text:
John Eatwell, Baron Eatwell

John Leonard Eatwell, Baron Eatwell, (born 2 February 1945) is a British economist who was President of Queens' College, Cambridge, from 1996 to 2020. A former senior advisor to the Labour Party, Lord Eatwell sat in the House of Lords as a non-affiliated peer from 2014 to 2020, before returning to the Labour bench.

Early life and education
Eatwell was born on 2 February 1945. He was educated at Headlands Grammar School in Swindon in Wiltshire. He studied at Queens' College, Cambridge, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in 1967: as per tradition, his BA was promoted to a Master of Arts (MA Cantab) degree in 1971. As a Kennedy Scholar, he studied at Harvard University and graduated with a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in 1975.

Academic career

While studying for his doctorate at Harvard University, Eatwell was a teaching fellow in the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences from 1968 to 1969 and a research fellow at Queens' College, Cambridge, from 1969 to 1970. In 1970, he was elected a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and would stay with the college for the next 36 years. Having completed his doctorate in 1975, he was an assistant lecturer (1975–1977) and then lecturer (1977–2002) in the University of Cambridge's Faculty of Economics and Politics. He was additionally a visiting professor in economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City from 1982 to 1996. He was President of Queens' College, Cambridge, from 1997 to 2020, and Professor of Financial Policy at the Cambridge Judge Business School from 2002 to 2012.

In May 2014, Lord Eatwell was appointed Chair of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Policy Research (IPR) at the University of Bath.

Political career
Eatwell was chief economic adviser to Neil Kinnock, the then-Leader of the Labour Party, from 1985 to 1992.

He was created a life peer as Baron Eatwell, of Stratton St Margaret in the County of Wiltshire, on 14 July 1992, and joined the House of Lords as a Labour peer. From 1992 to 1993, he was the opposition spokesman on Treasury affairs, and on trade and industry. He served as Principal Opposition spokesman on Treasury and economic affairs in the House of Lords from 1993 to 1997.

In 2010, he was appointed a Labour Opposition Spokesman for the Treasury in the House of Lords by former leader Ed Miliband. From 27 March 2014 to 23 April 2020, he sat as a non-affiliated peer. Once more sitting as a Labour peer, he has served on the Lords Industry and Regulators Committee since 14 April 2021.

Other works
Eatwell was chair of CRUSAID, an HIV/AIDS charity, from 1993 to 1998, and of the British Library Board from 2001 to 2006.

Personal life
Eatwell was married to Hélène Seppain, with whom he has three children, the Hon. Nikolai Eatwell (a partner at Clifford Chance), the Hon Vladimir Eatwell (a software developer), and the Hon. Tatyana Eatwell (a barrister).

Chapters in books

 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.

Journal articles

 * (Originally printed in Ekonomiska in 1973.)
 * Pdf version.
 * (Originally printed in Ekonomiska in 1973.)
 * Pdf version.
 * (Originally printed in Ekonomiska in 1973.)
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.
 * Pdf version.

Papers

 * Eatwell, John; Ellman, Michael; Karlsson, Mats; Nuti Mario; and Shapiro, Judith. (1997) Not 'just another accession': the political economy of EU enlargement to the East. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
 * Eatwell, John and Taylor, Lance (2000) Capital flows and the international financial architecture: a paper from the Project on Development, Trade, and International Finance. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
 * Eatwell, John; Ellman, Michael; Karlsson, Mats; Nuti Mario; and Shapiro, Judith. (2000) Hard budgets and soft states: social policy choices in central and eastern Europe. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
 * Eatwell, John; Alexander, Kern; Persaud, Avinash; and Reoch, Robert. (2007) Financial supervision and crisis management in the EU. Brussels: European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

title: John Eatwell, Baron Eatwell


text:
User:Jwgh

Jacob Haller (aka jwgh) was born on May 27, 1972 in Fayetteville, Arkansas and currently lives in Providence, RI.

He attended Brown University (off and on) from 1990 through 2000, at which point he finally got a BA in Mathematics. He has worked in tech support since 1993 (when he got a job working for Brown's Student Consulting Program).

He also plays piano and guitar and sings in the Providence-based blues band The Killdevils and is one of the founders of the fake Internet band Interröbang Cartel.

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

title: User:Jwgh


text:
User talk:Andrevan/Archives/5

A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Firefox on Main page
I know you're keen on getting the Firefox article onto the main page. You might already know this, but now that it's gained featured status you can request for it to be put on the main page at the tomorrow's featured article talk page. CheekyMonkey 14:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Timing of page protection suspect
It is noted that the timing of your placing protection over the Medical analysis of circumcision is suspicious to say the least. Would you like to declare your interest inthe subject please. - Robert the Bruce 06:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry I don't buy that. Why did you wait until the edit was made by the most extreme of editors? This is an issue which is needed to be raised at policy level at Wikipedia. This "shooting from the hip" by passing admins must be controlled. If you know nothing about the subject then stay away. The system is not working when there is a 50/50 chance of whose version gets to be protected. All one has to do to beat the system is to get a "tame" admin to protect the page after ones edit has been made. I will be raising this issue on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as you gunslingers must be restrained. - Robert the Bruce 07:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually the protection policy says more than that. It even gives guidelines as to which version to protect. But gunslingers never worry about the fineprint. You needed to take this particular individuals history into account. You did not. Read up on it: - Robert the Bruce 07:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert, this isn't the first time I've caught you launching a personal attack on someone you disagree with. Could you please consider what your choice of words does to the atmosphere in this Wiki? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 07:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Go away Tony. You are one step away from stalking me. - Robert the Bruce 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I once again plead with you to moderate your language. Words like "stalking", "gunslingers" and the like are more reminiscent of Usenet flame wars than civil discussion.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 16:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony would you please stop stalking me. - Robert the Bruce 17:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As a matter of interest, can you recall any discussion on WikiPedia in which you have strongly disagreed with someone but not impugned their motives or personality for expressing that disagreement? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 18:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That guideline is strictly permissive. You can always appeal to another admin to unprotect. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have made my point. I believe you came in shooting from the hip. I don't expect you to back down in public. My point is simple the system failled. Any system which acts like a flip of a coin, protecting an article has a 50/50 possibility of entrenching a particular version. This is not clever. Sadly, however the likelihood of a particular POV being so entrenched has better than 50/50 odds ... that is a real concern. - Robert the Bruce 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The POV dispute notice is still on the page in question. While you are pushing your POV and the other guy is pushing his, and neither of you is interested in compromise, it's likely to remain there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 16:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Editing userpages
I just noticed on user's personal pages, you can edit them.

Why is this allowed? I couldn't think of a good reason why, and was wondering what the reasoning behind it is? GregNorc 20:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * Is there a place where newbies can go and ask "dumb" questions?

 * I don't want to clutter up your talk page, and the search function is down.

 * Thanks
 * GregNorc 20:52, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Andre! I'll keep an eye (or a Firefox tab at least) on the instructions that you sent! --Daedelus 20:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And thanks for supporting my bid for adminship! --Woggly 20:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Three revert rule
Don't talk to me like I'm a moron, Andre. I'm the only one who's made any serious attempt to discuss anything in this dispute, and I've been ignored every single time. If you want to talk about being "impolite", check out the talk page to see what Reene has written about me in the last few days. I suggest you block her for 24 hours for vandalism. Everyking 01:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the note on Reene's talk page, Andre? Everyking 02:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi
If it helps, I don't think you did anything out of the ordinary by locking the page on whatever version was the latest. However, I believe a User:Robert Blair is anonymously editing things as a SockPuppet in his revert wars, and a few other users as well (on unrelated subjects). What would be the proper method to look into such things?--Josiah
 * Umm... who/what exactly is a developer? (Please forgive me if i'm being dense tonight)--Josiah 21:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

America's Army
I would appreciate it if you could take a look at America's Army. I am of the opinion that a lot of recent additions have made the article POV (see section: "Culture"). I also believe that a lot of the information currently added is copied from articles that are also linked on the article and would fall under copyright infringement. (See the talk page). Thanks for your time. K1Bond007 00:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Just an update, the article is now looking like it's going to go through a revert war (again). Since your edit, it's been reverted 3 times. K1Bond007 18:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

1) there is no copyright infringement; "I also believe that a lot of the information currently added is copied from articles that are also linked on the article and would fall under copyright infringement." if the article is from wikipedia as well, there's no copyright infringement and if the information fits to both articles it should be in both articles 2) if there's a POV (see section: "Culture"), discuss it 3) if you create a "revert war" you force me to do the same User talk:62.52.37.172

