text:
United States v. Booker

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal sentencing. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In its majority decision, the Court struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines range, along with the provision that deprived federal appeals courts of the power to review sentences imposed outside the range. The Court instructed federal district judges to impose a sentence with reference to a wider range of sentencing factors set forth in the federal sentencing statute, and it directed federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness," which the Court left undefined.

The ruling was the direct consequence of the Court's ruling six months earlier in Blakely v. Washington, in which the Court had imposed the same requirement on a guidelines sentencing scheme employed in Washington state. Blakely arose out of Apprendi v. New Jersey in which the Court held that except for a prior conviction, any fact that increases the defendant's punishment above the statutory maximum punishment must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Booker
In 2003, Freddie Joe Booker was arrested after police officers found 92.5 grams of crack cocaine in his duffel bag. He later gave a written statement to the police that admitted to selling an additional 566 grams of crack cocaine. In 2003, a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin found Booker guilty of possessing with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base. Federal law provided for a statutory sentence of ten years to life in prison.

At sentencing, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant (1) distributed 566 grams over and above the 100 grams that the jury had to have found and (2) had obstructed justice. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, that increased the defendant's base offense level from 32 to 36 (U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(c)(2),(4)). The enhancement for the drug possession and obstruction of justice (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1) made Booker's sentencing range of 30 years to life; the judge sentenced Booker to the minimum.

Booker appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, claiming the sentencing guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment rights since the judge was able to find facts absent the findings of the jury, other than his criminal history, to determine his sentencing range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Booker's conviction but found the application of the Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Blakely, and so reversed Booker's sentence. The Government appealed the Seventh Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court.

Fanfan
Narcotics agents discovered 2.5 kilograms of cocaine and 281.6 grams of cocaine base in Duncan Fanfan's vehicle and arrested him. A jury in the US District Court for the District of Maine found that Fanfan had conspired to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of, and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii). The maximum sentence for Fanfan under the Federal Guidelines, without any additional findings, was 78 months in prison.

At sentencing, the judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, determined that Fanfan was responsible for 2.5 kilograms of cocaine powder and 261.6 grams of crack and was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity. That would have resulted 188 to 235 months sentence under the Guidelines, which was a 10-year increase in the sentencing range from what the jury had found. The Supreme Court had issued Blakely four days before the judge imposed Fanfan's sentence. The sentencing judge, believing that Blakely had implications on federal judges increasing sentences on facts not found by juries, imposed the maximum sentence, 78 months, based on the jury's verdict. The government asked the judge to correct Fanfan's sentence, which was denied.

Consolidation
The Government filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the Supreme Court in the Fanfan case. Because of the importance of the case, the Supreme Court granted the petition, as well as a similar petition for certiorari filed by the government in Booker's case, following the Seventh Circuit's ruling in favor of Booker. The Government asked the Court to determine whether Apprendi applied to the Sentencing Guidelines and which of the Guidelines were constitutional.

Decision
The decision of the Supreme Court was announced by two different groups of Justices. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion answering the question of whether the application of the Guidelines in these two cases violated the Sixth Amendment as articulated in the Apprendi line of cases. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion answering the question of how to remedy the Sixth Amendment violation identified by the Court.

Constitutional holding
As applied to modern sentencing schemes, the Sixth Amendment demands that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the defendant's punishment above the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The "statutory maximum" is the greatest sentence the judge can impose based solely on the jury's fact finding. In a guidelines sentencing scheme that requires judges to impose a sentence within the guideline range, the jury-trial and reasonable-doubt requirements apply to the determination of any fact that exposes the defendant to punishment above the guideline range.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, like the Washington sentencing guidelines discussed in Blakely, were mandatory; sentencing judges were required to impose sentences within the range dictated by the Guidelines. In this sense, the decision in Blakely dictated the constitutional holding that the rule of Apprendi, as construed in Blakely, applies to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The Government made three principal arguments against applying Blakely to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, all of which the Court rejected.

Commission vs. Legislature
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were promulgated by a sentencing commission; the Washington sentencing guidelines at issue in Blakely, by contrast, were enacted by that state's legislature. That distinction, the Court said, "lacked constitutional significance," because regardless of the body that set the rules, the rules required sentencing judges to increase sentences on the basis of particular facts not submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "Regardless of whether the legal basis of the accusation [against the defendant] is in a statute or in guidelines promulgated by an independent commission, the principles behind the jury trial right are equally applicable" to each.

Stare decisis
The Government identified four recent cases that, it argued, precluded the Court from applying Blakely to the Guidelines under the principles of stare decisis. First, United States v. Dunnigan,, held that the Guidelines provision that provided for an enhanced sentence if the defendant committed perjury during the trial did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In Dunnigan, the Court had no occasion to consider whether the jury-trial right applied to that particular provision. Furthermore, although a sentence based on such an enhancement had the potential to exceed the statutory maximum, this did not mean that the judge had to impose such a sentence. "Thus, while the reach of Dunnigan may be limited, we need not overrule it."

Next, Witte v. United States,, in which the Court held conduct that supported an enhancement in a prior case did not prevent a separate criminal prosecution for the same conduct, did not prevent applying Blakely to the Guidelines. This was so because, ultimately, the conduct in the two respective cases was subject to two different burdens of proof. The Court considered the converse of the Witte rule in United States v. Watts,, where it held that conduct of which the defendant had been acquitted could nevertheless support a sentence enhancement under the Guidelines. In neither case had the Court considered whether the sentence enhancements in question were subject to the jury-trial requirement. "The issue we confront today simply was not presented."

Finally, Edwards v. United States,, in which the Court allowed a sentence for a drug conspiracy involving both powder and crack cocaine to rest on both drugs in the face of a general verdict not specifying whether the jury believed the conspiracy involved either powder cocaine or crack cocaine or both, did not prevent the Court from applying Blakely to the Guidelines. In Edwards, the defendants could not have argued that the powder and crack cocaine were not part of the same overall conspiracy; hence, the Court's ruling in that case was not inconsistent with applying Blakely to the Guidelines.

Separation of Powers
The Government argued that applying the jury-trial requirement to sentencing enhancements promulgated by a commission would transform those enhancements into a criminal code, resulting in an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the judicial branch. In Mistretta v. United States, the Court had upheld the delegation of such legislative power to a body in the judicial branch, reasoning that the judicial branch had the power to exercise other quasi-legislative functions such as proposing rules of evidence and civil procedure for use in the federal courts. The United States Sentencing Commission was not performing an adjudicatory function; rather, it was exercising a policy-making power appropriate for judicial officers and uniquely within their expertise. This reasoning did not preclude applying Blakely to the Guidelines.

Thus, the Court ruled that the holding in Blakely applied to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Remedial holding
The Court next confronted the question of a remedy for the constitutional violation. A different majority of the Court concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) — the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required district courts to impose a sentence within the Guidelines range — was "incompatible" with the constitutional holding and therefore had to be "severed and excised" from the statute. Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), the provision that governed the handling of appeals from sentences, also had to be severed and excised, because that provision was inextricably linked with the provision that made the Guidelines mandatory. The result of severing and excising these two provisions was to make the Guidelines "effectively advisory," such that district courts could, after considering the Guidelines range, tailor a sentence that reflected the broader range of concerns set forth in the federal sentencing statute.

The Court evaluated two possible remedies in light of Congress's intent in enacting the Guidelines system. The first option, and the one preferred by the Justices who dissented from the remedial holding, "would engraft onto the existing system today's Sixth Amendment 'jury trial' requirement." The second, the one the Court ultimately adopted, made the Guidelines advisory while at the same time "maintaining a strong connection between the sentence imposed and the offender's real conduct — a connection important to the increased uniformity of sentencing that Congress intended its Guidelines system to achieve." Although both remedies would "significantly alter the system that Congress designed," the remedial majority observed that it was not possible to "maintain the judicial factfinding that Congress thought would underpin the mandatory Guidelines system" in light of the jury factfinding requirement the constitutional majority had applied to that system.

Why the Jury Factfinding Requirement Is Not Compatible with the Guidelines Scheme
Several considerations persuaded the Court that Congress would not have enacted the Guidelines system and made it mandatory for federal district judges to apply if it had known that a jury factfinding requirement would apply to it. First, the text of the sentencing statute required "the court" to consider "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant" when imposing sentence. In context, this meant "the judge sitting alone" instead of "the judge together with the jury." When it was debating the Guidelines, Congress had intended for the judge to weigh the factors bearing on a defendant's sentence by himself.

Second, "Congress's basic statutory goal — a system that diminishes sentencing disparity — depends for its success upon judicial efforts to determine, and to base punishment upon, the real conduct that underlies the crime of conviction." Many federal crimes are defined so broadly as to encompass a vast array of underlying conduct. And other federal crimes, like robbery, can be committed in a variety of different ways. Judges typically relied on presentence reports, which set forth the relevant conduct and offender characteristics, to assist them in determining what an appropriate sentence was. Congress anticipated that, under the Guidelines, this practice would continue, and this expectation supported the Court's holdings in Witte and Watts. By contrast, imposing the jury factfinding requirement onto the Guidelines would "destroy the system" by "prevent[ing] a judge from relying on a presentence report for factual information, relevant to sentencing, uncovered after the trial," because such facts would necessarily not have been submitted to the jury during the course of the trial. This, in turn, would "weaken the tie between a sentence and an offender's real conduct."

