text:
Talk:Mount Gongga

"Highest outside Himalaya"
I corrected the claim that Gongga is the "highest out of the Himalaya", which is close to true, but not quite. First, the Himalaya don't actually include the Karakoram (except in very loose, nontechnical usage), so I put "Himalaya/Karakoram" instead. Also, Kongur Tagh and Tirich Mir are higher than Gongga. --Spireguy 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

German books
I moved the German books to "Further reading" since they didn't appear to be used as actual sources. (I wrote most of the current text, and it is from the sources listed in "References".) If I'm missing something, please respond. It's also unclear how useful these books are for the English version of Wikipedia, but I won't delete them. -- Spireguy 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Highest by Americans
I'd like to see a reference for the claim that Americans achieved a higher summit than Gongga Shan before 1958. Which one(s)? -- Spireguy 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I doublechecked with the Himalayan Index and I don't believe the claim at all. So I'm reverting to the previous version. -- Spireguy 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Easternmost Peak
" It is the easternmost 7000 m peak in the world " From where? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.190.218 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

 * Gongga Shan lies to the east of every other 7000 m peak. I.e. it is the peak with the most easterly longitude in the world. (Since all 7000 m peaks are in one region of Asia, there is no real ambiguity related to going all the way around the world--was that the source of the confusion?) -- Spireguy 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Statement about Elevation
The text has two instances where 7,590 meters are cited, while the info box has 7,556 meters. But I cannot find any reference to this number in the text. I had expected to read something like "team X produced a new measurement Y in year Z, correcting the elevation to 7556 meters." What gives? 79.228.151.148 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mount Gongga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605094205/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=272533 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=272533

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Gongga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130121100137/http://places.designobserver.com/feature/ice-the-old-ways-robert-macfarlane/36538/ to http://places.designobserver.com/feature/ice-the-old-ways-robert-macfarlane/36538/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Gongga


text:
XERA-AM

XERA is a radio station in Mexico, broadcasting on 760 AM in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico. The station's callsign was most famous for its use on a border blaster at Villa Acuña, Coahuila.

XERA also broadcasts on FM at 101.5 MHz. It is not licensed for this frequency; the only FM station on the frequency in Chiapas is XHDB-FM in Tonalá.

The border blaster
From 1935 to 1939, XERA was the call sign of a border blaster licensed to Ramón D. Bósquez Vitela in September 1935 to Compañía Mexicana Radiodifusora Fronteriza in Villa Acuña, Coahuila. This station was the successor to XER which had been situated at the same location but whose transmitter had been dismantled after the station ceased broadcasting in February 1933. Like XER, it was under the control of John R. Brinkley of the U.S. state of Kansas. XERA ceased transmissions in 1939. After losing control of XER when it was shut down by the Mexican government in 1933, Brinkley dismantled the original XER transmitter but attempted to get a new concession for Villa Acuña. Months later in September 1935 he was granted a new concession via his partnership of Cía Mexicana Radiodifusora Fronteriza, a company which was represented by Bósquez as the owner; this was officially awarded on November 18 of that year. The original station broadcast on 960 kHz.

Brinkley used the old buildings of XER but installed a new 500 kilowatt transmitter with help from two Texas radio engineers. The antenna for XER had been omnidirectional, but the new directional antenna of XERA allowed Brinkley to claim that his station had an effective radiated power of one megawatt. One of his Texas engineers called XERA "the world's most powerful broadcasting station," which was a slogan that he would use again in the 1960s for two more of his engineering endeavors: the United States military transmitters which communicated with the U.S. submarine fleet, and again for the offshore pirate station Swinging Radio England.

Following the signing of various international treaties with the United States, the Mexican government forced XERA off the air in the closing days of 1939, by which time it had moved to 800 kHz. The station's programming, featuring quack doctor religious cures and Nazi propaganda, and the station's reputation for breaking laws and evading taxes, put the station in the sights of both Mexican and American authorities. On June 16, 1941, the Official Journal of the Federation ran a decree expropriating the station, also noting that "the Federal Government has an urgent need to obtain a radio station as powerful as XERA to dedicate it to the service of the Federation ... and that it is currently not possible to obtain it from the United States of America, given the conditions that dominate in Europe". Again the equipment was removed and the location would not become the site of another, unrelated border blaster until years later following World War II in 1947. See the history of XERF for details.

In San Cristóbal de las Casas
On November 3, 1973, a new XERA-AM took to the air in San Cristóbal de las Casas, owned by the government of the state of Chiapas and the state's first public radio station.

From 1985 to 1990, this station was operated by the Instituto Mexicano de la Radio under a co-operation agreement that saw IMER launch two radio stations in the state. When the government of Chiapas opted to retake control of XERA, IMER built a replacement station, XECHZ-AM Chiapa del Corzo.

Programming on XERA-AM is broadcast in various languages including Tzeltal and Tzotzil.

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

title: XERA-AM


text:
Talk:Jinggang Mountains

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haomimimi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
"Jinggangshan Mountains" is a pleonasm, because "shan" means mountain/s. Should be changed to "Jinggang Mountains" or, better, "Jinggangshan (Jinggang Mountains)"128.255.240.158 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos
I was here recently and took photos. I've put them all on Flickr with CC-BY-SA licenses, here; if any are useful feel free to upload them to Commons and use them here. (I have limited internet access for the summer and it's slow, so I'm not going to try doing it myself.) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

when was Zhou Enlai here?
I'm confused. In Zhou Enlai: a political life, they say Zhou went to Shanghai when Mao was in Jinggang. Can someone please sort that one out for me? When was he where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.195.19 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jinggang Mountains. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404043021/http://en.cnta.gov.cn/html/2008-11/2008-11-16-10-27-72978.html to http://en.cnta.gov.cn/html/2008-11/2008-11-16-10-27-72978.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jinggang Mountains


text: Talk:Sanford I. Weill

title: Talk:Sanford I. Weill


text:
Talk:Leaf peeping

Untitled
Nice addition, Mikie. -Schmeebis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.58.87 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2005 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture

 * It was mocked in season two of The West Wing in the episode "And It's Surely to Their Credit," in President Bartlet's weekly radio address.
 * An episode of Family Guy features the town of Quahog being overrun by leafers from New York.

I removed the above and put it here. This section is as big as the first two small paragraphs. That's not right. See WP:AVTRIV. A trivia section should not be as big or bigger than the main part of the article. Also, depictions of leaf peepers on TV don't really tell the reader anything about leaf peeping. It's totally irrelevant if a fictional character on TV has mocked leaf peeping. I recommend expanding the article with actual information on leaf peeping, not irrelevant trivia from television. I'd like to see someone justify this kind of information being in the article. How does this help people learn about leaf peeping? Mr Spunky Toffee 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * You're correct--but you should have left the tourism stub bit alone. --Jemiller226 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think you should have done that. I agree that it should not have been larger than the bulk of the article but the use of the term in media is absolutley relavent. It shows that the term has permiated into the mainstream and is not just a term known by those who participate. It seems that you are more concearned with the fact that it was negative, but that should not matter. Use in popular culture sections are an accepted part of wikip. Anon(talk) 17:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Leaf peepers
These two articles should be merged. They cover what is essentially the same subject, the article about the people has already been transwikied, and a merge would at least ensure that the article has a chance of growing into something useful. Mind matrix  21:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree! These articles should be merged - it would be much more useful to get the information for "leaf peepers" and "leaf peaping" together since they are related, and relatively obscure topics. - LHC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.146.5.129 (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I have made leaf peepers a redirect to here. Kingdon (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging with Momijigari?
There is a discussion at wikiProject Japan about merging this article with Momijigari, the Japanese tradition of viewing Autumn leaves. It may improve both articles.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Placed merge template on Momijigari. See discussion on that talk page for details. Andyo2000 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as a section of this article. As the traditions in Japan are somewhat different, I think it should be a separate section. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I’d oppose it. Momijigari is a well written stub; Leaf peeping is a mess, with a clean-up tag in it. How would merging them improve matters? Also, they are about different subjects, only tangentially related. Momijigari is about a custom elevated to a tradition; Leaf-peeping seems to be largely derogatory. People go out to enjoy autumn colours in a lot of countries, not just in Japan and the US, but we don’t have, or particularly need, articles on them all; these are particular, and different, aspects of the practice. They already have a “See Also” link; that’s as far as it needs to go. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Also, as Momijigari is a lot older than Leaf Peeping, a merge from there to here is a bit US-centric, isn’t it? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