 * The exact same line found in the Guardian editorial was found in the America's Army article. AA Article: "...the U.S. Army, the world's biggest games developer, pumping billions into new software,.." Guardian: "The US army is the world's biggest games developer, pumping billions into new software." This is copyright infringement. I also point to this line found in the Guardian: "Essentially a playable piece of PC propaganda", which was ALSO written exactly the same in the America's Army wiki article. Because of just these two lines (have yet to search for more) I do believe that the America's Army article should be reviewed for further possible compright problems. By the way, I believe you're getting Andre and myself mixed up here. If you wish to discuss this further see my talk page. 2). The section "Culture" was discussed in the talk page on more than one occasion. K1Bond007 22:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

then only remove the POVs but let the rest (like accounts & Honour) because it does NOT contain POV at all and is based on facts that can be read at the official website User talk:62.52.37.172

oic
Has it been on the front page though? I think it should be GregNorc 02:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

linking with &
Hi Andrevan, I was hoping you could help me with an editing question. I've RTFM. Luckily, there's an example of what I've trying to do on your user page: "4,300 edits"

Is there a way to do this without making it an external link? For example, I'd guess the syntax would be something like 4,300 edits, but that produces an error. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.--Pdurbin 15:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Cool! But what about something like this? recent changes With an ampersand in it so I can use the "hideminor=1" variable. Thanks! --Pdurbin 21:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I got your message about not being able to link internally with &. Oh well.  Thanks for checking this out for me! --Pdurbin 22:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA
You commented:
 * 1) Oppose as per comment added by Michael Snow. 6 months may be time enough to gain sufficient experience and maturity after making such a statement, but I can't see a big difference. Andre ( talk )A| 20:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Would you please explain "but I can't see a big difference"?GeneralPatton 20:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * you wrote "What I meant was, I don't think you've matured much since that quote of yours."
 * Well, could you kindly further elaborate on that, with an example? GeneralPatton 20:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * you wrote "I don't think you understand at this point what adminship is about, based on your response to the bringing up of the quote."
 * In what way was the response inappropriate? I just explained what I was thinking at the time. I see no way how would that impair my possible performance as an administrator, as NPOV our policy, and I’ve never personally pushed for a POV, no matter how i felt. GeneralPatton 21:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * you worote "I don't think you'd be a bad administrator, I'm just not confident enough in you to support."
 * Well, you can always vote Neutral, If you want, I can assure you, that as an admin, if I do something that you and the community thinks is inappropriate, I will resign immediately. I really try to follow the rules myself, I’ve never for instance violated the 3 revert rule and do my best to stay out of perpetual revert wars. I believe in creating content, and feel adminship would help me fight vandalism, but i'd never miss-use it in an editorial discussion. GeneralPatton 21:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PictoChat, Wi-Fi
In response to the message left in my talk page, I already stated that PictoChat uses Nintendo's own proprietary technology, which is seperate from Wi-Fi. Games such as Super Mario 64 DS use the same protocol. Wi-Fi will be used for Internet capabilities sometime...whenever that is. --Evice 22:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Keeping track of my user pages...
Is there a way? I put this one, I was using it to test my sig (which though it's probably simply to most vets, I'm quit proud of it)

I put the page on my watch list, but it doesn't show up. I planned on making a page to store articles I'm working on, but I don't want to have to bookmark it.

Also, how do I delete one of my own pages? Do I just blank it, or will someone not be able to see I own it and revert the "vandalism"?

Thanks a ton

GregNorc|[[User talk:GregNorc|Talk]] 21:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Meetup
Your name is on the list at Meetup/NYC for December 12. In case you forgot to check the page, the venue and time have been both been set. We are planning on meeting at the Moonstruck Diner at 1:30pm. Just wanted to let you know. --   – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   23:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

America's Army craziness from User:Nightbeast
(oh, andre, it's a bit pathetic that all you have as facts against what I have is the simple and childish allegation "craziness"... *clearing my throat*...) YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LIAR, ANDRE. You quit because you could NEVER oppose my arguments since you neither had arguments nor had facts against my arguments. You still haven't commented on the improvements but while we were in an edit dispute, you had your friend lock it in fovor of your version. Policy: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." Thus you totally ignored that one. Your little friend called what I did "vandalism". However, it was not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. If it was something then it was stubbornness  but that's not vandalism and I didn't revert the page but create improved ones. I did most of the article from the correct dates of all versions over to the correct history and to gameplay. I only tried to improve it so it wasn't even stubborness, I kept my mind open all the time. You? You had it locked and tried to dig in the same aspects of the conversation we already had again and again to distract. You changed the article in your favour, lost the argumentation and now you try to win it by calling my arguments "nonsensical" - which is pathetic, since you were the ones without objective ones - and now you run away to have the last word and to win because you locked the article with your version. By the way, you lied about the 3-revert-rule too. On that day, the article has been reverted two times by me, not 3. (1st: from 22:18, 2 Dec 2004 to 22:02, 2 Dec 2004 . 2nd: from 22:57, 2 Dec 2004 to 22:18, 2 Dec) There were only two reverts by me. You? 1st, You reverted from 21:49, 2 Dec 2004 to 21:33, 2 Dec 2004, 2nd from  22:06, 2 Dec 2004 to 21:33, 2 Dec 2004, 3rd from 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 to 22:06, 2 Dec 2004. 3?!?! 3-revert-rule... you remember that word? There hasn't been vandalization by me (look that word up again) but you banned me instead of you. You even banned IPs from me only to keep your version!!! You're abusing your admin rights all the time and I tolerated that. The very least thing you could do is open the main article again and let it improve. Before I came, before I affected the page, it looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=7907161 Now, with the version I'd like, it would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=America%27s_Army&oldid=8163028 So could you please open it again and make way for progression?

"First of all, I didn't protect the page, Rdsmith4 did, to stop what he (rightfully) called vandalism" Yeah you must be feeling so cool having tricked the system! Just call your admin friend, probably just told him "help me please. just protect that page. thanks." Vandalism: Spam Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion. VandalBot A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive amounts of articles (hundreds or thousands), blanking, or adding commercial links.

Childish vandalism Adding graffiti or blanking pages.

Silly vandalism Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense (example (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia&oldid=3005270)), or add silly jokes to existing articles.

Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation and typos. Attention-seeking vandalism

Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) User page vandalism

Replacing User pages with insults, profanity, etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) Image vandalism

Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Template vandalism

Adding any of the above to templates

Does any of these fit to me??? No! "I did not block it, as policy dictates, though I would have liked to! As for the revert rule: as anyone can see in the page history, I had only three edits on December 2nd:"

Yes, you're right, 3 edits from you consisting of three reverts. I had 8 edits, containing 2 reverts. Bond had 3 edits, containing two reverts. So why me? Because I added negative aspects of the game to the article which mainly neglected negative aspects. This article is not meant to be advertisement at all. Both positive and negative aspects belong to it. "On December 5th, which is what I blocked you for the second time, you had something like 5 reverts and I had 3 reverts, with one compromise attempt - a normal change, not a revert. Changes are not the same as reverts. K1Bond007 probably had several as well. Then, you returned with other IPs and continually reverted, so I banned the IPs." On that day I had 6 edits, containing 3 reverts. You had 13 edits, containing 3 reverts. Grover had one revert and some ugen had one too. Still no reason for banning me! "As policy dictates, I am not going to unprotect the page, because I was involved in it. Another admin will have to do that. I'm not going to be involved any longer because I don't care enough about it to be stressed out by your nonsensical (yes, nonsensical), POV, and biased arguments" So when is it going to be unprotected??? Never??? Why don't you tell that guy who locked it to unlock it??? Oh I see, you prefer your version and want it published as long as possible because... it's yoooouuur version with yooooouuur POV. You replaced the word "propaganda" with "advertisement" which is not the same and fails to define it correctly, but I must admit, it sounds better. And I must admit: if you only name that shooting teammates is punished and don't mention that shooting opponents of the US army is lastingly rewarded and indirectly called honorable, it sounds better too. And if you don't mention "propaganda", one of the strongest negative arguments IMO, in the first section of the text but that's for free and has the UT engine and many players... that sounds pretty good as well. But it makes it POV. There's no POV in mine, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. You can try to devaluate my arguments with any word you want, though, they'll remain valid and stable arguments while basically you have none.