Imagine that both Smith and Jones violate the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), which forbids obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by extortion. Smith threatens to injure a co-worker if the co-worker does not advance him a few dollars from the interstate company's till. Jones threatens to injure a co-worker unless the co-worker advances him a few thousand dollars from the company's accounts, and reinforces this threat by "making certain that the co-worker's family is aware of the threat, by arranging deliveries of various dead animals to the co-worker's home to show that he is serious, and so forth." Both Smith and Jones, although they violated the same statute, created different harms as a result of their actions. Under the Guidelines, their sentences would be different. If the jury factfinding requirement were merely grafted onto the Guidelines scheme, unless prosecutors "decide to charge more than the elements of the crime," the judge would have to impose similar punishments.

Imagine next that two former felons, Johnson and Jackson, each threatened a bank teller with a gun, made off with $50,000, and injured an innocent bystander while fleeing the bank. Suppose Johnson was charged with illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and Jackson was charged with bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The Guidelines would have allowed a judge to impose similar sentences on both Johnson and Jackson, despite their being charged with different crimes. Requiring the sentence-enhancing facts to be submitted to a jury undermines the ability of the Guidelines to achieve their goal of sentence uniformity, meaning uniformity of sentences imposed for the same real conduct, not for violations of the same statute.

Furthermore, imposing the jury-factfinding requirement onto the Guidelines would prove more complex than Congress could have intended. Would the sentence enhancements have to be charged in the indictment? How could a defendant defend against specific enhancements, such as that he used a gun during the crime, while simultaneously denying his guilt entirely? The fact that the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargains would not simplify things. Instead, it would complicate them by increasing the likelihood that any agreed-upon sentence reflects more the skill of defense counsel and the prosecutor's policies than the real conduct underlying the offense.

Such a system "would have particularly troubling consequences with respect to prosecutorial power." Because a prosecutor would control not only the charge to bring against the defendant but also the sentence enhancement, he would necessarily have the "power to decide, based on relevant information about the offense and the offender, which defendants merit heavier punishments."

Congress also would not have intended to craft a system that makes it more difficult to ratchet sentences upward than downward. Yet imposing the jury-factfinding requirement on the Guidelines would have precisely that effect. For all these reasons, the Court concluded that Congress would not have enacted the Guidelines as it did if it had known that many of the various sentence-enhancing factors would be subject to a jury-trial requirement.

Which Parts of the Statute Should Be Excised?
In order to eliminate the constitutional violation the Court had identified and at the same time tailor the federal sentencing statutes more closely to Congressional intent, the Court struck out 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), the provision of the sentencing statute that made it mandatory for district courts to impose sentences according to the Guidelines. The rest of the sentencing statute "functioned independently." It required district judges to "consider" the Guidelines sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant in order to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, provides for adequate deterrence, protects the public, and provides the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care.

Because the Court had struck out § 3553(b)(1), it also had to strike out 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), the provision governing the standard for reviewing sentences on appeal. This did not impose an unnecessary obstacle for handling appeals of sentences, for "a statute that does not explicitly set forth a standard of review may do so implicitly." Before the Court's decision in Booker, § 3742(e) had instructed appellate courts to determine whether a sentence was "unreasonable" with respect to the Guidelines range. After Booker, the Court read the remaining provisions of the sentencing appeal statute to instruct appellate courts to determine whether sentences were "unreasonable" with respect to all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — the statute spelling out which factors district courts were required to consider in fashioning a sentence in the first instance. Though the Justices who dissented from the remedial holding called this standard unworkable, the Court reasoned that a standard of "reasonableness" was familiar from other areas of the law. Together with the Sentencing Commission, which would still collect data about criminal sentencing, the courts of appeals together are able to maintain uniformity of criminal sentences. Furthermore, if Congress was unsatisfied with this arrangement, it was free to amend the sentencing laws.

Stevens's opinion
Justice Stevens pointed out that it was possible to avoid the Sixth Amendment violation in Booker's case without making any changes to the Guidelines at all. Solely on the statute of conviction, the maximum Guidelines sentence Booker could have received was 262 months. If the prosecution had submitted the quantity of drugs to the jury, the range would have increased to between 324 and 405 months. Booker ultimately received a sentence of 360 months, one within the increased sentencing range and one which the sentencing judge could have imposed after evaluating Booker's criminal history and whether he had obstructed justice. "Because the Guidelines as written possess the virtue of combining a mandatory determination of sentencing ranges and discretionary decisions within those ranges, they allow ample latitude for judicial factfinding that does not even arguably raise any Sixth Amendment issue."

But Stevens's principal objection was that the Court had crafted a new kind of severability analysis. He started with the premise that all legislative enactments are presumed to be valid, and may only be struck down in their entirety if the law is unconstitutional in "all or nearly all of its applications," or if the invalid provision cannot be severed from the remainder of the statute. Neither of those conditions applied to the federal sentencing laws, Stevens observed, and so there was no need to adopt a third method of curing constitutional violations. After all, according to the Sentencing Commission, 45% of criminal sentences involve no enhancements whatsoever, and not all of the rest would actually implicate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Furthermore, defendants may waive their jury-trial rights, and so it follows that they may also waive their Blakely rights in appropriate situations.

These two observations led Stevens to the conclusion that only a "tiny portion" of criminal sentences imposed under the mandatory Guidelines scheme would actually implicate the Blakely rule. In those cases, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges could cope. Indeed, after Blakely was decided, the Department of Justice instructed prosecutors to include drug quantity allegations in the indictment. Also, in many cases, Guidelines ranges overlap, and there would be no Blakely problem if the judge imposed a sentence within that overlapping range and based that sentence solely on judicial factfinding. In light of these valid applications of mandatory Guidelines (constrained by Blakely), Stevens saw no plausible way to say that the sentencing statute was unconstitutional in nearly all of its applications.

Stevens further envisioned no difficulty in applying Blakely to the Guidelines. The word "court" could just as easily refer to the judge and jury together as it could to the judge alone. Congress must presumably legislate within constitutional limitations, after all, and it was not plain from the language of the statute that this alternative interpretation was incompatible. Stevens disputed that applying Blakely to the Guidelines would frustrate the goal of achieving uniformity in sentences based on real conduct, because judges retained discretion to impose sentences within prescribed ranges; if defendants pleaded guilty and waived their Blakely rights, the range within which the judge could exercise his discretion would necessarily increase. Given the fact-based nature of certain sentence enhancements under the Guidelines — drug quantity, firearm enhancements, and extent of injury or loss to the victim — there was no reason juries could not make those determinations. In complicated cases, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges together could be trusted to craft workable solutions. To the extent prosecutors overstep their charging authority, judges retain the ability to reject unsatisfactory plea agreements. In light of these objections, Stevens disputed that Congress would have preferred the majority's remedy to a solution of its own devising.

Breyer's opinion
Justice Breyer reiterated his disagreement with the Apprendi rule, and then identified specific reasons not to apply the Blakely holding to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The facts used to determine a defendant's sentence had historically been solely within a judge's purview, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines should be treated no differently. Creating a system that frustrated the goal of increased sentencing uniformity hardly seemed fair to defendants or to the public at large. The fact that the Guidelines were administrative rules rather than statutes also was significant to Breyer. And to the extent that the Guidelines did not adequately take into account an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, a judge was free to depart from the Guidelines range. Thus, the defendant had every expectation that, despite the Guidelines, he might receive a sentence at or near the statutory maximum rather than at the top end of the Guidelines range.

Scalia's opinion
Justice Scalia took issue with the Court's inferring a "reasonableness" standard of appellate review of sentences from the remainder of a statute from which it had excised the express statement that sentences should be reviewed for "reasonableness." Traditionally, sentencing discretion was not reviewable on appeal. When the Guidelines were enacted, appellate review was limited to discrete cases delineated by statute; appellate review was not plenary. According to the text of the statute, the "power to review a sentence for reasonableness arises only when the sentencing court has departed from the applicable guideline range." The situation here was not that the statute did not explicitly set forth a standard of review, but rather that the statute did explicitly set forth such a standard, but then excised from the statute the provision that established the standard. Was it proper for the Court to "look for some congressional 'implication' of a different standard of review in the remnants of the statute that the Court has left standing? Only in Wonderland."

Furthermore, it was not as easy for the courts to apply the "reasonableness" standard in the context of appellate review of sentences as the majority would have liked. First, there was no history of applying that standard under the Guidelines regime. Second, under the majority's holding that standard would apply across the board to all sentence appeals, including those that involved no legal error. "The worst feature of the scheme is that no one knows — and perhaps no one is meant to know — how advisory Guidelines and 'unreasonableness' review will function in practice."

Booker
The lower courts had to revisit Booker's sentencing in light of the Supreme Court decision. He was resentenced by the same judge to the same 30-year sentence (longer than the 21-year sentence the judge could have imposed if the guidelines not been made advisory); however, retroactive changes in crack cocaine guidelines meant that Booker's sentence has been reduced slightly by a federal judge (from 30 to 27 years). He was released from federal prison on 1 November 2019.

Fanfan
Fanfan was resentenced by the US District judge from 78 months to 210 months in prison. The new sentence was upheld on appeal by the US Court of Appeals. His sentence was later reduced by the new federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. He was released from federal prison on 12 June 2015.

Criticism
The decision has been criticized for fear that defendants and prosecutors will suffer from greater uncertainty and that some plea agreements will be entered into or rejected because of mistaken beliefs on the sentences that the judge will impose if the case is taken to trial or settled with a guilty plea.

title: United States v. Booker


text: User talk:69.243.97.35

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

title: User talk:69.243.97.35


text:
Shan Sa

Shan Sa is the pseudonym of Yan Ni (born October 26, 1972, in Beijing, China), a French author and painter. The Girl Who Played Go was the first of her novels to be published outside France, and won the Prix Goncourt des Lycéens (a prize voted by secondary school students). Her second novel to appear in English translation was Empress (2006). She was awarded chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in July 2009 and chevalier of the Ordre national du Mérite in May 2011.

