no owners. No stock is issued in the case of a non-profit corporation. Yours, Famspear 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

mmm you turned the noun 'Remuneration' into an non existent adjective.

The company is an "entity" and yes it owns stuff. For one it owns Money, it name and its charter.

It is too a cooperation, it is a different type than LLC PLC. you need to get more fact then you have here and alos you should correct the few fact that you have here. (in main article)

paying owners
I understand that as a non profit, the owners cannot profit from the income of the organization...however, can they be paid as an expense of the organization or can they be reimbursed for what they put into it?

fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.189.179 (talk • contribs) (on 14 June 2007).

If it's really a non-profit organization, it has no owners. If it's formally set up as a non-profit CORPORATION under the law of a particular jurisdiction, such as the State of Texas, it simply cannot have "owners." There are no shares of stock to be issued.

And officer or employee of a non-profit organization - including a non-profit corporation - can generally be compensated in a reasonable amount (whatever that is) for services performed. Yours, Famspear 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Non-profit organization?
Does anyone have any argument against changing this article to a redirect page?Trilobitealive (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do it! Not-for-profit, Not-for-profit agency, and Not-for-profit organization have directed over there (to "Non-profit organization") for years.  I suggested the same merger in 2006 and nobody went for it. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. -- SiobhanHansa 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concure, doing such could make a more comprehensive article. I would suggest making sure anything that is here and not there be included in that article as long as it is good information.  Maldarthe1st (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)maldarthe1st

OK, with three votes to change the article to a redirect page and no current votes against changing I'm going to take the plunge.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just resurrected this article. Not all nonprofit organizations are incorporated. This article should deal with the distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit corporations.Frappyjohn (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect warning
Unless someone comes up in favor of keeping and improving the article I'm going to come back in a few weeks and move it as discussed above.Trilobitealive (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (This will be basically deleting the whole article and making a redirect page unless I see something I think is worth saving.)Trilobitealive (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Not-for-profit corporation


text:
Runner (cricket)

In cricket, a runner is a team member who runs between the wickets for an injured batsman. This is covered by Law 25 of the Laws of Cricket.

When a runner is used, the batsman stands in position and plays shots as normal, but does not attempt to run between the wickets: the runner runs for them. The runner occupies the injured batsman's crease when they are on strike, but takes up a position away from the pitch at the umpire's discretion, typically on a pitch parallel to that being used for the game.

When the injured batsman moves off strike, they then take up the position near the square leg umpire (not at the bowler's end), and the runner stands next to the bowler's wicket as in the normal course of play.

The runner must also already have batted in the innings, if possible.
 * A runner can only be used if the umpires, together, are satisfied that the batsman has sustained an injury during the match that affects their ability to run.
 * The runner must be a member of the batting side, but not the twelfth man.
 * The runner must wear all the external protective equipment worn by the batsman and must carry a bat.

If either the injured batsman or their runner is out of their ground, the batsman is liable to be run out or stumped. The runner is also subject to other laws such as obstructing the field.

In June 2011, the International Cricket Council announced that, from 1 October 2011, runners could no longer be used in international cricket.

title: Runner (cricket)


text:
Jorund

Jorund or Jörundr (5th century) was a Swedish king of the House of Yngling. He was the son of Yngvi, and he had reclaimed the throne of Sweden for his dynasty from Haki (the brother of Hagbard, the hero of the legend of Hagbard and Signy. Snorri cites two kennings from this legend, Sigar's steed and Hagard's fell noose, when telling of Jorund).

Snorri Sturluson relates that when Jorund was young he used to travel the seas and plunder with his brother Erik, and they were great warriors. One summer they plundered in Denmark where they met another pillager, King Gudlög of Hålogaland (a province in Norway) with whom they fought. They took him prisoner and carried him ashore at Stromones where they hanged him. Gudlaug's surviving companions raised a mound over him there.

Snorri then cites the poem Háleygjatal by a Norwegian skald named Eyvindr skáldaspillir:

This act rendered the Swedish princes, Eric and Jorund, even more famous and they were thought of as even greater men. When they learnt that King Haki no longer had his forces around him, they decided to take care of their enemy. They assembled a large force that was joined by Swedes as they approached. They entered Mälaren (a bay at the time) and steered towards Uppsala. They left their ships at the Fyris Wolds and were met by Haki who had fewer men. Haki was a brutal fighter and managed to turn the tide of the battle. He slew Erik who held the banner and Jorund retreated with his men. Haki had been seriously wounded and died.

Jorund then ruled Sweden at Uppsala, but he usually spent the summers pillaging. One summer, he plundered in Jutland and entered Limfjorden, where he continued the pillaging. They anchored in Oddesund (before a storm in 1825, it was near the innermost part of the fjord and almost 200 km from its mouth) but were discovered by the Norwegian pirate Gylaug of Hålogaland, the son of Gudlaug. Gylaug and his men attacked them and were joined by local forces who wanted revenge. As Jorund was vastly outnumbered (and had to run an almost 200 km long gauntlet to get out of the fjord), he lost the battle, and Gylaug had him hanged.

Snorri illustrates this event with the stanza from Ynglingatal:

The Historia Norwegiæ presents a Latin summary of Ynglingatal, older than Snorri's quotation, continuing after Yngvi (called Ingialdr):

The even earlier source Íslendingabók also cites the line of descent in Ynglingatal and it gives the same line of succession: ''xiiii Yngvi. xv Jörundr. xvi Aun inn gamli''.

The Skjöldunga saga and the Bjarkarímur tell that Jorund was defeated by the Danish king Fróði (corresponds to the Heaðobard Froda in Beowulf), who made him a tributary and took his daughter. The daughter gave birth to Halfdan, but another woman became Fróði's legitimate wife and gave him an heir named Ingjaldr (corresponds to the Heaðobard Ingeld in Beowulf). Together with one of his earls, Swerting, Jorund conspired against Fróði and killed him during the blót.

title: Jorund


text:
Category:History of the Netherlands

 * See also Category:History of the Low Countries for the common history of Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

title: Category:History of the Netherlands


text: Category:Surgeons

title: Category:Surgeons


text:
Wikipedia:Contents/A–Z index

 Wikipedia's contents: A–Z Index

The MediaWiki software is case-sensitive; pages under  will correspond to different pages compared with. On each index page, italics indicate redirects. To view the index at the precise starting point of your choosing, use the Prefix index.

title: Wikipedia:Contents/A–Z index


text:
SK Slavia Prague

Sportovní klub Slavia Praha – fotbal (Sports Club Slavia Prague – Football, ), commonly known as Slavia Praha or Slavia Prague, is a Czech professional football club in Prague. Founded in 1892, they are the second most successful club in the Czech Republic since its independence in 1993. They play in the Czech First League, the top division in the Czech Republic. They play the Prague derby with Sparta Prague, the most prominent rivalry in Czech football. Slavia has won 21 league titles, 11 Czech cups, and the Mitropa Cup in 1938. The club has won seven league titles since the foundation of the Czech league in 1993. They have also reached the semi-finals of the 1995–96 UEFA Cup and qualified for the 2007–08 UEFA Champions League group stage for the first time in their history. In 2019, Slavia reached the quarter-finals of the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League and also qualified for the 2019–20 UEFA Champions League group stage for the second time in their history. They once again reached the Europa League quarter-finals in 2020–21. In the title-winning 2020–21 Czech First League season the team completed an entire season undefeated and set a Czech record for the longest top-flight unbeaten league run at 54 games between 2020 and 2021.

In addition to their men's squad, Slavia Prague has reserve, youth, and women's teams.

History
Slavia Prague was founded on 2 November 1892 by medicine students in Vinohrady, Prague, as a sport club aimed at increasing sport activity among students. The club initially focused on cycling, and expanded to football in 1896. On 25 March of that year, Slavia won their first match against AC Prague 5–0. The captain of this team was Karel Freja. Four days later, Slavia played against Sparta Prague, with the match finishing 0–0, this match being the start of the rivalry between these two clubs.

