text:
Talk:Bailiff

What is a bailiff
OK, stupid question time. In the picture at the top, who is the bailiff? The woman or the man? Just wondering... The Singing Badger 23:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The man is the Bailiff, I'm not sure who the woman is (And yes, a new picture would be helpful) Sherurcij July 7, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Why does it mention september 11th in the new york section? Not really relavent in the whole "what is a baliff?" question
 * Reply to apparently old question by unknown contributor: I removed the utterly irrelevant " Three NYS Court Officers were killed during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Dozens of Court Officers from the courts in lower Manhattan responded to the scene prior to the collapse of the towers." from the article. There must have been hundreds of bailiffs killed around the world in the last six years, and at that location and time it is not a surprise. Nor their and many other people working in the neighbourhood to have arrived early at the scene. — SomeHuman 03 Sep2007 02:11 (UTC)

England
Although I've no reason to believe that the information in this section is incorrect, it is written in legalese, which is almost impenetrable to the layman and bears no resemblance to what 90% of the people in England understand to be a bailiff. I don't really feel qualified or knowledgeable enough to remove swathes of what may, or may not, be an accurate description of a bailiff - anybody fancy having a go? Tellkel 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge and reading on the subject the information is accurate. It could go even further than it does. The main article already deals with the concept of a "bailiff" in general language. This "England" section commences to deal with the specific jurisdiction. If the article is to serve the function of extending and enriching the reader's knowledge then it needs, as it does, to start using the relevant legal language associated with this subject in the "England" jurisdiction. Add to it, claify it but do not deprive readers by removing accurate information. Lanyon 03:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has worked in the enforcement industry for a very long time the update added some time ago which keep being reverted are 100% true and accurate, the user(s) who keep reverting them is wrong. (danmcr)
 * It is strongly recommended that you read WP:OR and understand that your source is unacceptable. You must provide online sources that are independent of you to back up your changes. Otherwise they will always be reverted. Thank you. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Apart from some external links, the very short article Huissier de justice has little more to offer than what can be found under Bailiff. That article handles the medieval as well as the modern names of people in the different law systems of several countries, including those using the term "Huissier de justice", while this name also appears to violate the naming convention for WP articles. There is no need to have such rudimentary information in a separate article titled by a purely French word. — SomeHuman 03 Sep2007 01:04 (UTC)

No don't merge. Merely because the term "Huissier de justice" is commonly translated into english as "bailiff" or "sheriff" does not mean that they are bailiffs or sheriffs. The terms "Sheriff" and "bailiff" have a relevance, history & development within the legal system rooted in English law. It appears the "Hussier de justice" has a seperate meaning, history & relevance in the European civil law system. It seems they are similar ("like") but not identical to bailiffs and that the term is not merely a French translation of the word "bailiff". The article should be developed to speak about the unique characteristics of that role or function and it's histoical development in that civil law legal system. Lanyon 03:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal seems dead, I am removing the template. -Rrius (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous WP-behaviour, Rrius. The proposal stood for 19 days before a single rejection came. And just 9 days later you decided to eliminate the opportunity of others to give their viewpoint on this undecided matter, by your rejection without giving even the least argumentation. There are almost no terms in different languages that have a mutually identical content. A 'door' in English may be considered rather different from what seals an Inuit's iglo, but if an English door would have more hinges than a French, that fact needs to be said within the article 'Door' and not in some 'Porte'. Napoleonic European Law is in general very different from Anglo-Saxon oriented Law, hence nearly all functions including the most common have important differences, worth noting inside the articles about the mainly corresponding functions known by their name in English - not in 'Juge', 'Avocat', 'Huissier de justice', 'Greffier de tribunal'. A 'Flic' can not proceed exactly like a 'Cop' either. Furthermore, the article's name 'Huissier de justice' is not known in English language at all, no more than 'Gerechtsdeurwaarder'; then why choosing as article name the French term and not the Dutch, Italian, German, Greek... (and how would we spell the latter)? Thus this "article" has no right to exist on this WP. Put the uniqueness of continental European bailiffs in the article 'Bailiff'. There is not even the need for redirects from foreign language terms, since googling will end up at that language's WP and the left baulk at its article there should point for English language to our 'Bailiff'. By the way, unlike what the current text indicates, 60% of the Belgians do not use the term 'huissier de justice' but the Dutch 'gerechtsdeurwaarder', and for instance the specific process server aspects that differentiate these from the ordinary 'deurwaarder' remain quite in line with the former and the latter being bailiffs because they basically do what only bailiffs do. I suggest using for instance http://estateagent.clifton-media.co.uk/buying_process/word_docs/glossary_french_terms.pdf instead of making this WP a French+English Wikipedia. And yes, what is described in 'Huissier' (though that French language term also means 'deurwaarder' and as such needs to be in 'Bailiff' - a meaning not even mentioned in its own article) does need to be merged with 'Usher' as well. I'll leave that and similarly created doubling articles to others. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-26 16:09-17:26 (UTC)
 * Look more carefully at the dates. The proposal was made in September, and I removed the template (and said here I was doing so) three months later, not nine days as you say. I haven't read your proposal nor the rationale of the person who opposed you. All I did was see that after three months there had been no further discussion. I hope you just misread the dates, but I have to question why you felt the need to restart this old discussion more than three years later rather than starting a new discussion. -Rrius (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Rrius. Indeed I did have a lapse of clear vision and had been convinced you had acted in September. That caused my remark to appear more rude than you deserved and I honestly apologize for this and stroke-through the inappropriate part. Nevertheless, the longer time did not fully justify eliminating the banner - it just meant that people had not been giving much attention to the 'Bailiff' article and probably none to an in English not even existing term. The banner should have stayed, I do not think there is any time limit indicated for this at WP and one is supposed to keep waiting for some consensus to appear. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-27 05:28 (UTC)

 * Oppose Now that SomeHuman has in a rude way drawn me into this, I've taken a look at the articles, and it is clear that the French officials have a far wider range of duties than those in any of the Anglo-phone countries. Some of those duties overlap those of a lawyer's and a notary public (at least in the American sense), with others seeming to be judicial or quasi-judicial. Perhaps that is not true in Belgium, but it appears that the range of duties and powers of HJs in the Francophone world taken in sum don't match up all that well with bailiffs. -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By that approach, Rrius, we need to have most terms in French, Chinese, Japanese etc (and not only those related to Law) as full-blown WP articles. It is customary (and article naming policy, if I recall well) to create such foreign named entries only for functions etc that do not have an English language equivalent while having been referred to by that foreign language term in English language texts at least in several notable sources, e.g. 'Samurai'. I never noticed a 'huissier de justice' mentioned in a fluent text in English language. I might have missed it though, but else one should inspect how that French function is generally called in English texts - I assumed 'bailiff'.
 * The 'Bailiff' article should then describe that French function while mentioning the extra (or lacking) tasks; if for instance the article 'Notary public' would describe a task in the US that is handled by a 'huissier de justice' in France and/or Belgium etc, that article too should mention this and say that the function in "other countries such as France, Belgium..." or "countries with a law system based on the Napoleonic code" also includes (certain) tasks of a Bailiff.
 * That makes both articles named by an English language term of more value: As these are now, one must either assume that the French translation for Bailiff found in a dictionary is for identical tasks, or even assume that no bailiff tasks are being handled in other than mentioned countries - hence imply misleading information. And when properly mentioned in those articles, the 'Huissier de justice' article would fully overlap those. Perhaps I should change the banner to merge with two or more articles, but the "article" about the French term is far too incomplete to determine which others, and I am not specialized in Law.
 * Just go to the French language WP (also a very comprehensive encyclopedia) and try to find the term 'Bailiff' there... the English term does not have an article and I predict that it never will.
 * Please, disregard my appearing rude earlier here above when further evaluating this matter of a general importance on this here WP. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-27 05:28-05:46 (UTC)
 * I figured it was an oversight, but it confused the heck out of me at first. As to the articles themselves, I'm afraid I just don't agree. If these people share functions with four different types of common law officials, it makes more sense to have one article discussion them than to discuss those functions at each of the four other articles without ever bringing the information together. It would make sense to mention and link to the HJ article from here, but it doesn't make sense to merge it here. Leaving the article as is allows freedom to expand it to discuss how the office differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and to compare its functions to officers in other countries. The article as it stands is not very good, but that just means it should be improved, not carved up and inserted into other articles. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [I had been wondering about 'HPs' for a moment, you corrected it to 'HJs' but the American/English style of abbreviating is better not applied to French, a language in which such is rather uncommon.] I assume that the function in France is largely identical to the one in Belgium. The 'huissier de justice' aka 'deurwaarder' there is perhaps not fully identical to the 'deurwaarder' in the Netherlands. But even in that case, there can technically still be only one entry in the Dutch language WP that describes any differences - then it can also be done on the English language WP. By any other approach, this here WP would also need a 'Deurwaarder (the Netherlands)', a 'Deurwaarder (Belgium)', and articles about any such German?, Chech?, Indonesian?... etc. functions that undoubtedly do exist and are likely to be notably different to a 'huissier de justice' and to a 'bailiff' and to a 'notary public'. That approach would soon become absurd - that is why we need to reflect only the English language texts about the foreign subjects when creating separate articles. If the function in France would really be that specific, surely someone in the English language sphere must have noticed and described this. We would then find texts that would allow us to determine by what name we have to do it on this WP, be it a separate or [if necessary several] existing article[s]. Carving up takes a bit of work (which I do not intend to do) but less now than after waiting for a comprehensive 'Huissier de justice' article. It certainly beats waiting for information to become splattered over 300 articles about each country's similar but not quite overlapping function - or going through hundreds of discussions about for which countries the function should be incorporated best into which other's, including endless nationalistically motivated edit wars in chosing which country's function name is elected for each subject-grouping article. Let's start: "I'm Flemish and speak the language of the majority in my country, we must rename 'Huissier de justice' to 'Deurwaarder'. Never mind its Napoleonic code origin in French: Napoleon found his Waterloo with Wellington commanding seven English and three Dutch cavalry regiments - and what language is this WP? Right! And 'Deurwaarder' is... Right! For the Prussian effort we only grant a mere redirect from 'Vogt', they lost later on." [chuckle], [chuckle] ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-27 07:00-08:17 (UTC)
 * I used the abbreviation because I knew spell it wrong, I'm sorry if it was distracting, though. I don't agree about needing an article per country. It would be sufficient to have one "Huissier de justice" article with sections for different countries that we had details for. Frankly, there is no one role huissier is matches well, if the article is to be believed. It appears that the only thing they do that overlaps with what bailiffs do is to take property from debtors to satisfy judgments. They serve process, which bailiffs don't do. They seem to have limited audience rights that lawyers would normally have in court. They also do some other things lawyers do like giving legal advice and drafting documents. They are not government employees. Then there are things like "exercise authorizations of a Court of Appeals, and act in insurance and property actions", which are exceedingly unclear, but sound nothing like anything a bailiff does. By the same token, if you compare them to sheriffs, lawyers, or notaries public, you'll find that huissiers de justice are more dissimilar to each than similar. Because there's nothing quite like a huissier de justice and there's no obvious translation, despite being a foreign term, it makes the most sense to have the article where it is.