POV issue
This bit is absurdly unencyclopedic: "People growing up in the '70s often recall hearing the phrase in the family car come from their father while trying to get to an event on time. It was often used more in annoyance." It sounds like one person's very specific memory that they are etrapolating. Unless someone has a source in which multiple people recall such an experience, I suggest it is taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.11.143 (talk)
 * Yeah, take it out. Kingdon (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

History section?
I have heard some refer to leaf peeping as a modern invention of the tourism industry; I would like to see some citations for or against, for example:

Mind, in this speech I have been trying merely to do honor to the New England weather -- no language could do it justice. But, after all, there is at least one or two things about that weather (or, if you please, effects produced by it) which we residents would not like to part with. If we hadn't our bewitching autumn foliage, we should still have to credit the weather with one feature which compensates for all its bullying vagaries -- the ice-storm: when a leafless tree is clothed with ice from the bottom to the top -- ice that is as bright and clear as crystal; when every bough and twig is strung with ice-beads, frozen dew-drops, and the whole tree sparkles cold and white, like the Shah of Persia's diamond plume. Then the wind waves the branches and the sun comes out and turns all those myriads of beads and drops to prisms that glow and burn and flash with all manner of colored fires, which change and change again with inconceivable rapidity from blue to red, from red to green, and green to gold -- the tree becomes a spraying fountain, a very explosion of dazzling jewels; and it stands there the acme, the climax, the supremest possibility in art or nature, of bewildering, intoxicating, intolerable magnificence. One cannot make the words too strong. From Mark Twain's Speeches (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1910). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Leafers acceptable name?
The article made it sound like leafers was a derogatory name for this people. But I think that it was an acceptable name and one that people would be okay with. Should leaf peeping add that these people are sometimes referred to as leafers?

65.214.67.173 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leaf peeping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120820011730/http://www.welcome.city.sapporo.jp/english/info/season.html to http://www.welcome.city.sapporo.jp/english/info/season.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leaf peeping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161118013856/http://www.visitnh.gov/vacation-ideas/Foliage-Tracker/ to http://www.visitnh.gov/vacation-ideas/Foliage-Tracker/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leaf peeping


text:
American Drum Manufacturing Company

The American Drum Manufacturing Company was a family-owned timpani manufacturer based in Denver, Colorado. Former Denver Symphony Orchestra timpanist Walter Light, who built a custom set of drums for himself, founded the company in 1950 when his colleagues began asking him to build timpani for them. The company was voluntarily dissolved in 2016.

The company offered four lines of instruments:
 * The Mark XIV was American Drum's top-of-the-line model
 * The Mark XI was similar to the Mark XIV, but the bowls are made of lighter weight copper
 * The Metropolitan Model Type B was the budget model. The bowls are made from the same copper as the Mark XI, but the Metropolitan drums have less features.
 * Continental Chain Tuned was the company's line of chain timpani. They were designed to have similar timbral properties as the pedal drums.

The company also built cases and covers for their drums and reconditioned old timpani.

Since every drum was custom-built, the buyer was able to choose from different bowl shapes with different timbral properties and make any desired modifications to the frames of the drums. For example, European and North American timpanists set their drums up in different orders. The pedals have to be on the opposite sides of the drums in each of the setups.

title: American Drum Manufacturing Company


text:
Talk:Mount Lao

Simple Question :: Simple Answer
OhNo itsJamie, why don't you ever give a logical answer to a direct question? Your normal response is to delete the question in the discussion section and site some ambiguous rule of which Wiki has clearly made exceptions to. Why don't you let the rest of the community respond? Your actions have really set back the progress of Wiki's Qingdao articles! Most of the local community here in Qingdao will probably stop contributing because of your actions! You act as if you are speaking on behalf of the entire Wiki community. Are you?

'''Questions: Why can't the Laoshan article have an External Link section? Why do you consider a comprehensive gallery photographed and put together by Qingdao locals SPAM? Your actions are implying that you consider the contributions of Qingdao locals SPAM! WHY? Why is the following link considered SPAM? Can we please discuss this issue?

Wiki’s guidlines State:

''"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession.

''Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette."'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaoshan (talk • contribs)

 * I'm reverting spam per external link guidelines. This has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. From your contribution history, it's clear that your primary objective is to put links to your site here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your decision. I do not want Wiki to be a repository of external links. Please realize that wiki is still banned in China! If I look at your history I could make judgments too. Simply put, I just want to give Wiki users a link that provides up to date information from Qingdao locals. Qingdao Travel & Living Guide only generates revenue from the Google ads. As you know, this almost pays for the yearly hosting & registration. The time put into this site comes from the hart and soul of the Qingdao people. I am only trying to give Wiki users the real feeling of Qingdao.--Gaoshan 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Qingdao Travel & Living Guide's Laoshan Photo Gallery External Link is not SPAM according to Wiki's guidelines. Those photos add so much to this article. "A picture is worth a thousand words!" Do you honestly think that these gallery's do not add anything to the Wiki Laoshan Article? How can we resolve this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.146.94.4 (talk • contribs)
 * You don't need to copy the same discussion to multiple talk pages. Please limit to your talk page or my talk page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Lao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714172658/http://www.cnta.gov.cn:8000/Forms/TravelCatalog/TravelCatalogList.aspx?catalogType=view&resultType=5A to http://www.cnta.gov.cn:8000/forms/travelcatalog/travelcataloglist.aspx?catalogtype=view&resulttype=5a
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130731060349/http://big5.chinanews.com:89/gate/big5/qd.chinanews.com/xinwen/qdnews/201210/1015089.html to http://big5.chinanews.com:89/gate/big5/qd.chinanews.com/xinwen/qdnews/201210/1015089.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Lao


text:
Depot Field Hospital

Depot Field Hospital was one of seven hospitals operated at City Point, Virginia, in the Siege of Petersburg during the American Civil War.

The largest, Depot Field Hospital, covered nearly 200 acres (800,000 m2) and could hold up to 10,000 patients. The compound comprised 1,200 tents, along with 90 log barracks in the winter, and laundries, dispensaries, regular and special diet kitchens, dining halls, offices, and other structures. Army surgeons administered the hospital and received support from civilian agencies, such as the United States Sanitary Commission and the U.S. Christian Commission. Male nurses serving in the U.S. Army cared for patients, providing them with their own beds and wash basins, along with fresh pillows and linens.

The National Park Service claims the "excellence" of the facilities and the "efficiency and dedication" of the staff helped Depot Field Hospital become one of the "finest" in the U.S.

President Abraham Lincoln visited the facility on April 8, 1865, where he is reported to have shook hands with more than 6,000 Union and Confederate patients.