In 1905, Scottish manager and former Celtic player Johnny Madden brought new tactics and views on football from his home country to the club. He managed to set up an early golden age for the club that lasted 25 years. Under Madden Slavia won 134 domestic matches out of a total of 169, and 304 internationals out of 429 between the years 1905 and 1930. In 1930, Madden retired from Slavia and professional football at the age of 66, though he remained in Prague for the rest of his life.

In the 1934 World Cup, the Czechoslovak national team included eight Slavia players. The second golden period came when Slavia bought Josef Bican from Admira Vienna. Slavia with Bican won titles in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943, while many football players were at war. In 1951 Slavia finished in 11th position in the league. Poor results continued during the 1950s and 1960s when Slavia were relegated twice, in 1961 and 1963. They next played in the top level of football in 1965.

In 1996, Slavia won their 14th title after 49 years. During this season, Slavia played in the semi-final of the UEFA Cup and four players of this team had big importance for the silver medal-winning Czech team from UEFA Euro 1996.

Slavia participated in the qualifying rounds for the UEFA Champions League five times (1996, 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005), being eliminated each time until finally qualifying for the group stage in the 2007–08 season following a 3–1 aggregate victory over Ajax in the third qualifying round. For the group stage, Slavia were drawn in Group H along with Arsenal, Steaua București and Sevilla. They started with a 2–1 win at home against Steaua and a 4–2 loss to Sevilla. Next came two matches against Arsenal; Slavia lost 7–0 at the Emirates Stadium, but eventually draw 0–0 in the second leg. In Bucharest came a 1–1 draw, which qualified the Czech team for the UEFA Cup round of 32, from third place in Group H, in spite of a home 0–3 defeat against Sevilla.

In October 2006, the construction of the new and long-awaited stadium at Eden for 21,000 spectators began. The stadium was opened on 7 May 2008 with an exhibition match against Oxford University.

In the 2007–08 and 2008–09, Slavia were back-to-back Czech champions, but did not play in the Champions League group stage due to elimination in the qualifying rounds by Fiorentina (0–2 on aggregate in 2008–09) and Sheriff Tiraspol (1–1 on away goals rule in 2009–10). In the 2009–10 Czech First League, the club managed only seventh place in the league.

In the autumn of 2010, the club found itself in crisis due to its economic problems. It was discovered that Slavia owed 112 million Czech koruna to the club's former owner, ENIC Sports Ltd (English National Investment Company). As a result, major cost-cutting was needed to service this debt and it was confirmed that the squad needed to be purged. In addition to the players sold, midfielder Petr Trapp left the club mid-season, claiming that Slavia had not paid his wages for three months.

On 5 May 2011, the first leg of the cup semi-final against Olomouc was suspended after the first half at a score of 1–1 due to Slavia fans invaded the pitch in protest against the deteriorating financial situation of the club. As a result of this action, Sigma were awarded a 3–0 win.

In September 2015, CEFC China Energy Company bought the team. Since November 2018, the club owners have been the Sinobo Group and CITIC Group.

Since December 2023, the club is owned by the Czech businessman Pavel Tykač, who bought the club from Chinese owners for reported 2 billion Czech crowns.

Historical names

 * 1892 – SK ACOS Praha (Sportovní klub Akademický cyklistický odbor Slavia Praha)
 * 1893 – SK Slavia Praha (Sportovní klub Slavia Praha)
 * 1948 – Sokol Slavia Praha
 * 1949 – ZSJ Dynamo Slavia Praha (Základní sportovní jednota Dynamo Slavia Praha)
 * 1953 – DSO Dynamo Praha (Dobrovolná sportovní organizace Dynamo Praha)
 * 1954 – TJ Dynamo Praha (Tělovýchovná jednota Dynamo Praha)
 * 1965 – SK Slavia Praha (Sportovní klub Slavia Praha)
 * 1973 – TJ Slavia Praha (Tělovýchovná jednota Slavia Praha)
 * 1977 – TJ Slavia IPS Praha (Tělovýchovná jednota Slavia Inženýrské průmyslové stavby Praha)
 * 1978 – SK Slavia IPS Praha (Sportovní klub Slavia Inženýrské průmyslové stavby Praha)
 * 1991 – SK Slavia Praha (Sportovní klub Slavia Praha – fotbal, a.s.)

Club symbols

The club's colours, red and white, were chosen as standing for the heart and blood, and fair play and sportsmanship respectively. The inverted five-pointed star was intended to symbolise "new hope, forever strengthening the mind and uplifting the spirit." The name "Slavia" is a Latin term used in older literature to denote the lands inhabited by Slavs.

Supporters and rivalries
Slavia's greatest rivals are Sparta Prague, with whom they contest the Prague derby. A local Vršovice derby is also contested between Slavia and Bohemians 1905, whose stadium is situated a kilometre from Eden.

Slavia is widely misconceived as being a Jewish club among other fans, particularly Sparta fans, and its fans and players are often subjected to anti-semitic abuse. However, the club was not founded by Jews nor did it have any Jewish history. Football historian Vladimír Zapotocký commented in an interview that were this the case, the Nazis would have shut the club down during the wartime occupation, as they did with DFC Prag. The association stems from a friendly match played against West Ham United in 1922, when Slavia insured the match against adverse weather conditions, and the match was later cancelled due to rain. They then agreed with West Ham to play the fixture the next day, while also collecting money from the insurance company for cancelling the fixture. A week later in a Prague derby fixture, Slavia were greeted onto the pitch by chants of "vy židi!" ("you Jews!") from the Sparta fans.

Since 2021, there is a fan coalition with Sportowe Zaglebie (Zagłębie Sosnowiec hooligans).

Cooperations
In May 2018 a strategic cooperation with Chinese club Beijing Sinobo Guoan for both professional and youth level football started.

Notable former players
The best known Slavia player of all time is perhaps forward Josef "Pepi" Bican, one of the most prolific goalscorers in the history of football. Other famous players include forward Antonín Puč, goalkeeper František Plánička (both of them members of the Czechoslovakia national team in two World Cups) and midfielder František Veselý. Other big names in club history are Karel Jarolím, Ivo Knoflíček, Vladimír Šmicer, Karel Poborský, Patrik Berger, Vladimír Coufal and Tomáš Souček.

Player records in the Czech First League
.

Ownership and finances
Under the Czech jurisdiction the club's legal form is a joint-stock company (updated 1 August 2020) with the largest shareholder being the Chinese real estate Sinobo Group, which has on 11 November 2018 purchased a majority stake from CITIC, at the time holding 99.98% of the 212,074 stocks worth of CZK 1.514 billion (Annual report from 30 June 2018). CITIC remains to be a minority shareholder and the companies did not reveal the distribution of the shares.

According to their chairman Jinhui Zhou, the Sinobo business model is a combination of real estate development and sports activities. In a similar business model, Sinobo owns 64% of the shares in the Chinese club Beijing Guoan where the 36% minority belongs to CITIC. Sinobo also holds the naming rights of the arena, the Sinobo Stadium.

The Chinese investment activity in Slavia has firstly started in September 2005, when a private conglomerate CEFC acquired 59.97% shares of the club through its Czech subsidiary CEFC Group (Europe) Company a.s. from Aleš Řebíček for CZK 27 million. Through the course of the years, the share has increased to 67% and 80%, and on 22 November 2016 CEFC has capitalized its loan into the equity and increased their shares to 99.96% which made them the sole owner. In early 2018, it turned out that CEFC had serious financial problems and CITIC bought the club and arena. In late 2018, CITIC transferred Slavia's majority stake to the Chinese company Sinobo Group.

Slavia's financial results for the 2017–18 season show group revenue of CZK 837.4 million, with a profit before tax of CZK <366.7> million.

Management
The club's current manager is Jindřich Trpišovský, who joined the club in December 2017 from Slovan Liberec. He replaced Jaroslav Šilhavý, who was appointed in September 2016 and moved on to manage the Czech national team. There have been 65 managers in Slavia's history. The club's first professional coach, Johnny Madden, was appointed in 1905, serving in that position until 1930. He remains the club's longest-serving coach in terms of both length of tenure and number of games overseen.