Also, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism." Simple vandalism is indisputable—don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with." was totally ignored although it should be the case. Within a week, I added three main sections which you too agreed on. I've always tried to correct mistakes, search for compromies and convince on the talk page.

It is clear that it was a normal edit war in which you disputed and because you were invloved asked another admin to protect your version. It was on no account vandalism or anything. "Vandalism" is just the excuse in order that the following rules counts in favor of you: "In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." The policy doesn't say you're not allowed to unprotect it so you can do that, especially because there's a solution on the talk page, isn't there? No one has ever opposed the version I suggested (but which was ignored and immeiately called "vandalism"). But what about the article?? Are you trying to keep up a semi-permanently protection and simply stop participating in the talk page to take away all chances of improvement of this article or are you going to make it unprotected again? It's all up to you. You have influence, I don't.Nightbeast 23:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism." Simple vandalism is indisputable—don't confuse it with edits which you simply disagree with." was totally ignored although it should be the case. Within a week, I added three main sections which you too agreed on. I've always tried to correct mistakes, search for compromies and convince on the talk page.

It is clear that it was a normal edit war in which you disputed and because you were invloved asked another admin to protect your version. It was on no account vandalism or anything. "Vandalism" is just the excuse in order that the following rules counts in favor of you: "In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version." The policy doesn't say you're not allowed to unprotect it so you can do that, especially because there's a solution on the talk page, isn't there? No one has ever opposed the version I suggested (but which was ignored and immeiately called "vandalism").

 * IF ANYONE OPPOSES MY PROPOSAL OF CHANGE OF THE AAO-ARTICLE, EXPRESS IT (with arguments) NOW, OR REMAIN QUIET AND ACCEPT IT. IF THERE'S NOONE OPPOSING IT, I'LL CALL THE DISPUTE, THE EDIT CONFLICT, FINISHED IN TWO DAYS AND OFFICIALLY CALL FOR IMMEDIATE UNRPOTECTION OF THE SITE.

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey :-)
I didn't get to them all. I got blocked by User:Silsor, though I got no warning from him! I'm pretty steamed about the whole issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm getting over the steamed up business pretty fast. Anyway, at least something constructive has come out of this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request
Hi, Neutrality and I are engaged in an edit war. He has also contributed to a request for arbitration (and RfC) against me. He has just blocked me.

Please note that the block occurred just after I had discovered a new RfAr against myself, and was starting to provide rebuttals to it.

I consider this an abuse of his adminship.

Could you look into this action, and consider whether un-blocking me is appropriate? CheeseDreams 23:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit count
Out of curiosity is there an easy way to find out how many articles you created etc or are you just keeping count? LOL.. I just want to know for grins and I'm not about to go through my history LOL :) K1Bond007 23:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

RFCs
OK, I won't take them away again. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrevan/Archives/5


text:
Arunachal macaque

The Arunachal macaque (Macaca munzala) is a macaque native to Eastern Himalayas of Bhutan, China and India. It is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List.

It was scientifically described in 2005.

It is a relatively large brown primate with a comparatively short tail. Its species name comes from mun zala, meaning deep forest (mun) monkey (monkey), as it is called by the Monpa people of West Kameng and Tawang.

Discovery
It was discovered as a new taxon in 1997 by the Indian primatologist Anwaruddin Choudhury, but he thought it to be a new subspecies of the Tibetan macaque (M. thibetana). It was described as a new species in 2005 by a group of scientists from the Nature Conservation Foundation, India. It is the first species of macaque to have been discovered since 1903, when the Indonesian Pagai Island macaque was discovered. This monkey was reported on the basis of a good quality photograph as the holotype. In 2011, some researchers suggested, on the basis of morphological variation within the Assamese macaque, that it might be better treated as a subspecies.

Subsequently, it was also discovered in Bhutan, where it was observed and photographed in the Trashi Yangshi area in 2006.

Description
The Arunachal macaque is compactly built and has a very dark face. It lives at high altitudes, between 2000 m and 3500 m above sea level, making it one of the highest-dwelling primates. It belongs to the M. sinica species-group of macaques, along with the Assamese macaque (M. assamensis), the Tibetan macaque, the bonnet macaque (M. radiata) and the toque macaque (M. sinica).

The Arunachal macaque is apparently physically similar to the Assam and Tibetan macaques, while genetically closely related to the bonnet macaque of southern India. This is probably the result of convergent evolution, where organisms evolve similar physical features due to similar environmental selection pressure, while genetically they may have different origins.

Kumar et al. (2008) and Sinha et al. (2006) report at least 569 individuals in thirty-five troops; thirty-two troops in Tawang and three troops in West Kameng. The monkey is severely persecuted in some parts of its known distribution by locals retaliating against crop raiding.

title: Arunachal macaque


text:
Skipping

Skipping may refer to:

 * A hopping gait that comes naturally to children
 * A game or form of exercise using a skipping rope
 * Exon skipping, in molecular biology
 * Stone skipping, throwing a stone so that it bounces off the surface of water
 * String skipping, a guitar-playing technique
 * Snowmobile skipping, a sport where drivers hydroplane snowmobiles on lakes or rivers
 * British slang for dumpster diving
 * an episode of the television series Teletubbies
 * a song by the band Associates from their 1982 album Sulk
 * Truancy

title: Skipping


text:
User talk:PresbyPaul

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you can balance the Presbyterian Church (USA) article. Rmhermen 21:52, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi, I had forgotten to undo the cut and paste move of the talk pages when I reverted the article pages. I have moved your comments to the new page, but that talk page might not be on your watchlist. If you want to make sure that any updates to the article or talk page show up on you watchlist, you might want to go to the talk page and click "Watch" at the top (if it says "Unwatch", then it is already on your watchlist). 21:54, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:PresbyPaul


text:
Talk:Robert Strauss

Several of the pages that link here are about an actor- is this the same person, or do we need a disambig? -FZ 21:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There was an article about Robert Strauss (actor) which was deleted for some reason. I can't find any deletion log or move log. Robert Strauss (Actor) was a U.S. character actor who's greatest claim to fame was in Stalag 17.--TGC55 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Strauss


text:
British Rail Class 370

British Rail's Class 370 tilting trains, also referred to as APT-P (meaning Advanced Passenger Train Prototype), were the pre-production Advanced Passenger Train units. Unlike the earlier experimental gas-turbine APT-E unit, these units were powered by 25 kV AC overhead electrification and were used on the West Coast Main Line between London Euston and Glasgow Central. The APT-P is the most powerful domestic train to have operated in Britain, the eight traction motors fitted to the two central motor cars giving a total output of 8000 hp. This enabled the train to set the UK rail speed record of 162.2 mph in December 1979, a record that stood for 23years until broken by a Eurostar Class 373 on the newly completed High Speed 1 line.

History
The APT-P was unveiled to the public on 7 June 1978 and continued to be used for testing into 1986. Due to ongoing technical problems with these pre-production units, and a lack of cash or political will to take the project forward, the planned APT-S (Advanced Passenger Train Squadron Service) production-series units were never built, but did influence the design of the later InterCity 225 sets designed for the East Coast Main Line electrification. The influence is strongest with the Class 91 locos which took many features from the APT power cars. The technology was later sold to Fiat Ferroviaria and used for improving their second generation Pendolino trains which are used worldwide, including on the West Coast Main Line as the Class 390.

Numbering
Units were numbered 370001-370006 (plus two spare cars labelled 370007) and were formed as follows:
 * 48101-48107 - Driving Trailer Second
 * 48201-48206 - Trailer Second
 * 48401-48406 - Trailer Restaurant Second Buffet
 * 48301-48306 - Trailer Unclassified
 * 48501-48506 - Trailer First
 * 48601-48607 - Trailer Brake First
 * 49001-49006 - Non-Driving Motor

A full train was made up of two units running back-to-back, with the two motor cars adjoining. The motor cars had no seating accommodation or through-gangway, so the two halves of the train were unconnected for passengers.

Withdrawal and preservation
All six units were withdrawn during 1985–1986, and most cars were quickly scrapped. The remaining cars are exhibited at Crewe Heritage Centre, a museum located next to Crewe station.
 * Of these, six cars are formed into a single train:
 * 48103 - Driving Trailer Second
 * 48404 - Trailer Restaurant Second Buffet
 * 48603 - Trailer Brake First
 * 49002 - Non-Driving Motor
 * 48602 - Trailer Brake First
 * 48106 - Driving Trailer Second
 * A single Non-Driving Motor car does not form part of the train and is exhibited separately:
 * 49006 - Non-Driving Motor (not part of the above train) was on loan to the Electric Railway Museum in Coventry from July 2011 until its closure in October 2017 and moved back to Crewe Heritage Centre in March 2018.