 * The possibility of a fight over the name between Francophones and Flemish speakers seems remote, especially because the French term covers more ground, making a simple note of the Flemish word in a Belgium section make more sense. It wouldn't make sense to have an article at the Flemish word with each French country having a note that it actually uses the French word. I think we're find, but if something comes up, we can can always re-assess. -Rrius (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worried about your "the French term covers more ground". Does it mean that the size of territory matters in naming an article? And about that "It wouldn't make sense to have an article at the Flemish word with each French country having a note that it actually uses the French word"... How many mainly French (I assume you mean -speaking) countries are there? Does Quebecq have a different to our topic related law than Canada, or Valais than Switzerland's German and Italian speaking parts? Apart from South-Africa that also has a related language, Dutch is spoken in three countries - each with own laws. I fail to see the relevance for electing a foreign term as name for a melting pot article about a topic as it occurs in non-Anglo Saxon law countries. I thought my Napoleon bit would have shown how ridiculous and dangerous this line of naming or of separating articles would become.
 * I did not actually suggest having 300 articles (and then 299 links under each article's 'See also' - aarrrgh). But your "no one role huissier is...", well, no role 'huissier' is matching all that a 'huissier de justice' does either. There are thousands of functions that are different between France or any other country and what is found in countries using one or more English language terms. The term 'metser' in Dutch is neither covered by a 'bricklayer' nor by a 'mason', and not only their tasks differ but also the relevant unions are entirely differently organized and the latter's influences on those tasks are very different; do we need yet another English language WP article 'Metser' then? If your assertion is correct, I repeat, it then must have been noticed and mentioned in English language texts and we need to reflect only the usage of a term in English language texts about the foreign subjects when creating separate articles. Perhaps that will justify the 'Huissier de justice' article, but it is on the creator or defender to show texts in English to evidence of that term being used. That is what makes this an English language WP. You are trying to invent an International language WP, I'm afraid.
 * I rather resent what may appear to be wiki-lawyering but for your information, perhaps do have a look into WP:CFORK and WP:NAME (with several links, such as Naming_conventions_(use_English) that has a section No established usage), and into reasons (and alternatives) for WP:DEL, keeping in mind WP:OR about assuming great differences, and WP:N & WP:IRS when proving such differences to be sufficiently relevant. I'm not so much fighting the article name as the lack of valid demonstration that the article deserves to exist and to have that name, which makes that separating and naming too arbitrary. The 'Bailiff' article already has a section with country names that mentions "huissiers de justice", and that also is why I still advise for a merger. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-27 10:17-10:23 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding some of what you are saying, and I think you are failing to understand me as well. That's especially the case because you bring up wikilawyering, and I haven't really talked much about policy if at all.

Here's what it all boils down to: there is a thing called a huissier de justice that is unlike anything in the common law, or as you call it "Anglo Saxon", world. Whether you call it a "huissier de justice" or a "thingamabob", it is sufficiently different from what exists under a common law system that it deserves its own article.

Is "huissier de justice" just a French term for something that exists in every civil law country? I have no idea. If it is, then perhaps a more generic name can be found. If not, there really is no name in English for it, so the French name will have to suffice.

You ask me to find where it is talked about in English using the French word. That is exceedingly problematic because whatever name it's given, it isn't talked about much in English. More to the point, that really isn't the test. The general rule is that you use the English version unless the foreign one is used more often in English. What that requires is that there be an English version. As yet, it has not been shown that there is an English version.

I have tried to tell you that "bailiff" doesn't work as an English translation, but you've thrown back examples about doors and bricklayers. Let's be more concrete about it. Would the text of huissiers de justice fit as a subpart of this article? No, it doesn't really fit. Only one of the huissier de justice's several roles is the same as a bailiff's. Would it work as a subpart of lawyer? Again, no. Only some of what a huissier de justice does is similar to that of a lawyer, and that part seems to be ancillary. What about notary public? That also doesn't make sense. There are essentially two types of notary public: common law notaries who authenticate documents, and civil law notaries who are lawyers. Again, the overlap is minimal. It makes far more sense to leave the article separate and link to it from those other articles.

So, regardless of what name is appropriate, huissier de justice makes more sense as a standalone article. I admit that the article as written is confusing, but that would be the case if it were merged here anyway. It can and should be cleaned up and expanded. The fact that neither one of us is likely to be the one to do it doesn't mean we should prevent others from being able to do so. -Rrius (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I might have formulated it better, but I brought up the wiki-lawyering before I, not you, started to refer to a series of WP rules that I thought could be useful in determining how to handle the problem.

 * I think you exaggerate the differences: To most people, the French and the Dutch terms simply mean "the only thing they do" "is to take property from debtors to satisfy judgments", what you admit to be overlapping with what bailiffs do. It is not my field of interest, but I think that "to satisfy judgments" and also their task as "process server" when ordered by Court, is what distincts them from ordinary 'huissiers', who can legally certifiably deliver a notice to someone (e.g. a debtor) with no more authority than the organization, enterprise or person that makes use of his/her service. People often inaccurately[?] just say 'huissier' when they describe taking away possessions; especially companies often let a 'huissier' send a letter to intimidate a debtor, as few ordinary people realize that his powers are nil or much more limited than when he acts according to a court verdict that allows a victorious plaintif to call upon the services of a bailiff to execute this verdict, as 'huissier de justice'. I do not know whether 'huissier' is just a short term for 'huissier de justice', or whether the former only becomes the latter while performing an appropriate task, or a 'huissier' needs a specific permanent acknowledgement entitling him/her to accept any tasks as 'hussier de justice' and then at which occasions he/she is allowed to show that longer title in a document.
 * One has to mention the process server task (e.g.: for a private person to invite someone to appear before mediation court [I assume a task as ordinary 'huissier'], or for court ordering an accused to show up at criminal court [definitely as 'huissier de justice'], or of course officially delivering a court's verdict).

 * Further differences with bailiffs, if any, would be much like creating a distinctive article named by the French word for a water boiler because of its bolts having metric instead of inch pitch:
 * I'm not so sure that it is useful to say that they are not government employees, because their justicial tasks are quite official: they then act with the authority of a government official, e.g. entitled to request police assistance against a dangerously reluctant debtor or to enforce access to the debtor's house to allow this bailiff making a list of, or to actually confiscate, the values.
 * Like a notary (or a police officer), a 'huissier [de justice]' aka '[gerechts]deurwaarder' can make official written statements, but this comes (mainly) to officializing the list of one's values found available or being confiscated.
 * A court may decide not to have listed values confiscated by the 'huissier de justice' provided payments via this bailiff (only for several creditors), thus preventing him/her from publically auctioning the possessions; this collector role constitutes his/her part in the "collective debt negotiation".
 * For juridical advise, one would not think about any 'huissier' aka 'deurwaarder' but typically go to a lawyer ('avocat' aka 'advokaat') or [mainly for real estate, wills and inheritance, matrimonial acts] a notary ('notaire', 'notaris'), or one gets a brochure at the courthouse, depending the matter at hand.
 * I do not know Belgian French language or law in France well enough but neither the Dutch language 'gerechtsdeurwaarder' that is a 'huissier de justice', nor the ordinary 'deurwaarder' aka 'huissier', has a function in the court room that I know off; hence is not a court usher — Door-keeper might have been an or the now obsolete meaning and is still in French called 'huissier' as well (but an entirely different person/function than the above described); this general function is now called 'deurwachter'/'zaalwachter'/'suppoost' in Dutch. The court secretary office is the 'greffe' (French) aka 'griffie' (Dutch), held by the 'greffier', 'griffier'. Only normal police officers guard the criminally accused.
 * I roughly described here what I think about the topic in Belgium, and just assume the French function to be similar, until someone shows me e.g. a French text explaining that in Belgium the everyman's term means something else than in France.