Depot Field Hospital treated more than 70,000 soldiers during the Civil War, and the hospital reported deaths among fewer than 3 percent of those patients.

title: Depot Field Hospital


text:
Talk:Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval

Changes required
Forms 3,4, and 5 are now not only required to be filed via EGDGAR, they MUST be filed in XML, and MUST be filed within 2 days of a transaction.

 * This is correct: removed mention of Forms 3, 4, and 5 as being paper submissions. SteveD123.


text:
Rumyantsev

The Rumyantsev family (Румянцевы) is an old and prominent Russian noble family, whose members were involved in imperial politics in the 18th and early 19th century. They were granted the title of Count in Russia.

History
The family claimed descent from the boyar Rumyanets who broke his oath of allegiance and surrendered Nizhny Novgorod to Vasily I of Moscow in 1391.

The first Rumyantsev to gain prominence, Alexander Ivanovich (1680–1749), served as ordinary of Peter the Great in the Preobrazhensky regiment. In 1720 he married Countess Maria Matveyeva, daughter and heiress of Count Andrey Matveyev. Peter's daughter Elizabeth recalled Rumyantsev to active service and made him a hereditary count as well as Governor of Kiev.

Their son Pyotr Alexandrovich (1725–96) took his name from that of the ruling Emperor and was rumored to have been his natural son. In 1761 he besieged and took the Prussian fortress of Kolberg, thus clearing for Russian armies the path to Berlin. During Catherine II's reign he served as Governor General of Little Russia, or Ukraine. After crossing the Danube River into Bulgaria and signing the advantageous Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca with the Turks in 1774, Rumyantsev was promoted Field Marshal and was given the victory title of Zadunaisky (literally, "Transdanubian").

His sister, Praskovja Bruce (1729–85), was the confidant and lady-in-waiting of Catherine the Great, who entrusted her with her private affairs and was known in history as the so-called "l'éprouveuse" (= "the (lovers) tester").

During the Napoleonic wars, Zadunaisky's son Nikolay Petrovich (1754–1826) held the highest offices of state, including those of Minister of Commerce (1802–11), President of the State Council (1810–12), Foreign Minister (1808–12), and Chancellor of the Russian Empire. On receiving the news of Napoleon's invasion of Russia (1812), he suffered a stroke and lost his hearing. He died childless, and the family became extinct soon thereafter.

title: Rumyantsev


text:
Talk:Mount Hua

Monastery Date
Could anyone tell me when the Mount. Hua Monastery was founded?Hamstermage 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a monastery there. At least I didn't see anyone who could plausibly be some sort of monk or nun when I was there at the end of April, 2007. I have accordingly changed references to a "monastery" to a "temple".Bdell555 13:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous?
After reading this: I think a section explaining the its difficulty for tourists should be created.
 * I agree (and please sign your messages). The current article with expressions such as "it is rumoured" is unencyclopedic and also not informational. I'll dig up more info on the subject and add a brief paragraph with references explaining the risks. --piksi (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There do not seem to be any references for the section discussing safety improvements to the routesAs. I am concerned about statements such as "fatalities continued to occur". Although many have referred to deaths (and it is easy to imagine why), I can't find any actual documentation (like news articles). Additionally, much of the information in this section conflicts with eyewitness accounts. For example, the various accounts I have seen indicate that the plank road has always been a dead-end optional thrill/photo-op below the South Peak. Perhaps, as English-language secondary sources seem to be lacking, Chinese references may be useful. Tomyhoi (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This could be because the Chinese government censors a great deal of media regarding accidents and tragedies like the 2008 Sichuan earthquake
 * Actually the plank trail leads to Master He Cave, and rock climbers can even climb the cliff and go back to the South Peak. I agree the resources in English is very rare, and it takes time to translate the Chinese into English. I have added a section on the summits.  Karolus 2010/6/10

Meaning of "华"/"華" (huá)
It's in the official name of the PRC: 中华人民共和国, where 中华 is indeed used in place of 中国.

According to A New Learner's Chinese-English Dictionary (China International Publishing Group, 2008 - ISBN978-7-80200-357-6), pp. 330-331:
 * 华 [huá]

 * I (1) radiant; magnificent; splendid (2) prosperous; flourishing ... II (1) corona (2) best part; cream; essence ... (4) Chinese (language) (5) China ...

 * 华北 North China... ... 华人 Chinese 华文 Chinese ... 华语 Chinese (language)

Same source, p. 1076:

 * 中华 (1) the Chinese nation (2) China

So I think the "citation needed" can safely be removed.

Given the other meanings of 华 (e.g. "magnificent", "cream [best part]"), it might also be appropriate to translate 中华 as something like "Great[er] China" in some cases, as opposed to 中国 "land of China", but this is beyond the scope of this article; besides, it's only my intuition speaking and I can't cite a reference for this usage.

Jonstephens (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation of 华 in 华山 is huà, not huá in Zhonghua (中华). See the dictionary meanings of the character 华 and the word 华山. So the name of Mount Hua may not be relevant to the name of China. --Pengyanan (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the removal of the link "Personal Account of the Mountain". It is a grossly misleading article whether it was written in good faith or otherwise. The hyped-up nature of the article makes for an entertaining read and is heavily linked to but it is a self published and far from accurate source. The "personal account" has the peaks mixed up, the route up the mountain mixed up. I went to HuaShan only very shortly after that piece was supposedly written and it seems to me more fiction than fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.134.76 (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The big cave on north face of West peak
There is a big cave on north face of West peak. It can be seen from the picture. The hole is just on the left bottom of the photo and just above the cloud. From its shape, it seems to be natural. More detail can be seem from. Could any one provide more information about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constellationevolution (talk • contribs) 02:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mount Hua


text:
Talk:Depot Field Hospital

The text of article was obtained from public domain site. Darwinek 19:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Depot Field Hospital


text: Talk:Mount Huangbo

title: Talk:Mount Huangbo


text:
Fenais da Ajuda

Fenais da Ajuda is a civil parish in the municipality of Ribeira Grande in the Portuguese archipelago of the Azores. The population in 2011 was 1,131, in an area of 13.36 km2.

History

The name Fenais da Ajuda comes from fenais (hay or other herbaceous plants used as animal fodder, since the area historically produced much animal fodder), and from its patron saint, Nossa Senhora da Ajuda (Our Lady of Assistance), and a Franciscan monastery to Her honour that was located in the parish. Similarly, the area was known as Fenais da Vera Cruz, due to the area's similarity to a Christian cross, and later as Fenais da Maia when the Maia parish was sited there.

In the Livro do Tombo da Igreja dos Santos Reis Magos (burial registry for the Church of Santos Reis Magos), until 1819 the parish was part of the municipality of Vila Franca do Campo, but was later integrated into the municipality of Ribeira Grande.

The first inhabitants came from the neighbouring parish of Maia around 1500. They built a chapel dedicated to the Santos Reis Magos (literally, Sainted Magi Kings, or the New Testament Magi, who were protectors of Portuguese navigators and explorers). Historian Gaspar Frutuoso said of these settlers:
 * "There is a place in these Fenais, a parish of Reis Magos, where there were many noble settlers."

The first vicar, Bernardo de Froes, operated the religious institution and the local affiliated industry, which was supported by meager revenues from the Church. In 1541, the church was elevated to the status of parish. In 1832, the parochial Church of the Santos Reis Magos was begun, and it was consecrated in 1843.