Models
In 1980, Hornby Railways produced a OO gauge five-car set model available as a train set with plain yellow fronts, which was released as a five-car train pack with black fronts and window surrounds in 1981, until appearing in the 1983 catalogue when the train set was last produced. In 1984 it was discontinued from the Hornby range. However, it was featured in the 1985 catalogue, although no new models were produced that year.

In 2020, Hornby Railways announced that as part of their centenary year range - and both the 40th anniversaries of the year it entered service and the original Hornby model a newly tooled OO gauge model of the BR Class 370 Advanced Passenger Train would be launched. The APT-P will be available as part of a five-car train pack consisting of sets 370 003 and 370 004 with plain yellow fronts included are DTS, TFB, NDM (motorised), TFB and DTS and a seven-car train pack included is the APT U Development coach, consisting of sets 370 001 and 370 002 with DTS, TBF, NDM (motorised), NDM (dummy), TBF and DTS in APT livery with black front and window surrounds with the additional SKU' coaches available separately in four sets of two including TS, TU, TRBS, and TF with the additional NDM (motorised) and the APT U Development coach,(for the five-car pack) for each set to form a realistic complete full rake train for both train packs.

Literature

 * APT-P: The Intercity Development Train Publisher: British Railways
 * The Shape of Travel to Come Publisher: British Railways
 * British Rail's Advanced Passenger Train Publisher: British Railways
 * APT Course Notes Publisher: British Railways Scottish Region

title: British Rail Class 370


text: User talk:69.225.16.59

title: User talk:69.225.16.59


text:
Brunello di Montalcino

Brunello di Montalcino is a red DOCG Italian wine produced in the vineyards surrounding the town of Montalcino, in the province of Siena, located about 80 km south of Florence, in the Tuscan wine region. Brunello, a diminutive of bruno (lit. 'brown'), is the name that was given locally to what was believed to be an individual grape variety grown in Montalcino. In 1879 the province of Siena's Amphelographic Commission determined, after a few years of controlled experiments, that Sangiovese and Brunello were the same grape variety, and that the former should be its designated name. In Montalcino the name Brunello evolved into the designation of the wine produced with 100% Sangiovese.

In 1980, Brunello di Montalcino was among the four wines awarded the first denominazione di origine controllata e garantita (DOCG) designation. Today it is one of Italy's best-known and most expensive wines.

History
One of the first records of "Brunello" was a red wine that was made in the Montalcino area in the early 14th century. In 1831, marchese Cosimo Ridolfi (who was later appointed Prime Minister of Tuscany by the Grand Duke Leopold II) praised the merits of the red wines of Montalcino above all others in Tuscany. In 1865, an agricultural fair in Montalcino noted that the prize winning wine of the event was a "select red wine" known as a Brunello. In the mid-19th century, a local farmer named Clemente Santi isolated certain plantings of Sangiovese vines in order to produce a 100% varietal wine that could be aged for a considerable period of time. In 1888, his grandson Ferruccio Biondi-Santi—a veteran soldier who fought under Giuseppe Garibaldi during the Risorgimento—released the first "modern version" of Brunello di Montalcino that was aged for over a decade in large wood barrels.

By the end of World War II, Brunello di Montalcino had developed a reputation as one of Italy's rarest wines. The only commercial producer recorded in government documents was the Biondi-Santi firm, which had declared only four vintages up to that point—1888, 1891, 1925, and 1945. The high price and prestige of these wines soon encouraged other producers to emulate Biondi-Santi's success. By the 1960s there were 11 producers making Brunello, and in 1968 the region was granted denominazione di origine controllata (DOC) status. By 1970 the number of producers had more than doubled to 25, and by 1980 there were 53 producers. In 1980, the Montalcino region was the first Italian wine region to be awarded denominazione di origine controllata e garantita (DOCG) designation. By the turn of the 21st century, there were nearly 200 producers of Brunello di Montalcino, mostly small farmers and family estates, together producing nearly 330,000 cases a year.

In 2008, Italian authorities confiscated four producers' 2003 Brunello on charges that the producers had committed fraud by including foreign varietals such as Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot in the wine that they then fraudulently labeled as Brunello di Montalcino, which by law may only contain Sangiovese grapes. Laboratory tests later confirmed that the confiscated wines were in fact Brunello except for a small portion that remained inconclusive.

Climate and geography
Montalcino has one of the warmest and driest climates in Tuscany with the grapes in the area ripening up to a week earlier than in nearby Montepulciano. It is the most arid Tuscan DOCG, receiving an average annual rainfall of around 700 mm, in contrast to the Chianti region which receives an average of 900 mm. As with all of the Northern Hemisphere, the north-facing slopes receive fewer hours of sunlight and are generally cooler than the south-facing slopes. Thus, vineyards planted on the north-facing slopes ripen more slowly and tend to produce wines that are racier and more aromatic. Vineyards on the southern and western slopes receive more intense exposure to sunlight and more maritime winds which produces wines with more power and complexity. The top producers in the area have vineyards on both slopes, and make use of a blend of both styles.

The town of Montalcino is a small medieval village located about 564 m above sea level in the province of Siena. The wine district is centered to the northeast of the village in densely wooded and hilly terrain. Monte Amiata, the highest peak in Southern Tuscany, provides a sheltering influence from the southeast and tempers the region's climate and rainfall. Compared to the nearly 41,000 acre of planted land in Chianti, Montalcino is a relatively small wine region with around 3,000 acre planted. Vineyards in Montalcino are planted in varied soils—including limestone, clay, schist, volcanic soil and a crumbly marl known as galestro—at altitudes ranging from 149 m to 500 m. This diversity in terroir contributes to the vast range in quality and potential complexity of Brunello di Montalcino.

According to Kerin O'Keefe, "Although sangiovese excels in select parts of Montalcino, it does not perform as well throughout the whole denomination thanks to the dramatic differences within the large growing area." O'Keefe is in favor of putting subzones on the labels as this would greatly help consumers understand the stark differences among Brunellos from Montalcino's greatly varied territory, proposing 8 subzones: Montalcino North, Montalcino South, Castelnuovo dell'Abate, Camigliano, Tavernelle, Bosco, Torrenieri, Sant'Angelo.

Winemaking and regulations
Brunello di Montalcino is made 100% from Sangiovese. Traditionally, the wine goes through an extended maceration period, where color and flavor are extracted from the skins. Following fermentation, the wine is then aged in oak. Traditionally, the wines are aged 3 years or more in botte—large Slavonian oak casks that impart little oak flavor and generally produce more austere wines. Some winemakers will use small French barrique which impart a more pronounced vanilla oak flavor. There is a middle ground where the wine is aged in small barrique for a short time and then spends a longer sojourn in the traditional botte.

Most producers will separate their production between a Normale and Riserva bottling. The Normale bottles are released on the market 50 months after harvest and the Riserva are released a year afterward. The current aging requirements were established in 1998 and dictate that Brunellos are to be aged in oak for 2 years and at least 4 months in a bottle before release. Winemakers who intentionally stray from these rules and regulations can possibly receive a conviction of commercial fraud accompanied by an imprisonment sentence of up to six years.

Brunellopoli
In 2008, reports surfaced that Italian authorities were investigating claims that several major Brunello producers were adulterating their wines by using foreign or domestic grape varieties in violation of the DOCG regulations, which stipulate that only Sangiovese may be used to make Brunello. The prosecutor handling the investigation said he would bring commercial fraud charges that could result in imprisonment for the violators. The producers in question were suspected of adding wine made from non-approved grapes in order to make it more appealing to the international market. In response the U.S. government blocked imports of Brunello that did not have proof that they were in fact 100% Sangiovese. The scandal was coined Brunellopoli by the Italian wine press.

Grapes and wines
The Sangiovese grape is the most widely planted grape in the Montalcino region and is the only permitted grape in the Brunello di Montalcino DOCG. The particular clones of Sangiovese are unique to the Montalcino region and have developed in adaption to that area's specific terroir. The altitude and climate of the Montalcino region has provided an area where Sangiovese ripens more fully and consistently than anywhere else in Tuscany. These factors contribute to the body, color, extract and tannins commonly associated with Brunello di Montalcino. In contrast to Chianti, the other famous Sangiovese based wine of Tuscany, Brunello di Montalcinos have a more fleshy texture with common aromas and flavors of blackberry, black cherry, black raspberry, chocolate, leather and violets.