 * Head Coach: Jindřich Trpišovský
 * Assistant Coach: Milan Kerbr
 * Assistant Coach: Zdeněk Houštecký
 * Assistant Coach: Pavel Řehák
 * Goalkeeper Coach: Štěpán Kolář
 * Goalkeeper Coach: Radek Černý
 * Fitness Coach: Martin Třasák
 * Fitness Coach: Aleš Píta

Former coaches
Only competitive matches are counted.

 * Johnny Madden (1905–30)
 * Josef Štaplík (1930–33)
 * Kálmán Konrád (1933–35)
 * Jan Reichardt (1935–38)
 * Emil Seifert (1939–46)
 * Josef Pojar (1946–47)
 * Viliam König (1947–48)
 * Jan Reichardt (1949)
 * Viliam König (1950–51)
 * Emil Seifert (1952–53)
 * Josef Bican (1954–56)
 * Antonín Rýgr (1956–58)
 * Josef Forejt (1958)
 * Antonín Rýgr (1959)
 * Vlastimil Kopecký (1959)
 * Karel Finek (1959–60)
 * Josef Forejt (1960)
 * Antonín Rýgr (1960–63)
 * Karel Finek (1963–64)
 * František Ipser (1964–66)
 * Vratislav Fikejz (1966)
 * Mirko Paráček (1966)
 * František Havránek (1966–68)
 * Jiří Nedvídek (1968–69)
 * Josef Forejt (1969–70)
 * Antonín Rýgr (1970–72)
 * Miroslav Linhart (1972)
 * Rudolf Vytlačil (1973)
 * Jaroslav Jareš (1973–79)
 * Bohumil Musil (1979–80)
 * Josef Bouška (1981)
 * Miroslav Starý (1981)
 * Milan Máčala (1982–84)
 * Jaroslav Jareš (1984–86)
 * Vlastimil Petržela (1986–87)
 * Tomáš Pospíchal (1987–88)
 * Ivan Kopecký (1988–89)
 * Vlastimil Petržela (1990–92)
 * Jozef Jarabinský (1992–93)
 * Jindřich Dejmal (1993–94)
 * Miroslav Beránek (1994–95)
 * František Cipro (1995–97)
 * Pavel Tobiáš (1997–98)
 * Petr Rada (1998)
 * Jaroslav Hřebík (1998–99)
 * František Cipro (1999–00)
 * Karel Jarolím (2000–01)
 * Josef Pešice (2001)
 * Miroslav Beránek (2001–03)
 * Josef Csaplár (Jan 04–Apr 05)
 * Karel Jarolím (Jul 05–Mar 10)
 * František Cipro (Mar 10–May 10)
 * Karel Jarolím (Jul 10–Sep 10)
 * Michal Petrouš (Sep 10–Oct 11)
 * František Straka (Oct 11–Mar 12)
 * Martin Poustka (Mar 12–Jun 12)
 * Petr Rada (Jul 12–Apr 13)
 * Michal Petrouš (Apr 13–Sep 13)
 * Miroslav Koubek (Sep 13– Mar 14)
 * Alex Pastoor (Mar 14–May 14)
 * Miroslav Beránek (Jun 14–Jun 15)
 * Dušan Uhrin Jr. (Jun 15–Aug 16)
 * Jaroslav Šilhavý (Sep 16–Dec 17)
 * Jindřich Trpišovský (Dec 2017–present)

Progress in UEFA competitions

 * Accurate as of 26 October 2023

Club records

 * Biggest win: Fenerbahçe 1–10 Slavia Prague (1923)

Czech First League records

 * Best position: 1st (1995–96, 2007–08, 2008–09, 2016–17, 2018–19, 2019–20)
 * Worst position: 13th (2013–14)
 * Biggest home win: Slavia Prague 9–1 Slovácká Slavia Uherské Hradiště (1995–96)
 * Biggest away win: Příbram 1–8 Slavia Prague (2016–17)
 * Biggest home defeat: Slavia Prague 0–7 Teplice (2013–14)
 * Biggest away defeat: Ostrava 5–0 Slavia Prague (1998–99)

title: SK Slavia Prague


text:
Haki

Haki, Hake (Old Norse: ) or Haco, the brother of Hagbard, was a famous Scandinavian sea-king, in Norse mythology. He is mentioned in the 12th century Gesta Danorum, and in 13th-century sources including Ynglinga saga, Nafnaþulur, and the Völsunga saga. If historical, he would have lived in the 5th century.

Ynglinga saga
Snorri Sturluson wrote in the Ynglinga saga that Haki had amassed a great force of warriors and sometimes plundered together with his brother Hagbard (who himself was the hero of one of the most popular legends of ancient Scandinavia, see Hagbard and Signy). When Haki considered that he had amassed enough wealth and followers to make himself the king of Sweden, he proceeded with his army against the Swedish royal seat at Uppsala. Haki was a brutal warrior and he had twelve champions, among whom was the legendary warrior Starkad the Old.

The Swedish king Hugleik had also gathered a large army and was supported by the two champions Svipdag and Geigad.

On the Fyrisvellir (Fyris Wolds), south of Uppsala, there was a great battle in which the Swedish army was defeated. Haki and his men captured the Swedish champions Svipdag and Geigad and then they attacked the 'shield-circle' around the Swedish king and slew him and his two sons.

Haki and his warriors subdued the Swedish provinces and Haki made himself the king of Sweden. Then he happily sat in peace for three years while his warriors travelled far and wide and amassed fortunes.

The previous king, Hugleik, had two cousins named Eric and Jorund, who had become famous by killing Gudlög, the king of Hålogaland. When they learnt that king Haki's champions were gone plundering, they assembled a large force and steered towards Sweden. They were joined by many Swedes who wanted to reinstall the Yngling dynasty on the Swedish throne.

The two brothers entered Mälaren, went towards Uppsala, and landed on the Fyrisvellir. There they were met by king Haki, who had a considerably smaller force. Haki was, however, a brutal enemy who killed many men and lastly Eric, who held the banner of the two brothers. Jorund and his men fled to the ships, but Haki was mortally wounded.

Haki asked for a longship, which was loaded with his dead warriors and their weapons. He had the sails hoisted and set fire to a piece of tar-wood, which he asked to be covered with a pile of wood. Haki was all but dead when he was laid on top of the pile. The wind was blowing towards the water and the ship departed in full flame between the small islands out into the sea. This was much talked about and it gave him great fame.

Other traditions
Most legends surrounding Haki are probably lost. In the Völsunga saga, Gudrun and Brynhild have a discussion on the "greatest of men" referring to a legend now lost, where Haki's sons have not yet avenged their sisters by killing the evil Sigar (the feud with Sigar is still going on and Hagbard has not yet been hanged): "Good talk," says Gudrun, "let us do even so; what kings deemest thou to have been the first of all men?" Brynhild says, "The sons of Haki, and Hagbard withal; they brought to pass many a deed of fame in the warfare." Gudrun answers, "Great men certes, and of noble fame! Yet Sigar took their one sister, and burned the other, house and all; and they may be called slow to revenge the deed; why didst thou not name my brethren who are held to be the first of men as at this time?"

In Gesta Danorum (book 7), Haki (Hakon) killed Sigar, avenging his brother Hagbard's death. In Gesta Danorum, Saxo Grammaticus gives Haki as a king of Denmark, and Hugleik, called Huglet(h)us, is an Irish king. The motivation behind the attack was to show that even the furthest kingdoms of the world might not be untouched by the Danish arms.

