text:
Ordinance (Latter Day Saints)

In the Latter Day Saint movement, an ordinance is a sacred rite or ceremony that has spiritual and symbolic meanings and act as a means of conveying divine grace. Ordinances are physical acts which signify or symbolize an underlying spiritual act; for some ordinances, the spiritual act is the finalization of a covenant between the ordinance recipient and God.

Ordinances are usually performed by the authority of the priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ. The use of the term "ordinance" by adherents is distinct from the use of the term in other branches of Christian tradition, where "ordinance (Christian)" is often used to imply that the act is merely symbolic and does not convey grace. Latter Day Saint use of the term "ordinance" carries the same meaning as the term "sacrament" as used by other Christian denominations. Community of Christ-derived denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement also tend to refer to "sacraments" rather than "ordinances".

Some ordinances—such as baptism, confirmation and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper—are similar to those practiced by other Christian denominations. Other Latter Day Saint ordinances—including the endowment and sealings—are unique and usually performed within a Latter Day Saint temple.

Saving ordinances
Saving ordinances are those ordinances that are a requirement for exaltation. Most Latter Day Saints denominations see saving ordinances as necessary, but not sufficient, requirements for exaltation.

The following are examples of saving ordinances in most sects of the Latter Day Saint movement:

 * 1) Baptism: Performed by immersion at age eight or older. Baptism is seen as symbolic both of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection and is also symbolic of the baptized individual putting off of the natural or sinful man and becoming spiritually reborn as a disciple of Jesus.
 * 2) Confirmation and reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost: Performed by laying hands on the head of a newly baptized member. Through confirmation, the initiate becomes an official member of the church and receives the "gift of the Holy Ghost".
 * 3) Ordination to the Priesthood: In the Latter Day Saint movement, the priesthood is the power and authority of God given to man, including the authority to perform ordinances and to act as a leader in the church. Latter Day Saint theology has recognized at least three orders of priesthood: (1) the Aaronic priesthood, (2) the Melchizedek priesthood; and (3) the Patriarchal priesthood. Although these are different orders, they are all subsumed under the priesthood held by Jesus Christ, or the Melchizedek priesthood. For most of the history of the Latter Day Saint movement, only men have been ordained to specific offices in the priesthood, and most Latter Day Saint denominations still restrict their priesthood to men. However, some exceptions to this policy do exist, such as within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), a church founded by James J. Strang, and the Community of Christ, which began ordaining women to all of its priesthood offices in 1984.

Saving temple ordinances

In some Latter Day Saint churches, additional saving ordinances are performed in temples. These include the endowment, the washing and anointing, and sealings. Currently, only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)-derived and Cutlerite-derived denominations within the Latter Day Saints movement practice all three. Other Latter Day Saint denominations, such as Community of Christ-derived and Hedrickite-derived denominations do not perform any of them. Still other denominations, such Strangite-derived denominations, practice sealings but reject the washing and anointing and the endowment.
 * 1) Endowment: Referred to as a gift of "power from on high" by Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, although the purpose and meaning of the endowment varied during his lifetime. After 1842, the endowment usually consists of two phases: (1) an initiation, and (2) an instructional and testing phase. The initiation consisted of the washing and anointing, culminating in the clothing of the patron in a "Garment of the Holy Priesthood". The instructional and testing phase of the endowment consisted of a scripted reenactment of Adam and Eve's experience in the Garden of Eden. The instruction is punctuated with personal covenants, gestures, and a prayer circle around an altar. At the end of instruction, the initiate's knowledge of symbolic gestures and keywords is tested at a "veil", a symbolic final frontier for the initiate to face the judgment of Jesus, before entering the presence of God in the Celestial Kingdom.
 * 2) Marriage and sealing: An ordinance where individuals are married and sealed as husband and wife as an eternal family.  Any children the couple may already have are sealed to the family and any children born into this marriage after sealing are also sealed into that family which will live together forever, if obedient to God's commandments. Children that are brought into the family later, though not born into the family such as via adoption, can be sealed to the family later in a sealing ceremony without the need for the marriage portion. This ordinance is particularly performed by the LDS Church and branches of Mormon fundamentalism.
 * 3) Sealing to parents: For children born before a marriage and sealing is performed or who have been adopted into a family, this ordinance seals them into that family as if they had been born into a sealed family.

Saving ordinances on behalf of the dead

According to Latter Day Saint theology, ordinances can be performed vicariously (i.e., post-mortem) on behalf of any person who would desire to accept the ordinance but did not receive it. While some sects, such as the Hedrickite denominations, have rejected some or all vicariously performed ordinances, other denominations, such as the LDS Church, still perform the saving ordinances on behalf of their deceased ancestors. These are performed vicariously or by "proxy" on behalf of the dead, and church members believe that it is up to the deceased to accept or reject the offered ordinance in the spirit world. Since deceased persons no longer have an earthly existence, they are unable to directly participate in these "saving" ordinances themselves. The physical performance of these ordinances by proxy is seen as fulfillment of the requirement. As with living ordinances, ordinances for the dead are considered necessary but insufficient. It is believed that the spirits in the spirit world are offered the teachings of the full gospel of Jesus Christ and have the opportunity to accept or decline vicarious ordinances done on their behalf. Some LDS Church members refer to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29 regarding baptism for the dead as evidence that this was a religious practice of ancient tradition that has now been restored by the LDS Church.

Non-saving ordinances
Ordinances which are not a requirement for exaltation are referred to as non-saving ordinances. A non-saving ordinance may be performed on behalf of an individual many times; in practice, however, some non-saving ordinances are only performed once per individual. While not every denomination performs each of these ordinances, they can be found throughout Latter Day Saint theology.