Shan Sa is also a painter with exhibitions in Paris, New York, and Shanghai.

Biography
Shan Sa was born as Yan Ni in Beijing, China, to a scholarly family. She adopted the pseudonym Shan Sa from a poem by the Tang dynasty poet Bai Juyi. At age 8, she published her first poetry collection, and went on to obtain the first prize in the national poetry contest for children under 12 years, an event that created a public upheaval. After graduating from secondary school in Beijing, she moved to Paris in August 1990 thanks to a grant by the French government. Settling there with her father, a professor at the Sorbonne University, she quickly adopted the French language. In 1994, she finished her studies of philosophy. From 1994 to 1996 she worked as a secretary of painter Balthus. Thereafter she published her first two novels and a collection of poetry, meeting with great critical acclaim including the 1998 Prix Goncourt du Premier Roman (Prix Goncourt for first novel) for Porte de la paix céleste. In 2001 she reached the top of her success with the publication of her most famous book so far, The Girl Who Played Go (La Joueuse de Go in French). The book received good feedback from readers and was awarded a number of prizes, including the 2001 Prix Goncourt des Lycéens (Prix Goncourt of the High-school students) and has been translated to 32 languages.

Awards

 * Winner of the Prix Goncourt du Premier Roman for Porte de la paix céleste (Gate of Celestial Peace) in 1998.
 * Winner of the Prix Cazes-Brasserie Lipp for Les Quatre Vies du saule (The Four Lives of the Willow) in 1999.
 * Winner of the Prix Goncourt des Lycéens in 2001 and the 2004 Kiriyama Prize for fiction for La Joueuse de go (The Girl Who Played Go).

title: Shan Sa


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Sanchez

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Already deleted. Golbez 06:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sofia Sanchez
I speedied it before as a hoax, but the article seems to have been cleaned up since then, so it merits coming here. Even though the article is better, Wikipedia is not a repository for the "relatively obscure." I'm finding references to the name on Google and allmusic, but nothing that would establish notability. I can't even confirm that they're the same person. --Xcali 07:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Article doesn't establish the subject is anyone more than a non-notable session musician. Gamaliel 07:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable -CunningLinguist 09:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article gives us nothing, and we can't do the research for the author. It's possible that this person has done backing work on tracks we'd all know, but the author didn't feel like telling us, and we can't find out with such a common-ish name. Geogre 15:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Jinkleberries 19:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today.  Tobycat 20:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep musicians are always notable  64.12.116.196 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I play a pretty mean air guitar. Does that make me notable? --Xcali 05:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, you're notable in my eyes :-P  Antares33712 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not all musician's are notable Mr or Mrs. Anon. My mother plays saxophone, but I wouldn't think of putting here in Wikipedia before she got a few hit singles. - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, quickly delete this bogus crap (see Talk page). Speedy should have come through.  Antares33712 15:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete bogosity. RickK 19:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
The Inlander

The Inlander may refer to:
 * The Inlander, a sternwheeler that worked on the Skeena River in British Columbia, Canada from 1910 until 1912
 * The Inlander (newspaper), a free weekly newspaper published in Spokane, Washington
 * The Inlander (Queensland Rail) a passenger train in Queensland, Australia

title: The Inlander


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack harder

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE   — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jack harder
Vanity and or advertising, with verifiability problems. Anything involving porn is usually guarenteed to turn up hundreds, thousands, or even millions of google hits. "Jack Harder" "Two Can Be Hot" gets only 14 while "Jack Harder" "Aiming To Please" only manages 6. func (talk) 07:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. func (talk) 07:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unverifiable. --FCYTravis 08:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Porncruft (the worst cruft of all): One camcorder, one partner, point down, press the button, and you're a celebrity?  Nah.  He's an amateur porn star, but aren't we all? Geogre 15:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * *sniff* I'm not... :(   — Gwalla | Talk 22:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Geogre's law applies. RickK 22:39, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Great Duck Island, Maine

Great Duck Island is a small island (1.5 mi long by 0.5 mi wide) in the Gulf of Maine, 11 mi south of the entrance to Frenchman Bay, not far from Acadia National Park. Along with nearby Little Duck Island and 11 others, it is part of the town of Frenchboro.

According to The Nature Conservancy, the island provides habitat for the largest nesting black guillemot colony in Maine. Great Duck is an active site for ecological research, conducted by the College of the Atlantic at its Alice Eno Biological Station. Much of this research focuses on the nesting habits of Leach's storm-petrel.

History
The island was inhabited year-round from sometime after 1837 when William Gilley purchased the island, until 1986 when the Coast Guard left and the lighthouse was automated. For much of this period it was used to pasture sheep, support the light station, and provide a summer retreat for mainland property owners.

Great Duck Island Light was established in 1890, and the original lighthouse, head keeper's house, fog signal building, storage building, and boathouse from this year still stand.

Bill and Ellen Bigenho purchased most of the island beginning in 1949. According to their daughter Ellen Spain, they used a 16th or 17th century map to dig up a pirate treasure of gold and silver in 1953.

In 1963 Boston psychotherapist George Cloutier bought most of the island from the Bigenhos. In the 1970s Cloutier constructed an airstrip, and ran a psychiatric clinic and intentional community on the island including a geodesic dome and yurts, described as an "experiment in gestalt psychiatry that must be unique in island annals." The clinic closed in 1979.

In 1985 The Nature Conservancy and the State of Maine purchased most of the island in joint tenancy. In 1998 the College of the Atlantic acquired the 12 acre light station under the Maine Lights Program, renaming it the Alice Eno Biological Station in 2000.

title: Great Duck Island, Maine


text:
CJMJ-FM

CJMJ-FM (100.3 MHz) is a commercial radio station in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The station uses its on-air brand name Move 100.3, and airs an adult contemporary format. CJMJ is owned by Bell Media, along with three other Ottawa radio stations and two TV stations.

CJMJ's studios and offices are located in the Bell Media Building on George Street in Downtown Ottawa's ByWard Market, while its transmitter is located on the Ryan Tower in Camp Fortune, Quebec, within Gatineau Park.

CJMJ broadcasts in the HD Radio format. Its HD2 subchannel carries the news/talk programming of sister station CFRA, while co-owned sports station CFGO is heard on an HD3 subchannel.

History
On November 9, 1989, Rawlco Communications, owner of CFGO, was granted a license for a new FM station. Rawlco proposed to use the frequency 92.1 MHz, but that conflicted with CBO-FM, located on 91.5 MHz. On April 5, 1991, Rawlco's application to use the 100.3 MHz frequency was granted. The station's effective radiated power (ERP) would be 80,000 watts.

On August 12, 1991, at 6:25 p.m., the station signed on for the first time, with the official launch the following morning at 6 a.m. The first song on "Majic" was "Do You Believe in Magic" by The Lovin' Spoonful. On March 11, 1992, the station increased its power to 100,000 watts, with a transmitter on the Ryan Tower in Camp Fortune.

CJMJ was acquired by CHUM Limited in 1999. CHUM Ltd. was, in turn, acquired by CTVglobemedia in 2007, and Bell Media in 2011.

Despite the ownership changes, CJMJ's soft adult contemporary format helped it become one of the top stations in Ottawa for most of the 1990s.

In the early 2000s, CJMJ, like most AC stations, moved to a more upbeat direction. Around 2005, CJMJ was overtaken in the ratings by Top 40/CHR outlet CIHT-FM. CJMJ usually is ranked in the Top 5 Anglophone ratings for the Ottawa/Gatineau market according to BBM.

As of 2010, due to increased competition from adult contemporary station CJWL-FM (which leans towards softer content), CJMJ ended its longtime oldies show airing on Sunday mornings and added more upbeat hot AC songs to the playlist. All 1960s music and most 1970s titles have been dropped as of mid-2013. Mediabase and Nielsen BDS report the station on the Canadian AC panel. On December 27, 2020, as part of a mass format reorganization by Bell Media, CJMJ rebranded as Move 100, ending almost 30 years of the "Majic" branding. While the station would run jockless for the first week of the format, on-air staff would return on January 4, 2021.

title: CJMJ-FM


text:
Talk:Chilling effect/Archive 1

History section needs revision
The section points to Lamont v. Postmaster General as an adoption of the term by the U.S. Supreme Court, but this is misleading. While there is no doubt that the case is about chilling effects, I do not see the actual term "chilling effects" used anywhere in the decision. Moreover, the article currently attributes the "decision" to Justice Brennan, even though Brennan's opinion was only a concurrence. I would recommend deleting the paragraphs about Lamont entirely — they might make sense in a more complete article (and when, you know, made to be accurate), but are awkward and misleading as is. Threepwolfe (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed the following text

 * "The landmark California Supreme Court case Varian v. Delfino is a classic example of this chilling effect."

and the commercial link
 * "*Be careful who you SLAPP - A book about chilling free speech on the Internet."

