text:
New York State Thruway Authority

The New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) is a public benefit corporation in New York State, United States. The NYSTA was formed in 1950 with the responsibility of constructing, maintaining, and operating the New York State Thruway, a system of limited-access highways within the state.

Organization
In August 2017, Matthew J. Driscoll was appointed by Governor Andrew Cuomo as the Acting Executive Director of the New York State Thruway Authority. The executive officers report to a 6-member board of directors. In 2017, the authority had operating expenses of $872.17 million, an outstanding debt of $8.827 billion, and a staffing level of 3,754 people.

The authority operates without financial assistance from the state of New York. All debt is paid for through tolls and fees.

Formation
A toll superhighway connecting the major cities of the state of New York that would become part of a larger nationwide highway network was proposed as early as 1949. Construction was initially administered by the state Department of Public Works, however in the following year, the New York State Legislature passed the Thruway Authority Act creating the New York State Thruway Authority, an independent public corporation, which would build and manage the Thruway. The project was to be financed through toll revenue bonds and self-liquidating by receipt of tolls, rents, concessions, and other income. The act also stipulated NYSTA adopt a hybrid system of tolls, with barrier tolls collected in urban areas, and long-distance tickets issued in rural areas.

System expansion
After the New Jersey Turnpike was built in 1952, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) and NYSTA proposed a 13 mi extension of the New Jersey Turnpike that would go from its end (at US 46 in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, at the time) up to West Nyack at the Thruway. The portion through New Jersey was to be constructed and maintained by NJTA, while the portion in New York was to be built and maintained by NYSTA. The purpose of this extension was to give motorists a "more direct bypass of the New York City area" to New England by using the Tappan Zee Bridge. The extension was to parallel NY 303 and the Conrail-owned River Line, and have limited interchanges, one of which would be with the Palisades Interstate Parkway. By 1970, it became too expensive to buy right-of-way access, and community opposition was fierce. Therefore, both the NJTA and NYSTA cancelled the project.

In 1990, the state of New York sold the Cross-Westchester Expressway (part of I-287) to NYSTA for $20 million (equivalent to $ in ) in an effort to balance the state's budget. Similarly, in 1991, the Authority was directed to assume the cost of operating and maintaining the 71 mi segment of I-84 in New York, which runs east–west from the Pennsylvania state line at Port Jervis to the Connecticut state line at Brewster. The agreement made at this time between NYSTA and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) allowed NYSTA to transfer I-84 back to the state at any point after 1996 provided that the Thruway Authority gave NYSDOT a one-year notice. Around this time, state officials also investigated the possibility of having NYSTA take over ownership and maintenance of all or part of New York's Interstate Highways.

Toll elimination and I-84
Roughly one week before the November 2006 elections, NYSTA accepted $14 million from the State Senate in exchange for agreeing to cease the collection of tolls at the Black Rock and City Line toll barriers on the Niagara Thruway (I-190) in Buffalo for one year. On October 30, 2006, NYSTA voted to permanently remove the tolls. Both major candidates in the 2006 gubernatorial election, Democrat and eventual victor Eliot Spitzer and Republican John Faso, had pledged to remove the tolls on I-190 if elected. In order to offset the lost toll revenue, NYSTA also voted to return maintenance of I-84 to NYSDOT, as the annual maintenance cost of I-84 was considered to be equal to the amount of annual revenue generated from the Buffalo toll barriers—approximately $14 million. Under the terms of the 1991 agreement between NYSTA and NYSDOT, maintenance of I-84 would become the responsibility of the DOT on October 30, 2007.

In January 2007, State Senator John Bonacic of Mount Hope began drafting legislation to halt the planned transfer of maintenance of I-84. Bonacic asserted that the Thruway Authority had better maintenance practices than NYSDOT, most notably in the field of snow removal. He also claimed that the DOT lacked the time and money needed to match the quality of maintenance that NYSTA performed on I-84. The senator eventually prevailed as the 2007–2008 budget was modified to allocate additional funding to NYSDOT, which would then pay the Thruway Authority to maintain I-84. A formal agreement between the two agencies was reached on September 19. The one-year agreement cost NYSDOT $11.5 million and took effect October 30, the date I-84 was to become DOT-maintained. The agreement was renewed in April 2008 at a cost of $10.3 million, extending the arrangement through October 31, 2009. It remained in place until October 11, 2010, when NYSDOT re-assumed maintenance of the highway. The change was made in the 2010–2011 state budget in an effort to reduce the cost of maintaining I-84. Governor David Paterson—who included the change in the budget—expected that the state would save $3.9 million annually on maintenance costs.

Canal maintenance
The NYSTA owned the New York State Canal Corporation from 1992 until 2017. Ownership was subsequently transferred to the New York Power Authority.

Highway advisory radio
NYSTA also operates the Thruway Authority Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) system, a network of radio stations across the state that broadcast information on traffic conditions along the Thruway. The system broadcasts at 1610 AM in the Newburgh, Kingston, Albany, and Rochester areas, 1620 AM in the Herkimer, Verona, LaFayette, Syracuse, and Geneva/Waterloo areas, 530 AM in the New York City Region/Tappan Zee Bridge Corridor, and at 1630 AM in the Buffalo, Ripley, and Dunkirk areas. HAR is also used to broadcast Amber Alerts if one is issued.

title: New York State Thruway Authority


text:
Category talk:Reporting

CFD discussion

 * Category listed for deletion on February 6, 2005 as it was empty at the time. It was populated while on CFD and the censensus was to keep.

Unused category. —Mike 09:27, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've repopulated it. Please keep. Maurreen 01:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how Reporting is different from Category:Journalism ? If not, then I vote delete. --ssd 06:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Journalism also encompasses copy editing and photojournalism, for example. Copy editing and visual journalism are subcategories of journalism, and reporting should stay a subcategory also. Maurreen 06:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support keeping reporting. Agree with Maurreen. JuntungWu 10:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 22:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Category talk:Reporting


text:
Afshin

Afshin is a common Persian given name derived from Avestan. Afshin was used by the Sogdians. Historically, it was the title of the rulers of Principality of Ushrusana in Transoxiana before the Muslim conquest of Persia..

Etymology
Afšīn is form of the Middle Persian Pišīn, which traces back to Avestan Pisinah. In Persian mythology, it is the name of a grandson of Kay Kawad (Yt. 13.132, 19.71) found as a proper name attested by Armenian historians in the form Ōšin (from Awšin).

People

 * Given name
 * Afshin Ellian (born 1966), Iranian-Dutch professor of law, philosopher, poet, and critic of political Islam
 * Afshin Esmaeilzadeh (born 1992), Iranian footballer
 * Afshin Feiz, Iranian-born British photographer and ex fashion designer
 * Afshin Ghaffarian (born 1986), Iranian choreographer, director, dancer, and actor
 * Afshin Ghotbi (born 1964), Iranian football coach
 * Afshin Habibzadeh, Iranian workers' rights activist and reformist politician
 * Afshin Hajipour (born 1975), Iranian footballer
 * Afshin Jafari (singer), full name Afshin Jafari, Iranian pop star
 * Afshin Kamaei (born 1974), Iranian footballer
 * Afshin Kazemi (born 1986), Iranian futsal player
 * Afshin Marashi, Iranian-American historian
 * Afshin Moghaddam (1945–1976), Iranian singer
 * Afshin Mohebbi, Iranian-born United States businessman
 * Afshin Molavi, Iranian-American author and expert on global geo-political risk and geo-economics, particularly the Middle East and Asia
 * Afshin Naghouni (born 1969), Iranian-born British visual artist
 * Afshin Nazemi (born 1971), Iranian football player and coach
 * Afshin Peyrovani (born 1970), Iranian footballer and a football coach
 * Afshin Norouzi (born 1985), Iranian table tennis player
 * Afshin Parsaeian Rad (born 1980), Iranian footballer
 * Afshin Rattansi (born 1968), British broadcaster, journalist and author
 * Afshin Sadeghi (born 1993), Iranian handball player
 * Afshin Zinouri (born 1976), Iranian voice actor who is known for Persian voice-dubbing foreign films and TV programs

 * Surname
 * Arash Afshin (born 1989), Iranian footballer
 * Nazanin Afshin-Jam (born 1979), Iranian-Canadian human rights activist, author

Places

 * Afşin, a town in the Kahramanmaraş Province in the Mediterranean region of Turkey
 * Avshen, a village in the Alagyaz Municipality of the Aragatsotn Province of Armenia.

title: Afshin


text: User talk:129.133.4.36

title: User talk:129.133.4.36


text:
Talk:Multiregional origin of modern humans

caption misstatement
The first image illustrating the multiregional model is mislabeled as polygenism. Milford Wolpoff, probably the most prominent proponent of multiregionalism, makes it very clear that he is not a polygenist. The dashed lines in this diagram show the constant genetic exchanges which make multiregional evolution possible and distinguish it from polygenism. This caption should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historic Metal (talk • contribs).
 * I believe this has been fixed? Warren Dew (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New vs. Classic Multiregionalism?
I just took a look at Templeton's paper, Out of Africa again and again, which is the bases for a good deal of the genetic evidence for the multiregional hypothesis in this article. It seems to me that the evidence points not to the acceptance of Wolpoff's multiregionalism, but instead to a more nuanced hypothesis than either the complete replacement of OOA or the simultaneous origin with gene flow that most multiregionalist propose.