 * 1) Animal sacrifice: The ordinance of animal sacrifice was instituted in the Strangite denominations, primarily as a part of Strangite celebration rituals. Although the chapter on "Sacrifices" in Strang's Book of the Law of the Lord speaks of them as being offered for sins, the prohibition on such sacrifices contained in 3 Nephi 9:19–20, meant that Strang focused instead on sacrifice as an element of religious festivities, especially the commemoration of the coronation a king. The head of every house, from the king to his lowest subject, was to offer "a heifer, or a lamb, or a dove. Every man a clean beast, or a clean fowl, according to his household."
 * 2) Anointing of the Sick/Administration to the Sick and Consecrating oil: A person who is physically ill, emotionally strained, or sick in any other way may request administration of this blessing or ordinance. The purposes to provide assurance of God's care and concern and also of the church's interest in that person.  Often this included the anointing of the head of the person with consecrated oil, necessitating the ordinance of "Consecrating oil".
 * 3) Calling: This ordinance requires that a person having responsibility over a unit or an auxiliary of the church prayerfully seek revelation to determine which individual is to fill particular responsibilities within that organization. If the individual agrees—and many persons wait to receive spiritual confirmation before agreeing—then the individual is "called" to the position.
 * 4) Dedication of a church building or a temple: This ordinance is performed after the building is completed or purchased; if a building undergoes extensive remodeling, this ordinance may be performed again.
 * 5) Dedication of a grave: This ordinance is performed immediately before the body is placed in the grave; it is usually performed only once.
 * 6) Dedication of a land or country for the preaching of the gospel: This ordinance is usually performed before or soon after missionaries begin to preach in a particular country; it is usually performed only once (but may be performed again if missionaries have not been in a particular country for an extended period of time); it is typically performed by an apostle.[[Image:Feet washing.JPG|framed|Rigdonite/Bickertonite Foot washing in the Philippines]]
 * 7) Foot washing: The ordinance of foot washing was instituted in the Rigdonite/Bickertonite denominations as a demonstration of personal humility.  Members follow the ordinance of as described in  four times a year, when members greet each other with a "holy kiss", preferably on the cheek, to signify that they are greeting each other in the love of God, in accordance with the description given in the King James Version of the New Testament.  The Rigdonite/Bickertonite denominations believes that this is a very important ordinance, citing Jesus' statement to Peter: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."
 * 8) Hosanna Shout: An organized ritual of a congregation of shouting hosanna, as a recitation of praise to God, while waving a white handkerchief, and is usually performed as a ritual in the dedication of a Temple. It was first used as part in the dedication the Kirtland temple and was part of the Kirtland endowment ceremony.
 * 9) Naming and blessing a child: Typically this ordinance is performed shortly only once after a child's birth in fulfillment of the commandment in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name." The purpose of the practice is twofold: to give a baby an official name and to provide an opportunity to give a blessing for the child's spiritual and physical welfare.
 * 10) Patriarchal blessing/Evangelist's blessing: A blessing or ordinance given normally once by a patriarch to a church member. Patriarchal blessings are modeled after the blessing given by Jacob to each of his sons prior to his death and are considered a gift of knowledge and strength of one's coming challenges and blessings.
 * 11) Prayer circle: An antiphonic prayer around an altar, performed as part of the endowment and on other occasions, such among the Apostolic United Brethren and the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days, where prayer circles within temples, endowment houses, and homes are still common.
 * 12) Priesthood blessing (including father's blessings): A prayer for healing, comfort or counsel given by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, who lays his hands on the head of the person receiving the blessing.
 * 13) Rebaptism of faithful members: In late 1839, many who were already baptized members of the church, were rebaptised either to show a renewal of their commitment to the movement or as part of a healing ordinance.  Some denominations, such as the Community of Christ, never performed this ordinance.  While others, like the LDS church historically performed this ordinance, such as during the Mormon Reformation, but no longer do.
 * 14) Sacrament/Lord's Supper: An ordinance in which participants eat bread and drink wine, water, or unfermented grape juice in remembrance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It is similar to the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, or communion in Protestant denominations. Normally, the sacrament is provided either every Sunday, on the first Sunday of each month, as part of the regular meeting, or other additional special occasions. Strictly speaking, this is a non-saving ordinance because a person could be exalted without ever having participated in the sacrament. However, individuals who have been baptized are expected to regularly participate in the sacrament.
 * 15) Setting apart: An ordinance where a person is formally chosen and blessed to carry out a specific calling or responsibility in the church.  Once a person has accepted the responsibility of holding a calling and has been "Sustained" by the members of the church for that position, one or more priesthood holders "set apart" the person to serve in that calling, usually accomplish by giving the person a priesthood blessing by the laying on of hands.
 * 16) Shaking the dust from the feet: A cursing ordinance in which a priesthood holder leaves a curse instead of a blessing, by casting off the dust of their feet "against them as a testimony, and cleansing your feet by the wayside." It was most often used against those who rejected the teachings of the church, or who failed to provide missionaries, with food, money, or shelter.  Since the early-20th century, the practice has been rare.
 * 17) Ritual of the law of adoption: An ordinance practiced mainly between 1846 and 1894 in which priesthood men were sealed in a father–son relationship to other men who were not part of nor even distantly related to their immediate nuclear family. There is no surviving evidence that the "law of adoption" sealing practice was taught by Joseph Smith or his contemporaries prior to Smith's death in 1844. However, adoptions appeared on the records of the Nauvoo Temple in 1846, and scholars generally assume that the practice was instituted by Brigham Young. Following an address on 8 April 1894 by Wilford Woodruff, the practice of the law of adoption ceased in the LDS Church. However, some denominations, such as the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ. (commonly referred to as the "Gay Mormon Church"), continue to perform the ritual of the law of adoption.
 * 18) Second anointing: An ordinance performed for a sealed couple, sealing them up to eternal life, and anointing them as kings and queens, priests, and priestesses. In the LDS Church it is also called the fulness of the priesthood, and is a rare, but currently practiced ordinance for live participants,  and (less commonly) vicariously for deceased individuals, though, it is usually only given in absolute secrecy to a small number of members after a lifetime of service. The ordinance is also still performed by many Mormon fundamentalist groups.

title: Ordinance (Latter Day Saints)


text:
Mizuho Bank

Mizuho Bank, Ltd. (株式会社みずほ銀行) is the integrated retail and corporate banking unit of Mizuho Financial Group (tyo: 8411; nyse: MFG), the third largest financial services company in Japan, with total assets of approximately $1.8 trillion in 2017. Mizuho is one of the three so-called Japanese "megabanks" (along with MUFG and SMBC). Mizuho Bank provides financial products and services to a wide range of clients, including individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, large corporations, financial institutions and public sector entities. Its headquarters office building is located in the Otemachi district of Chiyoda, Tokyo.

Mizuho Bank has over 505 branches and offices in Japan and in 38 other countries, and is the only bank to have branches in every prefecture in Japan.

The name "Mizuho" is an archaic Japanese term meaning "golden ears of rice," and was used in the classical text Nihon Shoki to describe Japan.

History
Announced in 1999, Mizuho Financial Group was established on April 1, 2002 by the merger of Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank, Fuji Bank and the Industrial Bank of Japan. All three predecessors were major financial institutions in their own right and had served as cornerstones of major zaibatsu (prewar era) and keiretsu (postwar era). In April 2002, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Mizuho Bank were established as two core banking subsidiaries of Mizuho Financial Group through a split and merger process reorganizing the three legacy banks. It was the first financial holding company structure created among major Japanese banks. Mizuho Corporate Bank focused on large corporations, financial institutions and public sector entities in Japan and overseas. Mizuho Bank focused on individuals and small and medium-sized companies in Japan.

Mizuho Corporate Bank engaged in steady expansion overseas, opening twenty overseas offices between 2005 and 2010, particularly in China, as well as in the Americas, Europe and Middle East. In 2006, Mizuho Corporate Bank became the first Japanese bank to obtain financial holding company status in the U.S., and Mizuho Financial Group listed its ADRs on the New York Stock Exchange.

The two banks were initially consolidated under a holding company, Mizuho Holdings. On October 1, 2005 they were transferred to a new holding vehicle, Mizuho Financial Group. On July 1, 2013, a merger between the former Mizuho Bank and the former Mizuho Corporate Bank took place, and the institution was named Mizuho Bank.

Services
Mizuho services include current accounts, domestic and international cash cards, international money transfers, credit cards, saving accounts, loans, and Internet banking.

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

title: Mizuho Bank


text:
User talk:Mjgw

Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Help and The FAQ, plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing! Alexandros

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser
Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mjgw


text:
MTA Bridges and Tunnels

The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), doing business as MTA Bridges and Tunnels, is an affiliate agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that operates seven toll bridges and two tunnels in New York City. The TBTA is the largest bridge and tunnel toll agency in the United States by traffic volume. It generated more than $2.4billion in toll revenue from 335 million vehicles in 2023. , its operating budget was $596 million; the budget is funded through taxes and fees.

The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority was founded in 1933 as the Triborough Bridge Authority (TBA). The agency was named after its first crossing, the Triborough Bridge. The Triborough Bridge Authority was reorganized as the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in 1946. It began using the name MTA Bridges and Tunnels in 1994. The TBTA also controlled several buildings such as the New York Coliseum and the East Side Airline Terminal, both of which have been demolished.

Facilities
The seven bridges are:

 * Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, colloquially known by its previous name, the Triborough Bridge, is the agency's flagship crossing, and its original namesake. It connects Manhattan, the Bronx, and Queens, via Randalls and Wards Islands, and is named after the assassinated former United States Senator from New York, Robert F. Kennedy.
 * Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, which connects the Bronx and Queens.
 * Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge, which connects Brooklyn and Staten Island.
 * Throgs Neck Bridge, which connects the Bronx and Queens.
 * Henry Hudson Bridge, which connects Manhattan and the Bronx.
 * Marine Parkway–Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge, which connects Brooklyn and the Rockaways in Queens. It is co-named after former Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Mets first baseman, and later Mets' manager, Gil Hodges.
 * Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge, which connects Broad Channel to the Rockaways, both in Queens.

The two tunnels are:

 * Hugh L. Carey Tunnel (colloquially known by its former name, the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel), connects Brooklyn and Manhattan. It is named after former New York governor Hugh L. Carey.
 * Queens–Midtown Tunnel, which connects Queens and Manhattan.

Founding
MTA Bridges and Tunnels was originally founded as the Triborough Bridge Authority (TBA), which was organized to head the construction of the Triborough Bridge. The structure had started construction in 1929 but stalled during the Great Depression due to a lack of funding. In February 1933, a nine-person committee applied to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) for a $150 million loan for projects in New York state, including the Triborough Bridge. While the RFC favored a loan for the Triborough project, the mayor at the time, John P. O'Brien, banned the RFC from giving loans to the city. Instead, O'Brien wanted to create a bridge authority to sell bonds to pay for the construction of the Triborough Bridge as well as for the planned Queens–Midtown Tunnel between Manhattan and Queens. Robert Moses, the New York City parks commissioner, also pushed the state legislature to create an authority to fund, build, and operate the Triborough Bridge.