Saxo writes that Starkad and Haki brought their fleet to Ireland, where the rich and greedy king Hugleik lived. Hugleik was never generous to an honourable man, but spent all his riches on mimes and jugglers. In spite of his avarice, Hugleik had the great champions Geigad and Svipdag. When the battle began, the jugglers and mimes panicked and fled, and only Geigad and Svipdag remained to defend Hugleik, but they fought like an entire army. Geigad dealt Starkad a wound on the head which was so severe that Starkad would later sing songs about it. Starkad killed Hugleik and made the Irish flee. He then had the jugglers and mimes whipped and beaten, in order to humiliate them. Then the Danes brought Hugleik's riches out to Dublin to be publicly looted, and there was so much of it that none cared for its strict division. When Haki learnt that his brother Hagbard had been killed by Sigar, he avenged his brother. However, killing Sigar was not enough to satiate his thirst for blood:

Then Hakon used his conquest to cruel purpose, and followed up his good fortune so wickedly, that he lusted for an indiscriminate massacre, and thought no forbearance should be shown to rank or sex. Nor did he yield to any regard for compassion or shame, but stained his sword in the blood of women, and attacked mothers and children in one general and ruthless slaughter.

He was soon chased away by Sigar's son Siwald.

title: Haki


text:
User talk:EncyclopediaMan

Hello. I'm EncyclopediaMan. I love to write and read articles. I'm also running for Administrator so be sure to vote for me!

Messages-(Edit to post a message on my page!!!)

title: User talk:EncyclopediaMan


text:
Run (cricket)

In cricket, a run is the unit of scoring. The team with the most runs wins in many versions of the game, and always draws at worst (see result), except for some results decided by the DLS method, which is used in rain-shortened limited-overs games when the two teams have had a different number of opportunities to score runs.

One run (known as a "single") is scored when the two batters (the striker and the non-striker) start off positioned at opposite ends of the pitch (which has a length of 22 yards) and then they each arrive safely at the other end of the pitch (i.e. they cross each other without being run out).

There is no limit on the number of runs that may be scored off a single delivery, and depending on how long it takes the fielding team to recover the ball, the batters may run more than once. Each completed run, if it occurs after the striker hits the ball with the bat (or a gloved hand holding the bat), increments the scores of both the team and the striker.

A batter may also score 4 or 6 runs (without having to run) by striking the ball to the boundary. The team's total score in the innings is the aggregate of all its batters' individual scores plus any extras (runs scored regardless of whether the bat or glove hit the ball). One extra is scored each time the bowler bowls an illegal delivery to the batter, and four extras are scored if the ball reaches the boundary without having been struck by the batter.
 * If the ball hits the ground before hitting or passing the boundary, then four runs are scored.
 * If the ball passes or hits the boundary without first bouncing, then six runs are scored.

To complete a run, both batters must make their ground, with some part of their person or bat touching the ground behind the popping crease at the other end of the pitch. Attempting a run carries a risk factor because either batter can be run out, (one method of dismissal), with the run then not being scored, if the fielding side can break one of the wickets (at either end of the pitch) with the ball before the batter near that wicket has completed the run.

Method
Scoring runs is the subject of Law 18 in the Laws of Cricket. Boundaries are covered in Law 19. How the Batsman makes his ground is Law 30.

Runs scored by running
Batsmen frequently run singles and also "twos" and "threes". If the batsmen run a single or a three, they have "changed ends", so the striking batsman becomes the non-striker for the next delivery, and vice versa. If the single or three is scored off the last delivery of the over, the striker, having changed ends, retains the strike for the first delivery of the next over. There are rare instances of "fours" being all run when the ball does not reach the boundary. A "five" is possible, but usually arises from a mistake by the fielders, such as an overthrow. The batsman is never compelled to run and can deliberately play without attempting to score.

This is known as running between the wickets. During each run, each batter starts off behind one of the popping creases and then must go beyond the other popping crease, running a minimum distance of 58 ft.

The striking batsman may begin his or her run from the moment the ball hits the bat; the non-striker may begin his or her run before the ball is struck, but runs the risk of being run out if they move out of their crease before the bowler delivers the ball. Leaving the crease early, to gain an advantage in running between the wickets, is known as backing up.

The batsmen stop running when they judge that the ball is sufficiently controlled by the fielding team to prevent another run, for example when it is returned to the bowler or the wicketkeeper.

If, when turning for an additional run, one of the batsmen fails to ground some part of their body or bat behind the popping crease, the umpire declares a "short run" and the run does not count but, even if the bat is dropped, runs do count as long as each batsman makes his ground with his bat or person somehow.

Boundaries

The act of running is unnecessary if the batsman hits the ball to the marked boundary of the field. If the ball reaches the boundary having made contact with the ground, four runs are added to the scores of both the batsman (if he had struck the ball) and the team. If the batsman succeeds in hitting the ball onto or over the boundary on the full (i.e. the ball does not contact the ground until it has hit or is beyond the boundary), six runs are added. If the batsmen are running when the ball reaches the boundary, they can stop, and their team will be awarded either the number of runs for the boundary (4 or 6), or runs the batsmen completed together (including a run in progress if they already crossed when the boundary is scored), whichever is greater.

It is also possible for a fielder to stop the ball from reaching the boundary, but for the ball to subsequently reach the boundary due to an overthrow by the fielder. In this case, four runs are scored (which are credited to the striker) in addition to any runs the batters had scored by running on that delivery.

Extras
In addition to runs scored by the batsmen, the team total is incremented by extras (also known as "sundries" in Australia; they are not added to a batsman's individual score), which arise because:
 * The bowler has delivered a wide or no-ball
 * The fielders have caused a no-ball (each of which incurs a one-run penalty)
 * The fielders have failed to control a ball that did not make contact with the bat (byes and leg byes), thus allowing the batsmen to run.
 * Byes, leg-byes, and wides that elude the fielders and cross the boundary score four (never six) in addition to the one-run penalty scored for a no-ball or wide if applicable.
 * Five penalty runs are awarded by the umpires, either to the batting team or to the fielding team as applicable, for infringement of some of the Laws, usually relating to unfair play or player conduct.
 * For example five runs are awarded to the batting team if the ball hits a helmet on the ground belonging to the fielding team, as per Law 28.3.2. Five runs are awarded to the fielding team if the batting team causes avoidable damage to the pitch after due warning by the umpire, in accordance with Law 41.14.3. If the umpire considers a short run to have been a deliberate act, as per Law 18.5.2, they will disallow all runs to the batting side and award 5 Penalty runs to the fielding side. Law 41.3 states it is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball; wilful damage outside the scope of allowable actions shall result in replacement of the ball and a five-run penalty being incurred in favour of the batting side.

History
In the written records of cricket, "run" is as old as "cricket" itself. In the earliest known reference to the sport, dated Monday, 17 January 1597 (Julian date), Surrey coroner John Derrick made a legal deposition concerning a plot of land in Guildford that when (c. 1550):

"'a scholler of the Ffree Schoole of Guildeford, hee and diverse of his fellowes did runne and play there at creckett and other plaies'."

It may well be that, in this context, "runne" meant running in general. For a long time, until well into the 18th century, the scorers sat on the field and increments to the score were known as "notches" because they would notch the scores on a stick, with a deeper knick at 20. The same method was used by shepherds when counting sheep. In the earliest known laws of cricket, dated 1744, one of the rules states:

"'If in running a Notch, the Wicket is struck down by a Throw, before his Foot, Hand, or Bat is over the Popping-Crease, or a Stump hit by the Ball, though the Bail was down, it's out'."

In the 1774 version, the equivalent rule states:

"'Or if in running a notch, the wicket is struck down by a throw, or with the ball in hand, before his foot, hand, or bat is grounded over the popping-crease; but if the bail is off, a stump must be struck out of the ground by the ball'."

These are the earliest known references to running as the means of scoring. The change of terminology from "notch" to "run" was gradual, and both terms were in use in 1800. The result of a match played in Sussex on 3 August 1800 was a win "by 25 notches" while another match in Sussex on 9 August 1800 was won "by an innings and 38 runs".