I feel that the SLAPP link is enough on this subject. The rest is a PR campaign by people involved in the case. kmccoy (talk) 07:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US-centricism
The article is written as though the First Amendment applies everywhere. Could someone recast it? Estrellador* 14:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a small change to try and help it along a bit in this direction. --Lisa 00:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a US-law term. Is there any application or use of this term anywhere else in any other non-US area of law? No.  Then, it does not need "globalize". Not every concept is global!  I have added a clarifying comment to the lede to explain that it is a US-specific term.  If and when the term becomes adopted in areas outside the US then we can "globalize" the article entry. Until then we need only explain the use of the term. I would hope we would do the same for other terms of common interest but jurisdictional specificity! --Lquilter 13:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term
I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but the article itself professes ignorance, and no-one else has mentioned it here. It seems to me that this is merely the misunderstanding of a common, older cliche. While it may now have become a proper term in common usage (although I haven't seen it anywhere else), it seems very likely that it would have originated from one or a few people's misunderstanding of a phrase such as, "this would have a chilling effect on free speech." In the previously standard usage, the meaning of this phrase would be that the effect on free speech would be "chilling" (please note the small "c"), in as much as it would be terrifying enough to "chill one to the bones", or to make one shiver involuntarily with fear. If this were a proper term, I would expect it to be named after an entity such as a person, place, or organisation, and therefore also to be capitalised. I'd like to point out that the stated example of usage in the article does not use capitalisation (viz. "Chilling Effect"), increasing the probablilty that this is a simple misunderstanding rather than a legitimate term. --Nezuji 07:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are stating the obvious. :); I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that there is a guy "Chilling", or indeed anything other than the ultimate derivation. But the term I think can be used in caps to refer to the specific usage it has gained over the years. 9/11 may have had a chilling effect on free speech, but the attacks alone could not exercise a Chilling Effect. Anyway, YMMV and IANAL. Sdedeo (tips) 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article says that the term may have originated in the ruling for Lamont v. Postmaster General, but I cannot find the term anywhere in the ruling. I had thought that it was first used by the Court in Dombrowski v. Pfister. Is there anyone out there better versed in First Amendment law who might know definitively?--24.91.134.186 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The term definitely did NOT arise in the Postmaster case. It did arise in Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965), page 487, also authored by Justice Brennan. The article should be edited accordingly.Krguest (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hi. Please forgive my lack of Wikipedia understanding. This is my first contribution of any kind at all; and I don't feel confident enough to go ahead and edit this article, yet I think it must be changed considerably.

While I do believe I understand the subject the author is referring to in this article, it is, as another commenter has pointed out, not neutral. I do not fault the author, or question his/her intentions, but I feel this article is not strictly neutral by Wikipedia's guidelines. The subject here is referencing the "Chilling Effect Doctrine" which you can see more on Answers and there is also chillingeffects.org.

However, the phrase -- chilling effect -- is a combination of existing terms: the term "chilling" has been in use since long before the US government; and what's more is that in fact the exact phrase "chilling effect" would have been used to refer to the "chills up the spine" effect a macabre event or scene can have on a person, long before this doctrine.

Whether the doctrine's use of the term "chilling" incorporates the macabre, or in fact just any "cooling" effect, which is seen to lead to slowing down -- as in slowly freezing waters which eventually become completely still -- I do not claim to know; but the article's title is very misleading, as it seems to me that the far more obvious meanings of the phrase are those in the macabre genres.

You can find seemingly limitless sources of such usage in literary genres like mystery and crime or detective stories.

The motion picture director Alfred Hitchcock could be one of the most famous sources for finding this precise phrase and proving that this usage is secondary in notariety to the meaning as would be in reference to Hitchcock's genre -- having nothing at all to do with this subject. Here is an article about Hitchcock that uses this term. This page on the PBS website for the show "Mystery" uses the phrase. This is a mystery book named "Chilling Effect". This horror review uses this phrase.

There will be countless others, dating back centuries for the afficianado.

And there is another aspect that further places this reference lower on the list of potential meanings: there are countless other references to uses of this phrase borrowed also in a wholesale manner from the macabre origin, and used in double-entendre:

A NASA article uses the double entendre referrring to early arctic thaw. A double-entendre used to refer to a shirt that keeps you cool. Another double-entendre about frozen poultry. These double-entendre's absolutely do not refer to the "Chilling Effect Doctrine", but rather to the macabre.

So now, to emphasize what I'm trying to point out: there are three things:
 * 1) The phrase contains the word "chilling" which should have its own de-referenced definition.
 * 2) This precise phrase is far more commonly associated with the macabre.
 * 3) The phrase is used commonly in double-entendre which seems to also warrant an explanation before leading to the "Chilling Effect Doctrine" that is the subject of this article.

I cannot see that this page can be up there with not a single mention of the potential disambiguation from "chilling"; the other usage in the macabre; nor the double-entendre; and it thus cannot claim neutrality. These seem very obvious to me. In fact, alongside the "www.chillingeffects.org" Website, this comes of as being far too un-neutral. Therefore I think it needs to be changed. And the title should likely be changed if it is primarily about this doctrine, and it may still need to refer to the more common usage.

I'll re-iterate that I am not faulting the author, just trying to add as much verifiable information to make this point clear. Others will see it even more obviously than me. I do not know what the correct proceedure would be for me to contribute more to this. I don't actually feel qualified to add authoritative content. And I'm not sure what I would put on the page if I went ahead and edited it. Hopefully this will be helpful to someone who can do more. I also made a note on the "Chilling" page, which also does not mention the macabre. Thanks. -Steven Coco.
 * Hi Steven -- I think your quarrel is not that the article is "non-neutral" (e.g., it only protrays one side of a debate), but simply that it does not discuss unrelated material. However, simply because a phrase is often used does not mean it should be defined and discussed in wikipedia -- see WP:ISNOT, wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think you've established that "chilling effect" meaning "something that scares you" is a technical term deserving of inclusion. To put it another way, we don't have a separate entry for "humorous effect", because there is no special meaning of the term beyond what its components suggest. Sdedeo (tips) 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well overall I'm lost; so I have to bow out; but I do see more now...Good luck. -Unsigned

United Kingdom
I haven't made this edit myself, as my knowlage on the subject is limited, but I do know that the Chilling Effect is part of common law in the UK. As I study media law, we have touched upon the subject but only briefly. If no-one else makes the edit I will do some research and update the article in future. Monkeymox (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take the liberty to add what you know. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Category
I think it is necessary for this article to belong in a category. Because of its relationship to law, it has been categorize as such. It may be possible to find a more appropriate category, if you do please change it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Libel only?
This term could describe other things too. For example obscenity which censors erotic works such as writings or drawings of a pornographic nature, or laws outlawing sexual depictions of fictional characters. Tyciol (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the term is used broadly, but you'd have to find a published reliable source that asserts this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SLAPP
About this, it seems to imply that a chilling effect is solely a lawsuit-oriented issue, and I'm not sure that chilling effect is limited to lawsuits. "If I express my real views on ______ political issue, while are different from my employer's, then I might lose my job" also has a chilling effect. "If I publish my results, I'll be villified and never get funding again" also has a chilling effect. Consider, e.g., the way these sources use it:     WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples needed.
I see kmccoy removed a specific court case because he felt it was just propaganda, but I do feel the article needs examples to clarify the subject. I'm not an idiot, but after reading the article, I'm still not sure what it means (or how it just plain differs from censorship). I suggest simple hypothetical examples that will show what speech by whom is being chilled (by someone else?). --Yoda of Borg (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Intention to edit
As sugested above I plan to do some editing to this article for a course that I'm taking at the University of Toronto. I'd like to add some of the missing citations, include some examples either hypothetical or from leading cases in the area, and maybe add some additional explanation of the concept. If anyone has additional suggestions, I'm happy to hear them. Emilymarian (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

non-legislative chilling effects
I would suggest that the phrase chilling effect in law has also been used with regard to executive action. If you write an email or a letter and find aggressive police on your doorstep, you are less likely to exercise your first amendment rights. If a judge misuses his control of the courtroom to jail people, this also can have a chilling effect. The article, as currently written, focuses only on the legislative arena at present. That's just not consistent with general usage which concerns abuse emanating from any branch of government at any level. TMLutas (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

US Constitution
I've noticed that the US's system of law is the primary basis of this article, necessitating the change to the Globalize tag. Although it has been previously argued that "Chilling Effects" are a US term, the concept is prevalent in other legal systems and this article ought to at least cursorily address this concept in an international perspective. Dtlyng (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Unanimous consensus after eight days of listing. — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

– Rationale: this article is the most prominent topic for this title, and it should be titled "Chilling effect" without the parenthetical disambiguation. A hat note should direct users to the disambiguation page at "Chilling effect (disambiguation)". —Swpbtalk•contribs 13:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chilling effect (law) → Chilling effect
 * Chilling effect → Chilling effect (disambiguation)
 * Support. Chilling Effects receives twice as many page views, but is not in competition for this title. Apteva (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, but definitely have a hatnote for both wind chill and Chilling Effects. Red Slash 09:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, clear primary topic for this specific title. bd2412  T 22:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It looks like we need a history merge for Talk:Chilling effect (disambiguation) and Talk:Chilling effect so that this talk page can be matched up with its old article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chilling effect/Archive 1


text:
Rosemary Nelson

Rosemary Nelson (née Magee; 4 September 1958 – 15 March 1999) was an Irish solicitor who was killed with a bomb planted in her car by an Ulster loyalist paramilitary group in 1999.

Legal career
Nelson obtained her law degree at Queen's University Belfast (QUB) School of Law. She worked with other solicitors for a number of years before opening her own practice in Lurgan in 1989. Nelson represented clients in a number of high-profile cases, including Michael Caraher, one of the South Armagh Snipers, as well as a republican paramilitary accused of killing two RUC officers. She also represented the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition in nearby Portadown in the long-running Drumcree conflict against the Orange Order and RUC.

Nelson was posthumously awarded the Train Foundation's Civil Courage Prize, which recognises "extraordinary heroes of conscience".