I always thought that the gist of the MR hypothesis was that the regional erectus-grade hominids contributed more to the AMHs in their geographical areas than hominids in other regions. However Templeton's evidence indicates that the African populations contributed a disproportionate amount of genetic diversity to archaic H. sapiens, due to large migrations out of Africa. In essence limiting the effect regional differences contributed to AMH populations.

It seems to me that this article simplifies this hypothesis down to the claim that gene flow existed between the populations, and misses most of the assertions Wolpoff and co. made which are not borne out by this new evidence.

Does anyone think it might be a good idea to have a section on 'classic' MR hypothesis, and then a section which includes the new genetic evidence and the modification of the theories? Bdrydyk 16:42, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

The Multiregional Hypothesis did not originate with Milford H. Wolpoff it goes back to work of Franz Weidenreich in the 1930s. At that time, Weidenreich originated the "Weidenreich Theory of Human Evolution" based on his examination of Peking Man. Being an anatomist, Weidenreich observed numerous anatomical characteristics that Peking Man had in common with modern Asians. The Weidenreich Theory states that human races have evolved independently in the Old World from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens sapiens, while at the same time there was gene flow between the various populations. According to the Weidenreich Theory, genes that were generally adaptive (such as those for intelligence and communication) would flow relatively rapidly from one part of the world to the other, while those that were locally adaptive, would not. This is contrary to popular theories of human evolution that have one superior race displacing other races. A vocal proponent of the Weidenreich theory was Carleton Coon. Ironically, Coon was labeled a racist while the theory in fact proposed that no one race was superior and displacing others. --Matses 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read Wolpoff and Caspari's "Race and Human Evolution", and he does not make any such quantitative statement that some percentage of alleles were conserved in each region without spreading to others. Only the obvious morphological similarities that show regional continuity are mentioned as possible candidates for genetic continuity. Yes, Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis is pretty much just that there was gene flow between the populations. Also, a large chunk of the book is about Weidenreich's work and how his ideas were misinterpreted or unjustifiably forgotten. --JWB 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Matses and JWB. I'm preparing to edit this talk page, but I want to leave this in as an ongoing discussion. Warren Dew (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * i'd just like to back this guy up a little. the initial multi-regional hypothesis believed that the different subtypes of humans evolved independently of one another and absolutely enforced polygeny. since the decline of eugenics in mainstream science, that's been labelled "racist" and the multi-regionalists have modified their argument to something that is more societally acceptable. the article completely ignores the history, and it shouldn't. i'm not an expert, i'm just somebody that's read up on the topic, and would like to put out a request for an expert in the field to provide an accurate, historical description of the multi-regional idea rather than try to cover it up by ignoring it. the fact is that polygeny is not inherently racist, but it's not hard to understand that fears that were attached to it in the years after the second world war and leading into the civil rights era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.66.89 (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article and related articles do need improvement, but I just want to mention that in the regard of racist motivations, it's probably quite contentious. In some aspects, the multiregional model and the candelabra are exact opposites, even more than candelabra and replacement, which is "mini candelabra" just at the top. The original MR model was the "extreme opposite" in the sense that it posited worldwide gene flow in all directions, during millions of years. So instead of "pure races/species" of humans arising independently, you barely have "races", humanity is essentially made from miscegenation Some (at least two of their main proponents, Templeton and Smith) have even argued that Neanderthal and other human "species" would have been actually the only real human races, and now we're all mostly racially Africans, with only a tiny drop of non-African races. Further developments/weaker versions (alternatively or more properly called "assimilation model" and "replacement with hybridization model") posit that modern humans first evolved in Africa and essentially replaced hominids from other continents at an genetic level, with substantial admixture/"fusion". It's arguably harder to make interpretations that would favor typical racist views than it would be for stricter OOA replacement with little or no archaic admixture. The fact that racists often like MR is mostly because they don't quite understand with it entails, IMO.

Unrelated to that, but with the "new vs classic multiregionlism", or model terminology in general, here's a quote from a paper by Bräuer, Collard and Stringer, "On the reliability of recent tests of the Out of Africa hypothesis for modern human origins":
 * ''The tests of the Out of Africa hypothesis conducted by Hawks et al. (2000) and Wolpoff et al. (2001) focused on what these authors evidently considered to be the main prediction of the hypothesis, namely, that there should be no genetic ontinuity or interbreeding between early modern humans and archaic hominids in Europe, East Asia, and Southeast Asia [see also Thorne and Wolpoff (2003: p. 48)]. However, this prediction is misleading. As we have pointed out elsewhere Stringer and Brauer, 1994; Brauer and Stringer, 1997; Stringer, 2002), the idea of complete replacement without any interbreeding is one variant of the Out of Africa hypothesis, often identified with a particular interpretation of the mitochondrial DNA data, dubbed the Eve theory (Frayer et al., 1993). Complete replacement does not feature in all versions of the Out of Africa hypothesis, and therefore we contend that it would not be falsified by demonstration of some modern-archaic human gene flow outside of Africa. Both before and after the pioneering study by Cann et al. (1987), proponents of the Out of Africa hypothesis accepted the possibility of a certain amount of gene flow between the migrating early anatomically modern humans and the non-African archaic groups (Brauer, 1984: p. 395, 1992: p. 95, 2001; Cann, 1992: p. 71; Stringer, 1992: p. 20, 2001; Stringer and Brauer, 1994: p. 416). Thus, even if the results of Hawks et al.’s (2000) and Wolpoff et al.’s (2001) analyses were reliable, they would only shed light on the accuracy of the extreme Eve theory. They would not disprove the Out of Africa hypothesis.

There's also some relevant info on archived comments I've previously made regarding the problem of a whole series of intermediate models making a gradation between "zero admixture" OOA replacement and the modern multiregional model (at least four basic models, according to Stringer, "Modern human origins: progress and prospects", 2001).Extremophile (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Empty introduction
The introduction doesn't describe the theory at all. Can someone create a synthetic sentence and put it there? -- NaBUru38 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Agree. "The multiregional hypothesis holds that the evolution of humanity throughout the Pleistocene has been within a single widespread human species, Homo sapiens,..." - - this is just a lame attempt to make multiregionalism sound sexy. doesn't work. I am not going to attempt to do it, but please let's give the younger and layman readers a chance with a coherent definition. Grazie Spettro9 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I've expanded the lead a bit to try to provide more detail. Warren Dew (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * How can "the primary hypothesis is recent African origin of modern humans, which contends that modern humans arose in Africa around 100-200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50-60,000 years ago to replace archaic human forms', when the chart clearly shows differentiation before archais populations types evolved?

Clean-up
I've made a start at clean-up. Still remaining: Fences and windows (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Sources! Too much of this has no inline citations.
 * 2) Clarification and expansion of the genetic and fossil evidence is essential.
 * 3) Clean-up of external links, most of which should be incorporated as references.
 * 4) Balance needs to be according to the weight of the evidence in reliable sources, rather than giving equal credence to the two competing theories or cherry-picking sources.

You removed a whole following section, as acording to your opinion (is it your opinion?) adds nothing.

Classification of hominid species
- 	Evaluation of the multiregional theory revolves around the assumption or non-assumption of >>species barriers<< between early hominids. Because of the scarcity of fossils and the discovery of important new finds every few years, researchers disagree about the details and sometimes even basic elements of human evolutionary history.

While they have revised this history several times over the last decades, researchers currently agree that the oldest named species of the genus Homo, Homo habilis, evolved in Africa around two million years ago, and that members of the genus migrated out of Africa somewhat later, at least 1.5 million years ago. The descendants of these ancient migrants, which probably included Homo erectus, have become known through fossils uncovered far from Africa, such as those of "Peking man" and "Java man". Homo neanderthalensis is also considered a descendant of early migrants.

 * The species barrier arising in process of speciation is key element differentiating MHO from RAO. If there will be possible gene flow then it will happen the early human as all other species did do a sex if they get children and the children get children this will be the multiregional. On the other hand if they wont be able to fertilly reproduce the only scientific reason "prohibiting" gene flow is the species barrier. If the species barrier arouse in speciation and prohibited the gene flow it will be replacement - per see without the gene flow. The replacement without any gene flow is the main thesis of recent replacement RAO. The word "replacement" is used to point out the important RAO opposition to the fertile reproduction proposed in MHO. (Do you think or know that somebody try devise or prove that there was no 'single occasion' for a "romantic date" between the singles of approaching and preexisting human populations during the last 200 thousand years). If and only if there was only one paleo-date pregnant with fertile children it is the gene flow the key thesis of MHO and MHO theory holds up. If it did not happen pregnant with fertile children there was no gene flow - RAO holds up.

 * Could you please eloborate on why do you think the section adds nothing as you revile here.

 * Another important consideration is the likelihood of the speciation in African population at given time frame. The new mutation or recombination may happen any time. The complexity of devising how and why the species barrier should arose is overwhelming and speculative that's why you may not find numerous citation in RAO framework elaborating on the obvious and crucial for ROA thesis evolutionary process. 76.16.176.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

It was a fairly incoherent fragment. Some discussion of these issues would be fine, but frankly the whole article needs completely rewriting, so restoring that section would be no improvement. Please stick to the discussion and use of reliable sources. To answer your points, related species may fail to interbreed for behavioural as well as biological reasons, any fertile interbreeding that left no modern genetic descendants wouldn't be support for the multiregional hypothesis, and I think you're building a false dichotomy - an African replacement model with a small extant genetic contribution from the replaced Neanderthal or H. erectus populations wouldn't prove the multiregional hypothesis over Out of Africa. But what we think is pretty irrelevant, it's what the sources say that matters. Fences and windows (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're building a false dichotomy -  an African replacement model with a small extant genetic contribution from the replaced Neanderthal or H. erectus 76.16.176.166 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * you may think but
 * is multiregional conception.