 * Did you read the article 'Bailiff'? For 'England and Wales' alone, it says: "There are six offices whose holders are commonly referred to as 'bailiffs'" and then decribes the different jobs. What makes the French job so different from each or all of those six? Still under 'Modern bailiffs', Belgium is mentioned (with the huissier de justice) but not France, which knows an at least very similar job. I think that the single reason why 'France' occurs under 'Medieval bailiffs' only is, because unlike for other countries its modern variant was put in a separate article.
 * I think you have only one or two kinds of bailiff in mind with which you had made the comparisons. The article however, describes a multitude of similar functions in many countries. And what would get into the 'Huissier de justice' article that is not already under 'Belgium'? I think the 'Huissier de justice' article needs to be under that subtitle renamed to 'Belgium and France', or (if there is a larger difference than I suspect) under an extra subtitle 'France' that also belongs under 'Modern bailiffs'.
 * Else, in how far do you want to expell bailiffs from the present article 'Bailiff'? ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-27 12:15- 2011-01-28 04:14 (UTC)

Rrius had replied: "You ask me to find where it is talked about in English using the French word. That is exceedingly problematic because whatever name it's given, it isn't talked about much in English." I think Rrius would find it difficult to find texts in English about 'huissier[s] de justice' for an entirely different reason: Google returned 1 hit for literally "huissier de justice in Paris" in any text, and google shows the French term doublequoted but I could not retrieve this text; there are roughly 613 hits for literally "bailiff in Paris", and though I did not check each hit - the ones that I did read and did give a clue, appear to correspond to a 'huissier de justice' (such as "under the control of Eric Albou, Bailiff in Paris, France, ... sous le contrôle de Eric Albou, Huissier de Justice à Paris" on [www.myspace.com/stroumfette]). Hence one does not find the foreign language term for the function in France in an English text, simply because contrary to Rrius' assumption there is a commonly used English term for these French guys, whatever they might be doing differently from their English or American colleagues. It makes the merger into 'Bailiff' rather inevitable for respecting WP's naming conventions. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-31 10:22 (UTC)
 * Umm, sorry, but you're missing a rather important logical step: you have failed to provide evidence that "bailiff" is commonly used in English to describe the officer. So far, all you've done is provide evidence for my point that the office isn't talked about much in English sources. Though, straight Google results are rather limited in what they'd return. Any discussion would more likely be in print than online. If granting, for the sake of argument, that the word "bailiff" is used to describe the French office, it does not follow that this article would be the right place to handle it as the name alone does not answer the problem that Huissier de justice have little in common with common law bailiffs. A more appropriate title under our hypothetical scenario would be Bailiff (civil law) or something of that nature. -Rrius (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat, the ones that I did read and that gave a clue, appeared to correspond to a 'huissier de justice'. Further samples: "rules deposited at the Office SCP Albou & Yana, Huissier de Justice (Bailiff) in Paris, 160 rue du Temple, 75003 Paris" on www.qwartz.org or –exemplifying my remark on what needs to be mentioned– "this excerpt: Huissier de Justice, i.e. a French process server or bailiff" on esl.proz.com in a Spanish text quoting an English one.
 * The distinctions you want to impose on this article, 'common law' versus 'civil law' for instance, do not correspond to French or any Napoleonic code based law system. The article 'Bailiff' has to talk about all bailiffs as that word's general meaning in common usage in the English language. Your 'bailiff' - if it would need an article - needs to be in an article named 'Bailiff (Anglo-Saxon Law system)' or such because your demands exclude by your definition any other country to have a bailiff. The current article, to the contrary, does depict a multitude of bailiffs - as it should: I did prove that in English language also the specific French function is normally called 'bailiff' and that does determine by which article name it has to be found, according to WP naming conventions. Please do read my comment of 2011-01-27 12:15-2011-01-28 04:14 and refrain from seeking far-fetched distinctions: even bailiffs in Britain alone do not correspond to your definition because there are several kinds of very different bailiffs there - do read the article into which I wish to merge the French term. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-31 11:26 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know what "common law" and "civil law" mean. "Civil law" means Napoleonic-Code-based legal systems, and common law systems are those based upon the English legal system. I have read this article, and all forms of bailiff, aside from the huissier its cousins, do basically the same things: serve process and repossess property from judgment debtors. If you read huissier de justice, you'll see the powers and duties are far more expansive. What is here about the huissier and similar officers should be more or less removed with a brief comment that the functions of a bailiffs are included in those of huissiers de justice and gert-thingies (I'm not even going to try to get the Flemish correct). Since you are giving out unsolicited advice, I'll give some of my own: As things stand, there is a proposal which was opposed when you made it and is opposed by another editor now; no editor has supported you. There is no consensus for what you are trying to do, so your time would probably be better spent working on something else. -Rrius (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your exclamation about what I "obviously don't know" was in line with your own earlier statement, saying "There are essentially two types of notary public: common law notaries who authenticate documents, and civil law notaries who are lawyers." Contrary to that, for the Napoleonic law system, the so-called 'code civil' (civil law), there are only notaries that authenticate documents who also draw up documents for certain matters that I mentioned earlier; there are none that are considered 'lawyers' [though that term is just as ambivalent as 'bailiff' and its article demonstrates my case here]. I had then to understand that you knew of a from 'common law' to be distincted 'civil law' within the to me less known Anglo Saxon law system. Law systems do have a tendency to have separate law books for e.g. civil matters, criminal matters, tax matters etc.
 * You may well have said it right: "all forms of bailiff, aside from the huissier its cousins, do basically the same things: serve process and repossess property from judgment debtors": I do not know the professions of the cousins you had in mind, but what you describe is exactly what a 'huissier de justice' is mostly known for.
 * I find it simply stupidifying to read that you consider the 'huissier de justice' (whom I explained in my 2011-01-27 12:15-2011-01-28 04:14 comment not to be all that much involved with some of the more exotic sounding aspects summed-up in the stub article 'Huissier de justice') to be so terribly different from what you consider to be a 'Bailiff' fit for the article by that name, that the French guy has to be excluded, while this 'Bailiff' article goes as far astray as to state, for instance - I quote: "Water bailiffs also exist in England and Wales to police bodies of water and prevent illegal fishing. They are generally employees of the Environment Agency. Jury bailiffs are court ushers who monitor juries during their deliberations and during overnight stays."
 * And your last sentences telling me to f-* off, may only end my further discussion with you. Not the merger. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-01 19:09-20:51 (UTC)
 * The first part of your commentary is a muddle, so the best I can say to respond to it is that weird kinds of bailiff if the UK have a historical connection to the regular kind, making it material here. That does not justify making this article the home for a completely different legal official from a completely different legal tradition which happens to share one of its duties with bailiffs. The second part of your commentary is pointless. So far, only two editors have felt the need to weigh in (including in the three months the proposal was open and noted on the homepage), and both have opposed you. If you want to keep talking about this without me, you will presumably be talking to yourself. I say you should just let it go because despite what amounts to two attempts in nine months to merge the articles, consensus has not crystalized in favour of such an action. I'm not quite sure why you don't seem able to recognize that. -Rrius (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That "first part" of my latest comment contains not my but your "muddle", quoted after your accusation of my ignorance to demonstrate your misconception: just as your comment here above, it indicates that you don't have the foggiest about the reality of Napoleonic law functions but consider those as if from Mars and therefore never to belong amongst functions that occur in English-speaking countries - even while a term describes far more dissimilar functions within the latter countries.
 * Your here above "completely different legal tradition which happens to share one of its duties with bailiffs" again unduly separates anything from outside your world. Nothing you have written so far, indicates that you might have read my 2011-01-27 12:15-2011-01-28 04:14 comment - at the contrary, despite my urging you to that respect twice - that mentions (apart from the main meaning) a historical and traditional meaning of 'huissier' that happens to coincide with such for 'bailiff', being one of those that you described: "weird kinds of bailiff if[sic] the UK have a historical connection to the regular kind", though in countries where French is spoken and only there also named 'huissier'. France and England did share some thoughts during history and Napoleon was not such a weirdo as to cast everything overboard, neither did the Americans.
 * The "second part" of my latest comment shows very clearly that by your own main standard for a bailiff, which I quoted, the 'huissier de justice' does precisely what makes a bailiff. Of course you call that "pointless" just as anything I say that unarguably shows my point "is a muddle" or gets simply but totally ignored: After your failure to show a 'huissier de justice' in even just one English text, you rather forgot the several quotes I showed with the term 'bailiff' clearly being used for the 'huissier de justice'. For that attitude there is an old saying in Dutch: 'Wat baten kaars en bril als de uil niet zien wil' (What's the use of candle and eye-glasses, if the owl does not want to see) - and a quote from another article: "skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion themselves. Moreover, a demagogue may well believe his or her own arguments".
 * WP's suggestions about mergers, allow committing the merger after about one week without reaction. The first time I had proposed it, I had left the proposal for several weeks before there came one reaction, an opposition, and I had left it as such with both argumentations - as no consensus was clear and there was no urgence. You admitted not even to have read the argumentations when you threw the merger banners out. And after three years, upon my renewed proposal for the merger with my identical though also more in-depth argumentation, you alone opposed by especially emphasizing a single counter-argument (identical to that 2007 opposer's) you based solely on what was put without any references in the questionable (de facto stub) article 'huisier de justice'; a such 'consensus' is a bit meagre for sending me into the marshes. As the consensus does not appear to be forthcoming here, and the merger unexpectedly appeared controversial, I added it on the then appropriate 'WP:PM' - I think we should better leave it at that, for now. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-02 04:22-05:35 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT - The concepts appear to be so similar, that they can much more usefully be treated under a single article. In particular, the differences can be more cogently and concisely discussed on one page. Lawdroid (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus having become clear (the more since the 2007 editor Lanyon has not been editing this WP in years, apart from 1 minor thing on his lastly edited article), was not accepted by Rrius: Beyond the adapted lead, he plastered an extremely bad translation, extremely unintelligible (far below his own capabilities for English prose, proven in the above discussion), and with numerous dead links, obviously by a quick robot translation from the French language Wikipedia (and then auto-replacing the auto-translation assumedly "bailiff" with "huissier de jusitce"[sic]) into the 'Huissier de justice' - thereby making a merger near impossible in case other editors would have started working at some of the so terribly obvious mistakes and shortcomings. I see this as WP:disruptive editing, as in three days no attempt was made to attain a minimal standard. The merger will go on soon.