The church building is a good example of period construction, having been successively conserved by the Ordem Terceira de São Francisco (Third of Saint Francis), more commonly known as the Third Order. The small chapel, dedicated to Our Lady of Help/Aid was built on the site of a much older Franciscan chapel by monks around 1681, under the direction of Lázaro Estrela (to fulfill a promise to the Virgin Mary), and remained in their possession. Between 1832 and 1847 the chapel served as an ornate parochial seat, its austere main nave in contrast to a painted lateral chapel, constructed in a Revivalist style and embossed with gold. This Franciscan monastery was vacated in 1832 when the Liberals expelled the monks, and the building was abandoned. After being sold, the convent was demolished.

Near Ribeira Funda (named for a nearby deep ravine, since ribeira funda means deep ravine), the parochial Church of Nossa Senhora da Aflição (Our Lady of Affliction) was constructed. The building resulted from the enlargement of the minor chapel (to the same invocation) which was ordered built by descendants of Captain António de Medeiros and his wife Maria Francisca.

Geography
The parish of Fenais da Ajuda occupies an area of 13.36 km2, along the northern coast of Ribeira Grande between the parishes of Lomba da Maia and Lomba de São Pedro and Furnas in the neighbouring municipality of Povoação. It contains the localities Criação, Espigão, Fenais da Ajuda and Ribeira Funda.

Architecture

 * Convent/Church of Nossa Senhora da Ajuda (Convento de Nossa Senhora da Ajuda/Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Ajuda)
 * Church of Nossa Senhora da Aflição (Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Aflição/Igreja de Nossa Senhora dos Aflitos)
 * Church of Santos Reis Magos (Igreja Paroquial Fenais da Ajuda/Igreja dos Santos Reis Magos)

title: Fenais da Ajuda


text:
Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use", is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. After being proposed repeatedly since 1972, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was initiating rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.

Background
Schedule I is the only category of controlled substances not allowed to be prescribed by a physician. Under , drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:
 * 1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
 * 2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
 * 3) There is a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug or other substances under medical supervision.

In 1970, Congress placed cannabis into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional:

Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marijuana. It is presently classed in schedule I(C) along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs. Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and the effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue.

In 1972, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released a report favoring decriminalization of cannabis. The Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however.

Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I and so the government is required by law to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The US government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on both how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.

The Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, but a synthetic pill form of cannabis's psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1986 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999, it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III.

A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition filed by medical cannabis advocates was in 2002, but it was denied by the DEA in July 2011. Subsequently, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access filed an appeal, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration in January 2012 with the District of Columbia Circuit, which was heard on 16 October 2012 and denied on 22 January 2013.

As of April 2023, 38 states, 3 territories, and Washington, D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana. At a congressional hearing in June 2014, the deputy director for Regulatory Programs at the FDA said the agency was conducting an analysis on whether marijuana should be downgraded, at the request of the DEA. In August 2016 the DEA reaffirmed its position and refused to remove Schedule I classification. However, the DEA announced that it will end restrictions on the supply of marijuana to researchers and drug companies that had previously only been available from the government's own facility at the University of Mississippi.

Advocates of marijuana legalization argue that the budgetary impact of removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing its use in the United States could save billions by reducing government spending for prohibition enforcement in the criminal justice system. Additionally, they argue that billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation.

For rescheduling
Jon Gettman, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has argued that cannabis does not fit each of the three statutory criteria for Schedule I. Gettman believes that "high potential for abuse" means that a drug has a potential for abuse similar to that of heroin or cocaine. Gettman argues further that since laboratory animals do not self-administer cannabis, and because cannabis' toxicity is virtually non-existent compared to that of heroin or cocaine, cannabis lacks the high abuse potential required for inclusion in Schedule I or II.

Gettman also states: "The acceptance of cannabis' medical use by eight (now thirty-eight and DC) states since 1996 and the experiences of patients, doctors, and state officials in these states establish marijuana's accepted medical use in the United States." Specifically, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington DC, and West Virginia, have enacted legislation allowing the medical use of cannabis by their citizens. A minimum of 4 million patients are currently using medical cannabis legally in these states.

In his petition, Gettman also argues that cannabis is an acceptably safe medication. He notes that a 1999 Institute of Medicine report found that "except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications." He points out that there are a number of delivery routes that were not considered by the institute, such as transdermal, sublingual, and even rectal administration, in addition to vaporizers, which release cannabis' active ingredients into the air without burning the plant matter.

A study published in the March 1, 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that "there are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans" and attributed this safety to the low density of cannabinoid receptors in areas of the brain controlling breathing and the heart. Gettman claims that the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s revolutionized scientific understanding of cannabis' effects and provided further evidence that it does not belong in Schedule I.

In 2003, the United States government patented cannabinoids, including those in marijuana that cause users to get "high" (such as THC) based on these chemicals' prevention of trauma- and age-related brain damage.

In January 2008, the American College of Physicians called for a review of cannabis's Schedule I classification in its position paper titled "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana" It stated therein: "Position 4: ACP urges an evidence-based review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule. This review should consider the scientific findings regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions as well as evidence on the health risks associated with marijuana consumption, particularly in its crude smoked form."

From 2008 to 2012, the American Patients Rights Association, in cooperation with Medical Marijuana expert Kim Quiggle, lobbied the federal government over what is now known as the "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" based on a medical study performed by Quiggle on over 10,000 chronically ill and terminally ill patients' use of medical marijuana in Southern California. This study provided conclusive evidence that medical marijuana provided a safer and alternative application to many current pharmaceutical products available for patients, especially those with cancer and HIV/AIDS. The "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" were instrumental in the issuance of the Cole Memorandum, which has set federal guidelines over states with medical marijuana laws and has urged the federal government to reschedule marijuana to a Class IV or Class V controlled substance based on the results of the Quiggle Study.

Against rescheduling
In 1992, DEA Administrator Robert Bonner promulgated five criteria, based somewhat on the Controlled Substances Act's legislative history, for determining whether a drug has an accepted medical use. The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria:
 * The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;
 * There are adequate safety studies;
 * There are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
 * The drug is accepted by qualified experts; and
 * The scientific evidence is widely available.

These criteria are not binding; they were created by DEA and may be altered at any time. Judicial deference to agency decisions is what has kept them in effect, despite the difference between these and the statutory criteria. Cannabis is one of several plants with unproven abuse potential and toxicity that Congress placed in Schedule I. The DEA interprets the Controlled Substances Act to mean that if a drug with even a low potential for abuse — say, equivalent to a Schedule V drug — has no accepted medical use, then it must remain in Schedule I:

When it comes to a drug that is currently listed in Schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." 21 USC 812(b).

Therefore, even if one were to assume, theoretically, that your assertions about marijuana's potential for abuse were correct (i.e., that marijuana had some potential for abuse but less than the "high potential for abuse" commensurate with schedules I and II), marijuana would not meet the criteria for placement in schedules III through V since it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States—a determination that is reaffirmed by HHS in the attached medical and scientific evaluation.

The Department of Health and Human Services rejects the argument that laboratory animals' failure to self-administer cannabis is conclusive proof of its low potential for abuse:

"The Secretary disagrees with Mr. Gettman's assertion that '[t]he accepted contemporary legal convention for evaluating the abuse potential of a drug or substance is the relative degree of self-administration the drug induces in animal subjects.' As discussed above, self-administration tests that identify whether a substance is reinforcing in animals are but one component of the scientific assessment of the abuse potential of a substance. Positive indicators of human abuse liability for a particular substance, whether from laboratory studies or epidemiological data, are given greater weight than animal studies suggesting the same compound has no abuse potential."

