document_title: Taxonomy (biology)

question_text: who developed a scheme of classification known as the ladder of life

text: Taxonomy (biology)

text: Definition[edit]

text: The exact definition of taxonomy varies from source to source, but the core of the discipline remains: the conception, naming, and classification of groups of organisms.[1] As points of reference, recent definitions of taxonomy are presented below:

text:
Theory and practice of grouping individuals into species, arranging species into larger groups, and giving those groups names, thus producing a classification[2]
A field of science (and major component of systematics) that encompasses description, identification, nomenclature, and classification[3]
The science of classification, in biology the arrangement of organisms into a classification[4]
"The science of classification as applied to living organisms, including study of means of formation of species, etc."[5]
"The analysis of an organism's characteristics for the purpose of classification"[6]
"Systematics studies phylogeny to provide a pattern that can be translated into the classification and names of the more inclusive field of taxonomy" (listed as a desirable but unusual definition)[7]

tag: ol

text: The varied definitions either place taxonomy as a sub-area of systematics (definition 2), invert that relationship (definition 6), or appear to consider the two terms synonymous. There is some disagreement as to whether biological nomenclature is considered a part of taxonomy (definitions 1 and 2), or a part of systematics outside taxonomy.[8] For example, definition 6 is paired with the following definition of systematics that places nomenclature outside taxonomy:[6]

text: Systematics: "The study of the identification, taxonomy, and nomenclature of organisms, including the classification of living things with regard to their natural relationships and the study of variation and the evolution of taxa".

text: A whole set of terms including taxonomy, systematic biology, systematics, biosystematics, scientific classification, biological classification, and phylogenetics have at times had overlapping meanings – sometimes the same, sometimes slightly different, but always related and intersecting.[1][9] The broadest meaning of "taxonomy" is used here. The term itself was introduced in 1813 by de Candolle, in his Théorie élémentaire de la botanique.[10]

text: Alpha and beta taxonomy[edit]

text: The term "alpha taxonomy" is primarily used today to refer to the discipline of finding, describing, and naming taxa, particularly species.[11] In earlier literature, the term had a different meaning, referring to morphological taxonomy, and the products of research through the end of the 19th century.[12]

text: William Bertram Turrill introduced the term "alpha taxonomy" in a series of papers published in 1935 and 1937 in which he discussed the philosophy and possible future directions of the discipline of taxonomy.[13]

text: … there is an increasing desire amongst taxonomists to consider their problems from wider viewpoints, to investigate the possibilities of closer co-operation with their cytological, ecological and genetical colleagues and to acknowledge that some revision or expansion, perhaps of a drastic nature, of their aims and methods, may be desirable … Turrill (1935) has suggested that while accepting the older invaluable taxonomy, based on structure, and conveniently designated "alpha", it is possible to glimpse a far-distant taxonomy built upon as wide a basis of morphological and physiological facts as possible, and one in which "place is found for all observational and experimental data relating, even if indirectly, to the constitution, subdivision, origin, and behaviour of species and other taxonomic groups". Ideals can, it may be said, never be completely realized. They have, however, a great value of acting as permanent stimulants, and if we have some, even vague, ideal of an "omega" taxonomy we may progress a little way down the Greek alphabet. Some of us please ourselves by thinking we are now groping in a "beta" taxonomy.[13]

text: Turrill thus explicitly excludes from alpha taxonomy various areas of study that he includes within taxonomy as a whole, such as ecology, physiology, genetics, and cytology. He further excludes phylogenetic reconstruction from alpha taxonomy (pp. 365–366).

text: Later authors have used the term in a different sense, to mean the delimitation of species (not subspecies or taxa of other ranks), using whatever investigative techniques are available, and including sophisticated computational or laboratory techniques.[14][11] Thus, Ernst Mayr in 1968 defined beta taxonomy as the classification of ranks higher than species.[15]

text: An understanding of the biological meaning of variation and of the evolutionary origin of groups of related species is even more important for the second stage of taxonomic activity, the sorting of species into groups of relatives ("taxa") and their arrangement in a hierarchy of higher categories. This activity is what the term classification denotes; it is also referred to as beta taxonomy.

text: Microtaxonomy and macrotaxonomy[edit]

text: How species should be defined in a particular group of organisms gives rise to practical and theoretical problems that are referred to as the species problem. The scientific work of deciding how to define species has been called microtaxonomy.[16][17][11] By extension, macrotaxonomy is the study of groups at higher taxonomic ranks, from subgenus and above only, than species.[11]

text: History[edit]

text: While some descriptions of taxonomic history attempt to date taxonomy to ancient civilizations, a truly scientific attempt to classify organisms did not occur until the 18th century. Earlier works were primarily descriptive and focused on plants that were useful in agriculture or medicine. There are a number of stages in this scientific thinking. Early taxonomy was based on arbitrary criteria, the so-called "artificial systems", including Linnaeus's system of sexual classification. Later came systems based on a more complete consideration of the characteristics of taxa, referred to as "natural systems", such as those of de Jussieu (1789), de Candolle (1813) and Bentham and Hooker (1862–1863). These were pre-evolutionary in thinking. The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) led to new ways of thinking about classification based on evolutionary relationships. This was the concept of phyletic systems, from 1883 onwards. This approach was typified by those of Eichler (1883) and Engler (1886–1892). The advent of molecular genetics and statistical methodology allowed the creation of the modern era of "phylogenetic systems" based on cladistics, rather than morphology alone.[18][19][20]

text: Pre-Linnaean[edit]

text: Early taxonomists[edit]

text: Naming and classifying our surroundings has probably been taking place as long as mankind has been able to communicate. It would always have been important to know the names of poisonous and edible plants and animals in order to communicate this information to other members of the family or group. Medicinal plant illustrations show up in Egyptian wall paintings from c. 1500 BC, indicating that the uses of different species were understood and that a basic taxonomy was in place.[21]

text: Bhagavata Purana[edit]

text: In Canto 3, chapter 10 of Bhagavata Purana 6 types of trees are recognised, by name:[22]

text:
Vanaspatis – large trees that grow fruits without flowering.
Drumas – large trees that bloom and give fruits.
Osadhis – trees that die soon after they give fruits.
Latas – creepers and tiny plants.
Viruts – plants that grow as bushes.
Tvaksaras – plants hollow inside with strong barks like bamboos.

text: Ancient times[edit]

text: Organisms were first classified by Aristotle (Greece, 384–322 BC) during his stay on the Island of Lesbos.[23][24][25] He classified beings by their parts, or in modern terms attributes, such as having live birth, having four legs, laying eggs, having blood, or being warm-bodied.[26] He divided all living things into two groups: plants and animals.[24] Some of his groups of animals, such as Anhaima (animals without blood, translated as invertebrates) and Enhaima (animals with blood, roughly the vertebrates), as well as groups like the sharks and cetaceans, are still commonly used today.[27] His student Theophrastus (Greece, 370–285 BC) carried on this tradition, mentioning some 500 plants and their uses in his Historia Plantarum. Again, several plant groups currently still recognized can be traced back to Theophrastus, such as Cornus, Crocus, and Narcissus.[24]

text: Medieval[edit]

text: Taxonomy in the Middle Ages was largely based on the Aristotelian system,[26] with additions concerning the philosophical and existential order of creatures. This included concepts such as the Great chain of being in the Western scholastic tradition,[26] again deriving ultimately from Aristotle. Aristotelian system did not classify plants or fungi, due to the lack of microscope at the time,[25] as his ideas were based on arranging the complete world in a single continuum, as per the scala naturae (the Natural Ladder).[24] This, as well, was taken into consideration in the Great chain of being.[24] Advances were made by scholars such as Procopius, Timotheos of Gaza, Demetrios Pepagomenos, and Thomas Aquinas. Medieval thinkers used abstract philosophical and logical categorizations more suited to abstract philosophy than to pragmatic taxonomy.[24]

text: Renaissance and Early Modern[edit]

text: During the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the Enlightenment, categorizing organisms became more prevalent,[24] and taxonomic works became ambitious enough to replace the ancient texts. This is sometimes credited to the development of sophisticated optical lenses, which allowed the morphology of organisms to be studied in much greater detail. One of the earliest authors to take advantage of this leap in technology was the Italian physician Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603), who has been called "the first taxonomist".[28] His magnum opus De Plantis came out in 1583, and described more than 1500 plant species.[29][30] Two large plant families that he first recognized are still in use today: the Asteraceae and Brassicaceae.[31] Then in the 17th century John Ray (England, 1627–1705) wrote many important taxonomic works.[25] Arguably his greatest accomplishment was Methodus Plantarum Nova (1682),[32] in which he published details of over 18,000 plant species. At the time, his classifications were perhaps the most complex yet produced by any taxonomist, as he based his taxa on many combined characters. The next major taxonomic works were produced by Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (France, 1656–1708).[33] His work from 1700, Institutiones Rei Herbariae, included more than 9000 species in 698 genera, which directly influenced Linnaeus, as it was the text he used as a young student.[21]

text: The Linnaean era[edit]

text: The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778)[26] ushered in a new era of taxonomy. With his major works Systema Naturae 1st Edition in 1735,[34] Species Plantarum in 1753,[35] and Systema Naturae 10th Edition,[36] he revolutionized modern taxonomy. His works implemented a standardized binomial naming system for animal and plant species,[37] which proved to be an elegant solution to a chaotic and disorganized taxonomic literature. He not only introduced the standard of class, order, genus, and species, but also made it possible to identify plants and animals from his book, by using the smaller parts of the flower.[37] Thus the Linnaean system was born, and is still used in essentially the same way today as it was in the 18th century.[37] Currently, plant and animal taxonomists regard Linnaeus' work as the "starting point" for valid names (at 1753 and 1758 respectively).[38] Names published before these dates are referred to as "pre-Linnaean", and not considered valid (with the exception of spiders published in Svenska Spindlar[39]). Even taxonomic names published by Linnaeus himself before these dates are considered pre-Linnaean.[21]

text: Modern system of classification[edit]