Brunello is often compared with the Pinot noir wines of Burgundy with its smooth tannins and ripe, fruit driven character. The high acidity of the wine allows it to pair well with food, especially grilled meat and game. A large portion of Brunello sold in the United States is purchased in restaurants. The wine has become particularly popular in America with nearly 1 out of every 3 bottles of Brunello di Montalcino being sold in the US. Brunello di Montalcino are known for their ability to age with well made examples from exceptional vintages often showcasing development for several decades. Master of Wine Mary Ewing-Mulligan notes that most Brunellos often need at least 10 years before they shed their youthfulness and start to harmonize their flavors.

Other wines
In addition to Brunello di Montalcino, producers in the Montalcino region can produce wine under Rosso di Montalcino, Sant'Antimo and Moscadello di Montalcino DOCs as well as the generic indicazione geografica tipica designation of Toscana IGT. Moscadello di Montalcino is a sweet white wine made from Muscat. The style was once widely produced in Montalcino but fell out of style following World War II. In the early 1980s, the wine estate of Castello Banfi attempted to revive the style by planting Muscat. The Sant'Antimo DOC was named for the 9th century abbey built by Charlemagne. In the 1970s, producers in Montalcino were influenced by the success of the "Super Tuscan" style of wine that was gaining international recognition for Chianti producers who deviated from DOC regulations with winemaking techniques such blending Cabernet Sauvignon with Sangiovese. In 1996, Italian authorities approved the Sant'Antimo DOC to allow Montalcino producers to produce DOC designated wines that were not 100% Sangiovese. These wines include blended Bianco and Rosso wines as well as varietally labeled Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Merlot, Pinot grigio, Pinot noir and Sauvignon blanc.

Rosso di Montalcino
The Rosso di Montalcino DOC was established in 1984 as a means of giving Brunello di Montalcino producers the flexibility to continue the tradition of long aging of the region's flagship wine. Rosso di Montalcino is made from 100% Sangiovese grown in the same delineated region as Brunello di Montalcino. However, the wine is required to spend only six months aging in oak and 1 year total aging before release. This allows Brunello producers to make an earlier releasing wine that can generate cash flow while their Brunello di Montalcino age for their complete duration. In less than ideal vintages some producers will relegate all their grapes to Rosso di Montalcino production and not make a Brunello. Wineries can also declassify their Brunello that has already been aging 2–3 years and release it as Rosso di Montalcino if the wine is not developing to their expectations. Rosso di Montalcino is typically lighter, fresher and more approachable upon release though some producers will make wines with more Brunello like characteristics. These "Baby Brunellos" are often 1/3 to 1/2 the price of Brunello di Montalcino.

title: Brunello di Montalcino


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firas Mahmoud

Firas Mahmoud
Vanity or Lunacy. *Plonk* --fvw *  21:56, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Delete, Khalil Gibran he's not, vanity. Wyss 22:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 23:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Descartes, David Hume, and George W. Bush."  I'm reminded of that Sesame Street song:  "One of these things doesn't belong with the others.  Guess which one."  Possibly vanity, but at the least unverifiable and not notable.  Geogre 01:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just another of billions of non-notable people. He says himself that his most notable quality is being "known for accepting the standards of religion without any legal or logical justification". Sorry bud, but you need to have accomplished a little more than that. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 02:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot to vote. Delete. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 02:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * either a joke or vanity, or both together. Either way Delete Carole a 18:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Toyota Sequoia

The Toyota Sequoia is a full-size SUV manufactured by Toyota mainly for the North American market since 2000 for the 2001 model year, being derived from the Tundra pickup truck. It is the second largest SUV ever produced under the Toyota brand, after the Japan-exclusive, military-focused Mega Cruiser.

Previously manufactured at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana in Princeton, Indiana between 2000 and 2021, and then in Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas in San Antonio, Texas since 2022, the Sequoia is the first vehicle from a Japanese marque in the popular mainstream full-sized SUV class in North America, and initial planning done by first-generation Sequoia chief engineer Kaoru Hosokawa aimed the Sequoia directly at the Ford Expedition, Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon, Nissan Armada, and other full-size SUVs.

Up until the 2021 model year, the Sequoia was slotted between the mid-size 4Runner and the premium Land Cruiser in the North American Toyota SUV lineup. With the discontinuation of North American sales of the Land Cruiser from the 2022 model year onward, the Sequoia became the flagship SUV in Toyota's North America lineup.

, the Sequoia is sold in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Costa Rica. It is offered in left-hand drive only.

First generation (XK30/XK40; 2000)
Development of a full-size SUV alongside a T100 replacement began in the mid-1990s, with a design freeze in 1997 (styled by Toshihiko Shirasawa) and design patent filing of the production design on April 4, 1998 at the Japan Patent Office (JPO) under #1054583. After the introduction of the Toyota Tundra in 1999, speculation started that Toyota intended to compete in the full-size SUV market with a Tundra-based SUV called the Highlander. However, the Highlander name was used on a mid-size Camry-based crossover and the Tundra-based SUV was introduced on January 11, 2000 at the North American International Auto Show as the Toyota Sequoia, with full production starting in September 2000 for the 2001 model year.

The engine, dashboard, sheetmetal, and chassis are shared with the Tundra, with the exception of rear disc brakes and a more sophisticated multi-link live axle rear suspension. The Sequoia was nominated for the North American Truck of the Year award in 2001. When the Sequoia was introduced, it was slightly longer than the contemporary Land Cruiser, larger than the Chevrolet Tahoe in most dimensions and similar in size to the Ford Expedition; its V8 engine was certified as an Ultra Low Emission Vehicle. Frame assemblies and driveshafts are produced by Dana Holding Corporation.

The Sequoia came in two trim levels: SR5 and Limited. It was sold in both two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive versions. Vehicle Stability Control was standard on all models.

Facelift
For the 2005 model year, the Sequoia received a minor facelift. A new engine equipped with VVT-i was new for 2005, as well as a 5-speed automatic transmission, replacing the previous 4-speed. 4 wheel drive models got a Torsen center differential, replacing the previous open differential, that splits power in full-time mode 40% front and 60% rear under normal driving, and can send up to 53% to the front and 71% to the rear during slip. The grill was redesigned, and the orange lamps were removed from the taillights.

Towing Capacity for the 2005 model year:
 * 2WD: 6500 lb
 * 4WD: 6200 lb

Second generation (XK60; 2007)
Toyota unveiled the 2008 Sequoia at the November 2007 Los Angeles Auto Show, with sales beginning that following December. Like the original Sequoia, the new model is based on the new Tundra. However major differences with the Tundra include a fully boxed frame, a rear independent suspension featuring double wishbones with coil springs for improved ride comfort and room, and a locking center differential on 4-wheel drive models. The new suspension helps give the Sequoia a tighter turning radius of 19 ft and allows for a fold-flat rear seat. Toyota stated the new frame is 70 percent more resistant to bending flex with torsional rigidity up 30 percent. However, the new model weighs 500 lb more than the previous Sequoia. The drag coefficient has been reduced to 0.35.

Improvements include an optional ULEV-II compliant 381 horsepower 5.7 L 3UR-FE V8, mated to a 6-speed automatic.

The 2008 Sequoia came in three trim lines: the SR5 and Limited, and new Platinum. The base engine is the previous ULEV compliant 4.7 L 2UZ-FE 276 hp V8 featured from the previous generation. The 4.7 L is standard on the SR5. Some of the earlier 2008 and 2009 SR5 models do come with the 5.7 L as an option when purchasing, while the Limited and Platinum models come standard with a 5.7 L V8 engine. Four-wheel drive is available on all models.

The interior of the 2008 Sequoia features the same dash as the new Tundra. Standard features include a tilt and telescopic steering wheel, power windows and doors, dual sun visors, and a keyless entry. Options include DVD based navigation with backup camera and 7" screen, a rear DVD entertainment system, a 14-speaker JBL audio system, and heated seats with ventilated coolers in the front row and warmers in the second row, available in Platinum trim. The Limited trim includes audio, climate, and hands-free Bluetooth mobile phone system controls, an improved JBL audio system, electroluminescent Optitron gauges, and an electrochromic auto-dimming rear-view mirror and side view mirrors with a HomeLink transceiver. The Platinum model includes a standard DVD navigation with a backup camera, a rear air suspension which can lower for easy loading, and Dynamic Laser Cruise Control.