The Food and Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of cannabis, and the existence of some heavy users, is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness:

"[P]hysical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors to consider in determining a substance's abuse potential. A large number of individuals using marijuana on a regular basis and the vast amount of marijuana that is available for illicit use are indicative of widespread use. In addition, there is evidence that marijuana use can result in psychological dependence in a certain proportion of the population."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) also considers the fact that people are willing to risk scholastic, career, and legal problems to use cannabis to be evidence of its high potential for abuse:

"Throughout his petition, Mr. Gettman argues that while many people 'use' cannabis, few 'abuse' it. He appears to equate abuse with the level of physical dependence and toxicity resulting from cannabis use. Thus, he appears to be arguing that a substance that causes only low levels of physical dependence and toxicity must be considered to have a low potential for abuse. The Secretary does not agree with this argument. Physical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors that are considered in determining a substance's abuse potential. The actual use and frequency of use of a substance, especially when that use may result in harmful consequences such as failure to fulfill major obligations at work or school, physical risk-taking, or even substance-related legal problems, are indicative of a substance's abuse potential."

Process
Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000, adding GHB to Schedule I. On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced, legislation that would completely remove cannabis from the federal schedules, limiting the federal government's role to policing cross-border or interstate transfers into states where it remains illegal.

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal. The first petition took 22 years to review, the second took 7 years, the third was denied 9 years later. A 2013 petition by two state governors is still pending.

Rulemaking proceedings
The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21, sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as the successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, great power over rescheduling decisions.

After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA. The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." .

Factors
Unless an international treaty requires controlling a substance, the Attorney General must, in finding whether the drug meets the three criteria for placement in a particular schedule, consider the following factors:
 * The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse.
 * Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
 * The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
 * Its history and current pattern of abuse.
 * The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
 * What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
 * Its psychological or physiological dependence liability.
 * Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance.

International treaty scheduling

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is the main international treaty establishing international law provisions related to marijuana. It was ratified by the United States in 1967. When a treaty ratified by the U.S. mandates that a drug be controlled, the Attorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations" without regard to scientific or medical findings. Under the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, cannabis and cannabis resin were traditionally classified under Schedule IV (treaty's most strictly controlled category of drugs ) since 1961.

However, in 2020, world nations voted to lower the scheduling status of marijuana to the less-restrictive Schedule I. The decision became legally-effective worldwide in April 2021, taking "cannabis and cannabis resin" out of Schedule IV to leave it only in Schedule I. After "cannabis and cannabis resin" have been removed from Schedule IV, further steps to reschedule or deschedule marijuana (such as taking it out of the treaty's Schedule I) would now require amendment of the treaty. The principal features of the international legal regime of Schedule I are:

 * Limitation to medical and scientific purposes of all phases of trade (manufacture, domestic trade, both wholesale and retail, and international trade) in, and of the possession and use of, drugs, except drugs that are used in industry for other than medical and scientific purposes (article 2(9) );
 * Requirement of governmental authorization (licensing or state ownership) for the participation in any phase of the production or trade, specific import and export authorization for each individual international transaction;
 * Obligation of all participants in the trade to keep detailed records of their transactions;
 * Requirement of a medical prescription for the supply or dispensation of drugs to individuals;
 * A system of limiting the quantities of drugs available, by manufacture or import or both, in each country and territory, to those needed for medical and scientific purposes.

In the United States, 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substances Act states that if the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs proposes rescheduling a drug, the HHS Secretary "shall evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to the Secretary of State which shall be binding on the representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal".

However, "[s]cheduling pursuant to international treaty obligations does not require the factual findings that are necessary for other administrative scheduling actions, and may be implemented without regard to the procedures outlined for regular administrative scheduling." For this reason, some have argued that changes in cannabis scheduling at the U.S. federal level may be fast-tracked after the change in treaty scheduling, on these grounds.

1972 petition
In 1972 the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) (now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) to transfer cannabis to Schedule II so that it could be legally prescribed by physicians. The BNDD declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments.

In 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition (NORML v. Ingersoll 497 F.2d 654). The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling-related issues concerning the NORML petition. In 1977, the Court issued a decision clarifying that the Controlled Substances Act requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated (NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735). On October 16, 1980, the Court ordered the government to start the scientific and medical evaluations required by the NORML petition (NORML v. DEA Unpublished Disposition, U.S. App. LEXIS 13100).

Meanwhile, some members of Congress were taking action to reschedule the drug legislatively. In 1981, the late Rep. Stuart McKinney introduced a bill to transfer cannabis to Schedule II. It was co-sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of 84 House members, including prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich (GA), Bill McCollum (FL), John Porter (IL), and Frank Wolf (VA). After the bill died in committee, Rep. Barney Frank began annually introducing nearly identical legislation. All of Frank's bills have suffered the same fate, though, without attracting more than a handful of co-sponsors.

On October 18, 1985, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to transfer "Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules" — a pill form of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of cannabis, sold under the brand name Marinol — from Schedule I to Schedule II (DEA 50 FR 42186-87). The government issued its final rule rescheduling the drug on July 13, 1986 (DEA 51 FR 17476-78). The disparate treatment of cannabis and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency.

In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".

Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against rescheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992. This statement was quoted by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in its membership drives.

In 1994, the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131). The petition was officially dead. "Each of the doctors testifying on behalf of NORML claimed that his opinion was based on scientific studies, yet with one exception, none could identify, under oath, the scientific studies they relied on," DEA Administrator Thomas A. Constantine remarked in 1995.

1980 congressional hearings
On May 20, 1980, Representative Sam Neal (D-NC) convened hearings on Schedule I drugs.

1995 petition
On July 10, 1995, Jon Gettman and High Times Magazine filed another rescheduling petition with the DEA. This time, instead of focusing on cannabis' medical uses, the petitioners claimed that cannabis did not have the "high potential for abuse" required for Schedule I or Schedule II status. They based their claims on studies of the brain's cannabinoid receptor system conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) between 1988 and 1994. In particular, they claim that a 1992 study by M. Herkenham et al., "using a lesion-technique, established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in the dopamine-producing areas of the brain". Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana, showed that cannabis has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission. This suggested that cannabis' psychoactive effects are produced by a different mechanism than addictive drugs such as amphetamine, cocaine, ethanol, nicotine, and opiates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, continued to publish literature denying this finding. For instance, NIDA claims the following in its youth publication The Science Behind Drug Abuse:
 * A chemical in marijuana, THC, triggers brain cells to release the chemical dopamine. Dopamine creates good feelings — for a short time. Here's the thing: Once dopamine starts flowing, a user feels the urge to smoke marijuana again, and then again, and then again. Repeated use could lead to addiction, and addiction is a brain disease.

In January 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids. In 1999, the IOM recommended that medical cannabis use be allowed for certain patients in the short term, and that preparations of isolated cannabinoids be developed as a safer alternative to smoked cannabis. The IOM also found that the gateway drug theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."

Both sides claimed that the IOM report supported their position. The DEA publication Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana interpreted the IOM's statement, "While we see a future in the development of chemically defined cannabinoid drugs, we see little future in smoked marijuana as a medicine," as meaning that smoking cannabis is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. Cannabis advocates pointed out that the IOM did not study vaporizers, devices which, by heating cannabis to 185 °C, release therapeutic cannabinoids while reducing or eliminating ingestion of various carcinogens.

On July 2, 1999, Marinol was again rescheduled, this time from Schedule II to the even less-restrictive Schedule III, while cannabis remained in Schedule I (64 FR 35928). The petitioners argued that the distinction between the two drugs was arbitrary, and that cannabis should be rescheduled as well. The DEA, however, continued to support Marinol as a method of THC ingestion without harmful smoke inhalation.