text: Whereas Linnaeus classified for ease of identification, the idea of the Linnaean taxonomy as translating into a sort of dendrogram of the Animal- and Plant Kingdoms was formulated toward the end of the 18th century, well before On the Origin of Species was published.[25] Among early works exploring the idea of a transmutation of species were Erasmus Darwin's 1796 Zoönomia and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique of 1809.[11] The idea was popularised in the Anglophone world by the speculative but widely read Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, published anonymously by Robert Chambers in 1844.[40]

text: With Darwin's theory, a general acceptance quickly appeared that a classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent.[41] Tree of Life representations became popular in scientific works, with known fossil groups incorporated. One of the first modern groups tied to fossil ancestors was birds.[42] Using the then newly discovered fossils of Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis, Thomas Henry Huxley pronounced that they had evolved from dinosaurs, a group formally named by Richard Owen in 1842.[43][44] The resulting description, that of dinosaurs "giving rise to" or being "the ancestors of" birds, is the essential hallmark of evolutionary taxonomic thinking. As more and more fossil groups were found and recognized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, palaeontologists worked to understand the history of animals through the ages by linking together known groups.[45] With the modern evolutionary synthesis of the early 1940s, an essentially modern understanding of the evolution of the major groups was in place. As evolutionary taxonomy is based on Linnaean taxonomic ranks, the two terms are largely interchangeable in modern use.[citation needed]

text: The cladistic method (or cladism) has emerged since the 1960s.[41] In 1958, Julian Huxley used the term clade.[11] Later, in 1960, Cain and Harrison introduced the term cladistic.[11] The salient feature is arranging taxa in a hierarchical evolutionary tree, ignoring ranks.[41] A taxon is called monophyletic, if it includes all the descendants of an ancestral form.[46][47] Groups that have descendant groups removed from them (e.g. dinosaurs, with birds as offspring group) are termed paraphyletic,[46] while groups representing more than one branch from the tree of life are called polyphyletic.[46][47] The International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature or PhyloCode is intended to regulate the formal naming of clades.[48][49] Linnaean ranks will be optional under the PhyloCode, which is intended to coexist with the current, rank-based codes.[49]

text: Kingdoms and domains[edit]

text: Well before Linnaeus, plants and animals were considered separate Kingdoms.[50] Linnaeus used this as the top rank, dividing the physical world into the plant, animal and mineral kingdoms. As advances in microscopy made classification of microorganisms possible, the number of kingdoms increased, five and six-kingdom systems being the most common.

text: Domains are a relatively new grouping. First proposed in 1977, Carl Woese's three-domain system was not generally accepted until later.[51] One main characteristic of the three-domain method is the separation of Archaea and Bacteria, previously grouped into the single kingdom Bacteria (a kingdom also sometimes called Monera),[50] with the Eukaryota for all organisms whose cells contain a nucleus.[52] A small number of scientists include a sixth kingdom, Archaea, but do not accept the domain method.[50]

text: Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who has published extensively on the classification of protists, has recently proposed that the Neomura, the clade that groups together the Archaea and Eucarya, would have evolved from Bacteria, more precisely from Actinobacteria. His 2004 classification treated the archaeobacteria as part of a subkingdom of the Kingdom Bacteria, i.e. he rejected the three-domain system entirely.[53] Stefan Luketa in 2012 proposed a five "dominion" system, adding Prionobiota (acellular and without nucleic acid) and Virusobiota (acellular but with nucleic acid) to the traditional three domains.[54]

text:
Linnaeus
1735[55]
Haeckel
1866[56]
Chatton
1925[57]
Copeland
1938[58]
Whittaker
1969[59]
Woese et al.
1990[60]
Cavalier-Smith
1998[53]

2 kingdoms
3 kingdoms
2 empires
4 kingdoms
5 kingdoms
3 domains
6 kingdoms

(not treated)
Protista
Prokaryota
Monera
Monera
Bacteria
Bacteria

Archaea

Eukaryota
Protoctista
Protista
Eucarya
Protozoa

Chromista

Vegetabilia
Plantae
Plantae
Plantae
Plantae

Fungi
Fungi

Animalia
Animalia
Animalia
Animalia
Animalia

text: Recent comprehensive classifications[edit]

text: Partial classifications exist for many individual groups of organisms and are revised and replaced as new information becomes available, however comprehensive treatments of most or all life are rarer; two recent examples are that of Adl et al., 2012,[61] which covers eukaryotes only with an emphasis on protists, and Ruggiero et al., 2015,[62] covering both eukaryotes and prokaryotes to the rank of Order, although both exclude fossil representatives.[62]

text: Application[edit]

text: Biological taxonomy is a sub-discipline of biology, and is generally practiced by biologists known as "taxonomists", though enthusiastic naturalists are also frequently involved in the publication of new taxa. The work carried out by taxonomists is crucial for the understanding of biology in general. Two fields of applied biology in which taxonomic work is of fundamental importance are the studies of biodiversity and conservation.[63] Without a working classification of the organisms in any given area, estimating the amount of diversity present is unrealistic, making informed conservation decisions impossible.[citation needed]

text: Classifying organisms[edit]

text: Biological classification is a critical component of the taxonomic process. As a result, it informs the user as to what the relatives of the taxon are hypothesized to be. Biological classification uses taxonomic ranks, including among others (in order from most inclusive to least inclusive): Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.[64][Note 1]

text: Taxonomic descriptions[edit]

text: The "definition" of a taxon is encapsulated by its description or its diagnosis or by both combined. There are no set rules governing the definition of taxa, but the naming and publication of new taxa is governed by sets of rules.[8] In zoology, the nomenclature for the more commonly used ranks (superfamily to subspecies), is regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN Code).[65] In the fields of botany, phycology, and mycology, the naming of taxa is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN).[66]

text: The initial description of a taxon involves five main requirements:[67]

text:
The taxon must be given a name based on the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet (a binomial for new species, or uninomial for other ranks).
The name must be unique (i.e. not a homonym).
The description must be based on at least one name-bearing type specimen.
It should include statements about appropriate attributes either to describe (define) the taxon or to differentiate it from other taxa (the diagnosis, ICZN Code, Article 13.1.1, ICN, Article 38). Both codes deliberately separate defining the content of a taxon (its circumscription) from defining its name.
These first four requirements must be published in a work that is obtainable in numerous identical copies, as a permanent scientific record.

text: However, often much more information is included, like the geographic range of the taxon, ecological notes, chemistry, behavior, etc. How researchers arrive at their taxa varies: depending on the available data, and resources, methods vary from simple quantitative or qualitative comparisons of striking features, to elaborate computer analyses of large amounts of DNA sequence data.[68]

text: Author citation[edit]

text: An "authority" may be placed after a scientific name.[69] The authority is the name of the scientist or scientists who first validly published the name.[69] For example, in 1758 Linnaeus gave the Asian elephant the scientific name Elephas maximus, so the name is sometimes written as "Elephas maximus Linnaeus, 1758".[70] The names of authors are frequently abbreviated: the abbreviation L., for Linnaeus, is commonly used. In botany, there is, in fact, a regulated list of standard abbreviations (see list of botanists by author abbreviation).[71] The system for assigning authorities differs slightly between botany and zoology.[8] However, it is standard that if a species' name or placement has been changed since the original description, the original authority's name is placed in parentheses.[72]

text: Phenetics[edit]

text: In phenetics, also known as taximetrics, or numerical taxonomy, organisms are classified based on overall similarity, regardless of their phylogeny or evolutionary relationships.[11] It results in a measure of evolutionary "distance" between taxa. Phenetic methods have become relatively rare in modern times, largely superseded by cladistic analyses, as phenetic methods do not distinguish plesiomorphic[clarification needed] from apomorphic traits.[73] However, certain phenetic methods, such as neighbor joining, have found their way into cladistics, as a reasonable approximation of phylogeny when more advanced methods (such as Bayesian inference) are too computationally expensive.[74]

text: Databases[edit]

text: Modern taxonomy uses database technologies to search and catalogue classifications and their documentation.[75] While there is no commonly used database, there are comprehensive databases such as the Catalogue of Life, which attempts to list every documented species.[76] The catalogue listed 1.64 million species for all kingdoms as of April 2016, claiming coverage of more than three quarters of the estimated species known to modern science.[77]


document_title: List of Wimbledon gentlemen's singles champions

question_text: who was the last american man to win wimbledon

root

text: History[edit]

text: The Wimbledon Championships are played in the first two weeks of July (as of July 2017, prior to this it was last week in June and 1st week in July) and has been chronologically the third of the four Grand Slam tournaments of the tennis season since 1987.[2] The event was not held from 1915 to 1918 because of World War I and again from 1940 to 1945 because of World War II.[4]

tag: p

text: The Gentlemen's Singles' rules have undergone several changes since the first edition. From 1878 until 1921, the event started with a knockout phase, the All Comers' Singles, whose winner then faced the defending champion in a challenge round. The All Comers' winner was automatically awarded the title six times (1879, 1887, 1891, 1895, 1907, 1908) in the absence of the previous year's champion. The challenge round system was abolished with the 1922 edition.[5] Since the first championships, all matches have been played at the best-of-five sets. Between 1877 and 1883, the winner of the next game at five games – all took the set in every match except the All Comers' final, and the challenge round, which were won with six games and a two games advantage. All sets were decided in this advantage format from 1884 to 1970.[5] The lingering death best of 12 points tie-break was introduced in 1971 for the first four sets, played at eight games all until 1978 and at six games all since 1979.[5][6][7]

text: Since 1949, the Gentlemen's Singles champion has received a miniature replica of the event's trophy, a silver-gilt cup created in 1887 with the engraved inscription: "The All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Champion of the World".[8] New singles champions are traditionally elected honorary members of the AELTC by the club's committee.[c][9] In 2017, the Gentlemen's Singles winner received prize money of £2,220,000.[10]

text: In the Amateur Era, William Renshaw (1881–1886, 1889) holds the record for the most titles in the Gentlemen's Singles, winning Wimbledon seven times. Renshaw's wins, however, came within the challenge round format, and he won the event only twice after going through a complete draw. Renshaw also holds the record for most consecutive titles with six from (1881 to 1886). The record for most consecutive and most wins post challenge round during the Amateur Era is Fred Perry (1934–1936).[4]

text: In the Open Era, since the inclusion of professional tennis players in 1968, Roger Federer (2003–2007, 2009, 2012, 2017) holds the record for the  most Gentlemen's Singles titles with eight. Björn Borg (1976–1980) and Roger Federer (2003–2007) share the record for most consecutive victories with five.[4]

text: This event was won without losing a single set in the entire tournament during the Open Era twice, in 1976 by Björn Borg and in 2017 by Roger Federer.