 * small extant - point to F.A.W misunderstanding of sexual reproduction and to the way how the polit-push group try to back out from evident fallacy.

Please, use reliable sources to back up these opinions. Your opinions on what constitutes multiregional evolution are original research; what matters is what the sources say. As for me "misunderstanding sexual reproduction", I fail to see how my statement above would at all lead to that contribution, and I find the suggestion quite uncivil. Please don't try to interpret what I understand about matters of biology. The last part of your comment is unclear, but accusing other editors of "evident fallacies" is not constructive. Fences and windows (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wolpoff and Caspari's "Race and Human Evolution" indexes "Multiregional evolution: definition of" to page 32, where a description in italics preceded by "In a nutshell, the theory is that" occupies about 60% of the page. It does not specify any lower limit for genetic contribution from archaic Eurasian Homo in order for the theory to be valid. --JWB (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to this cleanup attempt, but I'm in the process of doing a cleanup now. Warren Dew (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal
IP user 76.16.1xx.xxx is now registered as Xook1kai Choa6aur. XC has removed all tags about neutrality etc. My opinion is that this article is still a total trainwreck, and is probably worse than us having no article at all on this topic, helped into that state in no small part by XC's constant POV pushing and difficulties in communicating in clear English. It needs totally rewriting, so the tags were entirely appropriate. Fences &  Windows  20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I've replaced the tags. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what is now disputable? Only the one who put the can take it down ?Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The only remaining tag when I came to this article recently was the "in need of an expert" tag. I think that's ironic because, given the number of peer reviewed references now in the article, expertise doesn't seem to be in short supply at all.

What the article does need is rewriting to make it more readable and more easily understandable by the lay reader. I've tried to do that with about half the article so far, and plan to continue with the rest of the article. I'm leaving the "expert tag" on for now because the article does need some kind of warning tag in its present condition, but once I'm done with the rewrite, I plan to remove it. Warren Dew (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've completed a rewrite of the existing article, and removed the "expert" tag. There is still a tag on the external links section, so I plan to fix that next. There are also a few minor things I want to put in the article, but I don't think they're necessary to remove the tag. Warren Dew (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I removed the external links tag after removing most of the links in the section. The remaining two links provide information related to the topic that aren't covered in the article; the Templeton lattice because it's a copyrighted graphic for I can't presently find a free source, and the source with equations regarding migration and mutation because I think the actual equations are beyond what's appropriately covered in the article.  Warren Dew (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD of John D. Hawks
This article was attacked as nonnotable and proposed for deletion. You can comment at Articles_for_deletion/John_D._Hawks. --JWB (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the good professor's article lives, that'll be a kick in the pants for those academic rivals of his that schemed to get him removed from WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.237.12 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Neanderthal results
The May 2010 results that show that approximately 1-4% of human DNA comes from Neanderthals, while not supporting the idea that humans, in the main, evolved from the early migration of homo erectus, does in fact support the idea that at least some of the genomes of modern-day non-African humans are comprised of DNA from the early migration.

Stated another way, this theory is 1-4% right. It's mostly wrong, but not completely. If a European in Spain made his family tree and "knew everything," there's a good chance that he'll hit upon a Neanderthal ancestor some 24,000-30,000 years back. And that neanderthal ancestry would trace back to the older migration of homo erectus some 1+ million years earlier. Ryoung 122 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Of course, this theory could be "more right" if humans also share ancestry with other early migrant groups, such as homo antecessor and homo heidelbergensis...questions that remain unanswered. Ryoung 122 08:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 * negroids not arw humans; are simian proto-humans/pre-humans.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.173 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Ryoung, I think the neanderthal finding supports the multiregional theory in all ways, not just 1-4%. Keep in mind that the multiregional theory posits both regional continuity and lateral gene flow between regions, without specifying the split between the two - indeed, the split can't be specified, since over time, the local gene percentage can only go down, as more lateral gene flow occurs over time.

 * The fact that local contributions from neanderthals and lateral contributions from Africa both exist provides evidence for both aspects of the multiregional theory. The fact that, with respect to say Europe, there has been more lateral gene transfer than local gene retention is irrelevant.  Actually, it's not completely irrelevant, since it probably shows that lateral gene transfer includes drift and not just the adaptive lateral transfer emphasized by Weidenreich, but that's a detail that's beyond the level of this article, and would probably constitute original research anyway.

 * I would also note that the 1-4% number is not for the total neanderthal contribution, but just for the excess contribution to nonafricans over Africans. There could be some additional contribution from neanderthals to all modern humans including Africans; we just don't currently have the data needed to identify it.

 * At any rate, figuring out how to add this data, along with the denisova data, to the genetics section, is on my to-do list. Warren Dew (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I've added a section discussing the neanderthal and denisovan data. Warren Dew (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It is important to note that the inference of 1-4% Neanderthal ancestry is just that - an inference. While the press coverage stressed the Neanderthal ancestry, and essentially accepted it as fact, the paper itself quite correctly points out that there are other explanations for the data - such as that modern humans and Neanderthals share common ancestry in Africa (just go and read the discussion section of the paper). This scenario, while not as fun as the Neanderthal-modern human mixing, is just as plausible an interpretation of the data. The discussion should reflect this.Davidiank (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

 * While incomplete lineage sorting is a possible explanation for the diffential Neanderthal relatedness, it is not at all "as plausible". In particular, no one seems to be arguing that it's actually true, because it's very hard to support.  Neanderthal ancestry is far more plausible, even if it isn't 100% proven yet.  Warren Dew (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The "near consensus" bit
According to the sources given:

first source: there is a near-consensus that DNA and archaeology support "Out of Africa" second source: that sub-Saharan Africa played an important role.

Neither of these sources support what the article intro said about the consensus for "Out of Africa" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.247.41 (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That information is obsolete anyway due to this year's publications on the sequencing of the neanderthal and denisovan DNA and their contributions to the human DNA pool. Clearly there was mixing with nonafrican archaic humans, not just replacement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * No, it is not clear that there was mixing - that is merely an interpretation, and not the only one discussed by the scientists who published the work. Common ancestry within Africa is also possible. Davidiank (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if there was some admixture out of Africa, that sounds to me like a "soft" version of the original OoA hypotesis than like a corroboration of the multiregional one. I have the impression the wording of this article is a bit confusing. The last paragraph, "Recent African Replacement" actually defends that the multiregional origin hypotesis is nothing the Out of Africa but accepting some local admixture. I do not think that is accurate (Althogh I think the final consensus will probably tend to that) 212.163.172.180 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Leirus

 * Confirmed neanderthal admixture in Eurasians and Oceanians, along the lines of the early reports, actually pretty much rules out classic multiregional evolution/continuity (with a neanderthal phase/grade that actually includes the "classic neanderthals"), as the gene flow back to Africa since the neanderthal admixture would have been quite limited, discarding the possibility of a very strong selective pressure against neanderthal genes within Africa. I think that the only ways to save the multirregional hypothesis would be to posit that sapiens evolved multirregionally, followed by de facto OOA2 migrations, after that pan-continental gene flow virtually ceased, and only then some archaic admixture happened, but this is not even part of the picture anymore, but an independent phenomenon. Either that or just cheat the definition of multiregional continuity into a synonym of post-sapiens admixture, or, even worse, go into crackpot ideas that SS-Africans haven't reached the Homo sapiens grade yet, so their near absence of neanderthal admixture is not a problem; "it just happens that only Europeans are fully sapiens, the remaining Eurasians are almost there with whatever reservations regarding few peoples one might want to consider less evolved, and SS Africans still have a longer way to go until they have the present-day European gene pool. North Europeans don't have as much neanderthal admixture but that's not a problem for their sapien-ess gradation, just because. In fact, the neanderthal genes they lack perhaps just add to their sapien-ness". --Extremophile (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph on general medium scale genetic diversity
I removed the following paragraph because I couldn't figure out how it fitted in with the article:

 * Genome polymorphism: Inversion polymorphism: known 5-million-base pair (Mbp) 8p23.1, 1-Mbp on 17q21.3 and novel 1.2-Mbp on 15q24, 2.1-Mbp 15q13, 1.7-Mbp 17q12 . In the sample of 8 gnomes from worldwide sample including Yuruba Kidd&al group found 4 million SNPs and 796,273 small indels (1−100 bp in size); 15 large regions of excess nucleotide variation 500 kbp to 3 Mbp. Two of variable sites are described detailed above.

The only thing I could find that might be relevant is the statement that overall African SNP diversity was 13% greater than nonafrican diversity, compared to 40% on the X chromosome. However, it seems to me that relating that to the multiregional hypothesis would be original research.

If someone thinks that material is relevant, please discuss it here and we'll see if we can figure out how to work it in. Warren Dew (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitochrondial DNA
The end of the Mitochondrial DNA section says that nuclear genome studies showed results that were "very different" from mtDNA studies. What were those results? Is the article referring to the Neanderthal study that was recently published?