Seating arrangements are for seven or eight passengers, eight for SR5 and Limited models and seven for Platinum models. Power folding 60/40 split third row seats are available on the Platinum. The Sequoia has a maximum towing capacity of 7400 lb with the 5.7 L V8 in 2WD SR5 form or 7100 lb in the 4WD SR5 trim. For complete trailer & weight capacities, see Toyota's website.

Exterior differences include door handle colors (color-keyed for the SR5; chrome for the Limited and Platinum), diamond-cut 20 in aluminum alloy wheels for the Platinum trim, and varying power-heated remote-controlled side mirrors.

Safety
Standard safety features include Vehicle Stability Control, traction control, anti-lock brakes brake assist, electronic brakeforce distribution, front side torso airbags and roll-sensing side curtain airbags for all three rows. For the 2010 model knee airbags were added as standard feature for front driver and passenger safety.

Note: The Sequoia has not been retested for 2010–2016.

In 2015, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found the Sequoia 4WD to have the lowest overall driver death rate in its class with 0 deaths per million registered vehicle years.

Model year changes

 * The 2009 model year adds E85 flex fuel capability for the 5.7 L V8 sold in certain states.
 * For the 2010 model year the 4.7 L V8 is replaced by an all-new 4.6 L 1UR-FE engine paired to a six-speed automatic transmission. The SR5 and Platinum trims become mono-spec and the Limited grade offers three stand alone options (navigation system, rear-seat entertainment and seven-passenger seating).  Front driver and passenger knee airbags were added as a standard feature. Platinum models get wood trim on the steering wheel and shift gear, and Bluetooth and audio controls are standard on the SR5 trim. The Timberland Mica exterior color gets replaced with the new Camry's Spruce Mica. All audio systems have USB connectivity with iPod integration, and the rear-view mirror on the Limited trim has a built-in rear-view camera.
 * For the 2012 model year, Toyota's Entune System was added as a standard on SR5, while an upgraded version featuring navigation became an optional feature on Limited and standard on the Platinum trim. Blind Spot Monitoring was optional on the 2012 Platinum model.
 * For the 2014 model year, a Blu-ray DVD player became an optional feature on Limited and standard in Platinum.
 * No major changes were made for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 model years.
 * On February 9, 2017, Toyota unveiled a refreshed Sequoia for the 2018 model year, featuring new standard LED headlights, daytime running lights and foglights, and three new exterior colors: Midnight Black Metallic, Shoreline Blue Pearl and Toasted Walnut Pearl. Each trim level also gets its own specific grille design. It also added a TRD level trim to its returning SR5, Limited, and Platinum trims, an upgraded instrumentation panel, automotive emergency braking and the Toyota Safety Sense feature.
 * The 2020 model year Sequoia was updated with a new TRD Pro package designed for off-road capabilities, featuring Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, Toyota Safety Sense-P, aluminum-bodied internal bypass Fox shock absorbers, and a more enhanced grille in line with the TRD Pro branding. Toyota Safety Sense-P includes forward collision warning with automatic braking, lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert.
 * The 2021 Sequoia received a Nightshade Edition, putting it in line with the entire Toyota lineup in North America. This feature, which was introduced at the Chicago Auto Show on February 6, 2020, went on sale in the third quarter of 2020, but was limited to at 2,500 units.

Accolades

 * In a 2008 Motor Trend comparison between several full-size SUVs, the Sequoia took first place.

 * The Sequoia is the top vehicle in the US that is most likely to last 200,000 miles according to a 2019 study from iSeeCars.

Third generation (XK80; 2022)
The third-generation Sequoia was unveiled on January 25, 2022 for the 2023 model year. Production began on September 21, 2022, and sales began in October 2022. The production was moved to the San Antonio plant, built alongside the XK70 series Tundra due to the Indiana facility preparing to build two upcoming 8-seat passenger SUVs that will feature hybrid powertrains.

It is built on the body-on-frame GA-F platform. Like the first generation, this generation uses a solid rear axle instead of independent setup from the previous generation. A hybridized 3.4-liter V35A-FTS twin-turbo V6 engine (marketed as "i-Force Max") is standard across the lineup, producing 437 hp and 790 Nm of torque, with the 5.7-liter 3UR-FE V8 unit being discontinued.

The third-generation Sequoia is available in five trim levels, four of which are carried over from the previous generation: SR5, Limited, Platinum, and TRD Pro, as well as the flagship Capstone luxury-oriented trim. Towing capacity is rated at 9300 - 9520 lb, depending on the trim level. Depending on trims, the Sequoia is available with either a seven or eight passenger seating, with either a split bench or dual captain's chairs in the second row.

Recall
The 2008-2010 Sequoias were part of one of the 2009-2010 Toyota recalls that required the installation of a small shim to relieve unwanted friction and restore fluidity to the accelerator pedal. Early 2003 Sequoias were recalled to reprogram the Vehicle Stability Control system due to the possibility of poor acceleration at certain low speeds. The 2002-2003 Sequoia model years also had a defect in the front ball joints. 2004 Toyota Sequoias were subject to the Takata Airbag recall done for free by Toyota dealerships. Recently, the Sequoia, along with the Tacoma and Tundra, have another recall due to the frame prematurely rusting. If there is a 10 mm perforation found on the frame, the vehicle frame will be replaced, if the service is done within 12 years of vehicle purchase or 1 year after recall became official. For those vehicles without 10 mm perforation and located in a cold weather state, Toyota will perform an undercoating service to prevent future rust from forming.

title: Toyota Sequoia


text:
Wickard v. Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.

An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce ... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. ... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect'."

The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution's Commerce Clause, in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which permits the U.S. Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production.

Background
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. Its stated purpose was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. It was motivated by a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and the demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat, which were deemed to be harmful to the U.S. agricultural economy.

The Supreme Court's decision states that the parties had stipulated as to the economic conditions leading to passage of the legislation:

"The parties have stipulated a summary of the economics of the wheat industry. ... The wheat industry has been a problem industry for some years. Largely as a result of increased foreign production and import restrictions, annual exports of wheat and flour from the United States during the ten-year period ending in 1940 averaged less than 10 percent of total production, while, during the 1920s, they averaged more than 25 percent. The decline in the export trade has left a large surplus in production which, in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains in recent years, caused congestion in a number of markets; tied up railroad cars, and caused elevators in some instances to turn away grains, and railroads to institute embargoes to prevent further congestion.

Many countries, both importing and exporting, have sought to modify the impact of the world market conditions on their own economy. Importing countries have taken measures to stimulate production and self-sufficiency. The four large exporting countries of Argentina, Australia, Canada, and the United States have all undertaken various programs for the relief of growers. Such measures have been designed, in part at least, to protect the domestic price received by producers. Such plans have generally evolved towards control by the central government. In the absence of regulation, the price of wheat in the United States would be much affected by world conditions. During 1941, producers who cooperated with the Agricultural Adjustment program received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel, as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel."

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer in what is now suburban Dayton, Ohio. He admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. He maintained, however, that the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm. Since it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, he argued that it was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acre and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre (547 kg/acre). Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940, before the fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite the notices, Filburn planted 23 acre and harvested 239 more bushels (6500 kg) than was allowed from his 11.9 acre of excess area.

The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite to implement the quota. Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: the District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which called the District Court's holding (against the campaign methods that led to passage of the quota by farmers) a "manifest error". The Court then went on to uphold the Act under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

By the time that the case reached the high court, eight out of the nine justices had been appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, the architect of the New Deal legislation. In addition, the case was heard during wartime, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the United States to enter the Second World War. The decision supported the President by holding that the Constitution allowed the federal government to regulate economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce.

Decision
The Act's intended rationale was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In this decision, the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat that he produced was intended solely for home consumption, his wheat production could not be regulated through the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and reasoned that if Filburn had not produced his own wheat, he would have bought wheat on the open market.

That effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone, but the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly make the effect become substantial.

Therefore, Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

Some of the parties' argument had focused on prior decisions, especially those relating to the Dormant Commerce Clause, in which the Court had tried to focus on whether a commercial activity was local or not. Justice Robert H. Jackson's decision rejected that approach as too formulaic:

"The Government's concern lest the Act be held to be a regulation of production or consumption rather than of marketing is attributable to a few dicta and decisions of this Court which might be understood to lay it down that activities such as 'production', 'manufacturing', and 'mining' are strictly 'local' and, except in special circumstances which are not present here, cannot be regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce are, as matter of law, only 'indirect'. Even today, when this power has been held to have great latitude, there is no decision of this Court that such activities may be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. We believe that a review of the course of decision under the Commerce Clause will make plain, however, that questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce."