text: Roger Federer is the only player in history, in both the Amateur and Open Era, to reach the Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles Final eleven times. He has won on eight occasions and lost on three.

text: Champions[edit]

text:
Regular competition

All Comers' winner, Challenge round winner ‡

Defending champion, Challenge round winner †

All Comers' winner, no Challenge round ◊

tag: table

text: Amateur era[edit]

text:
Year[d]

Country

Champion

Country

Runner-up

Score in the final[4]

1877
 BRI[e]
Spencer Gore
 BRI
William Marshall
6–1, 6–2, 6–4

1878
 BRI
Frank Hadow ‡
 BRI
Spencer Gore
7–5, 6–1, 9–7

1879
 BRI
John Hartley ◊
 BRI
Vere St. Leger Goold
6–2, 6–4, 6–2

1880
 BRI
John Hartley †
 BRI
Herbert Lawford
6–3, 6–2, 2–6, 6–3

1881
 BRI
William Renshaw ‡
 BRI
John Hartley
6–0, 6–1, 6–1

1882
 BRI
William Renshaw †
 BRI
Ernest Renshaw
6–1, 2–6, 4–6, 6–2, 6–2

1883
 BRI
William Renshaw †
 BRI
Ernest Renshaw
2–6, 6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 6–3

1884
 BRI
William Renshaw †
 BRI
Herbert Lawford
6–0, 6–4, 9–7

1885
 BRI
William Renshaw †
 BRI
Herbert Lawford
7–5, 6–2, 4–6, 7–5

1886
 BRI
William Renshaw †
 BRI
Herbert Lawford
6–0, 5–7, 6–3, 6–4

1887
 BRI
Herbert Lawford ◊
 BRI
Ernest Renshaw
1–6, 6–3, 3–6, 6–4, 6–4

1888
 BRI
Ernest Renshaw ‡
 BRI
Herbert Lawford
6–3, 7–5, 6–0

1889
 BRI
William Renshaw ‡
 BRI
Ernest Renshaw
6–4, 6–1, 3–6, 6–0

1890
 BRI
Willoughby Hamilton ‡
 BRI
William Renshaw
6–8, 6–2, 3–6, 6–1, 6–1

1891
 BRI
Wilfred Baddeley ◊
 BRI
Joshua Pim
6–4, 1–6, 7–5, 6–0

1892
 BRI
Wilfred Baddeley †
 BRI
Joshua Pim
4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–2

1893
 BRI
Joshua Pim ‡
 BRI
Wilfred Baddeley
3–6, 6–1, 6–3, 6–2

1894
 BRI
Joshua Pim †
 BRI
Wilfred Baddeley
10–8, 6–2, 8–6

1895
 BRI
Wilfred Baddeley ◊
 BRI
Wilberforce Eaves
4–6, 2–6, 8–6, 6–2, 6–3

1896
 BRI
Harold Mahony ‡
 BRI
Wilfred Baddeley
6–2, 6–8, 5–7, 8–6, 6–3

1897
 BRI
Reginald Doherty ‡
 BRI
Harold Mahony
6–4, 6–4, 6–3

1898
 BRI
Reginald Doherty †
 BRI
Laurence Doherty
6–3, 6–3, 2–6, 5–7, 6–1

1899
 BRI
Reginald Doherty †
 BRI
Arthur Gore
1–6, 4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–3

1900
 BRI
Reginald Doherty †
 BRI
Sydney Smith
6–8, 6–3, 6–1, 6–2

1901
 BRI
Arthur Gore ‡
 BRI
Reginald Doherty
4–6, 7–5, 6–4, 6–4

1902
 BRI
Laurence Doherty ‡
 BRI
Arthur Gore
6–4, 6–3, 3–6, 6–0

1903
 BRI
Laurence Doherty †
 BRI
Frank Riseley
7–5, 6–3, 6–0

1904
 BRI
Laurence Doherty †
 BRI
Frank Riseley
6–1, 7–5, 8–6

1905
 BRI
Laurence Doherty †
 AUS
Norman Brookes
8–6, 6–2, 6–4

1906
 BRI
Laurence Doherty †
 BRI
Frank Riseley
6–4, 4–6, 6–2, 6–3

1907
 AUS
Norman Brookes ◊
 BRI
Arthur Gore
6–4, 6–2, 6–2

1908
 BRI
Arthur Gore ◊
 BRI
Herbert Roper Barrett
6–3, 6–2, 4–6, 3–6, 6–4

1909
 BRI
Arthur Gore †
 BRI
Major Ritchie
6–8, 1–6, 6–2, 6–2, 6–2

1910
 NZL
Anthony Wilding ‡
 BRI
Arthur Gore
6–4, 7–5, 4–6, 6–2

1911
 NZL
Anthony Wilding †
 BRI
Herbert Roper Barrett
6–4, 4–6, 2–6, 6–2, retired[f]

1912
 NZL
Anthony Wilding †
 BRI
Arthur Gore
6–4, 6–4, 4–6, 6–4

1913
 NZL
Anthony Wilding †
 USA
Maurice McLoughlin
8–6, 6–3, 10–8

1914
 AUS
Norman Brookes ‡
 NZL
Anthony Wilding
6–4, 6–4, 7–5

1915
No competition (due to World War I)

1916

1917

1918

1919
 AUS
Gerald Patterson ‡
 AUS
Norman Brookes
6–3, 7–5, 6–2

1920
 USA
Bill Tilden ‡
 AUS
Gerald Patterson
2–6, 6–3, 6–2, 6–4

1921
 USA
Bill Tilden †
 SAF
Brian Norton
4–6, 2–6, 6–1, 6–0, 7–5

1922
 AUS
Gerald Patterson
 BRI
Randolph Lycett
6–3, 6–4, 6–2

1923
 USA
Bill Johnston
 USA
Francis Hunter
6–0, 6–3, 6–1

1924
 FRA
Jean Borotra
 FRA
René Lacoste
6–1, 3–6, 6–1, 3–6, 6–4

1925
 FRA
René Lacoste
 FRA
Jean Borotra
6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 8–6

1926
 FRA
Jean Borotra
 USA
Howard Kinsey
8–6, 6–1, 6–3

1927
 FRA
Henri Cochet
 FRA
Jean Borotra
4–6, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4, 7–5

1928
 FRA
René Lacoste
 FRA
Henri Cochet
6–1, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2

1929
 FRA
Henri Cochet
 FRA
Jean Borotra
6–4, 6–3, 6–4

1930
 USA
Bill Tilden
 USA
Wilmer Allison
6–3, 9–7, 6–4

1931
 USA
Sidney Wood
 USA
Frank Shields
walkover[h]

1932
 USA
Ellsworth Vines
 GBR
Bunny Austin
6–4, 6–2, 6–0

1933
 AUS
Jack Crawford
 USA
Ellsworth Vines
4–6, 11–9, 6–2, 2–6, 6–4

1934
 GBR
Fred Perry
 AUS
Jack Crawford
6–3, 6–0, 7–5

1935
 GBR
Fred Perry
 GER
Gottfried von Cramm
6–2, 6–4, 6–4

1936
 GBR
Fred Perry
 GER
Gottfried von Cramm
6–1, 6–1, 6–0

1937
 USA
Don Budge
 GER
Gottfried von Cramm
6–3, 6–4, 6–2

1938
 USA
Don Budge
 GBR
Bunny Austin
6–1, 6–0, 6–3

1939
 USA
Bobby Riggs
 USA
Elwood Cooke
2–6, 8–6, 3–6, 6–3, 6–2

1940
No competition (due to World War II)

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946
 FRA
Yvon Petra
 AUS
Geoff Brown
6–2, 6–4, 7–9, 5–7, 6–4

1947
 USA
Jack Kramer
 USA
Tom Brown
6–1, 6–3, 6–2

1948
 USA
Bob Falkenburg
 AUS
John Bromwich
7–5, 0–6, 6–2, 3–6, 7–5

1949
 USA
Ted Schroeder
 TCH
Jaroslav Drobný
3–6, 6–0, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4

1950
 USA
Budge Patty
 AUS
Frank Sedgman
6–1, 8–10, 6–2, 6–3

1951
 USA
Dick Savitt
 AUS
Ken McGregor
6–4, 6–4, 6–4

1952
 AUS
Frank Sedgman
 EGY
Jaroslav Drobný
4–6, 6–2, 6–3, 6–2

1953
 USA
Vic Seixas
 DEN
Kurt Nielsen
9–7, 6–3, 6–4

1954
 EGY
Jaroslav Drobný
 AUS
Ken Rosewall
13–11, 4–6, 6–2, 9–7

1955
 USA
Tony Trabert
 DEN
Kurt Nielsen
6–3, 7–5, 6–1

1956
 AUS
Lew Hoad
 AUS
Ken Rosewall
6–2, 4–6, 7–5, 6–4

1957
 AUS
Lew Hoad
 AUS
Ashley Cooper
6–2, 6–1, 6–2

1958
 AUS
Ashley Cooper
 AUS
Neale Fraser
3–6, 6–3, 6–4, 13–11

1959
 PER[j]
Alex Olmedo
 AUS
Rod Laver
6–4, 6–3, 6–4

1960
 AUS
Neale Fraser
 AUS
Rod Laver
6–4, 3–6, 9–7, 7–5

1961
 AUS
Rod Laver
 USA
Chuck McKinley
6–3, 6–1, 6–4

1962
 AUS
Rod Laver
 AUS
Martin Mulligan
6–2, 6–2, 6–1

1963
 USA
Chuck McKinley
 AUS
Fred Stolle
9–7, 6–1, 6–4

1964
 AUS
Roy Emerson
 AUS
Fred Stolle
6–4, 12–10, 4–6, 6–3

1965
 AUS
Roy Emerson
 AUS
Fred Stolle
6–2, 6–4, 6–4

1966
 ESP
Manuel Santana
 USA
Dennis Ralston
6–4, 11–9, 6–4

1967
 AUS
John Newcombe
 FRG
Wilhelm Bungert
6–3, 6–1, 6–1

text: Open era[edit]

text:
Year[d]