The DEA published a final denial of Gettman's petition on April 18, 2001. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the agency's decision on May 24, 2002, ruling that the petitioners were not sufficiently injured to have standing to challenge DEA's determinations in federal court (290 F.3d 430). Since the appeal was dismissed on a technicality, it is unknown what position the Court would have taken on the merits of the case.

2002 petition
On October 9, 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed another petition for rescheduling. The new organization consisted of medical cannabis patients and other petitioners who would be more directly affected by the DEA's decision. On April 3, 2003, the DEA accepted the filing of that petition. According to Jon Gettman, "In accepting the petition the DEA has acknowledged that the Coalition has established a legally significant argument in support of the recognition of the accepted medical use of cannabis in the United States."

(In a 2005 footnote to the majority decision in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice John Paul Stevens said that if the scientific evidence offered by medical cannabis supporters is true, it would "cast serious doubt" on the Schedule I classification.)

After nine years of delay, on May 23, 2011, the Coalition filed suit in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to compel the DEA to formally respond to its 2002 rescheduling petition. The writ of mandamus request alleged that the lack of decision by DEA, "presents a paradigmatic example of unreasonable delay under Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC." After DEA responded by denying the rescheduling petition, the mandamus request was dismissed as moot by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 14, 2011.

The DEA denied the Petition for Rescheduling on July 8, 2011.

In response to the petition's denial, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access appealed to the D.C. Circuit on January 23, 2012. Oral arguments in the case Americans for Safe Access v. DEA were heard on October 16, 2012. On the same day the case was heard, the court ordered the plaintiffs (ASA) to clarify their arguments on standing. In response, ASA filed a supplemental brief on October 22, 2012, detailing how plaintiff Michael Krawitz was harmed by the federal government's policy on medical marijuana due to being denied treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs. A ruling that acknowledged Krawitz's standing, but ultimately stood by the DEA was made on January 22, 2013.

2009 petition
On December 17, 2009, Rev. Bryan A. Krumm, CNP, filed a rescheduling petition for Cannabis with the DEA arguing that "because marijuana does not have the abuse potential for placement in Schedule I of the CSA, and because marijuana now has accepted medical use in 13 states, and because the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision, the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C), no longer applies to marijuana and federal law must be amended to reflect these changes." Krumm demanded an expedited ruling in order to protect his health and welfare, as well as that of all citizens of the United States who may benefit from this safe and effective medication.

Rev. Krumm did not request that cannabis be moved to any specific schedule of control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and has reserved his right to challenge any incorrect findings by the FDA and/or DEA whether Cannabis should even be regulated under the CSA.

DEA denied Rev. Krumm's petition on 19 July 2016.

2011 petition
On November 30, 2011, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire announced the filing of a petition with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration asking the agency to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule 2 drug, which will allow its use for treatment – prescribed by doctors and filled by pharmacists. Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-Rhode Island) also signed the petition.

On December 23, 2015, Tom Angell reported that the FDA had finally issued a recommendation to the DEA regarding both the 2009 and 2011 petitions. On August 12, 2016, DEA denied the governors' petition.

2011 bill
On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), along with 1 Republican and 19 Democratic cosponsors, introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, which would have removed marijuana and THC from the list of Schedule I controlled substances and would have provided that the Controlled Substances Act not apply to marijuana except when transported to a jurisdiction where its use is illegal. The bill was referred to committee but died when no further action was taken.

2012 bill
On November 27, 2012, after voters in the states of CO and WA voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced a bill referred to as the 'Respect States and Citizens Rights Act' which aimed to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude any state that has legalized marijuana (for medical OR recreational use) from marijuana provisions of the CSA, effectively giving state law precedence over federal law in cases where an individual (or commercial enterprise) is acting within the letter of state law regarding marijuana/cannabis. The bill was referred to committee but died when no further action was taken. The same bill was reintroduced later in the 113th and 114th Congresses, where it died each time.

2015 bill
On February 20, 2015, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), along with 1 Republican and 18 Democratic cosponsors, introduced the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, which would have, among other provisions, directed the Attorney General to remove marijuana from all schedules of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act; prohibited transport of marijuana into a jurisdiction in which its possession, use, or sale is prohibited; and granted the Food and Drug Administration the same authorities with respect to marijuana as it has for alcohol. The bill was referred to committee but died when no further action was taken.

2016
In August 2016, the DEA rejected calls to reschedule marijuana, but indicated an increase in availability for research.

The 2016 platform of the Democratic Party called for removal of marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, "providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization" of marijuana. This language was approved in a close vote (81–80 vote) in the platform committee.

2017
In February 2017, Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican, introduced H.R. 714, Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marijuana Act, that would move cannabis to Schedule II. Griffith had introduced a bill under the same name in 2014.

In April 2017, Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, cosponsored House Resolution 2020 to move cannabis to Schedule III.

In May 2017, following a resolution adopted at the 2016 annual convention to support cannabis to treat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the American Legion petitioned the White House for a meeting to discuss rescheduling or descheduling cannabis and allowing it to be used medically.

In July 2017, a lawsuit was brought in U.S. District Court against the heads of the DEA and Justice Department on the grounds that Schedule I listing of cannabis is "so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution". This lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein who ruled that the DEA has authority and before bringing the lawsuit the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies including petitioning the DEA to reschedule cannabis.

2018
The 2018 United States farm bill descheduled some cannabis products from the Controlled Substances Act for the first time.

2019
In May 2019, A federal appeals court has re-instated a case against the federal government over the Schedule I status of cannabis.

The challengers, Super Bowl champion Marvin Washington; Dean Bortell (parent of underage medical cannabis patient Alexis Bortell); U.S. Army veteran José Belén; Sebastien Cotte (parent of underage medical cannabis patient Jagger Cotte); and the Cannabis Cultural Association, originally sued the U.S. federal government, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its administrator, and then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, back in 2017. They argued that cannabis' Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) represented a risk to patients' health and perpetuated economic inequities in the U.S.

Initially dismissed by the court under the argument that plaintiffs had not exhausted all administrative channels available – meaning they should have tried to push for re-scheduling in Congress and administrative agencies before recurring to the judicial system, the case now has to be re-opened, as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judges still believe other channels are viable, but have decided to re-instate the case citing health concerns related to the two minors involved.

As Michael S. Hiller, Esquire, who represents the plaintiffs, explained in a series of tweets, the court has directed the DEA and federal government to act on the plaintiffs' de-scheduling petition "with all deliberate speed."

Legislation introduced in 2019 to deschedule cannabis has included the Marijuana Justice Act, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, the Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act, and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.

2020
As of September 16, 2020, nine amicus briefs had been filed in support of the plaintiffs' appeal to the Supreme Court in the Washington v. Barr lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek to declare the criminalization of cannabis unconstitutional, arguing that its status as a Schedule I drug—based on the premise that it has no medicinal use—contradicts the federal government's own apparent recognition of the substance as safe and medicinally effective.

In international law, however, the lowering of cannabis from Schedule IV (the strictest class) to Schedule I (the standard level of control) was voted by the United Nations' Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020. The United States voted in favor of the recommendation.

2021
In Sisley v. DEA lawsuit NO. 20-71433, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition that asked the court to review the DEA's denial of a letter that requested the agency reschedule marijuana. Under the CSA, the DEA must begin investigating the rescheduling of a drug after receiving a petition by from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. The petition in question in Sisley v. DEA was a one-page, handwritten letter from Jeramy Bowers and Stephen Zyszkiewicz, sent in January 2020 while they were inmates at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The DEA responded to the petition with a letter that informed Bowers and Zyszkiewicz that the petition was not in the correct format and denied the request without review. In June 2021, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for judicial review of the letter on behalf of Bowers and Zyszkiewicz, saying that they had not exhausted their bureaucratic remedies by addressing a new petition to the DEA in the correct format.