A bill to create the TBA passed quickly through both houses of the state legislature, and was signed by Governor Herbert H. Lehman in April 1933. The bill included a provision that the authority could sell up to $35 million in bonds and fund the remainder of construction through bridge tolls. George Gordon Battle, a Tammany Hall attorney, was appointed as chairman of the new authority, and three commissioners were appointed. Battle resigned from the chairmanship in November 1933, citing ill health, and was replaced by Nathan Burkan.

Early years
In its first year, the TBA was in turmoil: by January 1934, one of the TBA's commissioners had resigned, and New York City Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia was trying another TBA commissioner, John Stratton O'Leary, for corruption. As a result, Public Works Administration (PWA) administrator Harold L. Ickes refused to distribute parts of the RFC grant allotted to the Triborough Bridge, until the existing funds could be accounted for. After O'Leary had been removed, La Guardia appointed Moses to the open commissioner's position, and Ickes gave the city $1.5 million toward the bridge's construction. Robert Moses became the CEO and Secretary of the TBA in February 1934, after the removal of O'Leary from the Board; Moses was additionally appointed Chairman in November 1936, following Burkan's death the previous June.

Moses leveraged his leadership of the Triborough Bridge Authority, as well as the state and city positions he also held, to expedite the Triborough project. The Triborough Bridge opened on July 11, 1936. The TBA constructed a second bridge, the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, between the Bronx and Queens. Construction started in 1937 and the bridge opened on April 29, 1939, in time for the 1939 New York World's Fair in Queens. Moses had proposed a third bridge, the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, on the site of what is now the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The United States Department of War ultimately rejected the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge as an impediment to shipping, since it would obstruct access from the New York Harbor to the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

Under the chairmanship of Robert Moses, the agency grew in a series of mergers with four other agencies. In January 1940, as part of a deal to build an approach to the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel, Moses proposed merging the New York City Parkway Authority, which operated the Henry Hudson, Marine Parkway, and Cross Bay Bridges. The City Parkway Authority was merged with the TBA in February 1940. The Parkway Authority had already been merged with the Henry Hudson Parkway Authority, which operated the Henry Hudson Bridge, and with the Marine Parkway Authority, which operated the Marine Parkway Bridge.

This gave the TBA complete control of all parkways and toll bridges located entirely in New York City. The same bill revoked the TBA's right to build a bridge from Brooklyn to the Battery. In 1945, with the pending merger of the Triborough Bridge Authority and the New York City Tunnel Authority, the former was renamed the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The authority operated the Queens–Midtown Tunnel and was building the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel. The merger was finalized in 1946. The TBTA completed the construction of the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel, which opened to traffic in May 1950.

Growth
Generating millions of dollars in toll revenue annually, the TBTA easily became a powerful city agency, as it was capable of funding large capital projects. From the 1940s to the 1960s, the TBTA built the Battery Tunnel Parking Garage, Jacob Riis Beach Parking Field, the New York Coliseum, and the East Side Airlines Terminal.

Aside from toll crossings, one of the TBTA's most profitable properties was the New York Coliseum, an office building and convention center at Columbus Circle in Manhattan. The complex cost $35 million to build, of which $26.5 million came from toll revenues collected by the TBTA. The Coliseum, which became the New York City's major convention center, had a tax agreement with the city wherein the city government would collect a portion of the TBTA's revenue rather than collect taxes on the Coliseum property. Within the first ten years of the Coliseum's opening, the city had collected almost $9.1 million from the TBTA. This special tax arrangement continued until the property was sold in 1998.

The TBTA built two bridges in the 1960s. The Throgs Neck Bridge, a project to alleviate traffic on the Bronx–Whitestone Bridge, started construction in 1957 and opened in January 1961. The long-planned Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge, which had been proposed as far back as the 1920s, started construction in 1959 and opened in November 1964. Because of higher-than-expected traffic on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge, the TBTA built a second deck on the bridge in 1969.

Merger with MTA

In January 1966, New York City Mayor John Lindsay proposed merging the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), which operated buses and subways in New York City, with the TBTA to create the Metropolitan Commuter Transit Authority (MCTA). While Governor Nelson Rockefeller offered his "complete support" for Lindsay's proposed unified transit agency, Robert Moses called the proposed merger "absurd" and "grotesque" for its unwieldiness. Lindsay then proposed a bill in the state legislature that would allow the mayor to appoint a majority of the members in the new city-run transportation agency, but this was rejected.

In June 1966, Rockefeller announced his plans to expand the MCTA's scope to create a new regional transit authority to encompass the existing MCTA, as well as the NYCTA and TBTA. Lindsay disagreed, saying that the state and city should have operationally separate transit authorities that worked in tandem. In early 1967, Rockefeller proposed merging the NYCTA and TBTA into the MCTA, as well as creating a $2.5 billion bond issue to fund transportation improvements. In May 1967, Rockefeller signed a bill that allowed the MCTA to oversee the mass transit policies of New York City-area transit systems and the TBTA by the following March.

Initially, the TBTA was resistant to the MCTA's efforts to acquire it. Moses was afraid that the enlarged MCTA would "undermine, destroy or tarnish" the integrity of the TBTA, One source of contention was Rockefeller's proposal to use TBTA tolls in order to subsidize the cheap fares of the NYCTA, since Moses strongly opposed any use of TBTA tolls for use by outside agencies. Moses agreed to merge the TBTA into the MCTA in March 1967, and he even campaigned in favor of the transit bond issue. In February 1968, the TBTA's bondholders acquiesced to the MCTA's merger proposal. The TBTA archives, including models of projects built and unbuilt, were transferred to the MTA Bridges and Tunnels Special Archive, at 2 Broadway.

In March 1968, the MCTA dropped the word "Commuter" from its name and became the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA took over the operations of the other New York City-area transit systems as well as the TBTA. Moses was relieved from his job as chairman of the TBTA, although he was retained as a consultant. Moses stated that TBTA construction projects would reduce the MTA's budget surplus through 1970. Surplus revenue, formerly used for new automobile projects, was then used to support public transportation.

Since the merger, more than $10billion has been contributed by the TBTA to subsidize mass transit fares and capital improvements for the New York City Transit, Long Island Rail Road, and Metro-North Railroad. The MTA Bridges and Tunnels trading name was adopted in 1994. The name Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority is still the legal name of the Authority.

Law enforcement

The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority employs fewer than 100 Bridge and Tunnel officers (BTOs). The last civil service exam for MTA Bridge and Tunnel Officer (list # 6091) was in 2007.

Duties
TBTA Officers perform various tasks concerning vehicular traffic, assisting stranded motorists, performing selected security duties at the nine intra-city crossings, as well as other miscellaneous duties.

The TBTA operates seven bridges and two tunnels, including:

 * Triborough Bridge (connecting Manhattan, the Bronx and Queens)
 * Bronx-Whitestone Bridge (the Bronx and Queens)
 * Verrazano Narrows Bridge (Brooklyn and Staten Island)
 * Throgs Neck Bridge (the Bronx and Queens)
 * Henry Hudson Bridge (Manhattan and the Bronx)
 * Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge (Brooklyn and Queens—Rockaway peninsula)
 * Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge (Brooklyn and Queens—Rockaway peninsula)

and two tunnels:
 * Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (Brooklyn and Manhattan)
 * Queens Midtown Tunnel (Queens and Manhattan)

TBTA officers
TBTA Officers wear a uniform similar to other NYC law enforcement officers. They are NYS Peace Officers with limited authority under Article 2, §2.10, sub 20 of New York State Criminal Procedure Law.

Officer killed on duty
Bridge and Tunnel Officer Thomas K. Choi was struck by a vehicle on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge on October 20, 2013. He suffered severe head injuries and was left in a coma. He died one year later. Choi had served with the TBTA for 11 years.

Tolls
MTA Bridges and Tunnels collects the vast majority of its tolls through E-ZPass, an electronic toll collection system. E-ZPass was introduced at MTA Bridges and Tunnels crossings between 1995 and 1997.

Open-road tolling
In October 2016, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that tollbooths would be removed at all bridges to speed up traffic. Since September 2017, all MTA Bridges & Tunnels facilities have collected tolls through open-road cashless tolling. Tollbooths previously in place have been dismantled, and drivers no longer pay cash at the crossings. Instead, cameras mounted onto new overhead gantries manufactured by TransCore collect the tolls. While some are located where toll booths were previously located, others are located at the opposite ends of the facilities. A vehicle without an E-ZPass has a picture taken of its license plate and a bill for the toll is mailed to its owner. For E-ZPass users, sensors detect their transponders wirelessly.