SilentWings (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for multiregional
This is the information i have collected which clearly supports the multiregional. Can some of the information from these links go on the article? Liveintheforests (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Found homo erectus 2.04mya in China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.62.45 (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Genetics & Genealogy Is Out-of-Africa Going Out The Door ?
 * Did early humans evolve in Europe, not Africa?
 * Out-of-Africa Theory of ancient human migration being challenged by discovery of 1.8 million-year-old hand axe in Malaysia
 * New research shows early humans were living in Britain around 700,000 years ago, substantially earlier than had previously been thought
 * Bones show humans in Europe 1.2 mln years ago: study
 * A skull that rewrites the history of man
 * Were our earliest hominid ancestors European
 * Chinese challenge to 'out of Africa' theory
 * China's earliest human puts 'out of Africa' theory to test
 * Georgian skeletons challenge 'out of Africa' theory
 * Multiregional bones discovered
 * 110,000-year-old Chinese Fossil Poses Challenge to 'Out of Africa' Theory
 * Australian Fossil challenge to Africa theory
 * DNA Shows Modern Humans Not Just From Africa, Say Scientists
 * Mungo man disproves out of Africa
 * Dmanisi Man and the Out of Africa fairytale
 * Not out of Africa says scientist

 * Anthropologists Dispute Latest ‘Out of Africa’ Claims
 * Did first humans come out of Middle East and not Africa?
 * Out of Middle East
 * The History of Man is being rewritten in Georgia, Dmanisi
 * Out of America theory
 * Did Early Man Take His First Steps In Asia?
 * Chinese skull discovery may cause human origins rethink
 * Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientist
 * A critique of the African-origin theory
 * Humans Not As Genetically Identical As We Thought
 * New Race/Species of Human Discovered
 * Studies contradict view that race doesn’t exist
 * Ancient teeth find may 'change picture of evolution'
 * Ancient skeletons discovered in Georgia threaten to overturn the theory of human evolution
 * Asia origin proposed
 * "Out of Africa" View of Early Human Origins Disputed

 * Study stirs up debate over human origins
 * John Crawfurd — 'two separate races'
 * Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
 * RACIAL & ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION of ABO BLOOD TYPES DIFFERENCE IN RACES
 * European Neanderthals were fair skinned, freckled and had ginger hair
 * Genetic reality of race
 * Why So Many Errors in Our DNA
 * Ore. Discovery Challenges Beliefs About First Humans
 * Europeans in America
 * Scientist: Man in Americas earlier than thought
 * Oldest Human Remains in North America Found
 * New Evidence From Earliest Known Human Settlement In The Americas
 * The first humans went to America earlier than was thought
 * Were Humans in America Over 50,000 Years Ago?
 * Human DNA dated to 14,300 years ago in America
 * Humans Entered the Americas in More Than One Wave
 * Undersea Cave Yields One of Oldest Skeletons in Americas
 * Humans may have reached Europe far earlier

 * Georgian fossils 'indicate humans lived in Europe thousands of years earlier'
 * Over million year old jawbone found in spain
 * Evidence for modern humans in Europe
 * Earliest Humans Not So Different From Us, Research Suggests
 * Modern humans found in Europe
 * Israel Ancient Human Remains Discovered, Report Scientists
 * 14,700 years old humans living in the Britain
 * Ancient human remains found in Israel
 * First humans from Middle East?
 * Fossil finger points to new human species
 * Neanderthals Were Fully Human!
 * N. America 14,000 years ago
 * Early humans from Asia?
 * Skull Fossil Challenges Out-of-Africa Theory
 * Study suggests early primates out of Asia
 * 3.2 Million-Year-Old Fossil Foot Bone Supports Humanlike Bipedalism
 * Discovery Pushes Human Tool Use Back 800,000 Years
 * 3.4 million year old tools found
 * Bones Found Near Tbilisi Rewrite Human Evolution
 * Out of Africa theory challenged
 * 1.8 Million Year Old Tool Found
 * Nitoryu (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Think it's best to read over WP:SOURCES As the popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific articles.  A book search would be better and/or  a scholar search. Moxy (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Moxy you are acting like a charlatan there are scientific journals mentioned there. look at the list. other opinions. please needed. 212.219.116.229 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pls take the time to read the following  - msnbc.msn.com,  viewzone, guardian.co, azcentral.com, huffingtonpost.com, heritage-key.com/blogs, abc.net  are not good sources.Moxy (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and citation request
The following sentence: The combination of regional continuity inside and outside of Africa and lateral gene transfer between various regions around the world supports the multiregional hypothesis neeeds at least some references and clarifications. What does it means "regional continuity inside and outside of Africa"? The genetic analysis up today di not shows indication of lateral gene transfer for  the genus Homo,  at least as this term is used today in genetic.--Bramfab (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * What is meant here is Introgression, while lateral gene transfer is a redirect to Horizontal gene transfer which (at least according to that article) refers to transfer outside of normal sexual reproduction. --JWB (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

was found to share 4-6% of its genome with living Melanesian humans and with no other living group
This seems like potentially misleading phrasing - it could be read as saying the Denisovan shared no genome with other living groups. The actual statement from the original paper is "the fivefold coverage Papuan individual shares 4.0 +- 0.7% more alleles with the Denisova individual than does the French individual, and we observed a similar skew in all 10 comparisons of Melanesian and other non-African populations (Table 1)" which is a comparison and not a statement about absolute percentage of genome. --JWB (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I fixed the statement to better reflect the source. Warren Dew (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

rewrote paragraph
An intro paragraph was basically half-right, but the definition of mitochondrial eve was off, etc. My rewrote was a big change, so I'll post the new paragraph here for comment.

Genetic evidence from the late 1980s on the mitochondrial genome indicated that all living women can trace their maternal line of descent to a single female living in Africa about 200,000 years ago, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve. This led to a hypothesis that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, with a small founder population of humans leaving Africa and eventually replacing all archaic humans then living elsewhere without interbreeding.[citation needed] Recent analyses of DNA taken directly from Neanderthal specimens, however, indicates that they contributed to the genome of all humans outside of Africa. The Homo sapiens who populated the world outside Africa all have Neanderthals among their descendents. Denisova hominins also contributed to the DNA of Milanesians and Australians.

Leadwind (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

* inline
See Neanderthal where the quote is not [more] contextualized. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Should sections describing "out of date" developments be removed?
I don't think there's much sense in edits such as this. It was simply a removal of an entire section with the justification that it was "based on a reference more than half a century out of date". Well, one could well say that the entire article deals with an outdated theory (as it precedes the aforementioned reference), and then should be deleted from wikipedia. I think that while outdated explanations obviously can't be mentioned in a way that misleads one to think that they're still accepted, merely being outdated does not justify deletion unless the article is focused very specifically on current, "newsy", developments of its subject (which is not quite the case here), rather than a broader view. When that's no the case, then it's always interesting to have more information, even if only of historical value. That's the sort of thing encyclopedias commonly have. I can't see any reason why that wouldn't be preferable over deleting such sections. Even for the sake of disk space on the wikipedia servers, as far as I know, deleting something wastes more space than not deleting, as the previous versions remain stored and there's the new file for the new version. For page loading speed, whenever there's a article becomes just too lengthy (again, not the case with this one), some of its sections can be subdivided into independent articles, as it often happens. --Extremophile (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 * While the multiregional theory was originally proposed some time ago, it is in fact a current theory, since the only real competing theory of recent african origin is now largely viewed as disproven by analyses of nuclear DNA from humans, neandertals, and denisovans within the last few years. The Dobzhansky theory whose mention was removed, in contrast, is far from a current theory and is thus inappropriate for the "competing theories" section.  In fact, I can find no evidence that the Dobzhansky theory ever received wide currency even when it was new.
 * Even if the Dobzhansky theory were important, the appropriate approach would be to create a separate article for that theory, for consistency with the structure of this article and the recent african origin article, which separates the information as much as possible to avoid duplication. If you have the Dobzhansky book and want to start a new article on that theory, please do so - I'll look forward to reading it.  Warren Dew (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is wrong. Recent admixture claims have no impact on the prevalence of ROOA - that admixture occurred within the past 200,000 years and does not change the recent african origins of humans or in anyway support the multiregional model which posits human origins 2 million years back and regional continuity almost a million years back in Eurasia and Africa.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@ WarrenDew -- the main problem with that section is that it seems that it was actually attributing to Dobzhansky something he was more likely refuting, a multiregional evolution leaning to the candelabra side of the spectrum: "When Dobzhansky was asked to review The Origin of Races for the literary journal Saturday Review in September 1962, though, his reaction was more qualified. He praised the descriptions of hominid fossils which Coon provided, but objected to the idea that subspecies of Homo erectus had evolved into sapiens independently. For Dobzhansky and Coon, the debate about race concepts was also about evolutionary mechanisms. In The Origin of Races, Coon suggested a mechanism for the parallel evolution of isolated subspecies through the simultaneous elimination of unfit genes from multiple populations. In his review, Dobzhansky rejected this mechanism, writing that such parallel evolution would require a “mystical inner drive that propels evolution.”". I still think that articles about a scientific theory should have as much as possible about its historical developments rather than just stripping it off the wikipedia. Better a fuller single article than an article split off a section turned into an stub article. If the section grows enough to deserve more than a stub, then so be it, but while it does not happen, an additional section or a paragraph won't hurt. --Extremophile (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

better Trellis image

This current diagram is poor and incorrect (to give just one example, it includes Australian H.erectus which were non-existant) even by its own admission.

There is a much better image here. The original publication to cite is:.

This image is actually an extract from a critically relevant scientific paper. It sounds as though the image is not wholly "original" but is instead based on the earlier Weidenreich graphic (but nonetheless would be more appropriate to us here than the Weidenreich graphic would, because this source is updated to represent the most current scientific knowledge).