2022
On 6 October 2022, President Joe Biden instructed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to review the classification schedule of cannabis, during a "Statement on Marijuana Reform." This could result in its removal from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. The Congressional Research Service had issued a report a year earlier noting that the President could "use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana".

2023
On August 30, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services released a redacted letter communicating its determination that marijuana should be moved to Schedule III.

2024
On January 5, 2024, after a lawsuit was filed against the Department of Health and Human Services by attorney Matt Zorn, an un-redacted copy of the department's descheduling determination letter was released. After reviewing the letter, a legal expert concluded it was "very likely that the DEA will move forward with the rulemaking process to reschedule marijuana", a similar conclusion to that reported by the Congressional Research Service in a 2023 report. A dozen members of the U.S. Senate, including the majority leader, signed a letter to the United States Attorney general and the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration expressing their desire that rescheduling be the administration's decision, if not outright descheduling.

On April 30, the Associated Press published a report that the Drug Enforcement Administration had decided to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule III drug, though it was not yet officially announced, and called it "the agency's biggest policy change in more than 50 years".

On May 16, the Justice Department confirmed that rescheduling was moving forward under the Administrative Procedure Act, with a notice of proposed rulemaking submitted for publication in the Federal Register. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both released video announcements to X concerning the rescheduling. Biden called his administration's action as a "monumental" move in "reversing long-standing inequities... because of a failed approach to marijuana".

On July 9, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee blocked the DOJ from using federal funds to reschedule cannabis via an amendment to a funding bill.

Potential impact on 2024 presidential election
A January 2024 poll found that Biden's favorability rating could improve 11% if cannabis rescheduling occurs, and may have a significant effect on the 2024 United States presidential election in November.

State level reclassification
In addition to the federal government's classification, each state maintains a similar classification list and it is possible for these lists to conflict.

California
Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, is a voter initiative, passed in 1996, that made California the first state to legalize cannabis for medical use. California Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, was passed in 2004 with the following purpose: "(1) Clarify the scope of the application of the act and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers. (2) Promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state. (3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects."

In 2016, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act was voted into law, legalizing recreational consumption for those over 21 in the state. In 2017, Senate Bill 94 was signed by the California Governor integrating the previous state medical marijuana regulations and the adult use regulations of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Proposition 64) to create the Medicinal and Adult‐Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).

Each municipality is allowed to decide whether to grant business licenses for retail, delivery, growing, edibles, and wholesale. Taxes on legal marijuana keep it out of reach to low-income medical or adult users, creating more demand for the black market. Licenses, when available, are extremely limited and can cost $100,000 sometimes requiring proof of additional capital. Additionally, California has long provided much of the marijuana for the entire United States. These factors have allowed the black market to dominate California marijuana. Social equity programs are in place in some cities, but applicants with drug felonies are often excluded from participation. Those who qualify based on race, income, or history of marijuana offenses are often taken advantage of by larger businesses who can outbid each other and take advantage of applicants and the social equity program itself.

Cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinols remain a Schedule I drug (no medical use) in California and are subject to criminal penalties ranging from misdemeanor or felony probation up to 3 years in prison for maintaining a place for controlled substance sale or use under California Health & Safety Code Section 11366.

Colorado
On Nov. 6, 2012, after passing Amendment 64, Colorado became one of the first two states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for individuals over the age of 21.

Florida
On January 27, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court approved the ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment allowing the medical use of marijuana, following a successful petition drive. The amendment proposal appeared on Florida's November 2014 general election ballot and received 58% of the vote, below the 60% requirement for adoption. The campaign was notable for opposition funding by casino magnate and Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson. United for Care, the pro-medical cannabis organization responsible for the initial petition, wrote an updated version for the 2016 general election. The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Amendment 2, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment. The amendment was approved by 71.32% of the vote making it the highest percentage win in 2016 of any other state cannabis ballot in the United States.

Iowa
On Feb. 17, 2010, after reviewing testimony from four public hearings and reading through more than 10,000 pages of submitted material, members of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to recommend that the Iowa legislature remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Iowa Controlled Substances Act.

Minnesota
On March 16, 2011, Kurtis W. Hanna and Ed Engelmann petitioned the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy to initiate rule making to remove Cannabis from the list of Schedule I substance in Minnesota's version of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The Board was informed when they denied the petition at their meeting on May 11, 2011, by Kurtis Hanna that he planned on filing for judicial review of the agency's decision. In response, the Board voted to petition the State Legislature to remove the Board's authority to remove substances from Schedule I. At a Conference Committee for Omnibus Drug Bill HF57 on May 18, 2011, the following sentence was added to the bill, "The Board of Pharmacy may not delete or reschedule a drug that is in Schedule I" and the following sentence of statute was deleted, "the state Board of Pharmacy [...] shall annually, on or before May 1 of each year, conduct a review of the placement of controlled substances in the various schedules." The bill was signed into law by Governor Dayton on May 24, 2011. Kurtis Hanna never filed a lawsuit against the Board of Pharmacy due to the belief that it would be moot.

Oregon
In June 2010, the Oregon Board of Pharmacy reclassified marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II drug. News reports noted that this reclassification makes Oregon the "first state in the nation to make marijuana anything less serious than a Schedule I drug."

Washington
On Nov. 6, 2012, Washington voters passed Initiative 502, making the state one of the first two in the nation to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for individuals over the age of 21.

Wisconsin
Gary Storck sent a letter to the Controlled Substances board in August 2011 requesting procedures to file a petition, which was discussed at the September 2011 Controlled Substances Board Meeting. The Wisconsin Controlled Substances board has authority to reschedule cannabis pursuant to the rule-making procedures of ch. 227. Drafters planned to submit a petition to the Controlled Substances Board in early 2012.

In 2018, Wisconsin voters approved non-binding referendums to legalize medical or recreational marijuana.

In 2021, Governor Tony Evers included legal marijuana in his budget proposal. It was removed by Republican-controlled Legislature. While possession remains illegal under state law, law enforcement has been lax in recent years. Madison has legalized possession and use in public while the Milwaukee County District Attorney chooses not to prosecute most possession cases. While progress is being made, individuals in Wisconsin are still unsure if they will be allowed to use marijuana in public, have marijuana confiscated, be arrested, fined, or imprisoned for lengthy periods. Because of the demand, marijuana is brought in from illegal grows in legal states.


text:
Talk:Quasi-contract

Untitled
I have heard this described as a legal remedy and also as an equitable remedy (from different sources). Any idea which is more accurate?
 * A quasi-contract is a legal remedy and can be traced to Moses v. Macferlan, 97 Eng. Rep. 676 (1760), when Lord Mansfield, sitting on the King's Bench (a common law court), gave restitution to the plaintiff after the chancery court denied his claim. The origins of the term may have led to the confusion between law and equity, particularly from this quote: "the law implies a debt and gives this action, founded in the equity of the plaintiff's case, as if it were upon a contract ('quasi ex contractu' as the Roman law expresses it.)" --Whitenoise101 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

'''The original page was incorrect. A quasi-contract is neither a legal nor an equitable 'remedy'. An action for money had and received (a quasi-contractual action) has been described as being analogous to a bill in equity (i.e., to a suit in the Court of Chancery), and was so described in Moses v Macferlan. But it was and remains a common law cause of action. Some confusion over this may derive from the fact that Australian jurisdictions have emphasised the equitable influences upon the quasi-contractual action of money had and received. But a quasi-contract is not an equitable remedy, nor is it a legal remedy: it simply refers to a fictional contract that was recognised by common law courts so as to bring about a just outcome. Jason246xy 20 March 2016'''

implied in fact is really an evidence doctrine and is markedly different from other issues