Assassination
Nelson claimed she had received death threats from members of the RUC as a result of her legal work. Some RUC officers made abusive and threatening remarks about Nelson to her clients, which became publicly known. In 1997, while approaching police lines in her capacity as legal representative of the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition, she was grabbed by an RUC officer and pulled into the middle of the police. Nelson reported to the Committee on the Administration of Justice that one of the officers said "Rosemary you Fenian fucker", spat in her face, and that the police pushed her around to the extent that she had bruises all over her arm, her right shoulder and her legs. The later Rosemary Nelson Inquiry concluded that her account of this incident was honest and truthful.

In 1998, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Solicitors, Param Cumaraswamy, noted threats from the RUC in his annual report, and stated in a television interview that he believed Nelson's life could be in danger. He made recommendations to the British government concerning threats from police against solicitors, which were not acted upon. Later that year, Nelson testified before a committee of the United States Congress investigating human rights in Northern Ireland, confirming that death threats had been made against her and her three children.

On 15 March 1999, Nelson was killed by a bomb placed under her car outside her home in Lurgan, County Armagh. A loyalist paramilitary group calling itself the Red Hand Defenders claimed responsibility for the murder. Allegations that the British state security forces were involved in her killing led to a public inquiry.

Inquiry
In 2004, the Cory Collusion Inquiry recommended that the UK Government hold an inquiry into the circumstances of Nelson's death. The resulting inquiry into her assassination, chaired by retired judge Sir Michael Morland, opened at the Craigavon Civic Centre, Craigavon, County Armagh, in April 2005. In September 2006 the British Security Service MI5 announced it would be represented at the inquiry. This move provoked criticism from Nelson's family, who reportedly expressed concerns that MI5 would remove sensitive or classified information.

The results of the inquiry were published on 23 May 2011. The inquiry found no evidence that state security agencies – including the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) - had "directly facilitated" her murder, but "could not exclude the possibility" that individual members of those agencies had helped the perpetrators.

Furthermore, the inquiry found that Nelson had been publicly threatened and assaulted by RUC officers in 1997, and that those officers had made threatening remarks about her to her clients, which became publicly known. It concluded that this helped "legitimise her as a target in the eyes of loyalist terrorists", and that some RUC intelligence about her had 'leaked'. All this, it said, increased the danger to her life.

Rosemary Nelson was survived by her husband and their three children.

title: Rosemary Nelson


text:
Schweizer

Schweizer (German meaning 'Swiss') may refer to:

People

 * Bernard Schweizer (born 1962), American professor of English
 * Brandun Schweizer, American politician
 * Eduard Schweizer (1913–2006), Swiss New Testament scholar
 * Irène Schweizer (born 1941), Swiss Jazz pianist
 * J. Otto Schweizer (1863–1955) Swiss-American sculptor
 * Julián Schweizer (born 1998), Uruguayan surfer
 * Karissa Schweizer (born 1996), American long-distance runner
 * Kaspar Gottfried Schweizer (1816–1873), Swiss astronomer
 * Katja Schweizer (née Weisser) (born 1978), German curler and coach
 * Matthias Eduard Schweizer (1818–1860), chemist, inventor of the Schweizer's reagent
 * Peter Schweizer (born 1964), American author
 * Schweizer brothers (Paul, William, and Ernest), brothers and founders of Schweizer Aircraft

Other uses

 * Schweizer (chicken)
 * Schweizer Aircraft, an American producer of sailplanes and helicopters, owned by Sikorsky Aircraft since 2004
 * Schweizer-Reneke, a town in the North West Province of South Africa
 * Swiss (people)

title: Schweizer


text:
Angels (Robbie Williams song)

"Angels" is a song by the English singer-songwriter Robbie Williams. It was included on Williams's debut solo album, Life thru a Lens (1997), and released as a single on 1 December 1997 by Chrysalis. "Angels" was written by Williams and Guy Chambers, based on an earlier song written by Ray Heffernan.

Williams said he wrote "Angels" with Chambers about his aunt and uncle, while Heffernan said he wrote the first version in 1996 and finished it with Williams. Williams confirmed that he recorded a demo with Heffernan but said he rewrote the song significantly with Chambers. To avoid a lawsuit, Williams bought the song rights from Heffernan before it was released. Vaughan Arnell directed its music video, which was shot in black and white.

"Angels" is Williams's best-selling single, and the 34th-bestselling UK single of the 1990s. It was voted the best song of the previous 25 years at the 2005 Brit Awards, and in 2005 Britons voted it the song they most wanted played at their funeral. It has been covered by artists including Jessica Simpson, David Archuleta, Beverley Knight, All Angels, Declan Galbraith and Josh Groban. It was recorded in Spanish (as "Ángel") by the Mexican singers Yuridia and Marco Moré, in Italian (as "Un Angelo") by Patrizio Buanne and in Brazilian Portuguese (as "Um Anjo") by KLB. Williams also recorded a Spanish version.

Writing
In 2011, Robbie Williams said he wrote "Angels" with his collaborator Guy Chambers in 25 minutes about his aunt and uncle. By his account, he and Chambers were sitting outside a cafe watching a water fountain, which inspired them to write the chorus. In 2016, Williams said: "It was the first of our songs that we wrote together. We could tell and hoped and prayed that we got something incredibly special." Williams expressed irritation that some assumed Chambers was the sole author.

The Irish singer-songwriter Ray Heffernan said he wrote the first version of "Angels" in Paris in 1996, after his partner had a miscarriage. According to Heffernan, he met Williams in a pub by chance in Dublin, and later played him, with his guitar, an incomplete version of his song. Heffernan said in 2010: "I had the first verse, some of the chorus and some of the second verse." That week the two recorded a studio demo. Williams confirmed that he had recorded a demo with Heffernan but said he rewrote the song significantly with Chambers.

Before the song's release, Heffernan accepted an offer from Williams's management to buy the rights for £7,500. He is thanked in the UK CD2 single liner notes. Williams said: "We could have gone to court, and it all would have been down to whether what way the judge wakes up that day out of bed ... So I gave him some money, and he went away." In 2011, Heffernan said: "For a long time, I was angry about this, but as you get older you see things differently ... The 'Angels' connection has opened doors to publishing companies and earned me a few quid."

Chart performance
"Angels" was the 38th-best-selling single of 1997 in the UK and the 26th of 1998. It was the 34th-bestselling UK single of the decade. Despite only reaching a peak of No. 4, it is Williams's bestselling UK single and according to Official UK Charts Company figures passed the million sales mark in June 2009, with a combination of both physical and download sales. It has sold 1.8 million copies in the UK as of April 2021. It was released in 1999 in the US, after Williams' debut there with "Millennium". It peaked at number 53, becoming his highest-charting single there. "Angels" re-entered the ARIA Top 100 at No. 91, on 5 May 2008. After announcing his XXV album in June 2022, and releasing a reworked version of "Angels", titled "Angels (XXV)", the song placed at number 92 on the UK Official Singles Sales Chart on 10 June.

Critical reception
Scottish Aberdeen Press and Journal named "Angels" "perhaps the strongest cut" from the Life thru a Lens album. John Bush from AllMusic noted Williams' "crooning". Larry Flick of Billboard described it as a "sweet ballad that never gets sappy". He noted that the production is "first-rate, the lyric is thoughtful and ear-grabbing, and his smoky, crisp vocal is a sheer delight. All that and a chorus to kill for." An editor for Daily Record felt Williams had "come of age with this melodic pop ballad" and complimented a "surprisingly grown-up sounding Robbie on what is his best tune to date". Irish Independent called it an "epic ballad".

Music & Media wrote: "With songs of the quality of 'Angels', Robbie Williams is on his way towards extending his audience by drawing in older listeners ... [It] distinguishes itself from its indie rock-inspired predecessors 'Old Before I Die' and 'Lazy Days' by exchanging their guitars for a more mellow, piano-based arrangement." Music Week gave the song four out of five, likening it to Elton John and saying it suggested that Williams would be more successful than his former Take That bandmate Gary Barlow.

In 2017, Dave Fawbert from ShortList declared "Angels" "genuinely brilliant", with "a pretty understated vocal from Robbie. Nothing too over the top, just sincere." The Guardian wrote in 2022 that "Angels" was "so ubiquitous for so long that it is almost impossible for anyone of a certain age to listen to it objectively: throughout the late 90s and 00s, it wasn't so much a song as an unavoidable fact of daily life. Most pop songwriters would kill to come up with something with such impact and longevity." In 2003, Q named "Angels" the 237th-best song of all time.

Awards
At the 2005 Brit Awards, the British public voted "Angels" the best British song of the past 25 years. Williams performed it with Joss Stone. In a 2005 survey by UK digital TV station Music Choice, Britons chose it as the song they would most like played at their funeral.

Music video
The music video for "Angels" was directed by Vaughan Arnell, and filmed at Saunton Sands. Filmed largely from the air, Williams walks around a beach, stares at the sky, kicks a football and rides a motorbike with a woman while a helicopter flies around them.

Live performances
In 2009, Williams performed "Angels" at the final of the sixth series of The X Factor with Olly Murs. On 14 June 2018, Williams performed "Angels" with the Russian soprano Aida Garifullina at the 2018 FIFA World Cup opening ceremony held at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow, Russia. On 23 June 2018, Williams performed the song as a special guest at the American singer's Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour concert at Wembley Stadium, London.