The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local. Rather, it was whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce":

"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. ... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect'."

The regulation of local production of wheat was rationally related to Congress's goal: to stabilize prices by limiting the total supply of wheat produced and consumed. It was clear, the Court held,

"that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. ... Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices."

Aftermath
Wickard marked the beginning of the Supreme Court's total deference to the claims of the U.S. Congress to Commerce Clause powers until the 1990s. The Court's own decision, however, emphasizes the role of the democratic electoral process in confining the abuse of the power of Congress: "At the beginning Chief Justice Marshall described the Federal commerce power with a breadth never yet exceeded. He made emphatic the embracing and penetrating nature of this power by warning that effective restraints on its exercise must proceed from political rather than from judicial processes."

Critics have noted that under Wickard there is "no distinction between 'interstate' and 'intrastate' commerce to place any limits on Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause", and that it allows regulation of activity that is generally not considered commerce.

According to Earl M. Maltz, Wickard and other New Deal decisions gave Congress "the authority to regulate private economic activity in a manner near limitless in its purview."

That remained the case until United States v. Lopez (1995), which was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. The opinion described Wickard as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce" and judged that it "greatly expanded the authority of Congress beyond what is defined in the Constitution under that Clause."

In Lopez, the Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. (In a later case, United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled in 2000 that Congress could not make such laws even when there was evidence of aggregate effect.)

The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Wickard in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court would hold in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) that like with the home-grown wheat at issue in Wickard, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce:

"Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial', in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

In 2012, Wickard was central to arguments in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services on the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, with both supporters and opponents of the mandate claiming that Wickard supported their positions.

title: Wickard v. Filburn


text:
User talk:Aolguin~enwiki

Image copyrights
Thanks for uploading Image:Palmera.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   — Edwin Stearns | Talk 21:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Aolguin. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Aolguin~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aolguin~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International definition

International definition
Just calling something international doesn't make it notable. No mention of the tv programme on IMDB. --fvw *  21:59, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly original research, insufficient evidence of peer review. Wyss 22:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't seem notable and gets 1 unique Google hit. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 23:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sounds like local access cable. At any rate, I wonder if "Supernerd" is one of the types.  No evidence that he is an anthropologist, only that he has done "anthropological research."  Geogre 01:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not so fast, please: Don't delete. The point made above about peer review is especially interesting (perhaps any deficiency in peer review should be mentioned in an article, if we keep it), but I would not want to be too hasty to delete an entry on the "insufficient evidence of peer review" ground alone, as some knowledge-seekers who work outside the mainstream have interesting insights. As it turns out, Mr. Freelain has over the past several years presented his theories and findings at several academic institutions in the Washington DC area (Maryland and Virginia); I think his forthcoming book is basically self-published and I don't think he is on the payroll of an institution of higher education. I'm not sure what his formal credentials are, but I doubt whether he holds an advanced anthropology degree. But does the lack of an advanced anthropology degree disqualify any entry that outlines the method and discipline he developed? Some of his academic presentations have been deemed provocative by senior scientific faculty (including some who have expressed a degree of scepticism about some mathematical aspects of Mr. Freelain's methodology); some of his university presentations have been videotaped and are among the taped material regularly shown on cable public access in the DC area, on the program produced by Mr. Freelain. Cable TV viewership numbers in Montgomery County, DC, Prince George's County, and Northern Virginia are said to be not insignificant. If I understand Mr. Freelain's approach, he has developed a unique theoretical framework, but it also appears that his central theories are not inconsistent with current discussions elaborating the Ashley Montague theme of "race as a social construct." In one provocative essay, Mr. Freelain suggests that "racism" is a term that properly applies to any theory (political, social, anthropological, or biological) that accepts the notion of "race" uncritically. I do agree with the comment that the phrase "international definition" sounds a bit pretentious, but this happens to be the term Mr. Freelain uses. I don't suppose it's much sillier than C.S. Peirce coming up with "pragmaticism." I don't necessarily agree with the method or all the conclusions of the "international definition" approach, but I think Wikipedia should be open enough to consider including a brief entry about Mr. Freelain's work on this, which seems notable regardless of its ultimate scientific merit. I'm still learning about the criteria for inclusion/deletion, so it might be that I don't yet understand how the lines are drawn. I guess I imagine that the Wikipedia philosophy encourages critical analysis rather than a "Wissenschaftpolizei" approach. I made up that German word to be humorous, so please understand that I'm not intending to call anyone a name. Is there some other Wikiplace such an entry mightmore appropriately belong? 151.200.39.87 06:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take an account, move it to your user page, and plan on restoring it once the actual book is out from a respectable press and you can cite that. Meanwhile, delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm abstaining, but User:151.200.39.87 might be interested to know that the word is "Wissenschaftspolizei" (note the additional "s") ("Science Police", for you non-German speakers), which I think I will start using if I can figure out a good context. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The theory is original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia, not to mention the fact that this book and TV series have not yet been released and therefore are not notable. Katefan0 14:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Question-- ORIGINAL RESEARCH: Based on my reading of the Wikipedia rationale concerning the inappropriateness of original research, I thought Wikipedia's disfavoring of "original research" was designed to protect this encyclopedia from being misused as a forum to publish the protocols, methods, data sets, full-text analyses, etc., of original research or original theoretical essays as PRIMARY DOCUMENTS. I didn't think the point was that Wikipedia is forbidden from including an article that mentions or identifies a new idea or a new application of an old idea. I am also curious about whether it is consistent with Wikipedia philsophy to use the notion of RESPECTABLE PRESS as an exclusionary gatekeeper. Also, I'm wondering whether a televesion program that has been regularly disseminated on public access cable television should be considered "not released." I'm raising these questions in good faith, and in hopes of being educated about this. 160.253.0.248 20:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Here's another way to look at the discouragement of "original research." An encyclopedia is a place to learn more about things you have heard or read about elsewhere, not a place to introduce novel ideas. Since there is currently no literature on the topic, it hasn't really been introduced yet.  It's not a judgment call on the validity of the idea, just that there really isn't enough information available to the public to describe it objectively. iMeowbot 23:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Royal Gorge Bridge

The Royal Gorge Bridge is a tourist attraction near Cañon City, Colorado within Royal Gorge Bridge and Park, a 360-acre (150 ha) amusement park located along the edge of the Royal Gorge around both ends of the bridge. The bridge crosses the gorge 955 feet (291 m) above the Arkansas River and held the record of highest bridge in the world from 1929 until 2001 when it was surpassed by the Liuguanghe Bridge in China. The Royal Gorge Bridge maintained the title of the world's highest suspension bridge until the Beipan River Guanxing Highway Bridge was completed in 2003, also in China. The bridge remains the highest bridge in the United States and was among the ten highest bridges in the world until 2012.

The main span of the bridge between the towers is 880 ft, the total length is 1260 ft, the width is 18 ft and the towers are 150 ft high. The steel base structure is covered with 1292 wooden planks.

The bridge was built in six months between June and November 1929 at a cost of $350,000 (equivalent to $ million in dollars). In 1931, the Incline Railway, or simply the Incline (also known as a funicular), was added beside the bridge to reach the bottom of the gorge. In the 1950s, a miniature railroad was built by the edge of the gorge and an aerial tram was opened in 1969. In the early 1980s, the bridge was renovated with new cable anchors, suspension rods and paint. A Skycoaster attraction was added in 2003, with riders being swung out over the edge of the gorge.

In June 2013, a wildfire destroyed most of the park's buildings and the aerial tram, and damaged the Incline. The bridge sustained only slight damage to the wooden deck and was otherwise undamaged, along with the Skycoaster. The park was rebuilt and partially reopened in August 2014. The park had a grand reopening in May 2015 with new gondolas and a new zip-line crossing the gorge on the east side of the bridge.

Construction and location
Construction began on June 5, 1929 and ended in November 1929. The bridge cost $350,000 and was constructed as a tourist attraction, not as a through route for transportation purposes. The road leading to the bridge from U.S. Route 50 continues on the south side of the gorge eventually re-connecting with Route 50; however, all visitors are required to enter and exit through the north park gate. Passenger vehicles are not allowed to cross the bridge.

The road leading to and across the bridge from Route 50 is designated as Fremont County Road 3A and begins about 10 mi west of Cañon City. The Royal Gorge Route Railroad runs under the bridge along the base of Royal Gorge.