Records
For team and individual run-scoring records, see List of Test cricket records, List of One Day International cricket records, List of Twenty20 International records, and List of first-class cricket records.

title: Run (cricket)


text:
Talk:Hearsay in United States law

video edits
Last 2 videos are unrelated to hearsay evidence. How do we delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgordski (talk • contribs) 05:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

new edits
I removed the 'exclusionary rule' example for two reasons. First, whether something is subject to the United States exclusionary rule does not hinge on it being hearsay. Both hearsay and non-hearsay are equally subject to the exclusionary rule. Since this this is a hearsay article, I felt we should stick to the subject at hand. Second, the example given was incorrect. The officer heard the cries of help PRIOR to entering the home, not AFTER. Even if his forced entry to the home violated the constitutional rights of the Defendant and thus invoked the exclusionary rule, that would not exclude the victim's cries of help from evidence. (one of the authors)

I also removed the civil lawsuit example. In most jurisdictions, the rule of evidence will be the same whether a trial is a civil or criminal trial. The 'prior consistent statement' example given for the civil trial, would also apply with equal force in a criminal trial. (one of the autors)

Good article, but the sentence "Generally speaking hearsay is a concept that developed in the common law legal tradition in the context of the adversarial system of decision making" seems odd, coming as it does at the very end of the article. Seems like it should appear somewhere near the beginning. - dcljr 19:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article must be a shade above retarded and should be disbarred; that is, if he is a member of some state bar, which I seriously doubt. I fixed the Business records entry and the one concerning Admissions (which any lawyer will tell you is non-hearsay, not a hearsay exception).

IN RESPONSE: ''Part of the challenge of writing a legal article for Wikipedia is that in the United States alone there are 51 vastly different legal jurisdictions with different definitions and applications of hearsay. Even though most states use a standardized version of evidentiary rules, their appellate courts will often have different interpretations of how to apply hearsay. For example, some states consider admissions of party opponents to be non-hearsay, while others consider it to be hearsay, but allow it to be admitted into evidence as an exception. Another example, which I attempted to clarify in the article:  not all jurisdictions require the records custodian to testify prior to the business records being admitted into evidence. Some merely require someone with knowledge of the records to testify, even if that person does not handle the records in question on a daily basis.'' Finally, it should be noted that the phrase, "...if the proper foundation is laid when the evidence is introduced into evidence", is, from a technically point of view, is at best redundant and at worst inaccurate. Something is not 'evidence' until it has been admitted into evidence. 'Evidence', from a legal point of view, is only that information which the Judge has admitted at trial and is allowing the trier of fact to consider. I therefore changed it to: "if the proper foundation is laid when the DOCUMENT is introduced into evidence". Your point on police records and business exception is well taken, however, and I clarified and expanded on this point.(one of the authors)

Someone should standardise this article under the Federal Rules of Evidence, OR at least illustrate the distinctions between the various state laws of evidence where they differ from the Federal Rules. As it is now, there is no telling what rules you are using.CelineDionFan82 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Crawford Decision
I think the new Supreme Court decision Crawford (cite unknown, but 2004) should also be discussed. I'm a fledling evidence student (exam on Tue) -- and I think this is a nice overview of hearsay. Nonetheless, given the right to confrontation embodied in Scalia's decision, it'd be worth adding a paragraph about the Crawford decision.

 * SCOTUS opinions
 * oral arguments in Crawford v. Washington
 * Decision
 * -- Dominus 14:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Difference with civil law countries
As far as I know, in France (civil law country), having X say that he heard Y say Z is not accepted as a proof that Z is true. It is accepted as corroboratory evidence (i.e. something that adds to the credibility of something that is proved otherwise) but not as as a proof of Z. The logical defense, when faced with such allegations, is to ask why Y was not called as a witness. David.Monniaux 12:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

assaulting a partially a victim
The sentence
 * Believing that there is a crime in progress,the officer kicks the front door down and enters the home to discover the perpetrator/homeowner assaulting a partially a victim.

should be fixed; but I'm not sure what the wikipedian who wrote it was trying to say. Pretzelpaws 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably meant to say a partially nude victim... so I fixed the hypo up completely. -- BD2412 talk 00:33, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

limited to federal rules
is this article limited to the US federal rules? i believe there are some US jurisdictions where a party admission is not considered non-hearsay. Streamless 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Could really use...well...see the title. Eyeball kid 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

English law
I wrote an article on Hearsay in English Law - I spent some working out any way that it could be incorporated into this one, but the complexity of dealing with completely different legal approaches (even if ostensibly similar) led me to just writing a fresh one, with appropriate links. Feedback is welcome! Hacienda 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this article is called 'Hearsay' rather than 'Hearsay in US law'? 144.138.137.122 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Non Hearsay
The entry for prior consistent statements might be misleading in that it appears to limit the Federal Rules' definition of non hearsay statements to just prior consistent statements. The Federal Rules consider prior inconsistent statements non hearsay as well.

jpm

I have made some modifications to the article to try to correct this. Yours, Famspear 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the next part of this article I take issue with is the following: "Subject to two classes of "exemptions," this definition classifies a statement as hearsay if the statement meets two requirements: (1) the statement must be extra-judicial (i.e. not made by this witness in this proceeding). (2) The statement must be offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts if anything."

Will the author of this statement please enumerate what they believe the two "classes of 'exemptions'" mentioned in this statement in fact are? These are not enumerated in the article near this sentence, making it vague and nebulous and speculative as to the statement's accuracy. Thank you. Supervox2113 (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Under FRE 801, there are two exemptions from what would otherwise be hearsay: a declarant-witness’s prior statement (under certain circumstances), and an opposing party’s statement (also under certain circumstances). FRE 801(d)(1) and (2). Adhocusername (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Major problems with this article
I am too busy with other parts of WP to fix it, but I want to set this out so perhaps a nonlawyer can take a stab at it:

 * Hearsay is not a proper noun. Therefore it should NOT be capitalized at every occurrence.
 * Same for non-hearsay.
 * Ohio v. Roberts was overridden by Crawford v. Washington, so it should not even be mentioned here, or it should be mentioned only in passing. (comment: This is actually incorrect, Crawford only partially overruled Roberts, aspects of the decision pertaining to non-testimonial hearsay and the confrontation clause are still good law)
 * The case names should be italicized.
 * The examples given are unnecessarily wordy.
 * The entire article is so disorganized and poorly written that it appears to have been based upon the outline of a C student at a fourth-tier law school. --Coolcaesar 07:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree that the article needs a major rewrite. The latter comment doesn't belong on this page.  Plus it makes you sound like a real jerk.--Lindsay (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Examples
Previously posted (old): Reading the example given (with Slayer and the policeman), I believe some misconceptions are being purveyed. Firstly, I believe the statement would fall under the exception for excited utterances and (perhaps) dying declarations. But more importantly, if the victim survived, wouldn't she be able to testify as to her own statement in court, thus allowing it to be entered. I'm no expert, so it'd be great if someone informed me if I am right, or why I am wrong (so that we can make Wikipedia as accurate as possible). -- Jasper 124c41+ 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jasper 124c41+: Here is the language you are referencing:

 * In the first trial, the issue is whether Slayer attempted to kill Monica. Officer Friday is asked to testify to what he heard Monica scream from inside the house, i.e., "Help, Slayer is trying to kill me!". This statement would be hearsay. Officer Friday is being asked to testify to what Monica said to prove that Slayer attempted to murder Monica. Unless the attorney can show that this statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, the factfinder (the judge or jury) will never be allowed to consider Monica's statement.

What the article is saying -- correctly -- is that Monica's statement is hearsay. The fact that her statement may fall under one or more of the hearsay exceptions does not change the fact that it is hearsay, period.

The article is not saying that the statement does not fall under one of the exceptions; indeed, the sentence beginning with "Unless the attorney can show..." is pointing out that Monica's statement may well fall under one of those exceptions. The point is that: (1) whether the statement is hearsay, and (2) whether the statement is admissible because it also falls under one of the exceptions, are two separate questions.

Next, if Monica survives and testifies in court, she might not need to have her own hearsay statement admitted into evidence, anyway. She can instead testify as to what she saw at the time of the attack (such as, "I saw Slayer break into the house, and then he started stabbing me with the knife", or whatever). Monica's out of court statements made at the time of Slayer's attack are still hearsay, even though Monica is now in court, and those statements are still subject to the restrictions on admissibility described in the article.