 * There is now information available that gives even more reasons than the ones already discussed:

 * The French language Wikipedia redirects huissier to huissier de justice, and apart from the latter, it has only one entry for some kind of 'huissier': Huissier à la chaîne (a stub) - though on the English language WP we can find terms as exotic as huissier audiencier or huissiers de chambre et de cour. Apparently, whenever certain native speakers of French do not immediately know the English term for what they describe about their culture, they don't bother to look it up and rather cause us to spend the time for cleaning up their mess. But we find also proper ways to mention a function, e.g.: "bailiff (huissier d'armes)", "premier huissier ('first usher')", "huissiers or ushers", and of course "huissier de justice (bailiff)".
 * The aforementioned French article 'Huissier de justice' refers to the Union internationale des huissiers de justice, which has the good English language option International Union of Judicial Officers that also refers to these as 'Officers of Court', never as 'huissiers de justice' - then why should we? It mentions France and the other countries that created the organization in 1952. These are then to be mentioned for the Napoleonic code based function, which is definitely not called 'huissier de justice' in Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and substantial regions of Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Therefore the function must be described on this here WP in an article by another name - and it will not be the Greek one. If the term 'huissier de justice' would occur in that article, then also the Greek, the Italian, the Dutch, and the German terms need to be in there. I suggest readers knowing the term in French or one of the other languages, must simply and obviously consult a translation dictionary to English, which always prominently shows 'bailiff'. This strategy only, will make them all meet at one place, allowing them to see what is already available and take it up from there.
 * In the baulk to the left of the French WP article, among other languages, one finds English - which links to our Bailiff. I assume that settles it, even the French don't assume their language word by word being described on this here WP and did not look for it (or recognized the hardly readable article as bullsh*t).

 * On this here WP, any links towards 'huisssier de justice' or 'huissier' need to arrive at 'Bailiff', or to be re-linked towards Judicial officer, Court usher or Gentleman Usher where more appropriate. In a few of these cases now showing the French term, it might be best to actually show the proper English term. A section with interesting samples is this Court Officers and Staff, including premier huissier - constable, huissier - marshal. That shows the French names for the functions in France in pre-Napoleonic times, many of which exported via the Napoleonic code and still surviving (though not everywhere by French names).
 *  ▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-18 11:56-20:40 (UTC)

 * Without having ploughed through the above and with all due reserve for valid comments I would like to remark that I personally prefer the use of "Huissier de Justice" or "Huissier" in English to bailiff or any other alternative. I have been a professional translator for over 30 years and I am also a sworn translator before the Court of First Instance at Antwerp. It is important to remember that the Huissier is one of the legal professions, the potential Huissier must, after obtaining a law degree or an equivalent, take the stiff professional examinations. Because of the "French" connotations of the word huissier, there is a fairly strong current of opinion among Flemish huissiers that prefers the option of an English equivalent. In this context the only possible option (for an English law context) must be Judicial Officer or Court Officer. In fact Court Officer is the alternative proposed a view years by the Chairman of the Flemish Associations of Gerechtsdeurwaarders. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia must not launch new terms (or give existing ones a new meaning), it describes topics by terms that pre-exist in English-language usage, and then by the in English most commonly used term for the topic. When a topic cannot be defined by a single word or a coined term, the article about it may obtain a name such as 'Bailiff (France)' or 'Bailiff (officer)'. There is no objection agains having such an article specifically about the functions of a huissier de justice, provided the description of what is for an encyclopedia notewhorthily different from what one understands by a bailiff, is too substantial to be incorporated in the article 'Bailiff'. As for now, this is not the case, and there are many kinds of bailiffs (not having an article each), some of which come closer to a huissier de justice than to other bailiffs mentioned in this article. Therefore, until a more appropriate term becomes mostly used in English language, we'll have a (sub) section in 'Bailiff'.

 * One problem with 'Court officer' is, that it strongly suggests being an officer who fulfills his duties at the court, whereas this is not the normal place to find a huissier de justice. To me, it is a misleading title. At first sight, 'Judicial Officer' would thus be preferred, but then there are Judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore - in short, judges. Both English language terms promoted by (internationally united or Flemish) huissiers de justice are obviously very vague, not suggesting anything about the duties envolved.

 * [For your not needing to plough through all the above, three considerations in short]
 * The main thing
 * Regardless the name, the required diploma, the side-functions, the procedures, the one thing mainly associated with a bailiff (one of the more usual modern kinds) is, to legally get a debtor's possessions available for sale in order to financially fulfill the debtor's obligations. And a gerechtsdeurwaarder aka huissier de justice is just as well known precisely for that. That is what makes these also bailiffs, in English language - and I would not call the usual translation inaccurate: no translation is fully accurate. Compare: 'King' in Thai language does not mean a title for the King of Thailand, and the latter has some other functions and far more (obligatory) respect than the King of Belgium, the latter not necessarily having the identical functions as a King of England may get, and none of those are like Louis XIV of France was. But all of these had/have/will have functions that would allow their description under a general article named 'King'. And I guess there might be an article about 'Kings of France' (as well as about 'Louis XIV of France'), as there is apparently enough to fill such articles. The proper name for an extra article then depends on what exactly it describes. In our case, as a personal name is not relevant, it is most likely to start with 'Bailiff', e.g. 'Bailiff (civil law)'; if the Anglo Saxon version would ever get a proper description, it too would finally get a proper article, e.g. 'Bailiff (common law)'. Or, the article with the very broad descriptions (including for 'huissier de justice') now found by 'Bailiff', might be moved to a more appropriate denominator. I just don't see one as appropriate as one found for 'King' (it's 'Monarch' - follow the above link and see how the redirect mentions also a shah, emperor, etc).

 * Please do note: shah does occur in fluent texts in English language, as a today's English word that you can expect to find in an English language encyclopedia; huissier de justice, gerechtsdeurwaarder and their German, Greek, etc. equivalents, do not, and therefore you should not expect to find those entries in this here Wikipedia.

 * Modern bailiffs in Belgium, in the Netherlands
 * Section 'Modern bailiffs' has a sub section 'Belgium' mentioning the Dutch and French language terms, that ends with "tasks as independent entrepreneurs, for instance for [...] judicial assistance at lower courts (canton level), etc". Did the gerechtsdeurwaarder aka huissier de justice in Belgium (a country since 1830) ever play a such role? In the Netherlands, a deurwaarder stopped to have a (this?) function that originated as deurvrijwaarder (a door man keeping order) very recently, in 2001 (until then only in lower courts). The article 'Gerechtsdeurwaarder' on the Dutch-language Wikipedia mentions a further task as an officer: supervise [in Dutch: toezicht houden bij] public auctions. In Belgium this is a notary's job, as far as I know. That last sentence of sub section 'Belgium' includes behind 'for instance', also writing general conditions of sale. This appears to me as a Belgian lawyer's job instead. Is it perhaps also [and still] a deurwaarder's job in the Netherlands? It seems that a 'Bailiff (civil law)' by whatever article name would still require distinctions as noteworthy as for the current 'Bailiff' that mentions the huissier de justice/gerechtsdeurwaarder.

 * Notaries in Belgium handle sales of immovables (but not ships). The presence of a huissier is required at all other auctions including ships. Huissiers also officiate at lotteries and record attempts.

Some years ago the professional body that acts for Huissiers in Belgium advised members not to describe themselves as Bailiffs. It suggested using "Court Officer". Speaking as a sworn translator working in Belgium, and one who regularly works with Huissiers, I prefer to use the term Huissier de Justice (glossed as Court Officer - Process Server at its first occurrence). Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 * The US oriented article 'Subpoena' states:
 * "[...] court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court." Apart from his role as bailiff that I mentioned under 'The main thing' here above, the two other wellknown judicial functions of a huissier de justice/gerechtsdeurwaarder, in a capacity as officer notifying someone to appear or to be lawfully represented in court, and officially noting an observation (of e.g. someone [not] being at a place, a lottery result) is similar to this role for a lawyer, who otherwise has a self-employed profession. In other countries, a lawyer may not have any function as an officer. And still, both kinds remain lawyers and should be described in an article 'Lawyer'. This is how I see it for 'Bailiff'.  ▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-05 11:38-17:17 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother even reading most of what you wrote, but the part about Subpoena shows how little you know about this. When it says that some courts allow lawyers to issue subpoenas in their capacity as an officer of the court, all it means is that the lawyer is able to issue the subpoena without getting the court clerk to sign it first. A subpoena compels the attendance of a witness under penalty of law. Allowing lawyers to issue subpoenas means their signature gives it the force of law necessary to give rise to the penalty. None of it has anything to do with service of the subpoena. In general, subpoenas are not considered process in the same way as a summons and can be served by hand delivering a copy to the intended recipient or by certified mail without involvement of the sheriff or any other sort of process server.