Country

Champion

Country

Runner-up

Score in the final[4]

1968
 AUS
Rod Laver
 AUS
Tony Roche
6–3, 6–4, 6–2

1969
 AUS
Rod Laver
 AUS
John Newcombe
6–4, 5–7, 6–4, 6–4

1970
 AUS
John Newcombe
 AUS
Ken Rosewall
5–7, 6–3, 6–2, 3–6, 6–1

1971
 AUS
John Newcombe
 USA
Stan Smith
6–3, 5–7, 2–6, 6–4, 6–4

1972
 USA
Stan Smith
 ROM
Ilie Năstase
4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 7–5

1973
 TCH
Jan Kodeš
 URS
Alex Metreveli
6–1, 9–8(7–5), 6–3

1974
 USA
Jimmy Connors
 AUS
Ken Rosewall
6–1, 6–1, 6–4

1975
 USA
Arthur Ashe
 USA
Jimmy Connors
6–1, 6–1, 5–7, 6–4

1976
 SWE
Björn Borg
 ROM
Ilie Năstase
6–4, 6–2, 9–7

1977
 SWE
Björn Borg
 USA
Jimmy Connors
3–6, 6–2, 6–1, 5–7, 6–4

1978
 SWE
Björn Borg
 USA
Jimmy Connors
6–2, 6–2, 6–3

1979
 SWE
Björn Borg
 USA
Roscoe Tanner
6–7(4–7), 6–1, 3–6, 6–3, 6–4

1980
 SWE
Björn Borg
 USA
John McEnroe
1–6, 7–5, 6–3, 6–7(16–18), 8–6

1981
 USA
John McEnroe
 SWE
Björn Borg
4–6, 7–6(7–1), 7–6(7–4), 6–4

1982
 USA
Jimmy Connors
 USA
John McEnroe
3–6, 6–3, 6–7(2–7), 7–6(7–5), 6–4

1983
 USA
John McEnroe
 NZL
Chris Lewis
6–2, 6–2, 6–2

1984
 USA
John McEnroe
 USA
Jimmy Connors
6–1, 6–1, 6–2

1985
 FRG
Boris Becker
 USA[n]
Kevin Curren
6–3, 6–7(4–7), 7–6(7–3), 6–4

1986
 FRG
Boris Becker
 TCH
Ivan Lendl
6–4, 6–3, 7–5

1987
 AUS
Pat Cash
 TCH
Ivan Lendl
7–6(7–5), 6–2, 7–5

1988
 SWE
Stefan Edberg
 FRG
Boris Becker
4–6, 7–6(7–2), 6–4, 6–2

1989
 FRG
Boris Becker
 SWE
Stefan Edberg
6–0, 7–6(7–1), 6–4

1990
 SWE
Stefan Edberg
 FRG
Boris Becker
6–2, 6–2, 3–6, 3–6, 6–4

1991
 GER
Michael Stich
 GER
Boris Becker
6–4, 7–6(7–4), 6–4

1992
 USA
Andre Agassi
 CRO
Goran Ivanišević
6–7(8–10), 6–4, 6–4, 1–6, 6–4

1993
 USA
Pete Sampras
 USA
Jim Courier
7–6(7–3), 7–6(8–6), 3–6, 6–3

1994
 USA
Pete Sampras
 CRO
Goran Ivanišević
7–6(7–2), 7–6(7–5), 6–0

1995
 USA
Pete Sampras
 GER
Boris Becker
6–7(5–7), 6–2, 6–4, 6–2

1996
 NED
Richard Krajicek
 USA
MaliVai Washington
6–3, 6–4, 6–3

1997
 USA
Pete Sampras
 FRA
Cédric Pioline
6–4, 6–2, 6–4

1998
 USA
Pete Sampras
 CRO
Goran Ivanišević
6–7(2–7), 7–6(11–9), 6–4, 3–6, 6–2

1999
 USA
Pete Sampras
 USA
Andre Agassi
6–3, 6–4, 7–5

2000
 USA
Pete Sampras
 AUS
Patrick Rafter
6–7(10–12), 7–6(7–5), 6–4, 6–2

2001
 CRO
Goran Ivanišević
 AUS
Patrick Rafter
6–3, 3–6, 6–3, 2–6, 9–7

2002
 AUS
Lleyton Hewitt
 ARG
David Nalbandian
6–1, 6–3, 6–2

2003
  SUI
Roger Federer
 AUS
Mark Philippoussis
7–6(7–5), 6–2, 7–6(7–3)

2004
  SUI
Roger Federer
 USA
Andy Roddick
4–6, 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 6–4

2005
  SUI
Roger Federer
 USA
Andy Roddick
6–2, 7–6(7–2), 6–4

2006
  SUI
Roger Federer
 ESP
Rafael Nadal
6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3

2007
  SUI
Roger Federer
 ESP
Rafael Nadal
7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2

2008
 ESP
Rafael Nadal
  SUI
Roger Federer
6–4, 6–4, 6–7(5–7), 6–7(8–10), 9–7

2009
  SUI
Roger Federer
 USA
Andy Roddick
5–7, 7–6(8–6), 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 16–14

2010
 ESP
Rafael Nadal
 CZE
Tomáš Berdych
6–3, 7–5, 6–4

2011
 SRB
Novak Djokovic
 ESP
Rafael Nadal
6–4, 6–1, 1–6, 6–3

2012
  SUI
Roger Federer
 GBR
Andy Murray
4–6, 7–5, 6–3, 6–4

2013
 GBR
Andy Murray
 SRB
Novak Djokovic
6–4, 7–5, 6–4

2014
 SRB
Novak Djokovic
  SUI
Roger Federer
6–7(7–9), 6–4, 7–6(7–4), 5–7, 6–4

2015
 SRB
Novak Djokovic
  SUI
Roger Federer
7–6(7–1), 6–7(10–12), 6–4, 6–3

2016
 GBR
Andy Murray
 CAN
Milos Raonic
6–4, 7–6(7–3), 7–6(7–2)

2017
  SUI
Roger Federer
 CRO
Marin Čilić
6–3, 6–1, 6–4

2018
 SRB
Novak Djokovic
 RSA
Kevin Anderson
6–2, 6–2, 7–6(7–3)

text: Statistics[edit]

text: Multiple Champions[edit]

text: Title defended in the challenge round

text:
Player

Open Era

Amateur Era

All-time

Years

 Roger Federer (SUI)
8
0
8
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2017

 William Renshaw (BRI)
0
7
7
1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1889

 Pete Sampras (USA)
7
0
7
1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000

 Laurence Doherty (BRI)
0
5
5
1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906

 Björn Borg (SWE)
5
0
5
1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980

 Reginald Doherty (BRI)
0
4
4
1897, 1898, 1899, 1900

 Anthony Wilding (NZL)
0
4
4
1910, 1911, 1912, 1913

 Rod Laver (AUS)
2
2
4
1961, 1962, 1968, 1969

 Novak Djokovic (SRB)
4
0
4
2011, 2014, 2015, 2018

 Wilfred Baddeley (BRI)
0
3
3
1891, 1892, 1895

 Arthur Gore (BRI)
0
3
3
1901, 1908, 1909

 Bill Tilden (USA)
0
3
3
1920, 1921, 1930

 Fred Perry (GBR)
0
3
3
1934, 1935, 1936

 John Newcombe (AUS)
2
1
3
1967, 1970, 1971

 John McEnroe (USA)
3
0
3
1981, 1983, 1984

 Boris Becker (GER)
3
0
3
1985, 1986, 1989

 John Hartley (BRI)
0
2
2
1879, 1880

 Joshua Pim (BRI)
0
2
2
1893, 1894

 Norman Brookes (AUS)
0
2
2
1907, 1914

 Gerald Patterson (AUS)
0
2
2
1919, 1922

 Jean Borotra (FRA)
0
2
2
1924, 1926

 René Lacoste (FRA)
0
2
2
1925, 1928

 Henri Cochet (FRA)
0
2
2
1927, 1929

 Don Budge (USA)
0
2
2
1937, 1938

 Lew Hoad (AUS)
0
2
2
1956, 1957

 Roy Emerson (AUS)
0
2
2
1964, 1965

 Jimmy Connors (USA)
2
0
2
1974, 1982

 Stefan Edberg (SWE)
2
0
2
1988, 1990

 Rafael Nadal (ESP)
2
0
2
2008, 2010

 Andy Murray (GBR)
2
0
2
2013, 2016

text: Champions by country[edit]

text:
Country

Amateur Era

Open Era

All-time

First title

Last title

 United Kingdom (UK)[e][k]
35
2
37
1877
2016

 United States (USA)
17
15
32
1920
2000

 Australia (AUS)
15
6
21
1907
2002

  Switzerland (SUI)
0
8
8
2003
2017

 France (FRA)
7
0
7
1924
1946

 Sweden (SWE)
0
7
7
1976
1990

 Germany (GER)[l]
0
4
4
1985
1991

 New Zealand (NZL)
4
0
4
1910
1913

 Serbia (SRB)
0
4
4
2011
2018

 Spain (ESP)
1
2
3
1966
2010

 Croatia (CRO)
0
1
1
2001
2001

 Peru (PER)
1
0
1
1959
1959

 Czechoslovakia (TCH) ¤[m]
0
1
1
1973
1973

 Egypt (EGY)
1
0
1
1954
1954

 Netherlands (NED)
0
1
1
1996
1996

text: Former country ¤


document_title: Pledge of Allegiance

question_text: when was the pledge of allegiance started in schools

text: Pledge of Allegiance

text: Recital[edit]

text: Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do many government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations. It is also commonly recited in school at the beginning of every school day, although the Supreme Court has ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, nor can they be punished for not doing so. All states except four (Hawaii, Iowa, Vermont and Wyoming) give time for the pledge to be recited as part of the school day.[8] A number of states, including Ohio and Texas, have adopted state flag pledges of allegiance to be recited after this.[9]

text: The United States Flag Code states:

text: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag—"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."—should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces not in uniform and veterans may render the military salute in the manner provided for persons in uniform.[2]

text: Origins[edit]

text: Balch and Bellamy pledges[edit]

text: The Pledge of Allegiance, as it exists in its current form, was composed in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,[10][11] and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). There did exist a previous version created by Rear Admiral George Balch, a veteran of the Civil War, who later become auditor of the New York Board of Education. Balch's pledge, which existed contemporaneously with the Bellamy version until the 1923 National Flag Conference, read:

text: We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag![3]

text: Balch was a proponent of teaching children, especially those of immigrants, loyalty to the United States, even going so far as to write a book on the subject and work with both the government and private organizations to distribute flags to every classroom and school.[3][12] Balch's pledge, which predates Bellamy's by 5 years and was embraced by many schools, by the Daughters of the American Revolution until the 1910s, and by the Grand Army of the Republic until the 1923 National Flag Conference, is often overlooked when discussing the history of the Pledge.[13] Bellamy, however, did not approve of the pledge as Balch had written it, referring to the text as "too juvenile and lacking in dignity."[14] The Bellamy "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism in students and to sell flags to public schools.[15] According to author Margarette S. Miller, this campaign was in line both with Upham's patriotic vision as well as with his commercial interest. According to Miller, Upham "would often say to his wife: 'Mary, if I can instill into the minds of our American youth a love for their country and the principles on which it was founded, and create in them an ambition to carry on with the ideals which the early founders wrote into The Constitution, I shall not have lived in vain.'"[16]

text: Bellamy's original Pledge read:

text: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.[1][17]

text: The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[15] but decided against it, knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[18]

text: Francis Bellamy and Upham had lined up the National Education Association to support the Youth's Companion as a sponsor of the Columbus Day observance and the use in that observance of the American flag. By June 29, 1892, Bellamy and Upham had arranged for Congress and President Benjamin Harrison to announce a proclamation making the public school flag ceremony the center of the Columbus Day celebrations. This arrangement was formalized when Harrison issued Presidential Proclamation 335. Subsequently, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances organized to coincide with the opening of the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois.[19]

text: Bellamy's account[edit]

text: In his recollection of the creation of the Pledge Francis Bellamy said, "At the beginning of the nineties patriotism and national feeling was (sic) at a low ebb. The patriotic ardor of the Civil War was an old story ... The time was ripe for a reawakening of simple Americanism and the leaders in the new movement rightly felt that patriotic education should begin in the public schools."[14] James Upham "felt that a flag should be on every schoolhouse,"[14] so his publication "fostered a plan of selling flags to schools through the children themselves at cost, which was so successful that 25,000 schools acquired flags in the first year (1892-93).[14]

text: As the World's Columbian Exposition—also known as the Chicago World's Fair—was set to celebrate the 400th anniversary the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas, Upham sought to link the publication's flag drive to the event, "so that every school in the land ... would have a flag raising, under the most impressive conditions."[14] Bellamy was placed in charge of this operation and was soon lobbying "not only the superintendents of education in all the States, but [he] also worked with governors, Congressmen, and even the President of the United States."[14] The publication's efforts paid off when Benjamin Harrison declared Wednesday October 12, 1892, to be Columbus Day for which The Youth's Companion made "an official program for universal use in all the schools."[14] Bellamy recalled that the event "had to be more than a list of exercises. The ritual must be prepared with simplicity and dignity."[14]

text: Edna Dean Proctor wrote an ode for the event, and "There was also an oration suitable for declamation."[14] Bellamy held that "Of course, the nub of the program was to be the raising of the flag, with a salute to the flag recited by the pupils in unison."[14] He found "There was not a satisfactory enough form for this salute. The Balch salute, which ran, "I give my heart and my hand to my country, one country, one language, one flag," seemed to him too juvenile and lacking in dignity."[14] After working on the idea with Upham, Bellamy concluded, "It was my thought that a vow of loyalty or allegiance to the flag should be the dominant idea. I especially stressed the word 'allegiance'. ... Beginning with the new word allegiance, I first decided that 'pledge' was a better school word than 'vow' or 'swear'; and that the first person singular should be used, and that 'my' flag was preferable to 'the.'"[14] Bellamy considered the words "country, nation, or Republic," choosing the last as "it distinguished the form of government chosen by the founding fathers and established by the Revolution. The true reason for allegiance to the flag is the Republic for which it stands."[14] Bellamy then reflected on the sayings of Revolutionary and Civil War figures, and concluded "all that pictured struggle reduced itself to three words, one Nation indivisible."[14]

text: Bellamy considered the slogan of the French Revolution, Liberté, égalité, fraternité ("liberty, equality, fraternity"), but held that "fraternity was too remote of realization, and … [that] equality was a dubious word."[14] Concluding "Liberty and justice were surely basic, were undebatable, and were all that any one Nation could handle. If they were exercised for all. they involved the spirit of equality and fraternity."[14]

text: After being reviewed by Upham and other members of The Youth's Companion, the Pledge was approved and put in the official Columbus Day program. Bellamy noted that, "In later years the words 'to my flag' were changed to 'to the flag of the United States of America' because of the large number of foreign children in the schools."[14] Bellamy disliked the change, as "it did injure the rhythmic balance of the original composition."[14]

text: Changes[edit]

text: In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, The American Monthly, listed the "formula of allegiance" as being the Balch Pledge of Allegiance, which reads:[13]

text: I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.

text: In subsequent publications of the Daughters of the American Revolution, such as in 1915's "Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Continental Congress of the Daughters of the American Revolution" and 1916's annual "National Report," the Balch Pledge, listed as official in 1906, is now categorized as "Old Pledge" with Bellamy's version under the heading "New Pledge."[20][21] However, the "Old Pledge" continued to be used by other organizations until the National Flag Conference established uniform flag procedures in 1923.

text: In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the United States. The words "of America" were added a year later. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942:[citation needed]

text: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

text: Addition of "under God"[edit]

text: Louis Albert Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was the first to suggest the addition of "under God" to the pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[22][23] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[22] he led the society in reciting the pledge with the two words "under God" added. He stated that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Although not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words "under God", all the reporters' transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said "that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom." Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[22]

text: In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization, also began including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.[24] In New York City, on April 30, 1951, the board of directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend the text of their Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words "under God" after the words "one nation." Over the next two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal, and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate), and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its president, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus policy for the entire nation. These attempts were eventually a success.[25]

text: In 1952, Holger Christian Langmack wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Langmack was a Danish philosopher and educator who came to the United States in 1911. He was one of the originators of the National Prayer Breakfast and a religious leader in Washington, D.C. President Truman met with him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of "under God" just before "with liberty and justice."[citation needed]

text: At the suggestion of a correspondent, Representative Louis C. Rabaut (D-Mich.), of Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words "under God" to the Pledge in 1953.[citation needed]

text: Before February 1954, no endeavor to get the pledge officially amended had succeeded. The final successful push came from George MacPherson Docherty. Some American presidents honored Lincoln's birthday by attending services at the church Lincoln attended, New York Avenue Presbyterian Church by sitting in Lincoln's pew on the Sunday nearest February 12. On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln's pew, the church's pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address entitled "A New Birth of Freedom." He argued that the nation's might lay not in arms but rather in its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge's sentiments could be those of any nation: "There was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He cited Lincoln's words "under God" as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.[citation needed]

text: President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[26] Eisenhower stated:[27]

text: From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war.

text: The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending § 4 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[26]

text: On October 6, 1954, the National Executive Committee of the American Legion adopted a resolution, first approved by the Illinois American Legion Convention in August 1954, which formally recognized the Knights of Columbus for having initiated and brought forward the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance.[25]

text: Even though the movement behind inserting "under God" into the pledge might have been initiated by a private religious fraternity and even though references to God appear in previous versions of the pledge, author Kevin Kruse asserts that this movement was an effort by corporate America to instill in the minds of the people that capitalism and free enterprise were heavenly blessed. Kruse acknowledges the insertion of the phrase was influenced by the push-back against atheistic communism during the Cold War, but argues the longer arc of history shows the conflation of Christianity and capitalism as a challenge to the New Deal played the larger role.[28]

text: Salute[edit]

text: Swearing of the Pledge is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1887, known as the Balch Salute, which accompanied the Balch pledge, instructed students to stand with their right hand outstretched toward the flag, the fingers of which are then brought to the forehead, followed by being placed flat over the heart, and finally falling to the side.[3]

text: In 1892, Francis Bellamy created what was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, which was adopted in Germany later, the United States Congress stipulated that the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States would be the salute to replace the Bellamy salute. Removal of the Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942, when Congress amended the Flag Code language first passed into law on June 22, 1942.[29] Attached to bills passed in Congress in 2008 and then in 2009 (Section 301(b)(1)of title 36, United States Code), language was included which authorized all active duty military personnel and all veterans in civilian clothes to render a proper hand salute during the raising and lowering of the flag, when the colors are presented, and during the National Anthem.[30]

text: Music[edit]

text: A musical setting for "The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag" was created by Irving Caesar, at the suggestion of Congressman Louis C. Rabaut whose House Resolution 243 to add the phrase "under God" was signed into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[31]

text: The composer, Irving Caesar, wrote and published over 700 songs in his lifetime. Dedicated to social issues, he donated all rights of the musical setting to the U.S. government, so that anyone can perform the piece without owing royalties.[32][33]

text: It was sung for the first time on the floor of the House of Representatives on Flag Day, June 14, 1955, by the official Air Force choral group, the "Singing Sergeants". By Resolution in the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), passed July 29, 1955, the U.S. Government Printing Office was authorized to print and distribute the song sheet together with a history of the pledge as delineated in the Resolution.[34]

text: Other musical versions of the pledge have since been copyrighted, including by Beck (2003), Lovrekovich (2002 and 2001), Roton (1991), Fijol (1986), and Girardet (1983).[35]

text: Controversy[edit]

text: In 1940, the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools, including the respondents in that case—Jehovah's Witnesses who considered the flag salute to be idolatry—could be compelled to swear the Pledge. In 1943, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court reversed its decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the 6 to 3 majority, went beyond simply ruling in the precise matter presented by the case to say that public school students are not required to say the Pledge on narrow grounds, and asserted that such ideological dogmata are antithetical to the principles of the country, concluding with:[36]

text: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

text: In a later case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that students are also not required to stand for the Pledge.[37]

text: Requiring or promoting of the Pledge on the part of the government has continued to draw criticism and legal challenges on several grounds.