Formats and track listings

 * UK CD1
 * 1) "Angels" – 4:24
 * 2) "Karaoke Overkill" – 3:31
 * 3) "Get the Joke" – 3:03
 * 4) "Angels" (acoustic version) – 4:27

 * UK CD2 and cassette single
 * 1) "Angels" – 4:24
 * 2) "Back for Good" (live version) – 3:59
 * 3) "Walk This Sleigh" – 3:01

 * European CD single
 * 1) "Angels" – 4:24
 * 2) "Walk This Sleigh" – 3:01

 * Australian CD single (1997)
 * 1) "Angels" – 4:24
 * 2) "Karaoke Overkill" – 3:31
 * 3) "Get the Joke" – 3:03

 * Australian CD single (1999)
 * 1) "Angels" – 4:24
 * 2) "It's Only Us" – 2:50
 * 3) "Angels" (live) – 5:39
 * 4) "Let Me Entertain You" (live at The Brits '99) – 4:41
 * 5) "Millennium" – 4:05

Credits and personnel
Credits are taken from the Life thru a Lens album booklet.

Studios
 * Recorded at Matrix Maison Rouge (London, England)
 * Mixed at Battery Studios (London, England)

Personnel

 * Robbie Williams – writing, vocals
 * Guy Chambers – writing, keyboards, production, arrangement
 * Gary Nuttall – backing vocals, guitar
 * Andre Barreau – backing vocals, guitar
 * Nicole Patterson – backing vocals
 * Chester Kamen – guitar
 * Mark Smith – bass, programming
 * Steve Power – keyboards, production, mixing, programming
 * Chris Sharrock – drums
 * Andy Duncan – percussion
 * London Session Orchestra – orchestra
 * Gavyn Wright – concertmaster
 * Jim Brumby – Battery Studios assistant
 * Matt Hay – Matrix Maison Rouge assistant

Jessica Simpson
Jessica Simpson's cover of "Angels" was the fourth and final single released from her album In This Skin in 2004. It was produced by Billy Mann.

Music video
The video for "Angels" opens a visibly anxious Simpson on an empty stage rehearsing for a performance. She can be seen in intercut scenes staring into space, as if she has lost her self-confidence and ability to perform. As the song progresses, however, white roses can be seen scattered around her as a sign of hope, and soon Simpson begins to regain her confidence. The song then shifts into its instrumental bridge to correlate with the emotions of the characters, as Simpson proceeds to climb to the top of the building for her final performance. There she is greeted by a youth orchestra, and finishes the song.

Chart performance
Simpson's version of "Angels" failed to break into the Billboard Hot 100 (though it did reach number six on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles). However, the song did become a moderate success on the Top 40 Mainstream and Hot Digital Tracks charts.

Track listing

 * 1) "Angels"
 * 2) "Angels" (Stealth Remix)
 * 3) "Fly" (B-side)
 * 4) "Angels" (enhanced video)

Remixes

 * "Angels" (album version) – 4:00
 * "Angels" (Dave Anthony Remix) – 4:53
 * "Angels" (Junior Vasquez World Mixshow) – 6:32
 * "Angels" (Stealth Remix) – 3:12
 * "Angels" (acoustic) – 4:07

Yuridia
In 2005, Yuridia, former contestant of the popular Mexican show La Academia, released "Ángel", a Spanish version of the song which she had interpreted during her stay in the reality show, as her debut and lead single. In Mexico, as well as in other parts of Latin America, "Ángel", became an instant hit, leading her debut album of almost the same name to achieve Diamond status in Mexico and becoming one of the most recent best selling Mexican singers and the best female Mexican seller of the past decade. The singer received two gold certifications for 20,000 copies sold in Mexico.

Chart performance
"Ángel" reached 32 on the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart and La Voz de un Angel managed to climb into the top 20 on the Billboard Hot Latin Albums chart, peaking at 16. In Mexico the song became the most successful song of 2005, leading the charts during 13 week.

David Archuleta
David Archuleta initially covered this song during the 7th season of American Idol, in 2008. A studio version of this cover was produced and made available for purchase as a digital download exclusively via iTunes Store for a limited period.

Later in that year, he decided to re-record the song, with a different arrangement and production, for his debut album. The version is also available for digital purchase since 27 October 2008, when it was released to help promote the pre-order of Archuleta's album.

Formats and track listings

 * Digital download
 * 1) "Angels" (main version) — 4:09
 * 2) "Angels" (promotional version) — 3:33

Chart performance
Archuleta's version of the song has become the second highest charting version in the United States after the original performed by Robbie Williams. It managed to enter the Billboard Hot 100 at No. 89 due to digital downloads. On the Canadian Hot 100 the song peaked at No. 64.

Blessing Chitapa
In November 2020, Blessing Chitapa, winner of the ninth series of The Voice UK, released a cover version of "Angels" as her winner's single. The song is included on Chitapa's debut album, Count My Blessings.

On 14 November 2020, Chitapa performed the song "Angels" live on The Voice UK grand final, with the single being released after the show was finished as a digital download.

Kindred Spirit
In June 2021, an artist collective named Kindred Spirit that included Glen Matlock, Steve Norman, Marcella Detroit, Earl Slick among others, released a cover version of the song titled "Angels (Of The Nations)" to both commemorate music producer Steve Brown who died in 2021 and raise money to offer angel sculptures as gifts to the families of UK doctors who died of Covid whilst working for the British NHS.

title: Angels (Robbie Williams song)


text:
Chromoblastomycosis

Chromoblastomycosis is a long-term fungal infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (a chronic subcutaneous mycosis).

It can be caused by many different types of fungi which become implanted under the skin, often by thorns or splinters. Chromoblastomycosis spreads very slowly.

It is rarely fatal and usually has a good prognosis, but it can be very difficult to cure. The several treatment options include medication and surgery.

The infection occurs most commonly in tropical or subtropical climates, often in rural areas.

Symptoms and signs
The initial trauma causing the infection is often forgotten or not noticed. The infection builds at the site over a period of years, and a small red papule (skin elevation) appears. The lesion is usually not painful, with few, if any symptoms. Patients rarely seek medical care at this point.

Several complications may occur. Usually, the infection slowly spreads to the surrounding tissue while still remaining localized to the area around the original wound. However, sometimes the fungi may spread through the blood vessels or lymph vessels, producing metastatic lesions at distant sites. Another possibility is secondary infection with bacteria. This may lead to lymph stasis (obstruction of the lymph vessels) and elephantiasis. The nodules may become ulcerated, or multiple nodules may grow and coalesce, affecting a large area of a limb.

Cause
Chromoblastomycosis is believed to originate in minor trauma to the skin, usually from vegetative material such as thorns or splinters; this trauma implants fungi in the subcutaneous tissue. In many cases, the patient will not notice or remember the initial trauma, as symptoms often do not appear for years. The fungi most commonly observed to cause chromoblastomycosis are:
 * Fonsecaea pedrosoi
 * Cladophialophora bantiana causes both cutaneous chromoblastomycosis and systemic phaeohyphomycosis
 * Phialophora verrucosa
 * Cladophialophora carrionii
 * Fonsecaea compacta

Mechanism
Over months to years, an erythematous papule appears at the site of inoculation. Although the mycosis slowly spreads, it usually remains localized to the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Hematogenous and/or lymphatic spread may occur. Multiple nodules may appear on the same limb, sometimes coalescing into a large plaque. Secondary bacterial infection may occur, sometimes inducing lymphatic obstruction. The central portion of the lesion may heal, producing a scar, or it may ulcerate.

Diagnosis
The most informative test is to scrape the lesion and add potassium hydroxide (KOH), then examine under a microscope. (KOH scrapings are commonly used to examine fungal infections.) The pathognomonic finding is observing medlar bodies (also called muriform bodies or sclerotic cells). Scrapings from the lesion can also be cultured to identify the organism involved. Blood tests and imaging studies are not commonly used. On histology, chromoblastomycosis manifests as pigmented yeasts resembling "copper pennies". Special stains, such as periodic acid schiff and Gömöri methenamine silver, can be used to demonstrate the fungal organisms if needed.

Prevention
No preventive measure is known aside from avoiding the traumatic inoculation of fungi. At least one study found a correlation between walking barefoot in endemic areas and occurrence of chromoblastomycosis on the foot.

Treatment
Chromoblastomycosis is very difficult to cure. The primary treatments of choice are:
 * Itraconazole, an antifungal azole, is given orally, with or without flucytosine.
 * Alternatively, cryosurgery with liquid nitrogen has also been shown to be effective.

Other treatment options are the antifungal drug terbinafine, another antifungal azole posaconazole, and heat therapy.

Antibiotics may be used to treat bacterial superinfections.

Amphotericin B has also been used.

Photodynamic therapy is a newer type of therapy used to treat Chromblastomycosis.

Prognosis
The prognosis for chromoblastomycosis is very good for small lesions. Severe cases are difficult to cure, although the prognosis is still quite good. The primary complications are ulceration, lymphedema, and secondary bacterial infection. A few cases of malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma have been reported. Chromoblastomycosis is very rarely fatal.

Epidemiology
Chromoblastomycosis occurs around the world, most commonly in rural areas in tropical or subtropical climates.

It is most common in rural areas between approximately 30°N and 30°S latitude. Over two-thirds of patients are male, and usually between the ages of 30 and 50. A correlation with HLA-A29 suggests genetic factors may play a role, as well.

Social and cultural
Chromoblastomycosis is considered a neglected tropical disease, affects mainly people living in poverty, and causes considerable morbidity, stigma and discrimination.

title: Chromoblastomycosis


text:
The Time Traveler's Wife

The Time Traveler's Wife is the debut novel by American author Audrey Niffenegger, published in 2003. It is a love story about Henry, a man with a genetic disorder that causes him to time travel unpredictably, and about Clare, his wife, an artist who has to cope with his frequent absences. Niffenegger, who was frustrated with love when she began the novel, wrote the story as a metaphor for her failed relationships. The tale's central relationship came to Niffenegger suddenly and subsequently supplied the novel's title. The novel has been classified as both science fiction and romance.