It's only a short extract from a long paper (less than 5% or than one page, and its derived nature minimises the extent to which it could be argued to encapsulate the entire paper). It has already been taken and used in a number of other places (some more are: & ). I think there is a strong case here for "fair use" of the image. It is clearly needed in order to convey the topic correctly. Also, since the author identifies to a US university, and the work was paid for by a particular NIH grant, it seems the US public at least have a moral (and possibly legal) entitlement to it. Is anyone here familiar with the upload proceedures? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that would be a much better image if you can justify including in wikimedia commons. This will guide you through the process:  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload Warren Dew (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this link present the original graphic in question: http://phylonetworks.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html 209.242.149.240 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

haplogroup A00 is stong support and needs to be added
Nottruelosa (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

article has multiple issues? discuss these issues
In order to remove tophat on article. --J. D. Redding 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

factual accuracy :out-of-date information
please bullet list.--J. D. Redding 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No mention of new developments caused by the Neanderthal/Denisovan admixture discoveries. Basically this means that the MR and OOA models are not the focus of debate anymore, but a combined scenario that makes both genetic continuity and a recent out of Africa migration compatible (although not in Wolpoff's original formulation). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A combined scenario is a form of MR. 180.10.135.53 (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is also a form of ROOA (and a lot closer to Stringers theory than to Wolpoffs). And in anycase the article doesnt make any mention of this scenario which is now pretty well established and have outcompeted both the traditional MR and ROOA scenarios.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

examples and perspective : significant viewpoints
please bullet list.--J. D. Redding 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead does not describe the fact that this theory is a very small minority viewpoint in the field, and the mainstream theory is not described until the last section. This is basically a POV/Fringe issue.
 * The fossil evidence section presents the interpretations of proponents of the MR model as alone and does not mention the majority interpretations of those same facts. I.e. for most scholars none of the fossils presented as evidence are in fact evidence of MRO. Mainstream opinions lack for all of the fossil evidence presented.
 * Same is the case for the genetic evidence section, except for the Ancient DNA section that does include the mainstream viewpoint.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

History section
This needs to be edited, so I thought I would discuss here first some errors. Note that I have now added Xinzhi Wu.

Anyway, the Multiregional hypothesis was founded in 1984 by Wolpoff, Wu and Thorne. They put their first paper out that year, although Thorne had published a paper touching upon the model as early as 1981. In their 1984 paper, they credit the anti-racist Franz Weidenreich and his "polycentric" model as their main influence, not racist Carleton Coon. Wolpoff emphasizes this in most his works to distance himself from racialized interpretations. The content on the page about Ruggles R. Gates, Klaatch etc is all false. Multiregionalism has nothing to do with these. Gates was a racist polygenist who thought races were not only seperate lines of descent, but also species. Again, Wolpoff writes a lot about how Multiregionalism should not be confused with polygenism. All these people should be removed, and only Wu, Thorne and Wolpoff mentioned, possibly with how they were influenced by Weidenreich.FossilMad (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Page updated
I've updated the page with new sources, and added new sections especially on fossils. There's not much more I can add, perhaps other than a section on archaeology that is absent. It was mainly Geoffrey Pope leading this area in Multiregionalism during the early 90s in China. FossilMad (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiregional origin evolution of modern humans.
The probability that a single species evolved multiple times around the world is zero. That's not how evolution works. When groups of a species are separated from a common ancestor they do not evolve into the same species. The hypothesis goes against evolution it's self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9FC0:60:6169:5F6B:5F3B:EFA3 (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's rather the point 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:E0D8:B61F:AC5D:7323 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Who's saying it was a single species? Could be multiple species of primates gaining advanced intelligence while preserving the ability to cross-mate. Here are two examples from parallel evolution article:
 * The patagium is a fleshy membrane that is found in gliding mammals such as flying lemurs, flying squirrels, sugar gliders and the extinct Volaticotherium. These mammals all acquired the patagium independently.
 * The eye of the octopus has the same complicated structure as the human eye. As a result, it is often substituted in studies of the eye when using a human eye would be inappropriate. As the two species diverged at the time animals evolved into vertebrates and invertebrates this is extraordinary.
 * --46.242.12.137 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multiregional origin of modern humans. 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://www.webcitation.org/5uQpdJwWR?url=http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/ to http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

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) 05:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, a new asian study 2018
Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

I think this should be included and mentioned. I will maybe myself edit, but I have not much time at the moment. I am new in wikipedia and already created my first article. Maybe i have time tomorrow, but for now I have to quit. Thank you Kang Sung-Tae (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks, but this should not be included as it is a preprint which has not been peer reviewed. Also, what it the connection with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory? The authors are all at Chinese universities and appear to be supporting the old Chinese special origin claim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

About the "modern asians" and "modern europeans" in the chart
Not that I believe in the "Western" narrative, but according to this article are Semites, Iranians, Caucasians and Russians considered "Asian" or "European"? What about Australoids and Austronesians? Barbar03 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

article's title
The title of this article seems to be misleading, if I understand it's about the theory proposed by Wolpoff et al. that is cited in the lead. The reference to Wolpoff 2000 is titled "Multiregional, Not Multiple Origins" and the abstract clarifies what it isn't "'… Multiregional' does not mean independent multiple origins, ancient divergence of modern populations, simultaneous appearance of adaptive characters in different regions, or parallel evolution."

I say 'seems' because I found this article linked from Gigantopithecus, where the classification section discusses an earlier taxonomic theory. ~ cygnis insignis 07:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the 1948 theory discussed in this file and caption thumb|upright=1.25|A graph detailing the evolution to modern humans using the multiregional hypothesis of [[human evolution. The horizontal lines represent 'multiregional evolution' gene flow between regional lineages. In Weidenreich's original graphic, there were also diagonal lines between the populations, e.g. between African H. erectus and Archaic Asians and between Asian H. erectus and Archaic Africans. This created a "trellis" (as Wolpoff called it ) or a "network" that emphasized gene flow between geographic regions and within time. It is important to remember that the populations on the chart are not discrete – i.e., they do not represent different species, but are samples within a long lineage experiencing extensive gene flow.]]

Which I have removed due to its reference to the 1948 theory. ~ cygnis insignis 08:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


text:
Category:New York State Thruway Authority

Roads and structures partially or wholly maintained by the New York State Thruway Authority.


text:
John Richards (scholar)

John Guyon Richards (born August 19, 1944) is a Canadian politician and professor at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in British Columbia. During the 1970s, he served as an elected member of the legislature in the province of Saskatchewan, representing the electoral district of Saskatoon University from 1971 to 1975.

A member of the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP), Richards was for a time the only elected official who supported The Waffle, a group of intellectuals and students who tried to push the NDP further to the left. He left the NDP in 1973 over its refusal to nationalize the potash industry, and sat as an independent socialist until the next election, when he was defeated in the new district of Saskatoon Centre and turned to academia.

In recent decades Richards's views have moderated, and he became an early exponent of the 'Third Way' politics popularized by UK Labour Party leader Tony Blair. He remains one of Canada's foremost political intellectuals, writing and editing a series of books and articles that suggest the development of more pragmatic social democratic politics, in addition to work on aboriginal policy, the energy sector, language policy, federalism, and international development.

Richards was instrumental in the creation of a new school of public policy at SFU and volunteers for a small university in Bangladesh, a country he has been visiting since the early nineteen nineties. He has worked with the National Democratic Institute, an American-based democracy-building organization, in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal.

title: John Richards (scholar)


text:
Talk:London Knights

Undefeated Streak, 2005
Why do we need the table? I'm not sure how much of a purpose it served even while the streak was ongoing...but it ended months ago. Adam Bishop 03:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I worked darned hard on that table, and Im not even a Knights fan. Please keep it, it helps illustrate the streak much in the same way the table on the Ken Jennings page does. Earl Andrew 04:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But why do we need to illustrate the streak? Why not the whole season? Why not illustrate that season when they had almost the opposite record? Adam Bishop 06:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't NEED to illustrate it, but is there ANY reason not to do that. Maybe 10 years down the road one can refer back to the table and remember "Oh yeah, I saw them reach this milestone, on this day, against this team". Wikipedia is a database of collective knowledge. Why would we want to (entirely)remove valid information? I have problems with DELETING valid information off Wikipedia.--Will2k 17:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a database...just because it is possible to call something "information" doesn't mean it is necessary to include it. But this complaint goes far beyond this page. Nevermind. Adam Bishop 22:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Has there been thought about discussing the atrocious spiderman logo that was the symbol for a couple of years? That ws really repulsive. Also maybe some mention that that knights play at the JLC is worth adding. terminousbandage 02:34, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

 * The JLC is already mentioned. (And why did you give the date as April 11?) Adam Bishop 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion}! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. The spiderman logo was pretty cool at the time I thought, but like a lot of artwork, it can go out of style. All uniforms in all sports are starting to go for more traditional look over the complicated logos (think the Canucks hockey stick logo over the Whale/C logo they used to have, or the Islanders fisherman logo)--Will2k 18:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Knightsvideos
Why not love for knightsvideos.com in the external links section Mr.Bishop? - Dec. 9 2005

Take advantage of Wikipedia's dynamic nature
It would be appropriate to move the table to a separate article, and condense it, once the 2005-2006 season begins.