If you read the article again, you should see that statements that come under hearsay exceptions are still hearsay, while statements that come under hearsay exemptions (sometimes called hearsay exclusions) are not hearsay.

If a statement is hearsay (if it's an out of court statement offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted and it doesn't qualify under a hearsay exemption/exclusion) then it is hearsay -- even if that statement also happens to fall under one of the hearsay exceptions.

The purpose of the "hearsay exception" rule is to say, basically, "Yes, this statement is hearsay, but it is being admitted even though it is hearsay.

I don't think there are any errors in the "Monica" example in the article. I hope this clears it up a bit. Yours, Famspear 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Will the author of the following sentence please expound on its meaning:

"Put another way, if the probative value of the statement depends on the credibility of the person who made it, that statement is necessarily offered for the purpose of proving its truth." --This sentence appears in the article and I do not believe it is necessarily true. In fact, I am quite certain that it is never true. However, I would like to hear an explanation from the author or someone else who may understand its meaning. Absent that, I intend to delete it from the article.Supervox2113 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear editor Supervox2113: The nature of your objection is unclear. Please give an example of a situation where the statement would be incorrect or untrue. Famspear (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Famspear, no problem. Lets say John Doe is in a civil commitment proceeding to determine whether he is dangerous and insane.  Witness x testifies against John, stating that witness y told witness x that John said "I'm being attacked by Jane Doe and must kill her!".  Naturally, John's credibility in making the statement is an issue, as is the credibility of both y and x in repeating it.  Yet, the statement is not offered to prove whether or not Jane was in fact trying to kill John, or whether John in fact had to kill her.  Rather, the existence of the statement is circumstantial evidence of John's state of mind at the time he was charged as insane.  Thus, the credibility of several witnesses are in question (as to whether or not the statement was in fact ever uttered -- which will have an effect on the outcome of John's proceeding), but no one cares whether or not the content of the assertion is in fact true.  The point is, in every trial, the credibility of the witnesses are an issue -- that is the whole point of the 6th amendment -- yet not every  statement a witness offers is for the truth of the matter asserted.  In terms of an absolute ratio, the converse is probably the more common occurance.  For example, the statement above is akin to saying: every time one is hot, one must necessarily be standing in the desert.  This statement, while occassionaly true, is probably more often untrue than not.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Supervox2113: I'm not sure, but I think your example may have defeated your argument. First, let's recap: In your example, John Doe is the "declarant" - he is the person whose out-of-court statement is being "quoted." On the facts you gave, I would argue that John's credibility is not at issue with respect to the admission of that particular out-of-court statement. In other words, since we are not offering John's statement as evidence for the purpose of proving that Jane was actually trying to kill John, the credibility of John in making that particular statement is not the issue. In this situation, we are instead trying to determine whether John is mentally competent, dangerous, insane, etc. The truth or falsity of John's statement will be evaluated using other evidence -- such as eyewitnesses who say "We have been with both John and Jane for years, and we have never seen any hint that Jane is trying to kill John."

I think you might be confused by the fact that John's credibility -- that is, his believability is in fact "an overall issue" in a civil commitment proceeding. Obviously, the fact that a person says crazy, incredible things is relevant in determining whether he is insane. The problem is: John's credibility is not an issue with respect to the purpose for which this particular statement is being offered as evidence. We need to focus on the particular reason for this statement.

Now, let's look at the statement again:

 * "Put another way, if the probative value of the statement depends on the credibility of the person who made it, that statement is necessarily offered for the purpose of proving its truth."

In this case, purpose of offering John's out-of-court statement as evidence is to show that John makes wacky statements - as evidence of his "insaneness" or whatever. In offering this in evidence, we are not concerned with John's credibility. That is, we are not concerned with whether the statement is true or false, or whether John is believable in making that statement. We are just trying to give an example of a crazy statement he made. Instead, we will offer other evidence to show why the statement is false (and therefore, why John is not credible, in an effort to show he is insane, etc.).

Now, let's take a similar statement - but with other parties and a completely different set of facts. Suppose Mary is accused of trying to kill Susan. We introduce a witness who says "I heard Susan yell, 'Mary is trying to kill me and I must kill her' at the time of the attack." In this case, if we are offering that statement for the specific purpose of trying to prove that Mary was trying to kill Susan, that statement will be hearsay (and it may or may not be admissible). In this case, the credibility of Susan herself is at issue.

In determining whether the credibility of the declarant is at issue, you have to look at the specific purpose for which that particular statement is being offered as evidence.

So, getting back to "John": The mere fact that the credibility of John is an overall issue in the civil commitment case does not mean that John's credibility is an issue with respect to the particular statement that you are talking about. In other words, in the overall case, we may indeed need to prove that John was mistaken in believing that Jane was trying to kill him. And John's credibility may therefore be an issue in the overall case, in showing that he has no credibility and is in fact insane. But John's credibility is NOT an issue with respect to the purpose for offering this particular statement as evidence.

Thoughts? Famspear (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a follow-up, you are correct to say that in any trial, the credibility of witnesses is an issue. But that is not what the article is talking about. The article is talking about the credibility of the declarant -- the person whose out-of-court statement is being quoted by a witness. The declarant himself/herself might not even be called as a witness in the case (that is, he or she might not be called to the stand in the court room). And I agree with your comment that not every statement a witness offers is for the truth of the matter asserted. The problem is that I think this weakens your argument rather than strengthening it.

Stated another way: If the probative value of the declarant's out of court statement depends on the credibility of the declarant, that out-of-court statement is necessarily being offered for the specific purpose of proving the truth of that statement.

Maybe it should be turned around to say: If the out-of-court statement is being offered for the specific purpose of proving the truth of what the statement says, then the probative value of that statement depends (at least in part) on the credibility of the declarant who made that out-of-court statement.

Thoughts? Famspear (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * My thoughts:

1: Supervox's example of John Doe's civil committment is flawed; An out of court stateemnt by a party is admissible whether to prove the truth of the matter asserted or not. The evidence would be admitted over a frivilous hearsay objection - the weakest possible grounds being nonhearsay - circumstantial evidence of mental state (cf. Fed. R. Evid. 801), but the better grounds being nonhearsay, admission of statement made by party opponent.

2: The statement Supervox objected to ("Put another way, if the probative value of the statement depends on the credibility of the person who made it, that statement is necessarily offered for the purpose of proving its truth.") is weird - very badly written, but it has some kernels of truth, just poorly delivered. Allow me to explain:

The inability to cross-examine or impeach the declarant is a key reason why hearsay or affidavit evidence is disfavored by the general rule. This is more of a problem when the statement is offered to prove truth of the matter asserted, and less a matter when it isn't. Therefore, the latter type of statement is sometimes admissible as non-hearsay, if a legitimate nonhearsay foundation is laid.

A possible hearsay statement offered to prove the truth of the matter therein asserted is defective because you cannot cross-examine the source, and therefore inadmissible because of the hersay rule((H->T)->(D&~C); P->I). A possible hearsay statement offered for other reasons is not as problematic, and may still not be inadmissible for other reasons, but not because of the hearsay rule. ((H&~T)->(~D&~C); ~D->~I).

The statement quoted by supervox is weird because it says, H&T->T. (It's informally circular, and formally tautologous). It's not helpful to put it that way. It would be better stated that "when a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter therein asserted, its probative value depends to a much greater extent upon the credibility of the declarant than when it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This would better explain why some out-of-court statements that seem like hearsay fall outside of its definition, and outside of its exclusionary rule. These statements are not automatically admissible just because they are not hearsay. If there are other problems with their probative value, and carry a risk of undue prejudice, the court has grounds not to admit them.