text: One objection[38] states that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, and that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects one's right to refrain from speaking or standing, which itself is also a form of speech in the context of the ritual of pledging allegiance.[37] Another objection lies in the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are making.[39]

text: Many other objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1954. Critics[40] contend that a government requiring or promoting this phrase violates protections against the establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

text: In 2004, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg criticized the addition of "under God" for a different reason. The original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. However, Nunberg has pointed out that to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing" and they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect and semantically odd.[41][42]

text: Legal challenges[edit]

text: Prominent legal challenges were brought in the 1930s and 1940s by Jehovah's Witnesses, a denomination whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God,[43] and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to swear an oath to the flag. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements. The first case was in 1935, when two children, Lillian and William Gobitis, ages ten and twelve, were expelled from the Minersville, Pennsylvania, public schools in 1935 for failing to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.[44][45]

text: In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he would enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God."[46]

text: A bill, H.R. 2389, was introduced in Congress in 2005 which, if enacted into law, would have stripped the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to the government's requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed after the Senate did not take up the bill. This action is viewed in general as court stripping by Congress of the constitutional power of the Judiciary. Even if a similar bill is enacted, its practical effect may not be clear: proponents of the bill have argued that it is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, but opponents question whether Congress has the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights, since amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2. Judges and legal analysts have voiced serious concerns, noting that if Congress can strip or remove from the judicial branch the ability to determine if legislation is constitutional, the constitutional balance of powers we have come to rely on to prevent the tyrannical abuse of power by our federal government will have been seriously disturbed and rendered non-functional.[47]

text: Mark J. Pelavin, former Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism,[48] objected to court stripping in regard to the Pledge of Allegiance:[49]

text: Today's House adoption of the so-called "Pledge Protection Act" is a shameful effort to strip our federal courts of their ability to uphold the rights of all Americans. By removing the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from cases involving the Pledge, this legislation sets a dangerous precedent: threatening religious liberty, compromising the vital system of checks and balances upon which our government was founded, and granting Congress the authority to strip the courts' jurisdiction on any issue it wishes. Today, the issue was the Pledge of Allegiance, but tomorrow it could be reproductive rights, civil rights, or any other fundamental concern.

text: In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.[50] As a result of that decision, a Florida school district was ordered to pay $32,500 to a student who chose not to say the pledge and was ridiculed and called "unpatriotic" by a teacher.[51]

text: In 2009, a Montgomery County, Maryland, teacher berated and had school police remove a 13-year-old girl who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. The student's mother, assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, sought and received an apology from the teacher, as state law and the school's student handbook both prohibit students from being forced to recite the Pledge.[52]

text: On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.[53][54] In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.[53] Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that "the state-directed, teacher-led daily recitation in public schools of the amended 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance... violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."[55]

text: On November 12, 2010, in a unanimous decision,[56] the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston affirmed a ruling by a New Hampshire lower federal court which found that the pledge's reference to God does not violate non-pledging students' rights if student participation in the pledge is voluntary.[57] A United States Supreme Court appeal of this decision was denied on June 13, 2011.[58][59]

text: In September 2013, a case was brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Constitution of Massachusetts.[60] In May 2014, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the pledge does not discriminate against atheists, saying that the words "under God" represent a patriotic, not a religious, exercise.[61]

text: In February 2015 New Jersey Superior Court Judge David F. Bauman dismissed a lawsuit, ruling that "… the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of those who don't believe in God and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message."[62] The case against the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District had been brought by a student of the district and the American Humanist Association that argued that the phrase “under God” in the pledge created a climate of discrimination because it promoted religion, making non-believers “second-class citizens.” In a twenty-one page decision, Bauman wrote, "Under [the association members'] reasoning, the very constitution under which [the members] seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which [association members] do not and cannot advance here."[62] Bauman said the student could skip the pledge, but upheld a New Jersey law that says pupils must recite the pledge unless they have “conscientious scruples” that do not allow it.[63][64] He noted, “As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787.”


document_title: West Gate Bridge

question_text: when was the westgate bridge in melbourne built

text: West Gate Bridge

text: Transportation[edit]

text: Motor vehicles[edit]

text: The West Gate Bridge carries five lanes of motor vehicle traffic in each direction, therefore a 10 lane dual-carriageway freeway bridge.

text: The freeway corridor (including the bridge itself) carries a very high volume and occupancy of traffic, between 180,000 - 200,000 cars / trucks / motorcycles use it per day, according to VicRoads. This makes the West Gate Bridge and West Gate Freeway one of the busiest road corridors in Australia.

text: However, being the only main direct link between Melbourne's CBD and the West, it is frequently congested during the morning and afternoon peaks (despite having 5 lanes in each direction) and is constantly busy 24/7, due to the number and type of vehicles coming in and out of Melbourne (i.e.) Port of Melbourne.

text: The bridge was originally tolled. Tolls were abolished in 1985, because drivers were using other routes to avoid the toll.[1]

text: Cycling and the Westgate[edit]

text: Cyclists are prohibited from using the bridge except for special bicycle events, notably the MS Summer cycle, which is a fundraising event for multiple sclerosis, and the Around the bay in a day Bicycle Network [2] event that raises money for The Smith Family charity. The Westgate Punt is a foot ferry that runs directly below the bridge, taking cyclists and pedestrians across the Yarra between a jetty at Fishermans Bend near Westgate Park – Bay Trail and a jetty adjacent to Scienceworks Museum – Hobsons Bay Coastal Trail. It operates on demand, from Monday to Friday in morning and evening peaks, and on weekends and public holidays from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm

text: land scape

text: Collapse[edit]

text: Two years into construction of the bridge, at 11.50 am on 15 October 1970, the 112 m (367.5 ft) span between piers 10 and 11 collapsed and fell 50 m (164 ft) to the ground and water below. Thirty-five construction workers were killed and 18 injured, making it Australia's worst industrial accident.[3] Many of those who perished were on lunch break beneath the structure in workers' huts, which were crushed by the falling span. Others were working on and inside the girder when it fell. The whole 2,000-tonne (4,400,000 lb) mass plummeted into the Yarra River mud with an explosion of gas, dust and mangled metal that shook buildings hundreds of metres away. Nearby houses were spattered with flying mud. The roar of the impact, the explosion, and the fire that followed, could be clearly heard over 20 kilometres (12 mi) away. On the following morning, 16 October, Sir Henry Bolte (Premier of Victoria) announced that a Royal Commission would be set up immediately to look into the cause of the disaster. The Prime Minister, John Gorton, said: "I am sure the whole of Australia is shocked and saddened by the serious accident at West Gate Bridge. Please extend my deepest sympathy to all those families to whom this tragic event has brought such grief."[4]

text: Cause[edit]

text: A Royal Commission into the collapse was established, which concluded on 14 July 1971. It attributed the failure of the bridge to two causes: the structural design by designers Freeman Fox & Partners and an unusual method of construction by World Services and Construction, the original contractors of the project.

text: On the day of the collapse, there was a difference in camber of 11.4 centimetres (4.5 in) between two half-girders at the west end of the span which needed to be joined. It was proposed that the higher one be weighted down with 10 concrete blocks, each weighing 8 t (8.8 short tons), which were located on site. The weight of these blocks caused the span to buckle, which was a sign of structural failure. The longitudinal joining of the half girders was partially complete when orders came through to remove the buckle. As the bolts were removed, the bridge snapped back and the span collapsed.

text: Collapse memorials[edit]

text: Six twisted fragments of the collapsed bridge can be found adorning the gardens in the engineering faculty of Monash University, Clayton campus. It is said by students that they are to remind engineers of the consequences of their errors. Monash University acquired these when asked to participate in the investigation of the collapse.[5]

text: Commemorations have been held on 15 October every year since the collapse.[6] A West Gate Bridge Memorial Park to workers who lost their lives is located near the bridge. It opened on the 34th anniversary of the collapse, 15 October 2004. It includes the existing West Gate Bridge Memorial and Sculpture, and the memorial for six who died in the Spotswood Yarra Sewer Tunnel collapse of 12 April 1895 (Good Friday).[7][8]

text: Completion[edit]

text: Construction resumed in 1972, with the bridge being completed in 1978. After 10 years of construction, the bridge, a part of the larger West Gate Freeway, cost $202 million.[1]

text: Speed cameras were erected on the bridge in 2004, but were not activated until September 2005, because of issues with a similar camera on the Western Ring Road.[9] However these speed cameras were switched off in 2005, and currently remain disabled, as the sway of the bridge prevents secondary verification of the alleged speed against a fixed point.[10] In 2006 the State Government spent $1.3 million on erecting railway style boom barriers at each entrance to the bridge to block traffic in the event of a terrorist attack.[11] In March 2007 the State Government announced that two flagpoles would be erected atop the main bridge pylons, to fly the Australian and Victorian flags, each being 10 metres by 5 metres in size and 135m above sea level.[12] Costing $350,000 to install and $15,000 a year to maintain,[13] the flags were unfurled on 24 September 2008.[14]

text: On 5 August 2007 it was reported that the Victorian Government was planning a $240 million project to identify and eliminate structural weaknesses in the bridge, with specific concerns including crash barriers, cracking, corrosion and potential buckling. News of the work was prompted by the collapse of the I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. Experts were reported as saying the West Gate was initially designed to carry loads of 25 tonnes but now carried B-double trucks weighing up to 68 tonnes. The bridge was built to carry 40,000 vehicles a day, but volumes are now more than four times the original amount, approximately 160,000 vehicles on an average day.[15]

text: West Gate Bridge Flag[edit]

text: On 11 March 2014 a 10 metres (33 ft) artist-designed flag was raised on the western side of the bridge as part of the 'Melbourne Now' exhibition, ‘On Top of the World: Flags for Melbourne’.[16] The flag was a collaborative design between four contributing artists involved in the show who shared an affinity with the bridge. It’s a reference to 1803 maritime communications by Rear Admiral Home Riggs Popham, the symbol on the flag meaning ‘I can spare what you asked for’. The flag was flown until the end of the 'Melbourne Now' show on 25 March 2014.[17] Artists Brook Andrew, Helen Johnson, Kate Daw and Jon Campbell were collaborating with Stewart Russell[18] as curator.