The book was published by MacAdam/Cage, a small publishing firm located in San Francisco, California. The book became a bestseller after an endorsement from author and family friend Scott Turow on NBC's Today. As of March 2009, the novel had sold nearly 2.5 million copies in the United States and the United Kingdom. Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel. Some praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; while others criticized her writing style as melodramatic and the plot as emotionally trite. The novel won the Exclusive Books Boeke Prize and a British Book Award.

Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema acquired the film and television rights to the book. A film adaptation was released in 2009 starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana, and a television series premiered on HBO and HBO Max on May 15, 2022.

Plot summary
Using alternating first-person perspectives, the novel tells the stories of Henry DeTamble (born 1963), a librarian at the Newberry Library in Chicago, as he visits a child who will later become his wife, Clare Anne Abshire (born 1971), an artist who makes paper sculptures, with the aid of his uncontrolled ability to time travel. Henry has a rare genetic disorder, which later comes to be known as Chrono-Impairment. This disorder causes Henry to involuntarily travel through time. When 20-year-old Clare meets 28-year-old Henry at the Newberry Library in 1991 at the beginning of the novel, he has never seen her before, although she has known him most of her life.

Henry begins time traveling at the age of five, jumping forward and backward relative to his own timeline. When he vanishes, where he goes, and how long his trips will last are beyond his control. However, his destinations are tied to his subconscious—he most often travels to places and times related to his own history. Certain stimuli such as stress can trigger Henry's time traveling; he often goes jogging to keep calm and remain in the present. He searches out pharmaceuticals in the future that may be able to help control his time traveling. He also seeks the advice of a geneticist, Dr. Kendrick. Henry cannot take anything with him into the future or the past, which means that he always arrives naked and then struggles to find clothing, shelter, and food. He does amass a number of survival skills, including lock-picking, self-defense, and pickpocketing. Much of this he learns from older versions of himself.

Once Henry and Clare's timelines converge "naturally" at the library—their first meeting in his chronology—Henry starts to travel to Clare's childhood and adolescence in South Haven, Michigan, beginning in 1977 when she is only six years old. On one of his early visits (from Clare's perspective), Henry gives her a list of the dates he will appear and she writes them in a diary so she will remember to provide him with clothes and food when he arrives. During another visit, Henry inadvertently reveals that they will be married in the future. Over time they develop a close relationship. At one point, Henry helps Clare frighten and humiliate a boy who abused her. Clare is last visited in her youth by Henry in 1989, on her eighteenth birthday, during which they make love for the first time. They are then separated for two years until their meeting at the library.

Clare and Henry eventually marry. Soon after their marriage, Clare begins to have trouble bringing a pregnancy to term because of the genetic anomaly Henry is presumably passing on to the fetus. After five miscarriages, Henry wishes to save Clare further pain and has a vasectomy. However, a version of Henry from the past visits Clare one night and they make love; she subsequently gives birth to a daughter named Alba. Alba is diagnosed with Chrono-Impairment as well but, unlike Henry, she has some control over her destinations when she time travels. Before she is born, Henry travels to the future and meets his ten-year-old daughter on a school field trip. During this trip, he learns that he dies when Alba is five years old.

When he is 43, during what is to be his last year of life, Henry time travels to a Chicago parking garage on a frigid winter night where he is unable to find shelter. As a result of the hypothermia and frostbite he suffers while sleeping in the parking garage, his feet are amputated when he returns to the present time. Both Henry and Clare know that without the ability to escape when he time travels, Henry will certainly die within his next few jumps. On New Year's Eve 2006, Henry time travels into the middle of the Michigan woods in 1984 and is accidentally shot by Clare's brother, a scene foreshadowed earlier in the novel. Henry returns to the present and dies in Clare's arms.

Clare is devastated by Henry's death. She later finds a letter from Henry telling her to "stop waiting" for him, though it also describes a moment in her future when she will see him again. The couple reunites when Clare is 82 years old and Henry is 43. The novel's last scene shows a time when Clare, well into her old age, still waits for Henry, as she has done most of her life.

Composition and publication

Niffenegger is an artist who teaches at the Center for Book and Paper Arts at Columbia College Chicago, where she prepares editions of handpainted books. She produced some of her earlier works in editions of ten copies, which were sold in art galleries. However, she decided that The Time Traveler's Wife would have to be a novel: "I got the idea for the title, and when I draw I have this big drawing table covered with brown paper, and I write ideas down on the paper. So I wrote down this title and after a while I started to think about it. I couldn't think of a way to make it a picture book because still pictures don't represent time very well, so I decided to write a novel." She was intrigued by the title because "it immediately defined two people and their relationship to each other". Niffenegger said that its source was an epigraph to J. B. Priestley's 1964 novel Man and Time: "Clock time is our bank manager, tax collector, police inspector; this inner time is our wife." Drawing her central theme from this image, she says, "Henry is not only married to Clare; he's also married to time." Other authors whom Niffenegger has cited as influencing the book include Richard Powers, David Foster Wallace, Henry James, and Dorothy Sayers.

She has said the story is a metaphor for her own failed love affairs and that "I had kind of got the idea that there's not going to be some fabulous perfect soulmate out there for me, so I'll just make him up." She also drew on her parents' marriage for inspiration—her father spent the bulk of each week traveling. Despite the story's analogies to her own life, Niffenegger has forcefully stated that Clare is not a self-portrait; "She's radically different. I am much more willful and headstrong. ... I don't think I could go through a lifetime waiting for someone to appear, no matter how fascinating he was."

Niffenegger began writing the novel in 1997; the last scene, in which an aged Clare is waiting for Henry, was written first, because it is the story's focal point. The narrative was originally structured thematically. Responding to comments from readers of early drafts of the manuscript, Niffenegger reorganized the narrative so that it largely followed Clare's timeline. The work was finished in 2001. With no history of commercial publication, Niffenegger had trouble finding interested literary agents—25 rejected the manuscript. In 2002, she sent it unsolicited to the small, San Francisco-based publisher MacAdam/Cage, where it reached Anika Streitfeld. Streitfeld, who became Niffenegger's editor, "thought it was incredible. Right from the very beginning you feel like you are in capable hands, that this is someone who has a story to tell and who knows how to tell it." She gave it to David Poindexter, the founder of the publishing firm, "who read it overnight and decided to buy the book". However, Niffenegger had acquired an agent by this time, and several publishing houses in New York City were interested in the novel. The manuscript was put up for auction and MacAdam/Cage bid US$100,000, by far the largest sum it had ever offered for a book. Although another publisher outbid them, Niffenegger selected MacAdam/Cage because they were so dedicated to her work. Also, Niffenegger explains that her "own natural inclination is to go small. My background is in punk music—I'd always pick the indie company over the giant corporation."

Genre
Reviewers have found The Time Traveler's Wife difficult to classify generically: some categorize it as science fiction, others as a romance. Niffenegger herself is reluctant to label the novel, saying she "never thought of it as science fiction, even though it has a science-fiction premise". In Niffenegger's view, the story is primarily about Henry and Clare's relationship and the struggles they endure. She has said that she based Clare and Henry's romance on the "cerebral coupling" of Dorothy Sayers's characters Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane.

Time travel stories to which the novel has been compared include Jack Finney's Time and Again (1970), F.M. Busby's short story "If This Is Winnetka, You Must Be Judy" and the film Somewhere in Time (1980). Henry has been compared to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969). Science fiction writer Terence M. Green calls the novel a "timeslip romance". The Time Traveler's Wife is not as concerned with the paradoxes of time travel as is traditional science fiction. Instead, as critic Marc Mohan describes, the novel "uses time travel as a metaphor to explain how two people can feel as if they've known each other their entire lives". Robert Nathan's Portrait of Jennie, as novel, or film, is another obvious comparison, although Jennie, as a ghost, travels time in one direction, not randomly.

Themes
Niffenegger identifies the themes of the novel as "mutants, love, death, amputation, sex, and time". Reviewers have focused on love, loss, and time. As Charlie Lee-Potter writes in The Independent, the novel is "an elegy to love and loss". The love between Henry and Clare is expressed in a variety of ways, including through an analysis and history of the couple's sex life.

While much of the novel shows Henry and Clare falling in love, the end is darker and "time travel becomes a means for representing arbitrariness, transience, [and] plain bad luck", according to The Boston Globe's Judith Maas. As Andrew Billen argues in The Times, "The book may even serve as a feminist analysis of marriage as a partnership in which only the male is conceded the privilege of absence." Several reviewers noted that time travel represents relationships in which couples cannot quite communicate with each other. Natasha Walter of The Guardian describes the story's attention to "the sense of slippage that you get in any relationship—that you could be living through a slightly different love story from the one your partner is experiencing." She points, for example, to the section of the book which describes the first time Clare and Henry make love. She is 18 and he is 41, already married to her in his present. After this interlude, he returns to his own time and his own Clare, who says, "Henry's been gone for almost twenty-four hours now, and as usual I'm torn between thinking obsessively about when and where he might be and being pissed at him for not being here ... I hear Henry whistling as he comes up the path through the garden, into the studio. He stomps the snow off his boots and shrugs off his coat. He's looking marvelous, really happy. My heart is racing and I take a wild guess: "May 24, 1989?" "Yes, oh, yes!" Henry scoops me up ... and swings me around. Now I'm laughing, we're both laughing."