Automatic number-plate recognition (ALPR) analysis is used to decode the image of the plate into alphanumeric data and the jurisdiction of issue. , the MTA B&T's ALPR system was unable to read temporary paper license plates. The system is subject to significant fraud from motorists who obstruct clear views of their license plates. Drivers caught with such plates risk a ticket for an obstructed, missing or unreadable license plate under Section 402 of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, though these drivers have not been subject to criminal enforcement. Governor Cuomo's 2020 proposed Executive Budget included an amendment to specify the use of a modified license plate to avoid tolls as misdemeanor theft-of-service, but the proposal was not included in the final bill.

The MTA has released no data detailing its losses to modified or obstructed license plates, even though the prevalence of such license plates may result in substantial revenue losses. However, it was theoretically possible for the MTA to have a toll collection rate of over 100 percent, because the $50 and $100 fines for late toll payments have been added to the sum of tolls collected, but not added to the sum of tolls incurred by drivers. This may obscure both sources of toll revenue and causes of toll revenue loss for the MTA.

From December 2018 through November 2019, the MTA successfully collected 97.1 percent of all tolls incurred by drivers, with the lowest rate being 94.8 percent at the Cross Bay Bridge. The preponderance of obstructed or modified license plates in New York City may suggest substantial revenue losses due to that form of fraud. An audit performed by the New York State Comptroller in 2017 criticized the MTA for losses due to issues with reading, and obstruction of, license plates. The MTA's response characterized this as part of "leakage" that is "inherent in the process for any Cashless Tolling environment."

title: MTA Bridges and Tunnels


text:
Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank

The Dai-ichi Kangyo Bank, Limited (株式会社第一勧業銀行), abbreviated as DKB (第一勧銀), was one of the largest banks in the world during the latter half of the 20th century. Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank was created in 1971 by a consortium of two banks: Dai-Ichi Bank, Japan's oldest bank, and Nippon Kangyo Bank, a state financial institution that granted long-term loans to industry and agriculture.

In 2000, it merged with Fuji Bank and the Industrial Bank of Japan to form Mizuho Financial Group. In 2002, DKB's corporate & investment banking division was transferred to Mizuho Corporate Bank, while its retail banking division was transferred to Mizuho Bank.

Dai-ichi Bank
The Dai-ichi Bank, Ltd. (株式会社第一銀行), originally Dai-Ichi Kokuritsu Bank (lit. First National Bank) was the first bank and the first kabushiki gaisha (joint share/stock company) ever to be established in Japan. Established by industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi in 1873, it was originally empowered to issue banknotes, until the Bank of Japan assumed this function in 1883. Subsequently, it became a purely commercial bank based in Tokyo.

In 1884, Dai-ichi Bank made a deal with the Joseon dynasty to make Dai-ichi Bank Korea Branch the monopoly agent of tariff management for the Choson. In subsequent years, Dai-ichi began issuing banknotes called "Dai-ichi Bank Token" in Korea, and became the de facto central bank of Korea. Following the Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1904, however, Dai-ichi was deprived of its privileges in Korea by the new colonial government, and reverted to being a conventional bank.

In 1943, Dai-ichi Bank and Mitsui Bank, a Mitsui zaibatsu company, merged to form Teikoku Bank (lit. Imperial Bank of Japan). Teikoku Bank was the largest bank in Japan in terms of assets when it was inaugurated. Teikoku Bank, however, could not expand its business freely due to Japan's involvement in World War II. Furthermore, former Dai-ichi employees and Mitsui employees did not get along well because of the difference in corporate culture between them. As a result of deteriorating performance, Teikoku Bank was divided into two banks, the new Dai-ichi Bank and the new Teikoku Bank in 1948.

The new Teikoku Bank was renamed Mitsui Bank in 1954. It merged with Taiyo Kobe Bank to form Sakura Bank in 1990. Sakura Bank merged with The Sumitomo Bank in 2001 and is now Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation.

Nippon Kangyo Bank
The Nippon Kangyo Bank, Ltd. (株式会社日本勧業銀行) was founded in 1897 as a governmental institution providing long-term light industrial and agricultural loans under the Nippon Kangyo Bank Act of 1896. The Industrial Bank of Japan was also founded in 1902, providing long-term heavy industrial loans. Nippon Kangyo Bank had offices only in Tokyo and Osaka, leaving nationwide local services in the charge of its subsidiary Noko Bank (lit. Agricultural and Industrial Bank). Noko Banks were established in each prefecture, except for Hokkaidō (see Hokkaido Takushoku Bank).

In order to provide long-term loans, the bank's source of funds was not deposits but securities. The bank was also authorized to issue premium-bearing debentures. The bank financed, however, landlords and partnerships, and there were little money to go around individual farmers. In 1911 the Nippon Kangyo Bank act was amended so that Nippon Kangyo Bank could handle deposit accounts and offer short-term finance. In the latter of Taishō period the bank embarked on real estate investments, while Noko Banks were absorbed into Nippon Kangyo Bank one after another. The bank dramatically increased its scale of operations.

During World War II, Nippon Kangyo Bank was the lead management underwriter of war bonds for Japanese government. In reality, the war bond by Nippon Kangyo Bank was a lottery rather than a bond. Today's Japanese lottery (takarakuji) has its origin in this war bond.

After World War II, Nippon Kangyo Bank was privatized and became a commercial bank following the Nippon Kangyo Bank Repeal Act of 1950. The long-term banking division of Nippon Kangyo Bank was transferred to newly established Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan. The bank became popular among the public with the new rose logo, mascot named Nobara-chan (lit. Rose-chan) and advertising slogan "Rose's NKB" (「ばらの勧銀」).

Merger
In 1971, Dai-ichi Bank and Nippon Kangyo Bank merged to form the Dai-ichi Kangyo Bank, Limited ("DKB"). DKB surpassed longtime leader the Fuji Bank as the largest Japanese bank measured by assets and deposit market share. DKB formed DKB Group (also known as Dai-ichi Kangyo Group), the largest Japanese keiretsu in terms of the number of associated companies, and became the central bank of DKB Group.

Taking over Nippon Kangyo and Noko's operation, DKB was the sole trustee of Takarakuji lottery, and was the only bank to have branches in every prefecture in Japan.

DKB executives worried about recurrence of the problem in their Teikoku Bank period, when the two former banks' employees were on bad terms each other. Therefore, they were particular about "a merger of equals." DKB's board of directors, for example, was always composed half-and-half of former Dai-ichi members and former NKB members. The board of directors installed the former two banks members alternately as the next chairperson and president.

These practices backfired however, only causing difficulty among the employees similar to Teikoku Bank's case. Irrational personnel affairs prevented DKB from increasing revenue and profit. Although DKB had more assets than any other Japanese bank, its capabilities were inferior to high-performing banks such as Fuji, Sumitomo, Sanwa or Mitsubishi.

Scandal
During the Japanese asset price bubble of the late 1980s, Japanese banks, including DKB, granted increasingly risky loans. Even worse, DKB financed not only high-risk companies but also yakuza, in order to invest in capital resources more easily than its competitors. Furthermore, loans to sōkaiya (corporate racketeers) amounted to 30 billion JPY.

After the bubble's collapse, these bad loans were judged to be poor value for money. A raid by Tokyo prosecutors in 1997 impeaching of the loans to sōkaiya laid DKB open to public criticism. Kuniji Miyazaki (宮崎 邦次), former president and then chairperson of DKB, who faced severe pressure over a series of alleged misdeeds, committed suicide by hanging himself in his home.

DKB combined with Fuji Bank and the Industrial Bank of Japan in 2000, forming Mizuho Financial Group. In 2002, DKB's corporate & investment banking division was transferred to Mizuho Corporate Bank and its retail banking division to Mizuho Bank respectively.

Dai-Ichi Kangyo Credit Cooperative
The Dai-Ichi Kangyo name remains in use by a Shinjuku, Tokyo-based credit union, Dai-Ichi Kangyo Credit Cooperative (第一勧業信用組合), which was founded as a credit union for Nippon Kangyo Bank employees during the Taisho era. It remains active in the Tokyo region with over 45,000 members, and uses a modified version of the Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank branding.

title: Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank


text:
Introduction (House of Lords)

The introduction is a ceremony in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom by which a new member is "introduced" to the existing membership. Introductions in the Lords are more elaborate than those in the House of Commons.

Origins
Originally, the Sovereign created and invested new peers personally. The personal procedure, however, was abandoned during the 17th century, and in 1621 the House of Lords began the ceremony of introduction. The ceremony has evolved over the years, generally growing more complex. However, in 1998, the Select Committee on Introductions suggested several reforms, which were generally adopted.