text: Expansion[edit]

text: On 17 May 2006, the State Government as part of their Meeting Our Transport Challenges plan announced plans to change traffic flow in peak periods on the West Gate Bridge and approaches to it, using a reversible lane to provide five traffic lanes in the peak direction, opposing traffic having three lanes.[19] This was to be done using overhead signals and barriers and the State Government allocated funds to this project in its 2006–2007 state budget,[citation needed] but the works were never carried out.

text: In 2008 the expansion plans were revised as part of the Victorian Transport Plan, when it was announced that the bridge would be widened to 5 lanes in each direction, the space being gained by narrowing the existing traffic lanes and closing the emergency lanes, in a move criticised by Victorian fire, police and ambulance unions.[20] Overhead gantries would be used to direct traffic out of lanes when breakdowns and accidents occur. Costed at $240 million, each lane would be 3.1 metres wide, by comparison lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge have a width of 2.8 metres.[20] Roads Minister Tim Pallas claimed that the plan would allow the bridge to carry 50 percent more vehicles, while reducing crashes by 20 percent.[21] Structural analysis work on the bridge concluded in early 2009 and was completed over a 14-month period. Works to strengthen the bridge commenced in the first half of 2009, with the entire strengthening project scheduled for completion in 2011.[22]

text: On 22 June 2011 all five lanes were finally opened to the public in both directions, with the completion of the required strengthening works.[23] The full cost was $347 million, $107 million more than VicRoads had originally planned, but included considerable additional scope of works. This cost increase was after the deletion of $20 million architectural lighting originally included in the scope of the works.[23] The engineers for the strengthening project, Flint & Neill and Sinclair Knight Merz, won the 2012 Institution of Structural Engineers Supreme Award for structural engineering for the project.[24]

text: Future[edit]

text: Strong growth in suburbs along the route, and increased freight through the Port of Melbourne, means that the corridor is experiencing traffic congestion during peak periods, is vulnerable to short term interruptions and is rapidly approaching capacity. Proposals to abate congestion by allowing more traffic have included bridge widening, a tunnel underneath the river, or adding a second deck to the bridge. Many such plans have come under fire from community groups such as the Public Transport Users Association and Environment Victoria advocating investment in alternative forms of transport.

text: A private sector report made public in February 2006 suggested building a companion tunnel to the West Gate Bridge under the Yarra River. Made up of three separate bores to carry traffic in either direction and a freight rail line, the portals would have been north of Williamstown Road in Port Melbourne, and between Blackshaws and Melbourne roads in Altona North.[25][26]

text: The State Government also assessed options for the development of another east-west link in 2008. Sir Rod Eddington, former CEO of British Airways and Chairman of the Victorian Major Events Company, will head the assessment of the future East-West connections and recommend the best way forward for public transport, road and freight travel for the entire Monash-West Gate corridor. By December 2008 the State Government announced it was planning for such a link, anticipated to be a three kilometre road tunnel under Footscray and the Maribyrnong River. Linking Dynon and Footscray Roads in the Port of Melbourne precinct to Geelong Road in West Footscray, now known as the East-West road connection its cost is estimated at more than $2.5 billion.[27]

text: Suicide location[edit]

text: Police data show up to one suicide happens every three weeks at the West Gate Bridge. A 2004 coroner's report recommended anti-suicide fencing or barriers be erected on the bridge to deter people from taking their lives.[28] In 2008, the bodies of a mother in her late 20s and her 18-month-old baby were found on the river bank below the West Gate Bridge, prompting further calls to erect a suicide barrier.[29]

text: Those who argue for a suicide barrier claim that most of those who jump from the West Gate Bridge do so through impulse and that police officers who try to save those who try to jump are putting their own lives in danger. There are multiple incidents of police officers dangling off the side of the bridge while holding onto would-be jumpers.[30] A 2000 Royal Melbourne Hospital study on people who jumped from the bridge found at least 62 cases between 1991 and 1998. Seven people survived the 58-metre fall. Seventy-four percent of those who jumped from the bridge were male, with an average age of 33. More than 70 percent were suffering from mental illness.[31] Of those who jumped off the West Gate Bridge, 31 percent fell on land. Some of those who landed in water drowned afterwards.[32]

text: 2009 Darcey Freeman incident[edit]

text: In January 2009 a Melbourne girl, Darcey Freeman, aged 4, was thrown off the bridge by her father and later died in hospital. In April 2011, Arthur Freeman was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison.[33] Following the incident, a temporary suicide barrier of concrete crash barriers topped with a welded mesh fence was erected starting in February. By June, it had been claimed that the fence had prevented two suicides.[34] A permanent barrier was later installed along the length of the bridge. The barriers are costed at $20 million.[20]


document_title: Bushel

question_text: how many pound in a bushel of corn

question_tokens: how many pound in a bushel of corn

text: Bushel

text: Name[edit]

text: The name comes from the Old French boissiel and buissiel, meaning "little box".[1] It may further derive from Old French boise, thus meaning "little butt".[1]

text: History[edit]

text: The bushel is an intermediate value between the pound and ton or tun that was introduced to England following the Norman Conquest. Norman statutes made the London bushel part of the legal measure of English wine, ale, and grains. The Assize of Bread and Ale credited to Henry III c. 1266 defined this bushel in terms of the wine gallon,[2] while the c. 1300 Assize of Weights and Measures usually credited to Edward I or II defined the London bushel in terms of the larger corn gallon.[3] In either case, the bushel was reckoned to contain 64 pounds of 12 ounces of 20 pence of 32 grains.

text: These measures were based on the relatively light tower pound and were rarely used in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales during the Middle Ages. When the Tower system was abolished in the 16th century, the bushel was redefined as 56 avoirdupois pounds.

text: The imperial bushel established by the Weights and Measures Act of 1824 described the bushel as the volume of 80 avoirdupois pounds of distilled water in air at 62 °F (17 °C)[citation needed] or 8 imperial gallons.[1] This is the bushel in some use in the United Kingdom. Thus there is no distinction between liquid and dry measure in the imperial system.

text: The Winchester bushel was the volume of a cylinder 18.5 in (46.99 cm) in diameter and 8 in (20.32 cm) high, which gives an irrational number of cubic inches. The modern American or US bushel is a variant of this, rounded to exactly 2150.42 cubic inches, less than one part per ten million less. It is also somewhat in use in Canada.

text: Volume[edit]

text:
1 imperial bushel
= 8 imperial gallons

= 4 imperial pecks

= 7001363687200000000♠36.36872 litres

≈ 8.2565 US dry gallons

≈ 9.6076 US fluid gallons

≈ 7003221936000000000♠2219.36 cubic inches

1 US bushel
= 8 US dry gallons

= 4 US pecks

= 7003215042000000000♠2150.42 cubic inches

≈ 9.3092 US fluid gallons

≈ 7001352391000000000♠35.2391 litres

≈ 7.7515 imperial gallons

text: Weight[edit]

text: Bushels are now most often used as units of mass or weight rather than of volume. The bushels in which grains are bought and sold on commodity markets or at local grain elevators, and for reports of grain production, are all units of weight.[4] This is done by assigning a standard weight to each commodity that is to be measured in bushels. These bushels depend on the commodities being measured, and on the moisture content of the commodity. Some of the more common ones are:

text:
Oats:

USA: 32 lb[4] (14.5150 kg)
Canada: 34 lb[5] (15.4221 kg)

Barley: 48 lb[4] (21.7724 kg)
Malted barley: 34 lb (15.4221 kg)
Shelled maize (corn) at 15.5% moisture by weight: 56 lb[4] (25.4012 kg)
Wheat at 13.5% moisture by weight and soybeans at 13% moisture by weight: 60 lb[4] (27.2155 kg)
Soybeans at 13% moisture by weight: 60 lb[6] (27.2 kg)

tag: ul

text: Other specific values are defined (and those definitions may vary within different jurisdictions, including from state to state in the United States) for other grains, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, coal, hair and many other commodities.

text: Government policy in the United States is to phase out units such as the bushel and replace them with metric mass equivalents.[citation needed]

text: Other units[edit]

text: The German bushel was the Scheffel.

text: The Polish bushel (korzec) was used as measure of dry capacity. It was divided into 4 quarters (ćwierć) and in the early 19th century had a value of 128 litres in Warsaw[7] and 501.116 litres in Kraków.[8]

text: The Spanish bushel (fanega) was used as a measure of dry capacity. It was roughly equal to 55.5 litres in Castille.


document_title: The Big Chill (film)

question_text: the cast of the movie the big chill

question_tokens: the cast of the movie the big chill

text: The Big Chill (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: Harold Cooper (Kevin Kline) is bathing his young son when his wife, Sarah (Glenn Close), receives a phone call at their Richmond home telling her that their friend, Alex (Kevin Costner), has committed suicide by slashing his wrists in the bathtub of their vacation house in South Carolina, where he had been staying.

text: At the funeral, Harold and Sarah are reunited with college friends from the University of Michigan. They include Sam (Tom Berenger), a famous television actor now living in Los Angeles; Meg (Mary Kay Place), a chain smoking former public defender who is now a real estate attorney in Atlanta and wants a child; Michael (Jeff Goldblum), a sex-obsessed People magazine journalist; Nick (William Hurt), a Vietnam War veteran and former radio host who suffers from impotence; Karen (JoBeth Williams), a housewife from suburban Detroit who's unhappy in her marriage to her advertising executive husband, Richard (Don Galloway). Also present is Chloe (Meg Tilly), Alex's much younger girlfriend.

text: After the burial, everyone goes from the cemetery to Harold and Sarah's vacation house, where they are invited to stay for the weekend. During the first night there, a bat flies into the attic while Meg and Nick are getting reacquainted. Sam later finds Nick watching television, and they briefly talk about Karen. The two then go into the kitchen and find Richard making a sandwich, and the three make small talk which turns into a discussion about responsibility and adulthood. At the end of the discussion, Richard states, "Nobody said it was going to be fun. At least, nobody said it to me."