Highest bridges
The Royal Gorge Bridge surpassed the Sidi M'Cid Bridge in Algeria in 1929 to become the highest bridge in the world with a deck height of 955 ft, measured from the deck to the river surface below. The Liuguanghe Bridge in China surpassed the Royal Gorge Bridge in 2001 to become the new highest bridge with a deck height of 974 ft. The Royal Gorge Bridge surrendered the title of the world's highest suspension bridge when the Beipan River Guanxing Highway Bridge in China was completed in 2003 with a deck height of 1200 ft. Several more even higher bridges, mostly in China, have been completed since 2003 causing the Royal Gorge Bridge to drop out of the top ten highest bridges in the world. , the Royal Gorge Bridge is among the 25 highest bridges in the world, and remains the highest bridge in the United States. Several additional bridges more than 955 ft high are scheduled for completion through 2023, ten of them in China, plus the Chenab Bridge in India.

Since late 2016, the highest bridge is China's Beipanjiang Bridge Duge, which has a cable-stayed span with a deck height of 1854 ft. The current highest suspension bridge is China's Sidu River Bridge opened in 2009 with a deck height of 1627 ft.

1929–1950s
The bridge was built between June and November 1929 at a cost of $350,000 (equivalent to $ million in dollars), which was $100,000 over budget (equivalent to $ million in  dollars). The project was financed by Lon P. Piper, president of the Royal Gorge Bridge and Amusement Company of San Antonio, Texas. Piper hired George E. Cole as the Chief Engineer and the bridge was completed in about six months with no deaths or serious injuries. The formal opening occurred on December 8, 1929. Piper agreed to a twenty-year lease of the gorge and surrounding land, which is owned by Cañon City, paying a $1,000 yearly fee (equivalent to $ in dollars) to the city, with a reduced fee of $500 (equivalent to $ in  dollars) in some years of hardship.

In 1931, the narrow gauge incline railway was built to the bottom of the gorge through a narrow cleft just west of the north end of the bridge. The first suicide occurred later the same year when a man from Pueblo, Colorado jumped off the bridge. In 1937, a lighting system was installed to illuminate the bridge and the gorge walls.

In 1947, after struggling for many years through the Great Depression and World War II, Piper sold the bridge and leasing rights to a group of local Colorado businessmen and Clint Murchison, a Texan who made a fortune in oil, gas, and real estate. A long-time employee of the park stated that Murchison, who died in 1969, never visited the bridge he had bought, even after he became the sole owner.

In the 1950s, a lodge was built by the gorge and the Silver Rock Railway narrow gauge train with a Chance Rides miniature C.P. Huntington locomotive began running along the edge of the gorge near the bridge. In 1956, Murchison and his Royal Gorge Bridge Company based in Dallas agreed to pay the city a percentage of its revenue instead of the $1,000 yearly fee for the lease. The percentage arrangement has proven very favorable for the city in the ensuing years, allowing it to lower property taxes significantly. The property tax rate has since become the lowest in Colorado.

1960s–1990s
In 1967, an open bid was held for the leasing rights with several companies expressing interest in the acquisition. The bid was won by Murchison's company, which signed another twenty-year contract with the city. The aerial tram was opened in 1969, crossing the gorge just east of the bridge. Also in 1969, following the death of Murchison, his sons, John and Clint Jr., inherited the bridge and lease.

In 1979, Lucille Murchison, the wife of John Murchison, inherited the bridge and lease after her husband's death.

The bridge and the incline railway were listed in the National Register of Historic Places on September 2, 1983. The official government registration papers indicate that the city of Cañon City had become the owner of the bridge and incline railway at some point since the 1940s, besides owning the land they leased to the Royal Gorge Bridge Company.

The bridge underwent significant renovations from 1980 to 1984. New cable anchors and suspension rods were installed and the bridge was re-painted. The cost of the renovations was over $2.8 million, more than the original purchase price when adjusted for inflation up until the 1980s.

In 1984, Leisure and Recreational Concepts, a Dallas-based company, was hired by Murchison to oversee operations at Royal Gorge Bridge and Park.

In July 1998, William Fehr, the owner of a gravel business based in Parkdale at the entrance to the gorge, purchased the rail lines through the gorge. The sale came after the Southern Pacific and the Union Pacific had merged in 1996 and decided to run their trains on better tracks through northern Colorado. As a part of the purchase, and unbeknownst to Fehr at the time, the sale included the "air rights" above the tracks through the gorge, including the space occupied by the Royal Gorge Bridge. An air rights fee had been negotiated with the railroad companies for $200 per year since 1929, plus another $200 per year for the space occupied by the base of the incline railway. In January 1999, Fehr placed a bid to purchase the entire concession from the city, since the operating company's lease was due to expire in 2001. When the bid was declined without consideration, Fehr decided to increase the fee for the air rights to $750,000 a year. The city began investigating legal procedures to possibly condemn the air rights. Eventually, the city and Fehr agreed on permanent easements that cost the city a one-time fee of $99,000.

21st century
The Royal Rush Skycoaster was opened on the south side of the gorge in 2003 just east of the bridge.

On October 5, 2003, while performing a proximity demonstration, wingsuiter Dwain Weston was killed attempting to fly over the bridge. Weston was wearing a wingsuit, a skydiving suit with fabric extended below the arms to the body and between the legs to catch air, allowing for horizontal travel when skydiving. He was to go over the bridge while fellow skydiver Jeb Corliss was to go under it. Misjudging his distance from the bridge, Weston struck a railing while traveling an estimated 120 mph, severing his leg at the hip. He fell onto a ledge in the gorge under a parachute that had opened on impact, though it is assumed he had already died.

Between March and May 2012, three people committed suicide by jumping off the bridge. The average number of suicides in the previous twelve years had been one per year according to the general manager for the Royal Gorge Bridge and Park. As a result of the larger than normal costs incurred in retrieving the bodies, Cañon City was billed by the Royal Gorge Express LLC — owners of the railroad that runs below the bridge — for $5,025 for use of specialized equipment and qualified personnel in the recoveries. The three suicides occurred on March 6, March 14, and May 8. The third incident required four trips into the gorge, with the body being found a week later by river rafters.

2013 wildfire
On June 11, 2013, most of the park structures on both sides of the gorge were devastated by a man-made wildfire. The fire jumped from the south to the north side of the gorge just west of the bridge and burned 3218 acres, of which 2156 acres was park property, over the next four days until it was contained. The bridge sustained only minimal damage with approximately 100 wooden deck planks of 1292 total planks requiring replacement on the south side; however, 48 of the park's 52 buildings were destroyed. No visitors, park employees or any animals in the wildlife park were injured or killed by the fire. The Incline Railway was severely damaged and the aerial tram was destroyed. Park executives announced on June 13 that the bridge would be repaired and the park rebuilt. Rebuilding began about a week after the fire and demolition of all damaged structures took about five months. The new visitor center's groundbreaking ceremony was on January 31, 2014.

Park reopening
The Royal Gorge Bridge and Park reopened on August 30, 2014. A grand reopening ceremony took place on May 8, 2015 after the completion of $30 million in repairs. The rebuilding plan did not include the wildlife park and those animals were relocated. The bridge entry is open daily from 7 am until dusk with the visitor center, rides and attractions opening at 10 am, weather permitting. Attractions that have been refurbished or rebuilt since the fire include a visitor center with an observation deck, a water clock, gondolas to replace the aerial trams, Plaza Theater and Historical Expo, Children's Playland, and the original Royal Rush Skycoaster. The Cloudscraper Zip Line — the highest in North America — opened on March 28, 2015. The damaged Incline Railway and the Silver Rock Railway are not listed among current rides and attractions.

In January 2016, the Royal Gorge Company of Colorado paid the city a record high $2.1 million lease payment. Attendance in 2015 was the highest in the park's history at nearly 350,000 visitors. The attendance figure represented an increase of 20% from the attendance of about 292,000 in 2012, the last full year of operations before the 2013 fire. For the 2013 season the city was paid $1.68 million by the park's operating company, mostly from business continuation insurance. Park officials estimated after the fire that more than 26 million people had visited the park since it opened in 1929.

title: Royal Gorge Bridge


text: Template:Campaignbox Korean War

title: Template:Campaignbox Korean War


text:
User talk:Stan Wiechers

Image copyrights
Thanks for uploading Image:PalmarDelTroja1.jpg and Image:PalmarDelTroja2.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   — Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stan Wiechers