Introduced lords
Ceremonial introductions were originally used for all new members of the House of Lords. However, in 1663, the House of Lords decided that peers who inherited a title did not need to be introduced. This applies to hereditary peers joining the House by virtue of by-elections under the House of Lords Act 1999. However, if hereditary peers receive life peerages, they must be introduced like any other life peer, unless they sat in the Lords before the House of Lords Act 1999.

The Lords Spiritual (twenty-six bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords) are also introduced, though by a different ceremony, upon appointment. Also, if a Lord Spiritual is "translated" (transferred) to another see, they must be reintroduced.

Lords Temporal ceremony
The ceremony of Introduction used prior to 1998 was much more complicated than the present ceremony. Originally, the Lord Chancellor in court dress (including a tricorn hat), or a Deputy Speaker in parliamentary robes, would occupy the Woolsack. A procession would be formed outside the Chamber, with the members of the procession standing in the following order: When a member of the Royal Family was being introduced, there would often be more in the procession, as the Great Officers of State and the Great Officers of the Household (and sometimes others, such as an aide-de-camp carrying a coronet) would be involved. The group would start in the Robing Room, also.
 * 1) The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod or his deputy
 * 2) The Garter Principal King of Arms or another herald
 * 3) The new peer's junior supporter
 * 4) The new peer
 * 5) The new peer's senior supporter

The supporters were members of the House of Lords of the same rank of peerage as the new peer. (In other words, Dukes would support Dukes, Marquesses would support Marquesses, and so forth.) The new peer and his/her supporters would wear parliamentary robes and bicorn hats if men or caps if women. The procession would enter the Chamber, proceed towards the Lord Chancellor (the peer and his/her supporters stopping thrice to bow towards the Cloth of Estate before reaching the Lord Chancellor), and the Garter Principal King of Arms would present the peer's letters patent, which are issued by the sovereign to create a new peerage, and the new peer would kneel before the Lord Chancellor (or remain standing if a member of the Royal Family) and present his writ of summons, which is issued by the sovereign to command the peer's attendance in Parliament. The Reading Clerk of the House of Lords would then read aloud the letters patent and the writ. The peer would take the Oath of Allegiance or the Solemn Affirmation, and would sign the Test Roll, at the top of which the same Oath is written.

Thereafter, the Garter Principal King of Arms would "place" the new peer and his supporters by leading them to the Lords bench traditionally occupied by those of the new peer's rank (senior members of the Royal Family were led to a chair of state on the Throne dais rather than be placed on a bench). The peer and supporters would put on their hats, rise, doff their hats (unless women), and bow to the Lord Chancellor, and then repeat the previous practice two times. After bowing to the Lord Chancellor for the third time, the peers would, along with the Garter Principal King of Arms and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, leave the Chamber, with the new peer shaking hands with the Lord Chancellor as he left. The new peer would later return, and possibly participate in a debate (a member of the Royal Family, earlier seated beside the Throne, would now sit on the Crossbenches, signifying his/her political neutrality).

In 1998, the House of Lords constituted a Committee to modernise the entire ceremony. The Committee found that "Far from being dignified, the practice of kneeling to the Lord Chancellor is particularly awkward because the new peer, wearing robes, simply kneels down on the floor with nothing to lean on for support [We] see no need to retain the act of kneeling before the Lord Chancellor." The Committee also recommended that the reading of the writ of summons, which is of the same form for all peers, be ceased, though the reading of the Letters Patent, which are often unique to the peer, be continued. The Committee further suggested that the wearing of hats and the hat doffing ceremony, which "serves no symbolic purpose", also stop. Finally, it deemed that, since the seating of Lords in order of the degree of peerage was an outdated practice, the Lords instead sitting by party, the practice of placing the new peer stop.

The present ceremony involves the same procession as the former one, but, instead of proceeding to the Woolsack, it stops in front of the Table of the House. The Reading Clerk reads the Letters Patent presented to him by the Garter Principal King of Arms, and administers the Oath of Allegiance or Solemn Affirmation to the new peer. The new peer and his supporters together bow to the Cloth of Estate, which is placed at the end of the House, behind the sovereign's throne and the Woolsack. The procession then proceeds out of the Chamber, the new peer stopping at the Woolsack to shake hands with the Lord Chancellor. Upon returning to the Chamber, the new peer takes any seat he pleases, sitting with his/her party, or, if neutral, sitting amongst the Crossbenchers.

The role of presiding over the House of Lords was removed from the office of Lord Chancellor by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As a result, the Lord Chancellor's former role in introductions has been the Lord Speaker's since 2006.

Lords Spiritual ceremony
The ceremony for Lords Spiritual has been significantly simpler, and was not affected by the recommendations of the 1998 Committee. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and the Garter Principal King of Arms do not take part. The supporters of the Lords Spiritual are, in all cases, other Lords Spiritual; the new member and the supporters wear their clerical robes. The procession, with the junior supporter in front and the senior supporter behind the new archbishop or bishop, arrives in front of the Table of the House. The new member then submits his writ of summons, which is read by a Clerk. (Archbishops and bishops do not, with regards to their lordships, have letters patent to present.) The Clerk then administers the Oath. Then, the procession progresses to the Woolsack, where the new archbishop or bishop shakes hands with the Lord Speaker. Then, instead of leaving the Chamber, the new member and his/her supporters immediately take seats on the Bishops' Benches. (Archbishops and bishops do not sit with any particular party, though the two Bishops' Benches are on the same side of the Chamber as the seats for members of the Government party.)

title: Introduction (House of Lords)


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 3

Possible country copyright violations
''This is for copyright issues relating to countries. I've proposed moving prospective country copyright violations from Possible copyright infringements to this section so all on the project will have them in a convenient to do list to get them fixed as time allows. Please consider leaving this in its current prominent location to make it easy to move from copyvio to this project. JamesDay 17:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)''

See Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements for discussion on WikiProject Countries.

 * image:Rusfedmapcities.jpg - carries copyright notice, copyright status was questioned on images's talk page but no answer. Kosebamse 07:19, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Plock, Poland - from - SimonP 18:35, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Official languages and other stuffs
moved from Talk:People's Republic of China

Please provide an explanation for your recent edits on People's Republic of China and List of official languages. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the PRC. Why leave them out? --Jiang 06:16, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cheers! I agree with Jiang: I cannot understand why you treat Hong Kong and Macau as if they were not part of PRC. They are, indeed. They are listed in the list of administrative divisions of areas under control of the People's Republic of China in the PRC's article. Please, explain your odd interpretation of the relationship between PRC and its two Special Administrative Regions. See, for instances, the heading of the Hong Kong article: Hong Kong .... is a special administrative region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China .... Marco Neves 16:59, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

 * We don't include legally self-governing parts of countries in the tables. - Efghij 06:32, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See United Kingdom and United States. Some mention is given. --Jiang

 * Scotland, Wales & the American States aren't self-governing to the same extent that Hong Kong & Macau are. Notice there's no mention of Puerto Rico in the United States table or of Greenland in the Denmark table. - Efghij 06:47, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What's the official language in Greenland? Is it also Danish? Yes, Puerto Rico is mentioned in List of official languages under Spanish and English. The table for the main US article is a general link as there is no room to fit in all the states/territories with official languages. So yes, Puerto Rico is mentioned. --Jiang 06:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Greenland's official languages are Danish & Inuktitut (also called Greenlandic). The area listed for Denmark does not include Greenland, nor does the area for the PRC include Honk Kong & Macau or the area for the US include Puerto Rico. Also note the absence of any mention of .HK .MO .PR or .GL - Efghij 07:06, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The edit for the List of official languages was legitimate, as Puerto Rico is listed under the US and not in a separate entry. I think what should be done is that a footnote be added to the country table. I repeat, the UK and US articles do mention official languages of dependencies. --Jiang 07:25, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I think a footnote would be appropriate. However, I repeat that Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not dependencies of the UK; and the US table says "some states specify" an official language, US states are not dependencies. - Efghij 20:53, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Neither are Hong Kong and Macau Marco NevesMarco Neves