The novel raises questions about determinism and free will. For example, critic Dan Falk asks, "Given that [Henry's] journey has 'already happened,' should he not simply be compelled to act precisely as he remembers seeing himself act? (Or perhaps he is compelled, and merely feels he has a choice...?)." Although Henry seemingly cannot alter the future, the characters do not become "cynical" and, according to Lee-Potter, the novel demonstrates that people can be changed through love. Walter notes that there is a "quasi-religious sense" to the inevitability of Henry's and Clare's lives and deaths. Niffenegger, however, believes that the novel does not depict destiny but rather "randomness and meaninglessness".

Reception
The hardback edition of The Time Traveler's Wife was published in the United States in September 2003 by MacAdam/Cage and in the United Kingdom by Random House on 1 January 2004. MacAdam/Cage initiated an "extensive marketing drive", including advertising in The New York Times and The New Yorker and a promotional book tour by Niffenegger; the novel debuted at number nine on the New York Times bestseller list. After popular crime writer Scott Turow, whose wife is a friend of Niffenegger, endorsed it on The Today Show, the first print run of 15,000 sold out and 100,000 more copies were printed. In Britain, the book received a boost from its choice as a Richard & Judy book club recommendation—nearly 45,000 copies were sold in one week. It was named the 2003 Amazon.com Book of the Year. A December 2003 article in The Observer reported that although "a tiny minority of American reviewers" felt that the novel was "gimmicky", it was still "a publishing sensation". At that point, the novel had been sold to publishers in 15 countries. As of March 2009, it had sold almost 1.5 million copies in the United States and 1 million in the United Kingdom. The success of The Time Traveler's Wife prompted almost every major publishing firm to attempt to acquire Niffenegger's second novel, Her Fearful Symmetry, which has been called "one of the most eagerly sought-after works in recent publishing history". It garnered her an advance of US$5 million from Scribner's.

Reviewers praised Niffenegger's characterization of Henry and Clare, particularly their emotional depth. Michelle Griffin of The Age noted that although Henry "is custom-designed for the fantasy lives of bookish ladies", his flaws, particularly his "violent, argumentative, depressive" nature, make him a strong, well-rounded character. Charles DeLint wrote in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction that one of Niffenegger's "greatest accomplishments" in the novel was her ability to convey the emotional growth of Clare and Henry in character arcs while at the same time alternating their perspectives. Stephen Amidon of The Times, however, questioned the selfishness of the central characters.

Most reviewers were impressed with the premise of the novel, but critical of its melodramatic style. While Griffin praised the plot and concept as "clever", she argued that Niffenegger's writing is usually "pedestrian" and the story at times contrived. Heidi Darroch of the National Post agreed, contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments "which never quite add up to a fully developed plot". Writing in The Chicago Tribune, Carey Harrison praised the originality of the novel, specifically the intersection of child-bearing and time travel. Despite appreciating the novel's premise, Amidon complained that the implications of Henry's time-traveling were poorly thought out. For example, Henry has foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks but does nothing to try to prevent them. Instead, on 11 September 2001, he gets up early "to listen to the world being normal for a little while longer". Amidon also criticized the novel's "overall clumsiness", writing that Niffenegger is "a ham-fisted stylist, long-winded and given to sudden eruptions of cliche". Miriam Shaviv agreed to an extent, writing in The Jerusalem Post, "There are no original or even non-clichéd messages here. True love, Niffenegger seems to be telling us, is timeless, and can survive even the worst circumstances. ... And yet, the book is a page-turner, delicately crafted and psychologically sound." The Library Journal described the novel as "skillfully written with a blend of distinct characters and heartfelt emotions"; it recommended that public libraries purchase multiple copies of the book.

Sequel
On 23 September 2013 it was announced that a sequel to the novel was in the works. The sequel will focus on Henry and Clare's daughter Alba as an adult. She finds herself in love with two different men: Zach, a normal man, and Oliver, a musician and fellow time-traveler. The first 25 pages are currently available with the purchase of The Time Traveler's Wife eBook. In February 2014, Niffenegger estimated that the book "should be ready in 2018 or so". Niffenegger announced on her Twitter that the sequel's title is The Other Husband and it will be published in 2023.

Audio book
BBC Audio published an audio book of The Time Traveler's Wife that was narrated by William Hope and Laurel Lefkow, described as "feisty readers" in one review.

HighBridge also produced an unabridged version in 2003, which is twelve hours long and narrated by Maggi-Meg Reed and Christopher Burns; their performance has been described as "sincere and passionate".

The 2006 Audible/HighBridge version is narrated by Fred Berman and Phoebe Strole and is 17:43 in length.

Audible.co.uk produced an unabridged version in 2008, also narrated by Hope and Lefkow.

Film
The film rights for The Time Traveler's Wife were optioned by Brad Pitt's production company Plan B Entertainment, in association with New Line Cinema, before the novel was even published. The adaptation was written by Bruce Joel Rubin and directed by Robert Schwentke, and stars Rachel McAdams as Clare and Eric Bana and Henry. Filming began in September 2007 and the movie was released by Warner Bros. on 14 August 2009. When asked about the prospect of her novel being turned into a film, Niffenegger said, "I've got my little movie that runs in my head. And I'm kind of afraid that will be changed or wiped out by what somebody else might do with it. And it is sort of thrilling and creepy, because now the characters have an existence apart from me." In general, the film received mixed-to-negative reviews. For example, The New York Times wrote that the film was an "often ridiculous, awkward, unsatisfying and dour melodramatic adaptation".

Television
In July 2018, HBO secured the rights to adapt the novel into a television series of the same name, to be written by Steven Moffat. In February 2021, Theo James and Rose Leslie were cast as Henry and Clare. The show was canceled after one season in July 2022. The fans of the show started a petition to save the series by approaching other streaming platforms to pick it up for renewal. It was removed from HBO Max in December 2022.

Stage musical
A stage musical based on the book was announced to be in development in March 2021, which is due to premiere in the UK in late 2021 or early 2022. The musical will be titled The Time Traveller's Wife (using the UK spelling of Traveler) and feature a book by Lauren Gunderson music and lyrics by Joss Stone and Dave Stewart with additional lyrics by Kait Kerrigan. The production will be directed by Bill Buckhurst and produced by Colin Ingram for InTheatre Productions by special arrangement with Warner Bros. Theatre Ventures.

In response to the announcement, Niffeneger revealed on Twitter she did not know about the project then clarified that the theatrical rights belonged to Warner Bros.

The stage musical premiered at Storyhouse in Chester from 30 September 2022. The production was directed by Bill Buckhurst and designed by Anna Fleischle, with choreography by Shelley Maxwell, lighting design by Lucy Carter, illusions by Chris Fisher, video design by Andrzej Goulding, sound design by Richard Brooker, musical supervision & arrangement by Nick Finlow and orchestrations by Bryan Crook.

The musical will transfer to London's West End at the Apollo Theatre from October 2023.

title: The Time Traveler's Wife


text:
Alexandrian laurel

Alexandrian laurel is a common name for several plants and may refer to:

 * Calophyllum inophyllum, native to tropical Asia
 * Danae racemosa

title: Alexandrian laurel


text:
Zbruch

The Zbruch (Збруч; Zbrucz) is a river in Western Ukraine, a left tributary of the Dniester.

It flows within the Podolian Upland starting from the Avratinian Upland. Zbruch is the namesake of the Zbruch idol, a sculpture of a Slavic deity (9th century) in the form of a column with a head with four faces, discovered in 1848 by the river. The idol is 2.67 m in height. From 1851 the statue is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Kraków, however its copies are available in the Moscow Historical Museum, the Ternopil Regional Museum, and the Pochaiv Museum of Atheism. Scientist consider that the idol an interpretation of the ancient Slavic of god Sviatovit sacked upon the baptizing of the local population.

Upon the river are situated a couple of small Hydro Electric Stations (Bodnariv's and Martynkiv's), while along the river are some 140 ponds. The river serves as a natural border between Ternopil and Khmelnytskyi regions. As it was mentioned above, the river flows through the Podolia Upland sneaking past the Podolian hills also known as Medobory for their honey-bearing flora (literally: Med - honey and Bory - forests). Along the river, there are recreational areas for swimming in the water. Medobory stretches from the northeastern part of the Lviv Region to the northern borders of the Republic of Moldova. The Zbruch, at its mouth, has a width of some 18 m. The source of the river lies in relative proximity to other rivers such as the Horyn and the Sluch and used to serve as an alternative route for the tradeway "From the Varangians to Greeks". Presumably the earliest name for the river was Boruch.

The Zbruch had international significance following the first partition of Poland when between 1772 and 1793 the river was a border between Poland-Lithuania and Habsburg monarchy. After the second partition of Poland in 1793–1807 and 1815–1918 the river was a border between the Austrian Galicia on one side and Imperial Russia on the other. During that time the river was also called Pidhirtsi. Following the Polish-Ukrainian Alliance of 1920 it was intended as the border between Poland and Ukraine. After the Treaty of Riga the Polish-Soviet border was established in the area, running along the river (this situation lasted until 1939).

Charles de Gaulle, who served with the staff of the French Military Mission to Poland as an instructor of Poland's infantry during the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1921), distinguished himself in operations near the Zbrucz, where he held the rank of major in the Polish army, and won Poland's highest military decoration, the Virtuti Militari.
 * Sites along the river
 * Medobory Nature Preserve (near towns of Husyatyn and Hrymailiv)
 * National Nature Park "Podilski Tovtry"
 * Monochynsk Zakaznik
 * Kudryntsi Castle
 * Chornokozyntsi Castle
 * crossing between the towns of Pidvolochysk and Volochysk, forming historically a major border checkpoint between the Austrian crown and the Russian Empire
 * town of Husiatyn, a site of Zbruch idol discovery
 * Skala-Podilska Castle and park (a state architectural monument)

title: Zbruch