 * Move it where? Adam Bishop 05:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Draft Picks/NHL Alumni
I deleted Matt Pelech from the NHL 1st rounders list because he was not drafted from the Knights (he was drafted from Sarnia). I also deleted Marc Methot from the list of Knights who have played in the NHL because he has not played an NHL regular-season game as of the Olympic break in February 2006 (source: hockeydb.com). - BoojiBoy February 16, 2006

Streak
London's 2004-05 streak has been moved due to recentism. The table's new home is in 2004-05 OHL season, as agreed by merge nom on that page's talk page. BoojiBoy 19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Boojiboy etc, can you please discuss your objections to each others' edits and come up with a solution on this talk page, before you all drive me nuts with your reverts? (I will even refrain from mentioning whose side I favour!) Adam Bishop 02:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the ongoing discussion on Wikiproject:Ice Hockey. BoojiBoy 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, stop reverting anyway. Adam Bishop 03:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the team icons out of the table without losing any relevant information (which is why I was reverting), hopefully this will stop the edit war. BoojiBoy 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

 * Heres a userbox for Knights fans:

Season-by-Season Results
It seems to me like it would be alot cleaner if we combined the season-by-season results table with the playoff results. The playoff results are a lot of text and it seems like it would make more sense in a table anyways. Theycallmemorty (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of players drafted by the NHL
I'm pretty sure that where this article says "London is also ranked third (behind Peterborough and Oshawa) on the all-time list of number of players drafted by the NHL, with 142 as of 2007" is just wrong. According to this (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=31877#2) as of 2010, the Knights only had 87, not 142. And that makes them like 8th in the OHL, let alone the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.174.234 (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on London Knights. 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/20070927013014/http://www.chl.ca/CHLRecordBook/longestundefeatedstreak.html to http://www.chl.ca/CHLRecordBook/longestundefeatedstreak.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20041128232445/http://www.lfpress.ca/perl-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=sport&p=90431.html&a=1 to http://www.lfpress.ca/perl-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=sport&p=90431.html&a=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423080816/http://www.london.ca/Council/honours_list.htm to http://www.london.ca/Council/honours_list.htm
 * Added tag to http://formerlondonknights.blogspot.com/

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) 14:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: Change main Knights logo to have a transparent background. Explanation of issue: Because the logo is used as a source for things such as Siri previews, the white background on the logo does not look great in other contexts outside of Wikipedia. Other teams such as the Sarnia Sting have better quality images with a clear background. Would personally change it, but would be a conflict of interest. References supporting change: Sting example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnia_Sting Jaymcarth (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 * is there a URL link to a London Knights logo with a transparent background? I can look after this for you later on Saturday afternoon. Flibirigit (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there are actually two parts to the request here. The first part is requesting that an image be found, while the second part of the request is to add that image to the article. In answer to the second part only, the file must first be uploaded to Wikipedia along with the appurtenant use license before it may be added to the article. The COI editor may use the File Upload Wizard to accomplish this. Flibirigit has offered to assist the COI editor in fulfilling the first part of the request (thank you to them for that). As such, an edit request at this stage to add an image to the article is not yet warranted until that image is found and uploaded. If the COI editor finds that they need additional assistance adding that found, uploaded, and licensed image to the article, simply alter the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  09:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Use this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/higebsy899bfden/Updated%20London%20Knights%20Logo.png?dl=0 This is the official file from the team. Alternatively, this is the largest one I can find within the site, but it's grainy and sort of defeats the purpose of having it appear crisp elsewhere. Same logo, though: https://chl-network.s3.amazonaws.com/logos/London/London_Knights2019.png It is probably best if I have you use the Upload Wizard instead, since my experience on Wikipedia is limited, to say the least. Jaymcarth (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope the newer file works. It may need to be downsized a bit. Flibirigit (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:London Knights


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Palestine

 * Palestine associated categories listed on January 15, 2005. No clear consensus. Marked as unresolved.

Palestine/West Bank & Gaza Strip/Palestinian Authority categories:

West Bank and Gaza Strip:
 * of Palestine
 * I strongly disagree here. "Palestine" is a historic geographical term, and is not interchangeable with "West Bank and Gaza Strip". I suggest using "of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" for geographical issues, and "of the Palestinian National Authority" for political issues (such as "political parties"). -- uriber 12:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally agree. Also "Palestinians" for the people. All of which gets trickier in historical contexts, especially pre-1948. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * Uriber, you are not making sense here. I do not follow what you are trying to do here. There were and are various contexts for the use of Palestine and they may all be correct. You cannot "standardize" various periods of history.IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In short, what I'm trying to do is to keep the concepts of Palestine, Palestinian, and Palestinian national Authority apart, as they are three distinct concepts, which are often confused. Palestine is a historic region, the Palestinians are (arguably) a people (which appeared only many centuries after "Palestine" was a well-known term), and the Palestinian national Authority is an autonimous state-like political entity governing parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (which, in turn, happen to be parts of Palestine, and the home of some of the Palestinians). This is complicated, but not without precedent: cf.: Jews/Judea/Land of Israel/Israel, United States/American. -- uriber 13:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Uriber here. BTW, must we always say "the Gaza Strip" instead of just "Gaza"? Especially in the phrase "The West Bank and Gaza" I would think the shorter phrase is entirely clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? How is the following making ''anything" more "concrete"? IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's make this more concrete...

 * I included the list here so that instead of arguing abstractly about classes like "geographical" and "political", we could just deal with the actual categories we have to rename.
 * Excellent idea -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Airports_of_Palestine
 * Should be Category:Airports_of_the_West_Bank_and_the_Gaza_Strip (unsigned comment)

 * This category contains the following disclaimer:

''Note: Palestine is not a country. These airports are located in the contested Gaza Strip and West Bank. Airports of Israel can be found under Category:Airports of Israel''

 * Is this appropriate? Should Category:Airports of Israel also contain a cross-reference? I guess if the name is changed, the disclaimer is no longer necessary. -- Beland 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly Category:Airports of Israel should also contain a cross-reference. It is a matter of indifference to me whether this is called Category:Airports of Palestine, Category:Airports of the West Bank and Gaza, Category:Airports of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I think all will be understood identically by any normal reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Category:Airports of the West Bank and Gaza is better; "Airports of Palestine" could, as someone noted, include Haifa... - - Mustafaa 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Arab_localities_in_Palestine_1948 -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem here (except for the category itself being dubious - but that's another issue). "Palestine" was a concrete political entity in 1948. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing dubious at all about this. - Mustafaa 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Elections_in_Palestine
 * Should be Category:Elections_in_the_Palestinian_Authority (or Category:Elections_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority). -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Gangulf 18:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. These were officially called "Palestinian" elections, and with good reason - Palestinians outside the PA's administration, eg in East Jerusalem, were permitted to vote in it. - Mustafaa 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestine
 * Depends on what's in it. I would keep this category for the historical stuff, but also create Category:Palestinian_National_Authority -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. And Category:Palestinian_National_Authority should be a subcategory of Category:Palestine. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course.
 * Category:Palestinian_Cities
 * Should be Category:Cities_of_the_West_Bank_and_the_Gaza_Strip
 * Probably that is clearer. Otherwise, I could make a damn strong case that Haifa belongs in this category. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree - or, as Jmabel says, add Haifa et al... - Mustafaa 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_history
 * Once again, depends on what's in it. If it's stuff about the history of the Palestinians, the current name is fine. But there should probably also be Category:History_of_Palestine for articles about the history of the region. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur, with Category:Palestinian_history as a subcategory of Category:History_of_Palestine, and a clear comment in each about their scope. And I'm wondering if it wouldn't be useful to have a Category:History of Israel and Palestine containing both Category:History_of_Palestine and Category:History_of_Israel, because the two cannot readily be extricated from one another, and plenty of articles really belong in that more abstract category. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jmabel: Please note there is already an extensive Category:Israeli history as well as Category:Israel and Zionism. The conflict between the two is covered by Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is also already Category:Palestinian history. To mix the "Israeli" with the "Palestinian" histories TOO much would not be helpful nor accurate at all, and would only confuse matters. IZAK 02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Palestinian_people.
 * This should remain as it is, since it's about Palestinian people, not about Palestine. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. MathKnight 12:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_political_parties
 * Should be Category:Political_parties_of_the_Palestinian_Authority. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Palestinian Authority a government? This should be Category:Political parties in terroritory administered by the Palestinian Authority or similar. 132.205.95.68 22:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The official article's title is Palestinian National Authority. -- Beland 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This should remain as it is, since it's about Palestinian parties, not about Palestine. Gangulf 18:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Gangulf has a point here. I'd include any specifically Palestinian parties in this category, regardless of geography. Maybe we also need a category Category:Political parties in terroritory administered by the Palestinian Authority or similar. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gangulf. - Mustafaa 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_sport
 * Should be Category:Sport_in_the_Palestinian_Authority. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The official article's title is Palestinian National Authority. Is this category about government employees who play sports? -- Beland 03:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I see nothing misleading about the present name of this category. What is the perceived problem? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Are we to exclude Palestinian sportsmen from Lebanese camps? - Mustafaa 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_suicide_bombers
 * This one and the three below it should remain as they are, for the same reason given in Category:Palestinian_people. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations
 * I dislike the category, but for reasons having nothing to do with the topic currently under discussion. I object to the entire use of "terrorist" in the category scheme. But I know I have a losing battle here. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. MathKnight 12:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_terrorists
 * As for Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. MathKnight 12:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Palestinian_writers
 * Clearly an appropriate category