Any questions? Let me know. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, I wasn't going to respond to Famspear's last post as I thought it was unnecessarily long -- considering the single, unhelpful sentence in the article it was designed to support. However, upon reading an equally flawed response by Non Curat Lex, I cannot help but point out an obvious fact that both authors missed in their responses: y is also a declarant!  For some reason, both responses are targeted solely at John, Non Curat Lex's going as far as to say the whole problem may be cured by 801d2a. It may help you frame the issue to forget about John for a while and focus on y.
 * I hope I can make this as succinct as possible. The reason I take issue with the sentence, and have said it is never true, is because the sentence uses the word necessarily.  If you unravel the gobbledygook in the sentence, it is possible to construe it in a way that makes it true sometimes, but not always.  It would be like me editing a wikipedia article on noise to say: "If you hear a noise outside your door, it is necessarily being made by an ambulance".  Aside from that, the sentence in the article is poorly written, misleading, and equivocal.  It also might lead to an overly lengthy debate on some article discussion page about Hearsay in United States law.  I suggest it be deleted immediately.

 * Next, I noticed that each author who responded to my post went on to repeat in their own words what hearsay is, how it works, etc., as if that somehow addressed the issue presented. While that does little to help us move forward with respect to the sentence in question (or the facts as related to "John"!), it did cause me to recognize how well each author's explanation was articulated.  My question, then: Why don't any of those thoughts appear in the article?  In my opinion, the entire section under the subheading "Federal Rules of Evidence" should be deleted or drastically revised by someone who knows what they are talking about.        —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervox2113 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Don't snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory. I didn't address the multiple hearsay problem in the example because it's a red herring, and I was only writing about the explanatory sentence that you and I both agree was gobbledigook. It looks like a mis-transcription of something my evidence prof once said - it could be rearranged slightly to form a more accurate statement, but then it would just be redundant.

 * The statement you quoted is correct and should be removed for the reasons you and I both stated. It takes a "sometimes" and wrongly turns it into an "always." As for your 801(d)(2)(A) strawman, do we have to go there? Okay, let's go there. Of course the ability to cross-examine the declarant isn't the ONLY problem with hearsay; hearsay by in-court witnesses not falling into one of the exceptions are excluded too. But look at all of 801(d), and how many exceptions there are for declarants who are present in court (as parties, or witnesses) and it's hard to say that it isn't significant.

 * So to conclude, I think you should leave well enough alone. I support your decision to delete that statement. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

grammar claims
The grammar and capitalization really needs to be fixed. For starters, it's always the "hearsay rule," not the "Hearsay Rule!" --Coolcaesar 10:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Classification
I believe this article meets all of the criterion for B-class status. No comment on importance. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation
When I wrote something accurate, it was deleted by a user who wrote this: Non Curat Lex (Talk | contribs) m (22,604 bytes) (Undid revision 245564667; No - CC was right. That may be true but still is not an excuse. Examples, if to be used, should come from a reliable source. Sorry.).

This article, however, is strewn with unsourced material, like this:

"Generally in common law courts the "hearsay rule" applies, which says that a trier of fact (judge or jury) cannot be informed of a hearsay statement unless it meets certain strict requirements. However, the rules for admissibility are more relaxed in court systems based on the civil law system. In the civil law system, the courts, whether consisting only of judges or featuring a jury, have wide latitude to appreciate the evidence brought before them."

Regarding my failure to cite a "reliable source" for an example that I wrote, take a look at the "common misconceptions" sections, and have a chuckle.

I'm considering deleting all unsourced statements. Debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay123 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * That would not necessarily improve the article. Unfortunately, there are a number of statements which are not cited, but which are verifiable. Removing them would gut the article.

 * Suggestion - don't think about retribution, think about improving the article. Don't delete verifiable statements merely because they are unsourced; add sources, but remove only material that is, per consensus, unverifiable. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not retribution. You can look me up here.  I'm not "that guy" (or girl as the case is!)  But my point is that examples, if to be used, should come from a reliable source. Sorry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay123 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the things that was deleted was my reference to, regarding the reasons for hearsay, the fact that hearsay is not subject to meaningful cross-examination. For anyone who has tried a case, not allowing hearsay in for that very point is critical.  The key issue the P and D may be fighting over may come in by hearsay and you can't substantively examine the witness repeating the declarant's statement.  I don't think any attorney or academic would dispute this as a basis for excluding hearsay, yet some one deleted it from the article.--Lindsay (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

 * So bring it back. Do you have a reliable source, or would you like me to provide one for you? Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, of article
Third paragraph reads "Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of another person's statement, as equivalent to testimony by the witness to the fact. Unless the second person is brought to testify in court where they may be placed under oath and cross-examined." My question is about the second sentence in the paragraph. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 801, California Evidence Code 1200, New Jersey and some other State's hearsay statutes, the extrajudicial statement remains hearsay whether or not the hearsay declarant (the "second person") subsequently becomes a witness at the trial and gives testimony about the statement.

I'd very much appreciate knowing what States hold true for the article's assertion. I'm not a lawyer; I was a paralegal eons ago. Any information would be appreciated.G Louis P (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Hearsay
The definition of hearsay used in this article is incorrect (as far as I know) in all US jurisdictions. Whether a statement is hearsay does not turn on the personal knowledge of the witness; rather, it turns on: 1) whether the statement was made out of court; and, 2) whether it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Take a look at the other Wikipedia page on hearsay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay 64.207.15.130 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Just traced it. Turns out it's from this bizarre edit by User:Nwbeeson on 12 November 2011. Looks like Nwbeeson has no idea what is hearsay and ended up conflating it with several other evidentiary concepts, notably foundation.  I suggest reverting the intro back to the version prior to 12 November 2011 which is much more accurate and clearer. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Sheesh! I see that I have edited this article since that goofy crap was inserted -- and I had never noticed that stuff, either. Have at it Coolcaesar (unless you just want to delete the nonsense and replace it with a brief explanation of what hearsay actually is). Famspear (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question of hearsay in Trump impeachment
The current production of nonsense, by lawyers who should know better, tells me people will come here trying to figure this out. THE MAIN POINT THAT IS LEFT OUT OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT NEEDS CLARIFYING is really succinctly stated at https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/objection-hearsay-what-is-the-hearsay-rule-and-what-are-the-exceptions-to-it. Here is the point: people are claiming/denying hearsay because they think it relates to the veracity of someone who overhears Trump on the phone. That’s totally wrong. As is explained in that legalzoom link, that’s confusing admissible with credible. If Trump’s words were contrary to his own interests (such as openly discussing bribery) then it’s patently NOT hearsay. Was Holmes lying? Perhaps— but that’s a question of credibility. If another person gives corroborating testimony then that may (and no doubt will) affect credibility. But claiming hearsay is a total smokescreen. NOT because the guy was at the table and heard it with their own ears. THAT doesn’t rule out hearsay. It’s because it’s Trump’s confession of a crime. This distinction should be in the article, using the legalzoom ref. Roricka (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify even further, hearsay relates to the truthfulness of the original speaker (e.g., did Trump or Sondland lie) NOT to the truthfulness of Holmes (which would be perjury, having nothing to do with the issue of hearsay. Roricka (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hearsay in United States law


text:
Coffin affair

The Coffin affair was an event in Canadian history in which a man named Wilbert Coffin was hanged for the murder of three men. The affair started in June 1953 in Gaspésie when three men from Pennsylvania were reported missing. Their bodies were found a month later deep in the woods 60 km from the nearest town.

Trial and execution
The main suspect in the case was Wilbert Coffin, who was found to have many items belonging to the men in his possession. Coffin was sent to trial in July 1954 and though the evidence against him was mostly circumstantial, he was convicted with one count of murder (as the penal code prohibited multiple convictions of murder in the same trial). On August 5 he was sentenced to hang.

An appeal to the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench was dismissed. Coffin's application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was turned down but the federal Cabinet submitted a reference question to that Court asking: "If the application made by Wilbert Coffin for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada had been granted on any of the grounds alleged on the said application, what disposition of the appeal would now be made by the court?"

The federal government's decision to take the question to the Supreme Court of Canada caused tension with the government of the province of Quebec. The Supreme Court answered that it would have upheld the conviction of Coffin: Reference re Regina v. Coffin, [1956] S.C.R. 191.

Coffin was hanged at Montreal's Bordeaux Prison on February 10, 1956 at 12:01 AM.