Yes, best to keep them separate. I may expand, because there is plenty out there. But the distinction between implied in fact and implied in law is important...the latter is a totally different legal theory and seriously affects your potential remedies. Gibbsale 01:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

An implied contract is an actual contract, however its based on the conduct of the parties rather than their express consent (such as I accept). For example, X offers to paint Y's house for $500. Y doesn't say anything but watches X paint the house. Y's conduct indicates that he consented to the painting of the house. --Corrie2723 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be no support for merging these articles, so I am removing the tag. I also feel they are separate topics and merely share a similar name. Lagringa 06:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

'''These problems have probably been resolved by subsequent edits to the article. The article now makes more explicit the distinction between a contract implied in fact and a quasi-contract. Jason246xy'''

Casual Job
Although there is no written contract for most casual jobs, this is not an example of a quasi-contract, but rather of an unwritten contract. Eiad77 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Finish the introduction?
The introduction ends with, "The law of quasi-contract was generally used to enforce restitutionary" That's it, no noun for "restitutionary" to modify and no closing punctuation. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quasi-contract


text:
Talk:Izzy Stradlin

TO THE ADMIN
Hello, dear amin of this page

I've got no idea if you have seen this lately but there have been one or two anonymous users on here who have started and caused edit wars over the topic ”Private Life”. Their actions are rude and invalid in my opinion and also in the opinions of others that have undone the anonymous users' edits more than once. I put up trustworthy sources to the sentence that I wrote and their reason that it's ”irrelevant” that Izzy Stradlin' was married and then divored is not from important weight.

This is why I'd like to ask you to block log these anonymous users because that's all I can do. Their IP-adress are 50.0.190.228 and 52.119.127.84 If you think that blocking them is not okay, I'd find it nice of you if you'd reply to this ”talk” topic and we'd find a solution together.

Thanks in advance !

Sincerely, Auryn-Ouroboros :) Auryn-Ouroboros (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 * adresses Auryn-Ouroboros (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Izzy Stradlin Currently Married Elena Isbell?
I have read that Izzy Stradlin is remarried - to a woman named Elena, who of course goes by Elena Isbell. Her maiden name is not listed, so I suppose it is unknown. I don't have a marriage date, but it seems that they began dating in 2006? It just seems if he is married that it would be on his wiki page. So I wanted to add this. Thanks. And if I am wrong about this, then no disrespect to Izzy Stradlin. Thanks. 2600:1700:FE31:3900:F5DF:50DF:2283:B743 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you sponsor my oval track street stock car? 2600:1017:B0C1:C424:0:30:F01D:8C01 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Izzy Stradlin


text:
Talk:Jengish Chokusu

Pinnacles?
Is "harsh pinnacle" an accurate term for the Pobeda section of the Tian Shan? SiGarb 22:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Names
Why is the peak supposed to be called "Shengli Feng" in Chinese, what are the sources for that claim? It should be Tömür in Uighur, and that is the official name of the peak in China, or Tuōmù'ěr Fēng 托木尔峰 in Chinese. Any objections? —Babelfisch 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Name again (revert of recent edit)
This page got moved a while back from Peak Pobeda to Jengish Chokusu. The recent edits I reverted amounted to an attempt to move the page back without actually doing so. That is a major enough change that it would need to be discussed on the talk page first, so please do so if you believe that Peak Pobeda is the better name for the peak and the article. However, I believe that Jengish Chokusu is in fact the better name, because it is the official local name for the peak.

Also included in the recent edit was the phrase "harsh pinnacle", mentioned above, and no, this is not an accurate term. A pinnacle is a particular kind of topographical feature, small and pointed, and cannot refer to a whole range or massif, except in a misleadingly metaphorical way. -- Spireguy 13:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the only appropriate name for this is "Pobeda Peak"
The first - it was discovered by russian speaking Soviet expedition, not by local kyrgyz tribes as it took place in Khan Tengri case.

The second - it is well known as Pobeda Peak or Tomur (Chineese), but not other names.

The third and the last - renaming of geographic features is highly political engagment action on the CIS area and it is usually conflict with common sense.

Sorry for bad english :(

Gleb.

great patriotic war
velikaja otechestvennaja vojna in russian would be great fatherland war a great patriotic war would be translated as velikaja patrioticheskaja vojna nobody calls it that, everybody calls it the great fatherland war or world war two so you might want to fix that mistranslation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.208.44 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jengish Chokusu Animation Video.gif

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jengish Chokusu Animation Video.gif

 * Ascent
 * On September 19, 1938, Soviet climbers Leonid Gutman, Evgeny Ivanov and Alexander Sidorenko, under the leadership of A. A. Letavet, made the first ascent to the summit (according to TSB) [2] or tried to climb, rising to a height of 6930 m (according to TSB).
 * 1956 - an ascent was made along the northern edge of the Zvezdochka glacier under the guidance of the Soviet climber V. M. Abalakov. According to BRE, this was the first ascent.
 * 1958 - for the first time 13 people climbed the massif of Pobeda peak with ascent along the Eastern ridge from the Chon-Teren pass to Pobeda peak and descending along the Northern ridge. Igor Erokhin led a team of climbers from Moscow Higher Technical School and Moscow State University.[10]
 * 1982 - by al-Ata climbers, who were not part of the First Himalayan Expedition to Everest, a new super-difficult route along the northern wall of the snake ("on a dollar"). Ruk. B. Smirnov.
 * 1984 - mass (27 Soviet climbers) ascent to Pobeda peak[11].
 * 1990 - the first ascent to the northeast of the buttress. Ruk. B. Zhuravlev.
 * 1993 - the first high-speed solo ascent to Pobeda Peak from the ABC camp of the Zvezdochka glacier (4200 m) and back in 20 hours by Gleb Sokolov
 * 1995 - On May 7, 12 Novosibirsk climbers led by Vladimir Yudin and Gleb Sokolov made the first ever spring ascent to Pobeda Peak in honor of the 50th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.
 * 2003 — the ascent of a group of Krasnoyarsk climbers led by Gleb Sokolov to Pobeda Peak along a new route through the ice balcony of the northern wall.
 * 2005 - the first solo crossing of the Pobeda massif from the Chon-Teren pass to the Diky Gleb Sokolov pass in 8 days (August 16 - August 23)
 * 2009 - a pair of Novosibirsk Gleb Sokolov - Vitaly Gorelik passed the wall route along the northern wall with access to the Camel gendarmerie.
 * 2011 - Kazakh couple Denis Urubko - Gennady Durov passed a direct route to the top - "stick to dollar" (ascent option 1982).
 * 2017, January/February — the Red Fox Asia team climbed the Khan Tengri and Pobeda Peaks as part of the Five Winter 7000ers program, and a spherical panorama of the Pobeda Peak was compiled based on its photographic materials [12].
 * 2021 - a group of three athletes from St. Petersburg (Nikolai Totmyanin, Alexander Dusheiko, Natalya Belyankina) climbing Pobeda Peak along the route of V. Abalakov (6A cat. Difficulty) after acclimatization to Lenin Peak and traverse Khan - Tengri Peak from the north to the south, Nikolai Totmyanin becomes a 7-time "SNOW LEOPARD". Natalya Belyankina becomes the first St. Petersburg woman on this route. Цйфыву (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jengish Chokusu


text:
Talk:Purple Mountain (Nanjing)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jooookerr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Purple Mountain (Nanjing)