 * I will note again that of the three people who have weighed in on this, only you support the merger proposal, despite the fact that it has been on this talk page for a very long time. It is time you admit that you don't have consensus and move on. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Once again, Rrius doesn't want to get it. A lawyer has a self-employed profession, but only in some jurisdictions acts as an officer for delivery of legal documents [handed by/to whomever], and there without some new term instead of 'lawyer'; exactly as a bailiff, then also not needing a (non-English) term as 'huissier de justice' or 'gerechtsdeurwaarder'.

 * The derogatory "I'm not going to bother even reading" is only Rius' (like further above demonstrated) demagogic escape from his incapability of presenting a proper counter-argument to my arguments, at the same time suggesting other readers not to bother to read those. I feel confident that Rrius did bother - or does anyone believe that he started reading at the last paragraph of my latest comment while responding to the comment above mine? By drawing undue attention to a last paragraph in his comment underneath it, the demagogue suggests others to read that first and then one does not always go up again. He's good at it, but clearly dishonest. He even tells blatant lies:
 * The merger had been opposed (after a reasonable time that already had allowed to merge) in a short comment by one editor who later stopped to contribute at WP, since more than a year now. The merger proposal banners had been removed by Rrius (without valid reason and without informing the proposer). Upon my finding out years later, I made a new proposal. Meanwhile, only Rrius and just now one more editor oppose, the latter admittedly not having read the arguments (not surprisingly with such a lengthy discussion) and openly for serving an interest outside the scope of Wikipedia that I explained to be dead against its policy. The merger also got support by another editor who managed to clearly present a new valid argument in his two sentences. Is Rrius going to pretend not to have seen that most visible 'SUPPORT' when he wrote "only you support"? I already had reprimanded Rrius for his undue and by Wikipedia guidelines clearly discouraged attempts to send someone away. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 07:14 (UTC)

 * My patience and available effort for Wikipedia having been compromised more than acceptably, I reported User:Rrius for WP:Disruptive editing at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 08:39 (UTC)
 * And as the discussion there shows, the referral was groundless. -Rrius (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

US Examples
Although many Americans would colloquially refer to uniformed officers in a courtroom as bailiffs, the vast majority of them are sheriffs, marshals, or court officers. In fact, they are generally not referred to as "bailiffs" by judges, lawyers, and other court personnel. Much of the verbiage in the section does not explain what bailiffs do in the US; rather, it lists what non-bailiffs in various states do. For that reason, I have modified the section to clarify American usage of the term "bailiff" and to describe what bailiffs, whether called that or not, do. In addition, I have removed the references to the specific state examples, which were not useful. -Rrius (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you dont work in a court. The proper term for any lawman working in a superior court is Bailiff. And s/he is refered to in that way in the formal setting os a court in session. I.E. "Bailiff, the defendant is remanded to your custody."

How do I know, I am one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.107.79.204 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and I'm a lawyer who's worked in courtrooms in Illinois and Ohio, and witnessed federal courts operate. In none of those places, and indeed in most US jurisdictions, the people responsible for court security are not called bailiffs. In fact, Ohio's bailiffs exist in courtrooms but play a different role. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
from Late Latin baiulivus, adjectival form of baiulus

And what is baiulus then? "Bail"? that should be explained clearly.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My solution does not show a comprehensive answer, but at least it does not allow assuming 'bail' and it clearly refers to a person by some function. The article 'Bailiff' should handle its own aspects, regardless of the etymological origin as baiulus. I'll link this term in the lead to Wiktionary (exactly like you see it done in my former sentence here, not that box at the right), in accordance with Wikimedia_sister projects. Of course, one might have a section titled 'Roman bailiffs' describing the baiulus, above the section 'Medieval bailiffs' - though then it would be best to start the article with the content of 'Modern bailiffs' and let both aforementioned sections be subsections of a section 'History' ▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-09 15:48-16:18 (UTC)

Split: medial bailiff and modern bailiff
This article is about two different meanings of the term bailiff which are almost entirely unrelated. For this reason, I think that the article should be split into two articles, accessible from a disambiguation page. -- 217.229.42.144 (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the medieval senses should be addressed tersely and mostly dealt with at reeve, steward, bailiff (France), bailiff (knightly orders), &c. Most of this page should deal with the generic modern offices in the UK and US. — Llywelyn II   06:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Court bailiff (Poland)
As the article is written, I am not seeing what makes this concept notable. It could be merged to the list of baliffs in different countries present here, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be merged. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with merge. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have merged it. The text could benefit from some copy editing from someone who understands it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Some images, for god's sake!!!
Can we put some color on this page! I found a funny old picture. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Powell_Frith_Mr_Honeywell_introduces_the_bailiffs_1850.jpg It would, for instance, give some context on what social purpose bailiffs served, mingling with the ladies of the town and such.

Dudanotak (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bailiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727074112/http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/2262/bailiff.html to http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/2262/bailiff.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090319174158/http://mdcourts.gov:80/jobs/CN09610.pdf to http://mdcourts.gov/jobs/CN09610.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bailiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415143243/http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Personal_Finance_Bailiffs_Role.aspx to http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Personal_Finance_Bailiffs_Role.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia
I have replaced a wholly unsatisfactory statement (that has stood still for over 10 years) that effectively says that "...in Australia bailiffs are process servers and by the way they execute warrants." with a comprehensive statement that attempts to reasonably reflect the commonality of what a bailiff is in Australia given that there are differences over history and across court jurisdictions and layers of jurisdiction and of course over 6 States and 2 Territories. I am aware it currently has no citations. I invite others to add citations. The citation in the replaced statement is to a commercial website and is not an official or authoritative source. When and if I can recover my password I am "User:Lanyon" 106.68.10.118 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bailiff


text:
User:Danny/Grants

Hi!

My name is Danny and I am currently the Grants Coordinator of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The official role of the position is as follows:

 * Promotes the application of grants throughout the communities, finding grants and people to work on them, and coordinating grant-writing efforts to ensure deadlines are met. Provides feedback to the board on what has been applied for, and suggests areas where more grants may be useful.

As I understand this, it means that Grants are a community-wide affair. Everyone who is interested in helping to obtain grants that would help the Foundation run smoothly, or who has an idea for a project that would benefit from a grant, is invited to contact me here.

I believe that no grant is too large--or too small--for the Foundation, provided that we are willing and able to keep to its terms. All suggestions, ideas, and critiques are welcome. Also, if you suggest a grant possibility, please be expected to be asked to move ahead with it. I see my position, first and foremost, as a coordinator, but it is the community (i.e., you) that will be requesting the grants.

Though my first language is English, please feel free to post on my page in your language of choice. I will make an effort to get it translated, though I may answer you in English.

I look forward to this opportunity to work with people from many different projects.

Please post any questions or comments here:
 * I am interested in contributing with either time or money to the foundation. Where can I get involved? Thanks! --evrik 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

'''I have an idea for a grant that i believe would help wikipedia and the wider community but don't know how to contact Danny. Can you please email me at Nbruch@gmail.com''' -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.20.23 (talk • contribs)

How do I post a historical entry on Wikipedia? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.135.171.118 (talk • contribs)

May I e-mail some questions to Danny?

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

title: User:Danny/Grants


text:
Seiichiro Murakami

Seiichiro Murakami (村上 誠一郎) is a Japanese politician. He was the Minister of State for Regulatory Reform, the Minister of State for Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan, the Minister of State for Administrative Reform, the Minister of State for Special Zones for Structural Reform and the Minister of State for Regional Revitalization in Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet.

He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Law from Tokyo University, and was first elected in 1986 to the House of Representatives in Ehime Prefecture.

title: Seiichiro Murakami


text:
User:Aroshana

Take steps to keep your information and identity safe. Special event teaches members about real estate. Read Wescom's 2004 Annual Report (PDF file). Read the May TouchPoints Newsletter.

title: User:Aroshana


text:
Talk:Scottie Pippen

74 inch Wingspan
In describing his athleticism, someone referred to Pippen having long arms and a “74 inch wingspan.” This is about average for a person 6'2, and very short for someone 6'8. Is 74 inches correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.226.231 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. The article from 1987 states his wingspan as 74 inches. I'm pretty sure it should actually read 7 feet 4 inches.Hoops gza (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution.Hoops gza (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

He said on a video his arm span is 7 feet, so I agree. It's gotta be 7'4" AnalyticalChick (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Outside of NBA
The man did a few things outside of his nba career like Slam City perhaps a section should be created, or the retirement section be changed to a more general purpose headline.Atirage 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to mention how he's a punk. -Amit (Why don't you? Marzolian (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

(That incident is mentioned already. Marzolian (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Feel free to mention any documented incidents of punk-ness. The time he refused to play when PJ drew up a play for Kukoc would work...

I'm deleting the information about Pippen's desire for a comeback from retirement, since it is subsequently restated in the section marked "Return."