But the story did not end with Coffin's death. Jacques Hébert, a reporter during the trial and later a senator, published two books on the matter: Coffin était innocent (1958) and J'accuse les assassins de Coffin (1963). Hébert's 1963 book caused such controversy that the provincial government established a Commission of Inquiry into the case. Headed by judge Roger Brossard with Jules Deschênes as Counsel to the Commission, over 200 witnesses were interviewed. The commission found that Coffin did receive a fair trial.

In 1979, filmmaker Jean-Claude Labrecque made a feature film on the matter entitled L'Affaire Coffin. It was released on September 10, 1980. Other documents inspired by the Coffin case include Dale Boyle's song "The Wilbert Coffin Story" and the Alton Price book, To Build A Noose, which reflects Price's intensive research on the case.

Recent interest and debate
In 2006, 50 years after Coffin's hanging, four generations of his family commemorated his death at his graveside. That week, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted announced it was studying the case. The director of client services for the association called Coffin's case "a blot on the criminal justice system."

The coroner at the time, Lionel Rioux, recently told the news media that he believes Coffin was innocent. Rioux accused Maurice Duplessis, premier of Quebec at the time, of making Coffin into a scapegoat for the killings of foreign tourists. Rioux held a coroner's inquest at which Coffin testified. Rioux says that the provincial government destroyed the transcript of Coffin's testimony. Coffin did not testify at his trial. Speaking in 2006, prominent Canadian criminal lawyer Edward Greenspan blamed Coffin's trial lawyer, Raymond Maher who suffered from alcoholism and was drunk for the majority of the trial, for keeping Coffin out of the witness box: "It was incompetence with a capital I," Greenspan said of Maher. "It's the worst case of lawyering I've ever seen." Investigators also had a picture of Coffin with a noose drawn onto his neck on the wall.

At the time Coffin was hanged, he had an 8-year-old son. The child's mother wanted to marry Coffin before the execution, but Duplessis denied permission and said it would not be "decent."

In a 384-page book titled L'affaire Coffin: Une supercherie? (translation: The Coffin Affair: A Frame-Up?) published by Wilson & Lafleur in Montreal, Clément Fortin, a retired attorney and law professor, proceeded to re-establish the facts. Given the evidence presented to the Percé jurors in 1954, Fortin concluded that they were justified to render a verdict of guilty as charged. In 1964, the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Coffin Affair reached the same conclusion.

title: Coffin affair


text:
User talk:Simonfairfax

Certainly, I'd be grateful if you'd help me. Everyking 23:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amazon.com Referral link
Hey, this was obviously done by accident because the website you copied it from had a ref link appended to the end of the amazon link but I just wanted to let you know so you don't accidentally do it again. The "schoolcatalog-20" at the end of the link is the ref. Yonatan talk 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Uoseal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Uoseal.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever (klaT) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uoseal.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Uoseal.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Esrever (klaT) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Meetup Invitation
You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

 * Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
 * Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
 * Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
 * Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!
 * (This message was sent to WikiProject members via Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: User talk:Simonfairfax


text:
Admiral flote

Admiral flote (lit. 'Fleet Admiral') is the fifth and highest Admiral of the Croatian Navy. This officer is referred to as, and is considered the equivalent of, a five-star Fleet Admiral. The insignia for a Croatian Senior Admiral is two thick rank stripes on both the sleeve and shoulder board. Between 1995 and 2002, the rank was called Stožerni admiral, analogous to Stožerni general for the ground forces.

In the Croatian Navy, an admiral can be promoted to the rank of fleet admiral only for distinguished service during wartime, and there is currently no officer with this rank. There was only one fleet admiral, Sveto Letica (1926–2001), a senior admiral who commanded the fledgling Croatian Navy in the Croatian War of Independence and later retired.

title: Admiral flote


text:
Hugleik

According to the Ynglinga saga, Hugleik or Ochilaik was a Swedish king of the House of Yngling. He was the son of Alf and Bera.

Some commentators have identified Hugleik with the Geatish king Hygelac. However, although both kings were killed in battle, Chlochilaicus/Hygelac was reportedly killed near the coast of France/Frisia, while Hugleik was allegedly killed at Fyrisvellir in Sweden.

When Hugleik's father and uncle had killed each other, Hugleik inherited the Swedish throne. Like his father, he was not a warrior, but preferred to stay at home. He was reputed to be as greedy as he was rich and, he preferred to be in the company of jesters, seidmen and völvas who entertained him.

Haki and Hagbard (the hero of the legend of Hagbard and Signy) were two famous sea-kings who had amassed a great force of warriors, and they occasionally plundered together. Haki arrived in Sweden with his troops to assault Uppsala. Haki was a murderous fighter and around himself he had his twelve hirdmen of whom one was the legendary old warrior Starkad (who had been in the service of Hugleik's grandfather Erik and great-uncle Alrik).

Hugleik had also mustered a large army and he was aided by two famous warriors named Svipdag and Geigad.

The two armies met on the Fyrisvellir (Fyris Wolds) and a great battle ensued. The Swedish army was defeated, but the two champions Svipdag and Geigad pushed onwards even though Haki's champions were six times as many. They were both captured by Haki, and then Haki attacked the shield-circle around Hugleik and killed him together with both his sons.

Saxo Grammaticus knows of this story but he renders Huglet(h)us as an Irish king who was killed by the Dane Haco (given as Hakon in the following translation ). The motivation behind describing Hugleik as an Irish king was probably identical to what Saxo described as the motivation behind the attack: even the farthest kingdoms of the world might not be untouched by the Danish arms.

Saxo writes that Starkad and Haki brought their fleet to Ireland where lived the rich and greedy king Hugleik. Hugleik was never generous to an honourable man, but spent all his riches on mimes and jugglers. In spite of his avarice, Hugleik had the great champions Geigad and Svipdag.

When the battle began, the jugglers and mimes panicked and fled, and only Geigad and Svipdag remained to defend Hugleik, but they fought like an entire army. Geigad dealt Starkad a wound on the head, which was so severe that Starkad would later sing songs about it.

Starkad killed Hugleik and made the Irish flee. He then had the jugglers and mimes whipped and beaten, in order to humiliate them. Then the Danes brought Hugleik's riches out to Dublin to be publicly looted, and there was so much of it that none cared for its strict division.

title: Hugleik


text: Category:History of Belgium

title: Category:History of Belgium


text:
Wilbert Coffin

Wilbert Coffin (23 October 1915 – 10 February 1956) was a Canadian prospector who was convicted of murder and executed in Canada. Montreal journalist, editor, author and politician Jacques Hebert raised doubt as to Coffin's guilt in J'accuse les assassins de Coffin, published in 1963. The book led to a royal commission which upheld the conviction.

Eugene Lindsey, his 17-year-old son Richard, and 20-year-old Frederick Claar were last seen going into the woods to hunt in the Gaspé region of Quebec. Richard Lindsey had graduated from high school the day before the trip. A month later on 15 July 1953 the remains of Eugene were found torn apart by bears, and eight days later the bodies of Richard and Claar were found 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) away.

Coffin was found to be in possession of some belongings of the deceased and was accused of ambushing the men and stealing more than $600. He and others were known to salvage abandoned property in the area, and claimed to have acquired the property when he found the dead men's abandoned vehicle.

After his conviction Coffin went through seven reprieves where he was denied clemency by the Quebec Court of Appeals, the Canadian Supreme Court and the Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent's cabinet. He was hanged on 10 February 1956, having been denied his final wish to marry his partner Marion Petrie, mother of their 8-year-old son James.

Posthumous
Frederick Gilbert Thompson confessed to the crime in 1958, naming his friend Johnny Green as Richard's killer. He recanted his confession and his story was dismissed as not credible.

Coffin was portrayed by August Schellenberg in the 1980 film The Coffin Affair, and by Wayne Robson in the "Regina v. Coffin" episode of the CBC Television anthology series Scales of Justice.

title: Wilbert Coffin


text: Category:History of Switzerland

title: Category:History of Switzerland