 * Whether they're called "dependencies", "commonwealths", or "Special Administrative Regions", they are self-governing parts of a country, and their official languages, areas, population, currencies, internet TLDs, and calling codes have no place in the country table. - Efghij 01:14, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Self-governing parts of countries are included in the tables as parts of those countries (for instances, all regions of Spain are self-governing; Madeira and Azores - in Portugal - are self governing): they are not specified but are included in all data for that country. Dependencies are not self-governing parts of some countries: they are territories which depend on other territories and can be or not self-governing (ex.: Puerto Rico, Greenland, Gibraltar, etc.): they are not included in the governing country data. A Special Administrative Region of PRC is as self-governing as Basque Country, Catalonia, etc. in Spain and no one can reasonably reduce Spain's area to exclude these regions' areas (even Catalan nationalists agree Catalonia is part of Spanish state, happily or not) nor can anyone reasonably say that Spain has only one official language. The same with PRC. Marco Neves 01:08, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves [Note: some data are special cases, since there is no tradition of stating different currencies, internet TLD's and calling codes in the country table. But I would argue for the inclusion of these data in country tables, if they referred to parts of its territory, as Hong Kong and Macau: but we would have to change ALL country tables. However, please take into account that in all tables, data concerning 'official languages, areas and population' are integrated in the countries table (in most cases without specification of which part of the territory has each language, amount of area or part of the population) - see Spain, US, Portugal, etc. Why would PRC be different? Why are Hong Kong and Macau different from Açores and Madeira, Catalonia and Basque Country, etc? Marco NevesMarco Neves]

 * Just to emphasize the point. An SAR is very different from a dependency or commonwealth.  Hong Kong and Macao have some special autonomy, but they are unquestionably integral parts of the PRC. Roadrunner
 * Thanks for the help. I still don't understand why there are doubts about the fact that Hong Kong and Macau are a part of the PRC. If I went to Hong Kong I would probably say to my friends "I went to Hong Kong" instead of "I went to China" because I take for granted that everybody knows Hong Kong is, well, in China! (And certainly not in the Republic of China.)
 * I've just notice this quotation from the article on Special Administrative Regions in this same encyclopedia: "A Special Administrative Region (SAR) (特別行政區) is a political subdivision of the People's Republic of China."(my bold) - it is not a dependency.Marco NevesMarco Neves

 * Please see the CIA World Factbook's Article on Hong Kong and their Article on Macau. Also note that their Table of Dependencies includes Honk Kong & Macau, but not Madeira, Azores, or Basque Country. Centainly the CIA World Factbook is a more authoritative source than a wikipedia article. - Efghij 02:48, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Please, see any good encyclopedia, the PRC Constitution, UN's documents, the treaties between Portugal/UK and PRC, etc. CIA World Factbook is not perfect... Every official document treat Hong Kong and Macau as part of PRC. Azores, Madeira, Basque Country and Catalonia's powers are much greater than Hong Kong and Macau.Special Administrative Regions are subdivisions of PRC.[Note: CIA Factbook still has different articles out of inercia, since before 1997 and 1999, Hong Kong and Macau were dependencies indeed. When reverted to PRC, they became integral parts of it - their status changed - if Cia Factbook were written today, it would certainly not include Hong Kong and Macau as separate from PRC.Marco NevesMarco Neves

The PRC's constitution does not contain one word about Hong Kong or Macau. If you can cite a UN document or a treaty between the UK or Portugal and the PRC that proves that Hong Kong and/or Macau are indeed intergral parts of China, I would certianly be willing to incorperate them into the table. - Efghij 04:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * "Dependency", "SAR", "states",... These terms may have different meanings in different countries. Due to historical reasons, Hong Kong, Macau, Greenland, Basque Country and etc are sometimes treated as "independent nations". Their official languages, areas, population, currencies, internet TLDs, or calling codes could be listed in country tables as exceptions. - wshun 03:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is an issue that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. - Efghij 04:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Cheers! I agree with you: we can state data for Hong Kong and Macau in PRC'a country table as exception, as long as we acknowledge the fact that they are part of PRC. Please, note:
 * Hong Kong, Macau, Basque Country, Açores, Madeira, etc. are parts of the territory of PRC, Spain and Portugal, respectively. "SAR" has roughly the same status as a Canadian province, a US State, a Spanish community, a Portuguese Autonomous Region (which are all different, but share two traits: are autonomous but considered integral part of the territory of their countries);
 * This is different from a dependency, which is a non-integrated territory governed by a foreign country - for instances: Greenland, Puerto Rico, etc. Greenland, for instances, is not part of Denmark's territory, being excluded from European Union (different from, for example, French Guinea, which is not, technically, a dependency, and, therefore, is an integral part of the European Union).
 * Now, I've noticed that Wikipedia more or less consistently includes data from state/autonomous regions/SAR type of territories in their countries tables and excludes data from dependencies. So, I don't see any reason for not stating English and Portuguese as official languages of parts of PRC - they are so, indeed. Marco NevesMarco Neves

Please note that wikipedia does not include information about French Guinea or the other overseas departments in the France table. These are also classified as dependencies by the CIA World Factbook, which cannot be be attributed to "inercia" (They have had the same status since 1946). - Efghij 04:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's the reason why I've said French Guinea is not, technically, a dependency. It is treated by everybody as one, though, mainly because it is far away from mainland France (which is not the case for Hong Kong and Macau). This doesn't change anything about Hong Kong and Macau. They are treated by virtually everybody as parts of PRC. SARs still fulfill these two criteria: they are autonomous and they are part of the territory. They are neither non-integrated territories (like Greenland) nor overseas territories (like French Guinea). Were the CIA Factbook written today, French Guinea would still be styled a dependency and Hong Kong and Macau would not (probably, of course - but, as I said, CIA Factbook is not a legal document; PRC's Constitution, Hong Kong and Macau's Basic Laws and international Treaties between PRC and UK and Portugal are legal documents and ALL treat Hong Kong and Macau as an integral part of PRC, just like any autonomous region/state/province - even exceptional ones like Azores and Madeira - in any country).So, the basic point is valid: Portuguese and English are official languages of parts of the territory of PRC.Marco NevesMarco Neves

 * In this case the CIA Factbook is just plain wrong. Article One of the Basic Law of Hong Kong says very specifically that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China" and there is a reason why that is Article One.  If there was any significant political or legal opinion anywhere that Hong Kong or Macao were not integral parts of the PRC, then there would be a whole different story, but there isn't.  There is a whole series of Hong Kong court cases which have ruled that Hong Kong is an integral part of the PRC.  There would be NPOV issues if there were a significant body of opinion otherwise, but there isn't. --User:Roadrunner

 * "Inalianable" is completely different from "integral". "Inalienable" simply means that Hong Kong is not allowed to seperate from the PRC, it indicates nothing about its dependency status. - Efghij 04:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Inalianable part means it is a part which cannot be separated - it is different from "integral part", indeed, because it is stronger than 'integral' - an inalianable part is not only integral but also, theoretically, eternal. The adjective "inalianable" does not mean that a "part" is not a "part" and is not completely different from integral. Hong Kong is a part of PRC which, like all other parts, cannot be separated from PRC. The fact that the phrase "an inalianable part" is used is, in fact, the strongest argument in favour of considering Hong Kong and Macau as parts of PRC and not dependencies. "Inalianable part" says everything about their dependency status: it means they are not dependencies.Marco NevesMarco Neves

 * I completely agree. There is not ONE only document or ONE only political group claiming Hong Kong and Macau are not part of PRC. Hong Kong was a colony until 1997; now is an integral part of PRC. Macau was officially Chinese territory under Portuguese rule until 1999; now is an integral part of PRC. Marco NevesMarco Neves

Is a footnote an acceptable compromise? --Jiang I think it is :) Marco NevesMarco Neves

 * I'd be against it. A footnote would be acceptable if there was any legal dispute over the status of Hong Kong or Macao.  There isn't.  User:Roadrunner
 * Cheers, Roadrunner!:) I think a footnote stating Hong Kong and Macau are SARs with English and Portuguese as official languages alongside Mandarin Chinese could be acceptable. (I wouldn't mind having a footnote in Portugal's table stating that Açores and Madeira are autonomous regions.) That's as far as I would go. This would not imply SARs are not PRC's territory (nor, in my example, that Açores and Madeira are not Portuguese territory). I still don't understand why we are debating such a straighforward subject like this one: Hong Kong and Macau are, clearly, PRC's territory :) Marco NevesMarco Neves

I've already said that I think a footnote would be appropriate. - Efghij 04:25, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Just stating my opinion. I really don't feel strongly enough about this to revert if there is consensus to put it in a footnote -Roadrunnner

Subtopic categorisation
If there are no objections, I'm going to make a change to the template and the articles which removes most of the "see also" sections. The term "see also" usually refers to a different topic which is related. Here, it is being used as to refer to a subtopic of the same article, which I feel is incorrect and confusing.