 * I realize this seems complicated and non-consistent, but you have to remember that unlike other cases discussed here, there is no independent state called "Palestine", so it's natural that "Palestine" does not fit into a template designed for independent states. -- uriber 12:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Given the overloading of the term "Palestine", I can definitely see your point. I'm going to remain neutral here, but I would like to request some clarification...for each of the above categories, what would be the preferred new name?  -- Beland 20:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good question, I agree, what the heck is goin on here??? IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:Battles_of_the_Sinai_and_Palestine_Campaign
 * The above is correct for the episodes of World War I IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
 * The above is the name of the main article in Wikipedia on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And I would place this as a subcategory of Category:History of Israel and Palestine
 * Category:Jews_in_Ottoman_and_British_Palestine
 * What would you call the areas of Ottoman aand British Palestine, if not "Palestine"? IZAK 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I take it these 3 can remain the same. Do the others need to change, to e.g. "Category:People of the West Bank and Gaza Strip"? -- Beland 11:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Is West Bank an appropriate name for that piece of territory? Isn't there a more complete name? (West Bank of Transjordan, or West Bank of the Jordan River) 132.205.95.68 22:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "The West Bank and Gaza" is unambiguous and terse. Just like we do not always say "the United States of America". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Having read though this discussion, I generally agree with uriber's position. Issues dealing with the region of Palestine (generally pre-1948) should be in "Palestine" categories. Post 1948 geographical articles should be in the "West Bank and Gaza Strip" category, and political articles should be in the "Palestinian Authority" category. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Mostly ditto. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The ceaseless wrangling over Palestine is one of the main reasons I'm doing less Wikipedia stuff lately, but once more unto the breach... The term "Palestine" has two meanings in English. The primary meaning - and by far the most widely used one, as Google easily confirms - is the modern political sense: a homeland for the Palestinians. The less commonly used, but arguably more "academic", meaning is the geographical region long known as Palestine. More precise categories are good, where they can be created; after all, "West Bank and Gaza Strip" can and should be a subcategory of "Palestine". Attempting to arbitrarily restrict the term "Palestine" to only one of these two meanings, however, is not. Even if we arbitrarily pick the latter meaning as primary for Wikipedia purposes, there is no good reason to reserve "Palestine" solely for pre-1948 articles. We have a Category:Western Sahara, a Category:Chechnya, and a Category:Tibet; in no case have these categories been absurdly restricted only to pre-conquest-related articles (which would be impossible in the case of the Western Sahara anyway.) - Mustafaa 20:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Leave the categories as they are. Palestine/Palestinian should be the primary designation. Everyone is familiar with it. despite all the complications it is the best label for inclusive categories. Philip 14:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Gelisol

Gelisols are an order in USDA soil taxonomy. They are soils of very cold climates which are defined as containing permafrost within two meters of the soil surface. The word "Gelisol" comes from the Latin gelare meaning "to freeze", a reference to the process of cryoturbation that occurs from the alternating thawing and freezing characteristic of Gelisols.

In the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB), most Gelisols belong to the Cryosols. In soil taxonomy, Gelisols key out before the Histosols. In the WRB, the Histosols key out before the Cryosols. Organic permafrost soils are therefore Gelisols (Histels) in the soil taxonomy and Histosols (Cryic Histosols) in the WRB.

Structurally, Gelisols may have a B horizon and more commonly have an A horizon and/or O horizon resting on the permafrost. Because soil organic matter accumulates in the upper layer, most Gelisols are black or dark brown in soil color, followed by a shallow mineral layer. Despite the influence of glaciation in most areas where Gelisols occur, chemically they are not highly fertile because nutrients, especially calcium and potassium, are very easily leached above the permafrost. The permafrost greatly restricts the engineering use of Gelisols, as large structures (e.g. buildings) subside as the frozen earth thaws when they are put in place.

Gelisols are found chiefly in Siberia, Alaska and Canada. Smaller areas are found in the Andes (mainly near the intersection between Chile, Bolivia and Argentina), Tibet, northern Scandinavia and the ice-free parts of Greenland and Antarctica. Fossil Gelisols are known from as far back as Precambrian ice ages 900 million years ago.

Suborders
In USDA soil taxonomy, Gelisols are subdivided into:

 * Histels: organic soils similar to histosols except that they have permafrost within two meters below ground surface. They have 80% or more organic materials from the soil surface to a depth of 50 cm or to a glacic layer or densic, lithic, or paralithic contact, whichever is shallowest. These soils occur predominantly in subarctic and low arctic regions of continuous or widespread permafrost. Less than one-third of the active layer (the soil between the ground surface and a permafrost table) or an ice layer which is at least 30 cm thick has been cryoturbated.
 * Turbels: soils that show marked influence of cryoturbation (more than one-third of the depth of the active layer) such as irregular, broken, or distorted horizon boundaries and involutions and areas with patterned ground. They commonly contain tongues of mineral and organic horizons, organic and mineral intrusions and oriented rock fragments. Organic matter is accumulated on top of the permafrost and ice or sand wedges are a common features. Turbels occur primarily in the zone of continuous permafrost.
 * Orthels: soils that show little or no cryoturbation (less than one-third of the depth of the active layer). Patterned ground (except for polygons) generally is lacking. Orthels occur primarily within the zone of discontinuous permafrost, and in alpine areas.

title: Gelisol


text:
1817 in rail transport

Events

 * Approximate date – Britain's longest tramroad tunnel is opened at Pwll du near Blaenavon in South Wales. The Pwll Du Tunnel is more than a mile (2400 m) in length. Begun as a mineral adit, at this time it carries a horse-drawn double track plateway of approximately 2 ft (600 mm) gauge carrying material for Blaenavon Ironworks; next summer it will be incorporated in Thomas Hill's Tramroad.

March births

 * March 26 - Herman Haupt, United States railroad civil engineer (d. 1905).

June births

 * June 20 - Silas Seymour, chief engineer and/or consulting engineer for several railroads in New York in the mid- to late 19th century (d. 1890).

July births

 * July 1 – Hugh J. Jewett, president of the Erie Railroad 1874–1884 (d. 1898).
 * July 15 – John Fowler, British civil engineer (d. 1898).

October births

 * October 2 – Webster Wagner, founder of Wagner Palace Car Company (d. 1883).
 * October 17 – Alexander Mitchell, president of Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway 1864–1887 (d. 1887).

Unknown date births

 * Matthew Baird, second owner of Baldwin Locomotive Works (d. 1877)
 * Walter McQueen, Chief mechanical engineer for the Albany and Schenectady Railroad 1845–1850, Hudson River Railroad 1850–1852, and superintendent of Schenectady Locomotive Works 1852–1876 (d. 1893).

title: 1817 in rail transport


text:
Nick Beverley

Nicholas Gerald Beverley (born April 21, 1947) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player and coach. Beverley played over 500 games in the National Hockey League (NHL) and later coached in both the NHL and American Hockey League (AHL).

Career
Beverley played for the Boston Bruins, Pittsburgh Penguins, New York Rangers, Minnesota North Stars, and Colorado Rockies, totalling 18 goals, 94 assists for 112 total points in 501 games played. He scored his first NHL goal as a member of the Boston Bruins in his team's 6-0 victory over the Buffalo Sabres on January 14, 1973 at Boston Garden. It was the only goal Beverley scored as a Bruin. He was traded from the Bruins to the Pittsburgh Penguins for Darryl Edestrand. He was then acquired by the New York Rangers from the Penguins for Vic Hadfield on May 28, 1974.

Following his playing career, he became assistant coach of the Los Angeles Kings in 1981. He later became head coach of the New Haven Nighthawks of the AHL. Beverley spent a total of 14 years with the Kings holding a variety of positions including scout, assistant coach, head coach of minor affiliate, director of player personnel, assistant general manager and general manager. While in the position of general manager he led the Kings to their first Stanley Cup finals. After leaving the Kings, Beverley worked for the Toronto Maple Leafs as director of pro scouting, director of player personnel and as interim head coach when Pat Burns was released. As interim head coach, the Maple Leafs went 9–6–2 to finish the season. They made the playoffs, but lost in six games to the St. Louis Blues.

Following his time with the Leafs, Beverley joined his friend Mike Smith as assistant general manager of the Chicago Black Hawks. Following a big shakeup of the Blackhawks management, Beverley found himself unemployed with few prospects for jobs due to the looming work stoppage in 2004-05. In July 2005 he was signed as a scout for the Nashville Predators.

title: Nick Beverley


text:
Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts)

Interstate 84 (I-84) is an Interstate Highway in the Northeastern United States that extends almost 375 miles (603 km) from Dunmore, Pennsylvania, near Scranton at an interchange with I-81 east to Sturbridge, Massachusetts, at an interchange with the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90). Among the major cities that the road passes through is Hartford, Connecticut, and the road provides a major portion of the primary route between New York City and Boston. Another highway named I-84 is located in the Northwestern United States.

Route description

 * PA
 * 54.87 mi
 * NY
 * 71.79 mi
 * CT
 * 97.90 mi
 * MA
 * 8.15 mi
 * Total
 * 232.71 mi
 * }
 * 8.15 mi
 * Total
 * 232.71 mi
 * }
 * }

Pennsylvania
I-84 starts in Pennsylvania at I-81 in Dunmore, a suburb east of Scranton. After 2 mi, I-84 interchanges with I-380, with I-380 going southeast through the Pocono Mountains and I-84 continuing almost due east into Wayne and Pike counties. Pennsylvania began replacing sequential exit numbers with mile-based numbers in 2001.