No Tippin' Pippen Chicago Tribune NY Post/Chicagoist CNN/Sports Illustrated Chicago Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.107.149 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about his "No Tippin' Pippen" reputation? It's fairly well known in Chicago. Sources:

Family life?
There's nothing about his family life, parents, siblings, wedding, or where he lives now.Marzolian (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Point Forward
I'm changing the language regarding point forward, and Pippen's role. While he is a fine example of the position, the term was widely used to describe Paul Pressey long before Pippen ever enjoyed the NBA. Before Pressey, Rick Barry has point forward duties. One could even argue for Magic Johnson as a point forward (if for no other reason due to height)--making the Lakers unusual for being a 1-guard, 3-forward team. On D, it was usually Byron Scott who guarded the other team's PG, not Magic; with Kareem in the middle blocking shots, the Lakers could afford to cheat on defense in this manner.

--EngineerScotty 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, I'm removing "point forward" from his official position (it's not an official position anyway - it's a avid basketball fan's term, if anything (in other words, a little too esoteric for the common reader)). It is an anachronistic term that did not exist during Pippen's heyday. Having said that, I should stress that Pippen's style of play is discussed further in the article. --Downwards 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Early Life
Somebody needs to add Scottie's early life... For instance how he didn't play basketball for a while and then played in college —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.208.34 (talk • contribs)

Scottie Pippen is not a member of phi beta sigma checked with nationals and some personnal friends of his. Nope he is NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.19 (talk • contribs)

Picture
lol, I love how the picture came from his mugshot :D Armyrifle 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, I know. I know Scottie has one of the happiest looking mugshots of all time, but could somebody find a picture of him playing or something? At least not in jail. --Freepablo 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1994 playoff game against the Knicks was tied 102-102 when Chicago called timeout, not 100-100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.90.88 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is the retarded idiot that chose that pic. It looks awkward. How about find a decent pic to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenlesstires (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pippen without Jordan
So is there anyway that someone could find actual sources for the material under Pippen without Jordan? That and it could use a serious re-write. Much of it is needlessly melodramatic and very little of it is sourced to anything. The tone, the content and the structure all reads more like a blog than an article of any kind. There's only a couple mentions to anything substantive that Pippen did during those two seasons. Most of it just consists of overly exaggerating language and flowery prose about a couple of supposedly controversial anecdotes which aren't sourced to anything. It apparently is just the writer's rambling about his/her impressions of those incidents. It's just really, really sloppy. Maybe if I have time later I'll try to re-write some of it, but it's pretty shoddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually in favor of changing the name of the section to something more neutral, like "Pippen Post Jordan" or "Pippen after Jordans retirement". Pippen without Jordan just has a negative tone/vibe. Any thoughts on this? EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Eligibility
The Hall requires that the player be "fully retired from basketball" for five years. Does that mean him playing in Europe in 2008 mean he isn't eligible until 2013 or 2014?

Duplicate copy
Cleanup is needed as the same slam dunk episode over Patrick Ewing is mentioned at length twice within the article, in the "Pippen without Jordan (1993—1995)" and "Legacy" sections. Much of the two anecdotes are the exact same copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.166.231 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Aggravated Assault Investigation
Why does someone keep deleting the information regarding the LA Sheriff's investigation into Pippen over a fight in which he beat and kicked some dude in Malibu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.184.111 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the claims were not supported by the sources. There's no wiggle room for that when dealing with content like this; see WP:Biographies of living people. In addition, large chunks of the section were copyright infringements, in that they were simply copied and pasted from TMZ.
 * It could be possible to write a section on the incident, but we'd have to get things right. At this point, it would be good to wait, since new details keep coming in, and some of the earliest reports are known to be incorrect. Pippen wasn't arrested or charged with anything. Zagal e jo^^^ 17:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is incorrect about this? Did Pippen get into a fight with some guy.  YES.  Did the guy get punched in the face and kicked.  YES.  Did the guy go to the hospital.  YES.  Are the police investigating.  YES.  The only question is whether or not the beating was justified.  UNKNOWN.  Pippen says he got called a nigger.  The other guy said, "no, Pippen called me a nigger."  Ok.  Whatever.  that's for the cops to sort out.  But what is undisputed is that there was a fight and someone got hurt pretty badly.  By repeatedly blanking the article you act like you want to pretend it never even happened, and that's BS and that's what I got a problem with.The Man Hole (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the primary reasons I blanked it were because 1) some serious claims were not correctly sourced, and 2) some sentences were copied and pasted directly from TMZ (a copyright infringement). There is absolutely no way to justify such content in an article.
 * In any case, the facts are not as clear as you make them. This article even quotes a source who said, "When Scottie left, this guy had no injuries." Now, I'm not saying that is definitely true, but I do think it would be prudent to wait until more information is available. (Remember, it was originally reported that Pippen had been arrested; that has been shown to be WRONG.) We should try to be responsible about what we say here. What's the rush? Zagal e jo^^^ 05:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Scottie Pippen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/news_feat/recap/970601/uthchi.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/news_feat/recap/970611/chiuth.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nba.com/news_feat/recap/970613/uthchi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020
Under "Personal Life," change "Pipped" to "Pippen" in the third paragraph. Kerpow99 (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020
Change stavig to staving 71.218.64.58 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Green missing from career statistics for 1997-1998
Can someone show me how to fix this? So I can do it myself next time? Dr. Universe (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021
In 2021, Pippen introduced his own Bourbon whiskey release called Digits in partnership with Savage & Cooke Distillery. Weknowwhiskey (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tipping

 * Pippen developed a reputation for being a poor tipper at restaurants, earning him the nickname "No Tippin' Pippen".

I don’t really think this belongs here. You could probably make that claim about most celebrities or rich people. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * See (above). It seems the argument is that WP:WEIGHT is met.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I read it before I made the comment. I don't believe the material is relevant, and like I said before, this is a common claim made about most wealthy people and celebrities.  It's not notable and non-encyclopedic.  Most rich people are lousy tippers.  Should we add that to every celeb bio?  I don't think so.  Furthermore, anyone who has ever worked a service job knows for a fact that the best tippers are non-celebrities and people who are working to middle class.  This appears to surprise a lot of people whenever it is brought up.  Rich people did not get rich giving away their money and they certainly don't respect the non-rich, given their general philosophy and political positions on this matter.  There's also a lot of supporting literature on this subject.  The fact is, the wealthy do not pay their fair share across the board; they think they got theirs and everyone can fuck off.  This isn't interesting, notable, or encyclopedic in a bio about someone who has a net worth of $20 million.  However, it would cross that threshold if Pippen has directly addressed it, talked about it, or written about it. That would make it notable, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Scottie Pippen


text:
Embraer Phenom 300

The Embraer EMB-505 Phenom 300 is a light business jet designed and produced by the Brazilian aerospace manufacturer Embraer. Certified for single-pilot operations, it can carry up to 11 occupants. Work on the Phenom 300 started in response to customer demands for a larger business aircraft than the Phenom 100, a very light jet. While the design team originally intended for the aircraft to be a straightforward stretched derivative of the Phenom 100, a clean sheet approach was later adopted. The Phenom 300 featured more powerful engines, the addition of spoiler and winglets, along with an elongated cabin to accommodate more passengers. Several features, from its cabin and interior design to its landing gear and structure, can be traced back to the Phenom 100.

The prototype Phenom 300 conducted its maiden flight on 29 April 2008, type certification was received on 3 December 2009, permitting its entry into service that same month. In 2013, the Phenom 300 was the most delivered business jet. During March 2019, Embraer delivered the 500th Phenom 300, claiming more than half of the light jet market share since 2012. On 31 January 2020, Embraer announced that it was implementing a package of upgrades to the Phenom 300. Certification of the improved Phenom 300E was received during March 2020.

Development

During the early 2000s, Embraer was in the process of designing the Phenom 100 light business jet; while conducting market research, it was discovered that numerous potential customers were expressing a desire for a enlarged model of the aircraft. Accordingly, in 2004, it was decided to produce a derivative of the Phenom 100, which the company designated as the Phenom 300. Initial design work was focused on a straightforward scaling up of the Phenom 100, however, Embraer later concluded that a "clean sheet" approach was necessary, leading to the adoption of more powerful engines, spoiler-equipped swept wings, and detachable aluminium winglets. Various features from the Phenom 100 were transferred across, such as its relatively long structural life, an all-composite T-tail, trailing-link landing gear, fly-by-wire brakes, the Prodigy avionics suite, a cabin and cockpit interior designed by BMW DesignWorksUSA.

On 29 April 2008, the prototype Phenom 300 conducted its maiden flight, flown by John Sevalho Corção and Embraer's chief pilot Eduardo Alves Meni; this flight took place several months ahead of the original development schedule. On its second flight, made on 6 May, the prototype was flown from Gavião Peixoto to Embraer’s headquarters at São José dos Campos for further evaluation. A total of three Phenom 300s flew roughly 1,400 hours in support of the certification programme. On 3 December 2009, the Phenom 300 received its type certification from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). On 29 December 2009, Embraer delivered the first Phenom 300 to Executive Flight Services at the company's headquarters at São José dos Campos, Brazil.