My preferred alternative can be seen in this previous revision of the Australia article. It involves sorting the other important articles about the country into the predefined CIA factbook sections, and declaring them to be "other articles" under each category. Categorisation of articles is widely used across Wikipedia, and is generally thought to be a good idea, greatly aiding the reader in navigation. The number of subtopic articles attached to each country is growing rapidly, I think categorisation is very necessary.

Jiang feels that some of my categorisations on Australia were not sufficiently precise. However, it's well known that a "miscellaneous" category is undesirable, and that it's often better to sort a subtopic into whatever category it most closely matches. If Jiang can suggest a better categorisation scheme where the number of "miscellaneous" articles is kept to an absolute minimum, I'm willing to hear it.

Note: this post is is essentially a continuation of the debate at Talk:Australia. Jiang feels that Australia should comply with the template, whereas Tannin and I think that our version of Australia is better than the template. I should have brought my views on categorisation to this page originally rather than simply implementing them. This would have avoided the current edit war and improved all our country articles rather than just that of my own country.

-- Tim Starling 01:37, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I don't object to changing "see also" to "other topics" when an article is a subtopic (as opposed to a related topic.) This practice could be expanded beyond the country template. But will listing "other topics" under "main article" make it look too cluttered? I don't explicitly object to this format, but this is a concern.

Is "foreign relations" really a subset of "politics"? Currently, our politics section and articles discusses government institutions and politicans. It mostly makes no mention of how a country involves itself on the larger global diplomatic landscape. We would need to revise the text in this section and rename it. (Note that in the PRC and ROC articles, foreign relations has been expanded into an entire subsection. We could do that for all countries.)

 * How about renaming "politics" to "government"? That way it can include all activities of the government, including foreign relations. I don't think we should create separate, near-empty sections for foreign relations, unless there is a specific need for it (as there is in PRC). I think the template should be at least slightly flexible in this way. -- TS

In some countries, the military is deliberately separated from its politics. Our military articles mention hardware, strength, etc. Calling it a subtopic is questionable.

 * The military of a country is generally controlled by the government, is it not? So it would be fine under my alternate scheme, correct? -- TS

I don't think Communicantions and transportation qualify as subtopics of demographics. Those articles list statistics of the country's infrastructure, not its people.

And what about lists of cities? Do they belong in "political divisions" or "demographics" as you have them?

 * How about merging the culture, demographics and infrastructure sections into a "society and infrastructure" section? -- TS

We could combine sections: "Politics and foreign relations"?

The best thing to do is to reduce the extra listings - if it is truly a subtopic, it can be easily incorporated into the text, as I have dont for PM's of Australia. --Jiang 02:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree with that method. It forces people to read the text before they can drill down to articles which interest them. Lists stand out, and make it easy to see what information is available. Imagine if we replaced our main page with an essay about the state of human knowledge :) -- Tim Starling 02:36, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

 * Isn't the whole idea behing wiki is linking articles within the text? If it can be reasonably incorporated, it should be. We dont have massive "see also" lists at the bottom of every article here. That would be hideous. -Jiang

Renaming the sections as you propose seems like a good idea, considering that most country articles have a very short or nonexistent culture section and a politics section that is really about the government structure. Trying to change the categories for well-established articles (e.g. U.S.) could prove a challenge though. --Jiang 05:34, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Check this out: /Proposal 1 -- Tim Starling 02:59, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)
 * Comment on that page's talk. --Jiang

listing of national head of states in dependency articles

 * (For reference, my initial posting on User talk:Jiang): That's very unusual, but this time I disagree a bit with you. I believe that the president of the PRC should be in the Macau and HK tables. British colonies have the Queen listed in their tables, so why not include the top-level politician in charge of the "mother"-country. olivier 01:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which dependency articles are you talking about? I can't find any. A better question: which dependency articles have country templates applied to them?

I just think it's redundant to list the PRC president in the articles. The PRC president is given no special role or status in the SAR government. Hu is head of state in HK in his role as state president of the PRC, not in right in HK or Macau. We already know that HK is part of the PRC and that the PRC has a president. Who this individual is should be left to the PRC article. I dont see the need to list it in separate places. --Jiang 01:20, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * American Samoa, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands/Temp, Tuvalu, Wales. olivier 01:40, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * American Samoa - badly done; Bush is not "Chief of State". I would drop his name and add in the governor
 * Andorra - not a dependency; Chirac and Spanish guy are listed because their power as heads of state is granted by the andorran const., not becayse andorra is a dependency of France
 * Antigua and Barbuda- not a dependency; in each Commonwealth Realm, Queen Elizabeth is queen individually of that realm (i.e., Queen of Canada, etc), not because she is queen of the UK. IF the UK were the abolish its monarchy, she would still be queen of Canada.
 * Aruba- netherlands and aruba considered separate countries, " The monarch heads the executive branch (regering) of the kingdom and each country individually. "
 * Australia-same as above; not a dependency, a commonwealth realm
 * Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands/Temp, Tuvalu - same; not dependencies, "In these states she is officially known as the Monarch of that state, not as the monarch of Great Britain. "
 * Wales- what's with this one?

Note that Bush is not listed at Puerto Rico.

--Jiang 01:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Why are you fighting over the "dependency" denomination, which, by the way, I did not use? My initial comment was about the appropriateness of having the head of state of the PRC in the HK and Macau tables.

 * Article 12 of the HK Basic Law states: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government."

 * Therefore, by constitution, whoever is at the head of the "Central People's Government" is ultimately head of HK. Interestingly, that's the same situation as with Andorra, dependency consideration aside. Thus, the core of the question seems to be the redundancy thing for a territory that is a dependency of another one, but enjoys a high degree of autonomy.

 * I admit that the British colonies I was referring to in my initial posting are former ones - so, these examples were not relevant. The only current British colony which has a template applied is Pitcairn Islands, where only the governor is listed - note that this leaves some room for interpretation for all the other colonies' tables, which are yet to be completed. American Samoa would be a couter-example, but you do not like it on grounds that the description of the role of Bush there is incorrect. That does not mean that he should not be listed in the table under his appropriate relationship to the place. In the case of Puerto Rico, as you certainly know, the table has seen substantial remodelling very recently. Therefore, that has not left enough time for the Wikipedia community to reach a stable agreement on the contents of its table. The other US dependencies do not have a table yet. On the other hand, we did not include the Head of the PRC in the tables of the other first-level PRC's political divisions. Same applies for US states, French departements... but these territories do not enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" as HK and Macau do.

 * Unless we have further evidence that I missed, my conclusion is that the jury is still out for answering the question: "should we include the Head of State of the "mother"-country in the table of territories enjoying a large degree of autonomy?". This being said, if you feel strongly that Hu should leave the table, than feel free to remove him. My opinion at this point is quite neutral, slightly skewed toward the "he should be in the table" side. olivier 03:05, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As an example, Canadian province articles just list the proivincial premier at lt. governor, not the nation-wide queen, governor-general, or PM. (See British Columbia). --Jiang 00:44, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Largest city
I've decided to add "Largest city" to the template list, since I believe that it is a useful statistic, and that atlases list the largest city. WhisperToMe 06:53, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disapprove of how in Puerto Rico, San Juan is listed twice. If the capital is also the largest city, I don't think the same link should be listed twice right next to each other. Let it be implied. --Jiang 07:40, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If the capital and the largest city are the same, perhaps the single entry can read "Capital and Largest City:San Juan" WhisperToMe 17:08, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * That could probably be a viable option. olivier 20:24, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * It might get too long to fit in the table. Test it. --Jiang

 * It works on my computer, but my monitor is very large (Around 18-21"), so someone with a smaller monitor should test it. WhisperToMe 02:53, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Internet TLD link to ISO region codes?
Prior to becoming aware of this project I modified Democratic Republic of the Congo so that it's CD internet TLD linked to the page giving the related ISO 3166 codes for its regions. Seems like a useful place for it to link. Any views on this? JamesDay 02:57, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think all articles about Countries, Rivers, Lakes, Cities should also have a category, which describes, where the name comes from. E.g. the name America comes from Amerigo Vespuci. --Bernd 01:00, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the sound of that. JamesDay 23:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Locator Maps
My apologies if this has already been covered (I'm new here...), but I recently experimented with making additional locator maps similar to the one currently on the United States page. My first attempt (just an experiment) was:. I also made a map for Austria, showing one possible solution for the problem of countries that are a bit small - it's here:. Another option for smaller countries might be to have two maps (one for the world, one for the region). Anyway, is this something that people think is worthwhile? (Or have I completely missed something important, like someone already doing this?) - Vardion 00:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I am not aware of anyone having worked on this recently. In any case, I am very much in favor of having such locator maps included into the articles. I also like the idea of having 2 maps for the smaller countries. My suggestion is that you just go on and start including them as a test, and if yo do not hear any negative comment, just continue and make all the countries! (wish, wish). olivier 01:57, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I've added maps for Canada and Armenia (the later including a regional-level map as well as a world one). Is that suitable, do you think? I'll see whether anyone objects to them, anyway. If nobody does, I'll start to put up some for other countries. - Vardion 03:37, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the maps. Here is an alternative layout for small countries. Gives a large view of the area around the country while still providing global context. Blurred because I just magnified a portion of your first sample - goo d enough for a quick concept demo. JamesDay 06:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC).