This section of Pennsylvania is very lightly populated, and there are no major settlements on or near I-84, although it offers access to popular outdoor recreation areas such as Lake Wallenpaupack and Promised Land State Park. Its right-of-way is very wide, with a large median strip between the two roadways as it passes through densely wooded country, except for the swampy areas in southern Wayne County. The only development along Pennsylvania's section of I-84 is where US Route 6 (US 6) and US 209 start to parallel closely and form a commercial strip just south of Matamoras, just west of the Delaware River. I-84 reaches its highest elevation in Pennsylvania and in the east just west of exit 8 at 1800 ft.

New York
I-84 enters New York by crossing both the Delaware and Neversink rivers on a long bridge south of Port Jervis, the first large settlement near the highway. South of the road, at the confluence of the Delaware and Neversink rivers, is the Tri-States Monument, where New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania converge. The first mile (1 mi) of the road in New York runs along the New Jersey state line, then curves to the north to climb the Shawangunk Ridge and cross Orange County, where it intersects New York State Route 17 (NY 17; future I-86) and later the New York State Thruway (I-87). I-84 includes the Newburgh–Beacon Bridge across the Hudson River at Newburgh.

East of the bridge and the city of Beacon, I-84 continues to head east across Dutchess County, beginning to turn south in the mountainous areas east of the Taconic State Parkway and into Putnam County. At Brewster, where I-684 heads south toward New York City, the road resumes its eastern course into Connecticut, closely paralleled by US 6 and US 202. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) completed the process of converting exits from sequential to mile-based numbering as part of a sign replacement project in 2021.

Connecticut
The Interstate's first exit is at the state line, where it enters the city of Danbury. Here, it is designated the Yankee Expressway. 2 mi to the east, where US 7 comes in from the south near Danbury Fair to join I-84, it turns to the north. At the next exit, US 6 and US 202 join the highway.

The four-way concurrency ends after 3 mi, when US 7 and US 202 split off north toward New Milford. US 6 leaves the Interstate at the next exit, and I-84 continues east across the countryside. At exit 11, it turns to the northeast and descends to cross the Housatonic River on the Rochambeau Bridge, into New Haven County. It then climbs onto higher ground to the city of Waterbury, which it passes on an elevated viaduct with the eastbound and westbound lanes on different levels. Here, the Route 8 expressway intersects.

The eastern heading continues past Waterbury to Milldale, where I-691 splits off to the east. This section has many left-hand exits and entrances and sharp curves, which were built for a planned network of freeways. I-84 heads northeast toward New Britain and Hartford, the state capital and the largest community along its eastern length. After intersecting I-91, the road crosses the Connecticut River on the Bulkeley Bridge, the oldest on the Interstate System, then becomes the Wilbur Cross Highway and continues toward the northeast. I-84 services the greater student body commuting to the University of Connecticut through exit 68 located in rural Tolland.

The last exit in Connecticut is exit 74, an exit for Route 171. I-84 crosses the Massachusetts border in the town of Union.

Massachusetts
The Wilbur Cross Highway continues on I-84 after the highway crosses the state line. For a short distance (approximately 90 yd eastbound and 200 yd westbound), the Interstate passes through the town of Holland in Hampden County before crossing into Sturbridge in Worcester County for the remainder of its length. I-84 has only three exits in Massachusetts, before ending at I-90, the Massachusetts Turnpike. I-84 ends at exit 78 (formerly exit 9) of I-90, which is located in Sturbridge, 7.7 mi into the state, making the Massachusetts section of the highway the shortest distance within any of the four states it traverses.

History
I-84 was originally to head east from Hartford, Connecticut, to Providence, Rhode Island.

The original route of I-84 would have used present-day I-384 to Bolton, Connecticut, then along a never-built section of freeway that would have connected to the US 6 bypass around Willimantic, Connecticut. Another never-built freeway section would have connected it to I-395 and extended I-84 onto State Road 695 (SR 695) in Connecticut, the easternmost portion of the Connecticut Turnpike in Plainfield, Connecticut. From there, it would have roughly followed US 6 through western Rhode Island to connect to the present-day US 6 freeway in Johnston. From there, a freeway from Olneyville Square to the I-95/I-195 interchange was briefly considered but abandoned in favor of what later became the Route 6-10 Connector.

Sections of I-84 in Connecticut were reconstructed and widened in the 1980s. The former I-86 portion from East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line was completely rebuilt from a narrow four-lane freeway to a much wider profile ranging from six lanes at the Massachusetts state line, expanding to eight lanes in Vernon, to 12 lanes with high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV lanes) in East Hartford. Another section through Danbury was widened from four lanes to six lanes in 1985 and 1986. Widening of the highway through Danbury was funded by Union Carbide as part of building its world headquarters in Danbury.

Though the route was confirmed in Connecticut, many issues remained in Rhode Island, the biggest of which were major environmental concerns about how the freeway would affect the Scituate Reservoir, which is the main drinking water supply for Providence. In an attempt to ease environmental concerns, an alternate route was briefly studied in Rhode Island that would have connected I-84 to the present-day Route 37 freeway. This would have allowed construction of I-84 south of the Scituate Reservoir. Major community opposition caused this plan, as well as all plans for a Hartford–Providence expressway, to be scrapped in the 1980s.

In the 1992 long-range transportation plan released by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, a freeway was added along the original route of I-84 that will connect to the SR 695 freeway on the Rhode Island–Connecticut border.

I-86 relation
The section of I-84 between East Hartford, Connecticut, (at the present-day junction with I-384) and Sturbridge, Massachusetts, (I-90) was signed in the late 1970s and early 1980s as I-86 (unrelated to present-day I-86 in New York and Pennsylvania). Signs stating "I-84 Ends, I-86 to Boston" (eastbound) and "I-86 Ends, I-84 to Hartford" (westbound) were posted where the change took place. Exit numbering on I-86 was that of the road's predecessor, Route 15, in a sequence beginning on New York's Hutchinson River Parkway. Exits were renumbered to correspond with the rest of I-84 in Connecticut when the road was redesignated in 1984. The present I-384 as well as the present US 6 bypass near Willimantic, both of which were a part of what was then I-84's planned easterly continuation, were also numbered I-84 prior to 1984 even though they lacked any direct connection to the rest of I-84 at that time. (Drivers had to use Silver Lane in East Hartford to travel between the two stretches of the highway.) These two sections were re-numbered I-384 and US 6 when what was then I-86 numbering reverted to I-84, with signs reading "I-84 is now I-384", "I-84 is now US 6", and "I-86 is now I-84" being erected on their respective segments.

Tolls
As I-84 was built with federal funds, there are generally no highway tolls. The exception is I-84's Hudson River crossing, the Newburgh–Beacon Bridge. Since the bridge is under the New York State Bridge Authority, it carries an eastbound-only toll of $2.15 for passenger vehicles (EZ Pass $1.65).

Transfer to New York State Thruway Authority
From 1992 through 2006, I-84 in New York was a toll-free component of the New York State Thruway system. It was transferred by NYSDOT to the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) in order to capitalize on that agency's steady revenue stream from upstate sources.

In 1992, maintenance responsibility for I-84 in New York was transferred to the NYSTA and the monies for that purpose came from existing tolls on I-190 in downtown Buffalo, more than 300 mi away. On October 30, 2006, the NYSTA began the process of returning maintenance and operation responsibilities to NYSDOT and the tolls in Buffalo were discontinued. The I-190 tolls were considered to be one of the principal causes of highway congestion in Buffalo. From 2006 to 2010, maintenance was performed by the NYSTA with funding provided by the state legislature. On October 11, 2010, NYSDOT resumed full control of I-84.

Widening projects in Waterbury
A widening project along the congested stretch of I-84 through Waterbury and Cheshire, Connecticut, was beset by cost overruns, delays, and construction defects involving storm drains, as state and federal officials have launched criminal investigations stemming from this project. This episode diminished local enthusiasm for a proposed $2-billion reconstruction of the "Mixmaster" interchange in downtown Waterbury between Route 8 and I-84. Cost estimates for the Mixmaster replacement have increased to $3 billion. Former Connecticut Attorney-General Richard Blumenthal began a lawsuit against the contractor and an engineering firm in response to threats from USDOT to withhold funds from the project. On May 18, 2007, the Republican-American reported this area had defective light poles, while Governor Jodi Rell released an audit report of the construction disaster. A number of USDOT personnel were either fired or reprimanded following the scandal. Additionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a federal grand jury investigated the now-defunct construction company and the same USDOT officials, although none of these investigations have yet to result in criminal charges.

Major intersections

 * Pennsylvania
 * in Dunmore
 * in Roaring Brook Township
 * near Milford
 * near Matamoras

 * New York
 * in Port Jervis
 * in Middletown
 * in Middletown
 * in Newburgh
 * in Newburgh
 * in Fishkill
 * in East Fishkill
 * in Brewster

 * Connecticut
 * in Danbury
 * in Waterbury
 * in Southington
 * in New Britain
 * in Farmington
 * in Farmington
 * in Hartford
 * in East Hartford
 * in East Hartford
 * in Manchester
 * in Manchester
 * in Manchester

 * Massachusetts
 * in Sturbridge
 * in Sturbridge

Auxiliary routes
I-84 has two current and two former auxiliary routes. I-384 is a spur of I-84 in Manchester, Connecticut. I-684 connects I-84 in Brewster, New York, with I-287 in Harrison, New York. I-284 was a planned but never built expressway relocation of US 5 to bypass East Hartford, Connecticut, along the eastern shore of the Connecticut River. I-484 was slated to be built south of downtown Hartford, Connecticut, (connecting with I-91), but that highway was never completed.


text: Category:Nu metal musical groups

title: Category:Nu metal musical groups