On 31 January 2020, Embraer announced that it was implementing a package of upgrades to the Phenom 300; resulting changes included the maximum speed being increased from Mach 0.78 to 0.80 (446 to 464 kn), expanded endurance from 1,992 to 2,010 nmi, and the rated engine thrust being raised from 3,360 to 3,478 lbf via the adoption of improved PW535E1 turbofan engines. During March 2020, the Phenom 300E received triple certification from Brazil’s ANAC, the FAA, and EASA. By early 2023, the aircraft's equipped price was US$10.995 million.

Design
The Phenom 300 is a twin-engined cantilever monoplane with low-positioned swept wings. It is powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney Canada PW535E turbofan engines that are mounted at the rear of the fuselage on pylons. The structure, which comprises 18% composite materials, has a rate lifespan of 28,000 flight cycles or 35,000 flight hours; it is considerably stronger than that of the Phenom 100 in part due to the aircraft's higher operating altitude. It was decided not to equip the Phenom 300 with thrust reversers, instead relying on the use of fly-by-wire brakes with anti-skid protection incorporated. It also has retractable tricycle landing gear. Despite the aircraft's increased size, the Phenom 300 is capable of flying out of various smaller commuter airports, such as London City and Telluride Regional Airport.

The cabin can accommodate up to nine passengers along with a two-pilot crew; an additional passenger can be carried when being flown by a single pilot. Optional cabin fittings include rotating seats and a two-person side-facing divan in lieu of the seventh seat in the front. The addition of a galley also comes at the cost of the seat opposite the entry door. Access to the cockpit and cabin is via an airstair on the left-hand side. The Phenom 300 is equipped with an externally serviced private rear lavatory and is outfitted for single-point refueling. For additional comfort, soundproofing is integrated along with the careful designing of various mechanical components to reduce noise generation. It has an unpressurised cargo hold, large enough to hold six pairs of skis (or six golf bags), six roll-on bags, and six laptop bags.

The cockpit of the Phenom 300 is equipped with three Garmin G1000 12in (305mm) liquid crystal displays, comprising a pair of flight displays and a single central multifunction display, along with traditional control yokes for the two pilots. An alphanumeric keypad is used to interact with the flight management system, communications and navigation radios. The aircraft is provisioned a Garmin GFC700 digital three-axis autopilot that has dual-channel "fail passive" functionality with roll, pitch and yaw control as well as automatic pitch trim and Mach trim. To reduce complexity and potential for confusion, mix-mode anti-icing measures were avoided in favour of exclusively using a variable bleed air system to heat both horizontal wings while permitting a safe level of ice to accrete on the vertical stabiliser. Electronic flight bags are available as optional equipment. Later-built examples are equipped with the Prodigy Touch system.

To better accommodate the cruise speed of the Phenom 300, which is noticeably higher than its Phenom 100 predecessor, a movable horizontal stabiliser in a T-tail configuration was adopted. Pilots are able to set different trim positions for this movable tail to best suit take-off and cruise profiles, decreasing the amount of take-off "pull" needed to displace the elevator via the conventional cable and pulley controls, which are also used for the ailerons and rudder. Electrical actuation is used for the flaps, trim tabs, and autopilot operations. To mitigate the aircraft's tendency to Dutch roll, a rudder on the ventral fin acts as a yaw damper. Various avionics improvements have led to new functionality being added to later-built aircraft, such as predictive wind shear awareness, stabilized approach, emergency descent mode (in event of cabin depressurisation) and an in-house runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS).

Variants

 * Phenom 300
 * Original EMB-505 model, produced since 2009.

 * Phenom 300E
 * In 2018, Embraer launched an upgraded model of Phenom, featuring a redesigned interior, new avionics suite (Garmin-G3000-based Prodigy Touch), and a Ground Power Mode for the engines.

 * 2020 Phenom 300E
 * An upgraded Phenom 300E was announced in 2020, featuring upgraded PW535E1 engines, with thrust increased to 3,478 lbf (from 3,360 lbf); maximum speed has increased to Mach 0.80 from 0.78 (464 vs. 446 kn), and range increased from 1992 to 2010 nmi. Avionics improvements include predictive wind shear awareness, stabilized approach, and an Embraer-developed runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS). In addition, Bossa Nova interior option became available.

 * 2020 Phenom 300MED
 * A ready-fit medevac configuration was made available in August 2020 for new-build aircraft. This program also allows existing Phenom 300s to be retrofitted with a medevac interior.

Operators
• ;🇨🇷

• Helijet S.A

• ;🇫🇷

• Evolem Aviation

• Ixair

• JetKey

• Pan Européenne Air Service

• SD Aviation

• ;🇩🇪

• Air Hamburg

• ;🇲🇹

• LuxWing

• ;🇵🇹

• NetJets Europe

• ;

• Flairjet

• SaxonAir

• ;🇺🇸

• Airshare (Executive Flight Services)

• Clay Lacy Aviation

• Delta Private Jets

• Flexjet

• Flight Options

• Grandview Aviation

• JetSuite

• NetJets
 * Navair Jet Services
 * Navair Jet Services

Deliveries
In 2013, the Phenom 300 was the most delivered business jet, with 60 units. It also led the industry in deliveries in 2014 and 2015.

After July 2016, all Phenom assembly was transferred to the Melbourne, Florida line, which has the capability to assemble 96 Phenoms and 72 Embraer Legacy 450/Embraer Legacy 500s annually. More than 170 Phenom jets had been produced at the site by June 2016, mainly for the US market.

In March 2019, Embraer delivered the 500th Phenom 300, claiming more than half of the light jet market share since 2012; at the time it was being used in over 30 countries and had cumulative carried 2.5 million passengers across 600,000 flights and 800,000 hours. As of February 2023 700 units have been delivered.

Accidents and incidents
As of January 2023, the Phenom 300 has been involved in three hull-loss accidents causing five fatalities.

 * On 31 July 2015, a Phenom 300, aircraft registration HZ-IBN, crashed into a car park whilst trying to land at Blackbushe Airport in Hampshire. All four persons on board the Saudi-registered private jet died in the crash and subsequent fire.
 * On 2 January 2023, Phenom 300 N555NR crashed shortly after takeoff on the grounds of Provo Municipal Airport in Utah. The pilot was killed, one passenger was critically injured, and the two other passengers received minor injuries. The cause of the crash is under investigation.

title: Embraer Phenom 300


text:
Talk:Dominique Wilkins

Nickname Reference
If Wilkins is commonly known as or often referred to as "'Nique", could someone that can verify this add it to the article? This is a disambiguation page-related question (referring to 'Nique). Courtland 04:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is verifiable: http://www.nba.com/history/players/wilkins_summary.html

Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame? is there any question regarding his admission ? Nique has provided fans so much passion, grace and excitement all while being humble which is a far cry from today's players. It's an outrage that he is not appreciated, that there are other players mentioned before he as a "50 greatest"( who are the numbnutz to exclude him?). How often does one see someone overcome a, Achilles Tendon rupture then comeback with a much better all-round game?. His only knock is that he allowed others to dictate his future with the trades But God bless this man! and put him in the Hall!

~He's in the hall of fame now. --DJBryson 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate for the Ewing Theory
The article currently states that Wilkins is a candidate for the Ewing Theory. Though he was a huge star that never led his team to the Finals, I do not think he qualifies. The Hawks did not noticeably improve after his departure, and now have not made the playoffs seven years straight. This suggests to me that the statement should be removed. - Slow Graffiti 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't like mentioning the Ewing Theory in articles, since it's not really encyclopedic, sort of gimmicky, subject to arguments about how large an improvement after departure is enough, and kind of mean-spirited. But, that being said, Georgia did go to the final four the year after he left, after only making the NIT while he was there.

image/photo.
Wondering if anybody has a better picture... maybe him in a Hawks jersey? That would be more appropriate, I think, then the Beck's jersey. (Which I guess is product placement on somebody's part, and I'm not sure what the formal wiki policy is on that but I'm sure its frowned on.)

So, I think the photo be changed. -sio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sio6627 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilkins in a Hawks Jersey or at least an NBA All-Star jersey would be nice. However the green jersey you see, is not product placement that would violate Wiki policy. He's wearing the Panathinaikos BC jersey. Its common in European leagues to have sponsor patches or emblems prominently displayed on the front. In the case on Panathinaikos, Becks is the team's sponsor. 153.48.52.241 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. The photo is hideous. Ugh! If that image must be kept on the page, it should be placed much, much, much lower on the page with a discussion of his time in the European league. I recommend using his 1988 dunk contest photo or perhaps something from the Boston-Atlanta playoff series. Too many high-quality, classic images for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temple3 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?
This article reads more like a fan page than a typical Wiki article. Its sorely lacking in NPOV in my opinion. Does anyone else see the same thing in this article? If so, should it be reworked to sound neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.52.241 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

nba career
article contains false information, under nba career it states "Prior to his last three NBA seasons, Wilkins never averaged fewer than 20 points per game and captured a scoring title in 1985-86 with an average of 30.3 points per game." while this may be partially true, his rookie year of 1982-1983, he averaged 17.5 points per game, well below the 20 per game the artical claims he scored every season but last 3. please fix

http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=dominique_wilkins

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dominique Wilkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927231531/http://www.secsports.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=0&url_article_id=303&change_well_id=2== to http://www.secsports.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=0&url_article_id=303&change_well_id=2==

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominique Wilkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429025722/http://www.nba.com/2009/allstar2009/01/16/mcdonalds.celebrity.game/index.html to http://www.nba.com/2009/allstar2009/01/16/mcdonalds.celebrity.game/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Image/photo
I was wondering if image could be replaced with him in a hawks jersey or a modern image of him because wiki doesn’t really use of images of nba players in euro league as the main picture Black roses124 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dominique Wilkins


text: User talk:81.62.45.56

title: User talk:81.62.45.56


text:
Der Corregidor

Der Corregidor is a comic opera by Hugo Wolf. The German libretto was written by Rosa Mayreder-Obermayer, based on the short novel El sombrero de tres picos by Pedro Antonio de Alarcón.