 * Good idea. I'll try that for the other ones I try, and change them for the ones I've done so far. Thanks. - Vardion 09:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Looks great to me, thus far. Great job! olivier 15:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I've finished the countries beginning with A through C now, but please tell me if I've made a mistake somewhere (uploaded the wrong map, for example). One thing I was a bit concerned about, though, was what to do when the country page hasn't been converted to WikiProject Countries format yet - so far, I've just been placing the location map somewhere on the existing page, but perhaps I should wait until the page is changed over and I can put them in the correct place. Any suggestions as to what would be best?

Great job so far! Just place it in the talk page, but keep the image hidden by adding a colon - Imagename.png instead of Imagename.png --Jiang 09:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that keeping the locator map on the main article page of the countries which do not have the project format applied yet, is a good idea. The examples of (Angola - Bahrain - Benin - Botswana  - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Cameroon - Cape Verde - Central African Republic - Costa Rica) look good to me. In most cases the locator map is there along with the flag and the CIA world factbook country map. Why should it be hidden in the talk page? Having it on the main page enhances the quality of the page and makes its presence obvious to whoever wants to convert the article according to the project template. If it was hidden in the talk page, it could easily be ignored. olivier 14:29, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Main article sounds best to me as well. Might as well have the information there as soon as possible. JamesDay 23:31, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * OOps! you forgot to include the island of Corsica as part of France on the locator map. olivier 09:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks. That should be corrected now. If anyone notices any other mistakes, please let me know. (Also, while I'm here... I was wondering what people prefered in the way of borders around the edges of these maps... A through C have are borderless, while D through G have a dark grey border around them. I prefer the latter, but others may not. Any opinions?) - Vardion 03:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree about the gray link border color and you're doing an excellent job on these maps! JamesDay 02:14, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've finally finished maps for most countries (although I found at least two maps that someone else had helpfully made already - thanks). There may be some missing, or there may be some mistakes (wrong map uploaded or something), so please let me know if anyone finds something strange. Also, a lot of the maps could be improved in a number of ways (changing the scale, and suchlike), so feel free to improve on anything I've made. To help with this, I will be putting the blank map I was working from up at my user page - I created it myself, and so there's no copyright problem in people using it. It should be up soon.

Some of the maps need to be redone with the grey border, which I only started using part way through. This shouldn't be very difficult for me to fix - I'll try to do that soon. If anyone has suggestions for other things, please let me know. Also, thanks to everyone who's given me comments and suggestions already - it's been most helpful. :-) - Vardion 07:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excellent! Now, if you get really bored, next step down is regions within countries...(ducking):) JamesDay 11:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think maps for Vatican City, Monaco, San Marino, Singapore, and other small countries need to be redone as they are virtually invisible on the locator maps. Maybe an arrow or a circle will do? --seav 17:47, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Canary Islands are missing from the map of Spain, but maybe they are too small At18 18:27, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

May be a stupid question, but how can you make a table of contents?

 * It is generated automatically, see Section. olivier 11:23, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


text:
Fuji Bank

The Fuji Bank, Limited (株式会社富士銀行) was one of Japan's major banks during the post–World War II era. It combined with Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank and the Industrial Bank of Japan in 2000 to form Mizuho Financial Group, and changed its name to Mizuho Corporate Bank in 2002 after transferring its retail banking operations to Mizuho Bank.

Foundation and development
Fuji Bank traces its history as far back as the old Yasuda zaibatsu.

Zenjiro Yasuda, a migrant from Toyama, opened a dry goods store in the Nihonbashi area of Edo in 1864, known as Yasuda-ya (lit. House of Yasuda). After the Meiji Restoration in 1869, the company underwrote bonds for the Japanese government, whose credit standing was low then, and financed many public works such as railroads, harbor constructions, and so forth. The company was incorporated in 1880 with a share capital of 10 million yen, and changed its name to Yasuda Bank.

In the Taishō period, the Japanese banking community was thrown into financial difficulties because of World War I and the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. In the immediate wake of the earthquake, Yasuda absorbed ten smaller regional banks which lacked a sufficient financial base to cover their deposits. This merger made Yasuda Bank the largest in Japan by several measures, with share capital of 150 million yen, deposits of 542 million yen, loans of 521 million yen, 211 branches and 3,700 employees.

After World War II
Following World War II, the Yasuda zaibatsu was dissolved by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. On October 1, 1948, Yasuda Bank changed its name to The Fuji Bank, Limited, named after Mount Fuji. Fuji formed the Fuyo Group, one of the largest keiretsu, together with other former Yasuda zaibatsu companies.

As the Japanese economy was rebuilt after the war, Fuji Bank expanded its business in syndicated lending, corporate banking, public money management, mortgages and retail financial services. However, the formation of Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank (DKB) in 1971 dethroned Fuji from its top status in the Japanese banking industry. In an attempt to restore its preeminence, Fuji agreed to merge with Osaka-based Sanwa Bank in the late 1970s, but failed to win approval from the Ministry of Finance. Sumitomo Bank also rose as an intense competitor to Fuji in the 1980s, and both banks aggressively courted similar corporate banking clients, growing their loan portfolios dramatically with what would later become non-performing loans. Fuji Capital Markets Corp. was founded in New York in 1990 going on to become one of the lead players in the swaps market. FCMC went on to open an offices in London in 1992 and Hong Kong in 1994 which still exist as Mizuho Capital Markets Corp. FCMC was one of the first Japanese Banks to connect to the internet, registering the fcmc.com domain in 1993. However, following the collapse of the Japanese asset price bubble in the early 1990s, Fuji and other Japanese banks were increasingly troubled by bad loans and inadequate back-office systems. Fuji attempted to diversify its domestic services, establishing Fuji Securities and Fuji Trust & Banking Co. in 1994, but neither subsidiary was able to make substantial profits.

On November 24, 1997, Yamaichi, Fuji Bank's affiliated securities firm, announced it would cease operations and was declared bankrupt by the Tokyo District Court. Fuji's inability to support Yamaichi led to a rapid fall in Fuji's stock price on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Between 1998 and 2000, Fuji laid off thousands of employees and borrowed one trillion yen of public funds. Yasuda Trust & Banking, Fuji's affiliated trust company, entered severe financial difficulties in 1999 and sought an additional capital injection from Fuji. Fuji was still experiencing its own difficulties and could not afford to rescue Yasuda. However, Fuji and DKB were able to negotiate a three-party transaction in which Fuji and DKB merged their respective trust banks, and the merged company acquired the corporate and pension divisions of Yasuda Trust.

Merger
On September 29, 2000, all shares of Fuji, DKB and the Industrial Bank of Japan were acquired by a newly formed Mizuho Holdings. The three banks continued to operate separately pending their final legal merger.

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York's World Trade Center, Fuji Bank's United States offices were located at the impact zone of United Airlines Flight 175 in 2 World Trade Center (the South Tower) occupying the office space on the 79th through 82nd floors. After the North Tower was hit, the managers rushed to evacuate their employees. Within fifteen minutes, the managers had successfully evacuated 120 employees. However, 23 Fuji Bank employees died in the attack. Fuji Bank employee Stanley Praimnath was one of only eighteen remaining people located at the South Tower's collision zone to survive. DKB's offices were located in the North Tower.

On April 1, 2002, Fuji acquired the corporate banking operations of DKB and absorbed all operations of IBJ, renaming itself Mizuho Corporate Bank. DKB simultaneously acquired the individual banking operations of Fuji and renamed itself Mizuho Bank. Both banks became wholly owned subsidiaries of Mizuho Financial Group. The legal merger of Mizuho Corporate Bank with Mizuho Bank took place on July 1, 2013.

title: Fuji Bank


text: User talk:63.136.99.41

title: User talk:63.136.99.41