History
Wolf composed the opera in 1895 and revised it in 1897.

The opera was first performed at the Mannheim National Theatre on 7 June 1896 with Hugo Röhr as conductor.

Gustav Mahler made an arrangement of the opera's prelude.

Synopsis

 * Time and place: in and around an unnamed village in Andalusia, in the year 1804.

Act 1
Scene 1: Tio Lukas is picking grapes and preparing his millyard for the arrival of an unnamed Bishop and conversing with a neighbor. The neighbor taunts Lukas, saying that the only reason people show him any favor is because he has such a pretty wife. Lukas shrugs off the comment. The neighbor leaves, and Lukas climbs up into an arbor to continue his preparations.

Scene 2: Frasquita enters the yard and sets the table while singing to herself. Lukas surprises her from the arbor and teases her about the affections of the Corregidor, magistrate of the province in which they live. Lukas spies the Corregidor approaching with Repela, his servant, and goes back into hiding in order to spy on the old man's conversation.

Scene 3: Repela enters, taking a pinch of snuff and sneezing violently. Frasquita tells him that Lukas is asleep, which Repela is interested to know. He runs off to tell his master that Frasquita is apparently alone.

Scene 4: The Corregidor approaches Frasquita, who flirts with him and dances a fandango. He is afraid that her dancing might wake Lukas. She threatens to wake Lukas (with the song "In dem Schatten meiner Locken" from the Spanisches Liederbuch), but relents when the Corregidor urges her not to. The Corregidor is so taken by Frasquita that he is dumbstruck for a moment. He begins to woo her, and she seizes the opportunity to press for a favor she has obviously already requested many times: the appointment of her nephew as court notary in the nearby town of Estella. The Corregidor refuses, and his advances become ever more ardent. In his passion, he loses his balance and crashes to the ground. Lukas takes this cue to reveal himself. The couple ridicules the old man, who, realizing that Lukas has heard the entire exchange, childishly vows his revenge. Frasquita offers him some grapes in order to placate him, but he hesitates.

Scene 5: Repela, who has also been watching the entire scene, enters, intending to reprimand Frasquita for her behaviour. He is interrupted by the sound of the Bishop's arrival in the distance. Lukas and Frasquita rush off to finish their preparations, while the Corregidor sends Repela off to set his revenge plan in motion. The Bishop approaches amid an onstage brass fanfare.

Act 2
Scene 1: In the kitchen at the millhouse, Lukas and Frasquita are eating dinner and discussing, first teasingly, then passionately, how happy they are together. They are interrupted by a knock at the door. It is Tonuelo, one of the Alkalde's servants, coming under the banner of the “rule of law.” He is very, very drunk.

Scene 2: Tonuelo summons Lukas to the Alkalde, the local mayor. Lukas says he will go in the morning, but Tonuelo insists that he come immediately. Frasquita wishes to accompany him, but Tonuelo again relays that he is to summon Lukas only. The two men exit, leaving Frasquita alone.

Scene 3: Frasquita begins to tidy up the dishes. She then sits down to her spinning wheel and muses to herself about Tonuelo's summons. From outside, she hears a sudden shout for help. Thinking it is Lukas, she rushes to the door, only to discover that it is the Corregidor, who has fallen into the millstream.

Scene 4: The Corregidor enters the house, soaking wet from the stream. Frasquita becomes angry, realizing at once what the Corregidor has intended all along. He attempts to bribe Frasquita into bed with her nephew's appointment, and when she refuses, he threatens her with a pistol. She in turn pulls out a blunderbuss, at which point the Corregidor is so overcome with fright that he becomes faint. He asks her to call Repela.

Scene 5: Repela enters to tend to the Corregidor, while Frasquita prepares to leave on the pretense of summoning a doctor from town. In reality, she leaves to find Lukas and to inform the Corregidora of what her husband is up to.

Scene 6: The Corregidor removes his wet clothes, instructing Repela to hang them by the fire to dry. Realizing that Frasquita is no longer there, he sends Repela off to intercept her before she reaches town. The Corregidor, alone, sings to himself, in another song from the Spanisches Liederbuch ("Herz, verzage nicht geschwind") about the strange behaviour of women.

 * At this point, the curtain drops, and the orchestra plays some brief scene-change music.

Scene 7: The Alkalde and his servants Manuela and Pedro are drinking together. Lukas and Tonuelo enter through a rear door.

Scene 8: The revelers drink to Lukas, even though he is clearly not in the mood to be trifled with. Lukas tricks the group into a drinking game, then pretends to go to sleep on a bench. The drunken servants go off to find their own beds.

Scene 9: Lukas, enraged, gets up and escapes out of the window.

Scene 10: After a few moments, Manuela enters the room to ask Lukas to hire her away from the Alkalde. Realizing that Lukas is no longer there, she rouses the rest of the household.

Scene 11: Pedro and Tonuelo join Manuela, and the three reluctantly go out to search for Lukas.

Act 3
Scene 1: Frasquita makes her way to the Alkalde's house to find Lukas. Unbeknownst to either, Lukas passes her on his way back to the mill. She speaks to herself nervously. Repela enters, but Frasquita does not notice him yet.

Scene 2: Repela reveals himself. He mocks Frasquita, and she yells at him. They decide to go off together in search of Lukas. This is followed by another episode of scene-change music.

Scene 3: Lukas arrives back at the mill. He notices the Corregidor's clothes still hanging by the fire and the notary appointment on the table, and jumps to the obvious conclusion. Grabbing the blunderbuss, he creeps towards the bedroom door. Seeing the Corregidor asleep on the bed, Lukas berates himself quietly in a fit of humiliation and jealousy. Suddenly realizing that the Corregidor also has a pretty wife, he forms his own plan for vengeance. Donning the Corregidor's clothes and laughing, Lukas heads for the Corregidor's house.

Scene 4: The Corregidor, awoken by Lukas, cautiously comes out of the bedroom. Vexed that his own clothes have apparently been stolen, he puts on those that Lukas left behind. The Alkalde enters with Frasquita, Tonuelo and Repela, but they do not yet notice the Corregidor, who tries to slip back into the bedroom.

Scene 5: The Alkalde notices the Corregidor, but thinking he is Lukas, orders Tonuelo to apprehend him. Tonuelo knocks the Corregidor to the ground, but the group quickly realizes their mistake. After Repela divines Lukas's intent in stealing the Corregidor's clothes, everyone agrees to head off to the Corregidor's house.

Act 4
Scene 1: In front of the Corregidor's house, a night watchman announces 5:30 AM.

Scene 2: The Corregidor, Frasquita, Repela, Tonuelo and the Alkalde arrive at the Corregidor's house. They knock, but there is no reply. Repela, making light of the situation, pretends that he is serenading the house by faking the sound of a guitar. Finally the Duenna wakes up and comes to the window. The Corregidor announces his presence, but the Duenna does not believe him, saying that the lord of the house is already home. Realizing who that must be, Frasquita despairs that Lukas did indeed think her unfaithful. The Corregidor does not understand what is going on.

Scene 3: A troop of officers and servants bursts out of the gate and start to beat the party. They try to run away and explain their presence at the same time. The chorus of soldiers sings confusedly. The Corregidor still does not understand what is going on.

Scene 4: Donna Mercedes, the Corregidora, appears in the plaza. Although she has already sized up the situation, she continues to treat her husband as if he were Lukas. The Corregidor, finally realizing what is going on, attempts to blame Frasquita for everything that has happened, but his wife does not let him get away with it.

Scene 5: Lukas enters, still dressed in the Corregidor's clothes and imitating the Corregidor's mannerisms. After everyone's true identity is revealed, the characters recap the story and explain what happened when Lukas arrived in disguise at the Corregidor's house (Wolf cut most of this section in his 1897 revision). Lukas and Frasquita are reconciled, and the Corregidor gives way, realizing that he has been bested. The ensemble thanks the Corregidora with respect and gratitude for her benevolent intervention.

Recordings
There are two complete recordings (cast key is Conductor/Mercedes/Frasquita/Eugenio/Lukas/Repela):
 * Karl Elmendorff/Marta Fuchs/Margarete Teschemacher/Karl Erb/Josef Herrmann/Georg Hann – 1944 – Urania, a performance recorded by German radio at the Semperoper in Dresden.
 * Gerd Albrecht/Helen Donath/Doris Soffel/Werner Hollweg/Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Victor von Halem – 1985 – Koch Schwann

title: Der Corregidor


text: User talk:70.81.7.195

title: User talk:70.81.7.195


text:
Yasufumi Tanahashi

Yasufumi Tanahashi (棚橋 泰文) is a Japanese politician who served as the Chairman of the National Public Safety Commission from July 2021 to October of that same year.

Political career
He also served as Minister of State in Charge of Science and Technology Policy in Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's cabinet. Tanahashi is also a member of the House of Representatives for Gifu's 2nd district since 1996.

Education
He graduated from the University of Tokyo with a B.A. in private law in March 1987.

title: Yasufumi Tanahashi