text: The next morning Harold and Nick go jogging. Harold tells Nick that his running shoe company is about to be bought out by a large corporation, and that he's about to become rich. Harold confides in Nick that Sarah and Alex had an affair five years earlier. Nick comforts Harold by saying, "She didn't marry Alex."

text: Richard returns home to look after his kids, but Karen decides to stay in South Carolina for the weekend. Nick, Harold, Michael and Chloe go for a drive (while "Good Lovin'" by the Rascals plays on the car radio), while Sam and Karen go shopping. Meg reveals to Sarah that she wants to have a child, and that she is going to ask Sam to be the father, knowing now that Nick can't. Out in the countryside, Harold listens to Michael's plans to buy a nightclub. Chloe takes Nick to the abandoned house that she and Alex were going to renovate. She tells him that he reminds her of Alex, to which Nick replies, "I ain't him."

text: During dinner, Sarah starts tearing up over Alex as the group talks about him. Harold puts "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" by the Temptations on the stereo, and everyone dances while cleaning up the dishes. While the others sit around and smoke marijuana, Meg asks Sam to father her baby, but he declines.

text: The next morning Nick, Sam and Harold go jogging, and the subject of Alex's suicide comes up again. Harold's surprise arrives: sneakers for everyone to wear during the upcoming Michigan football game. The group, minus Nick, watches the game on TV, while Sarah tells Karen about her brief affair with Alex and how it affected their friendship negatively.

text: During the game, Michael offers to father Meg's child, alluding to the fact that they had sex in college during the March on Washington. At halftime, Chloe, Sam, Harold and Michael go outside to play touch football. Nick returns, with a police car following him. The officer says that Nick ran a red light and was belligerent, but says that he will drop the charges if Sam would hop into Nick's Porsche as his TV character, J. T. Lancer, always does. Sam is unsuccessful and hurts himself, but the officer drops the charges anyway and apologizes to Harold.

text: Karen later tells Sam that she loves him, wants to leave Richard and live with Sam and her two sons. When they kiss, Sam pulls away and tells Karen not to leave Richard, as she will regret it in the long run. He confesses that it was "boredom" that caused his own marriage to fail, and he doesn't want her to make the same mistake. Karen feels misled and angrily storms into the house.

text: Harold is on the phone with his daughter, Molly, and lets Meg talk to her. Observing their interaction on the phone, Sarah decides to let Harold impregnate Meg, but does not tell him yet.

text: The group once again discusses Alex. Nick says, "Alex died for most of us a long time ago," but Sam disagrees and leaves. Karen follows him, and the two have sex outside. Sarah tells Harold about Meg's situation, while Chloe and Nick go to bed together, even though he warns her of his condition. Meg and Harold then have sex – she says "I feel like I got a great break on a used car" – while Michael and Sarah joke around and interview each other with a video camera.

text: In the morning while Karen is packing her clothes, she subtly tells Sam that she has decided to stay with Richard. At the breakfast table, Harold reveals that Nick and Chloe will be staying in the guest house for a while so they can renovate the old abandoned house. Sam and Nick then make up from their argument the night before. Nick gives Michael an old clipping of an article he had written about Alex, which Alex had saved. At the end of the movie, Michael states, tongue in cheek, "Sarah, Harold. We took a secret vote. We're not leaving. We're never leaving." They all laugh and "Joy to the World" plays as the credits roll.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Tom Berenger as Sam Weber
Glenn Close as Sarah Cooper
Jeff Goldblum as Michael Gold
William Hurt as Nick Carlton
Kevin Kline as Harold Cooper
Mary Kay Place as Meg Jones
Meg Tilly as Chloe
JoBeth Williams as Karen Bowens
Don Galloway as Richard Bowens
James Gillis as minister
Ken Place as Peter the cop
Jacob Kasdan as autograph seeker
Patricia Gaul as Annie
Kevin Costner as Alex Marshall (scenes deleted)
Muriel Moore as Alex's mother

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: Richard Corliss of Time described The Big Chill as a "funny and ferociously smart movie," stating:

text:
“
These Americans are in their 30s today, but back then they were the Now Generation. Right Now: give me peace, give me justice, gimme good lovin'. For them, in the voluptuous bloom of youth, the '60s was a banner you could carry aloft or wrap yourself inside. A verdant anarchy of politics, sex, drugs and style carpeted the landscape. And each impulse was scored to the rollick of the new music: folk, rock, pop, R&B. The armies of the night marched to Washington, but they boogied to Liverpool and Motown. Now, in 1983, Harold & Sarah & Sam & Karen & Michael & Meg & Nick–classmates all from the University of Michigan at the end of our last interesting decade–have come to the funeral of a friend who has slashed his wrists. Alex was a charismatic prodigy of science and friendship and progressive hell raising who opted out of academe to try social work, then manual labor, then suicide. He is presented as a victim of terminal decompression from the orbital flight of his college years: a worst-case scenario his friends must ponder, probing themselves for symptoms of the disease.[3]
”

text: Vincent Canby of The New York Times argued that the film is a "very accomplished, serious comedy" and an "unusually good choice to open this year's [New York Film Festival] in that it represents the best of mainstream American film making."[4]

text: Roger Ebert gave the film two and a half stars out of four and said, "The Big Chill is a splendid technical exercise. It has all the right moves. It knows all the right words. Its characters have all the right clothes, expressions, fears, lusts and ambitions. But there's no payoff and it doesn't lead anywhere. I thought at first that was a weakness of the movie. There also is the possibility that it's the movie's message."[5]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: The Big Chill won two major awards:

text:
Toronto International Film Festival People's Choice Award
Writers Guild of America Award Best Comedy Written Directly for the Screen

text: It was nominated for three Oscars:

text:
Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Glenn Close)
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Best Picture

text: Other nominations include:

text:
Directors Guild of America Award
BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay
Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy
Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay

text: In 2004 "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" finished #94 in AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs poll.

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: The film was parodied by T. Coraghessan Boyle in his short story The Little Chill. The story begins, "Hal had known Rob and Irene, Jill, Harvey, Tottle, and Pesky since elementary school, and they were all 40 going on 60."[6]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: Ten of the songs from the film were released on the soundtrack album, with four additional songs made available on the CD. The remainder of the film's songs (aside from the Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want") were released in 1984 on a second soundtrack album.

text: In 1998, both albums were re-mastered, the first without the four additional CD tracks, which had also appeared on More Songs and were left there. In 2004, Hip-O Records released a Deluxe edition, containing not only sixteen of the eighteen songs from the film ("Quicksilver Girl," by The Steve Miller Band, was unavailable), but three additional film instrumentals. A second "music of a generation" disc of nineteen additional tracks was included as well, some of which had appeared both on the original soundtrack and the More Songs release.

text: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack[edit]

text:
The Big Chill

Soundtrack album from the film The Big Chill by Various Artists

Released
September, 1983

Recorded
1963-1971

Genre
R&B/Soul

Length
43:38

Label
Motown Records

text:
Professional ratings

Review scores

Source
Rating

Allmusic
 link

text:
Marvin Gaye (1968): "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (extended version) (Norman Whitfield, Barrett Strong) – 5:03
The Temptations (1965): "My Girl" (Smokey Robinson, Ronald White) – 2:55
The Young Rascals (1966): "Good Lovin'" (Rudy Clark, Arthur Resnick) – 2:28
The Miracles (1965): "The Tracks of My Tears" (Robinson, Warren Moore, Marvin Tarplin) – 2:53
Three Dog Night (1970): "Joy to the World" (Hoyt Axton) – 3:24

text:
The Temptations (1966): "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" (Whitfield, Edward Holland, Jr.) – 2:31
Aretha Franklin (1968): "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman" (Gerry Goffin, Carole King, Jerry Wexler) – 2:41
Smokey Robinson and The Miracles (1967): "I Second That Emotion" (Robinson, Al Cleveland) – 2:46
Procol Harum (1967): "A Whiter Shade of Pale" (Keith Reid, Gary Brooker, Matthew Fisher) – 4:03
The Exciters (1963): "Tell Him" (Bert Berns) – 2:29

text:
The Four Tops (1965): "It's the Same Old Song" (E. Holland, Lamont Dozier, Brian Holland) – 2:45
Martha and The Vandellas (1964): "Dancing in the Street" (Marvin Gaye, William "Mickey" Stevenson) – 2:38
Marvin Gaye (1971): "What's Going On" (Gaye, Cleveland, Renaldo "Obie" Benson) – 3:52
The Marvelettes (1964): "Too Many Fish in the Sea" (Whitfield, E. Holland) – 2:26

text:
Year
Chart
Position

1983
Billboard Black Albums
40

1983
The Billboard 200
17

text:
Organization
Level
Date

RIAA – USA
Gold
December 12, 1983

RIAA – USA
Platinum
March 29, 1984

RIAA – USA
Double Platinum
September 27, 1985

RIAA – USA
4x Platinum
July 20, 1998

RIAA – USA
6x Platinum
October 15, 1998

text: More Songs from The Original Soundtrack[edit]

text:
Creedence Clearwater Revival – "Bad Moon Rising"
The Beach Boys – "Wouldn't It Be Nice"
Four Tops – "It's the Same Old Song"
Percy Sledge – "When a Man Loves a Woman"
Martha and the Vandellas – "Dancing in the Street"
Marvin Gaye – "What's Going On"

text:
The Young Rascals – "In the Midnight Hour"
Steve Miller Band – "Quicksilver Girl"
The Spencer Davis Group – "Gimme Some Lovin'"
The Marvelettes – "Too Many Fish in the Sea"
The Band – "The Weight"

text: Deluxe Edition[edit]

text:
Marvin Gaye – "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" (Extended version)
The Temptations – "My Girl"
The Young Rascals – "Good Lovin'"
The Miracles – "The Tracks of My Tears"
Three Dog Night – "Joy to the World"
The Temptations – "Ain't Too Proud to Beg"
Aretha Franklin – "(You Make Me Feel Like A) Natural Woman"
Smokey Robinson & The Miracles – "I Second That Emotion"
Procol Harum – "A Whiter Shade of Pale"
The Exciters – "Tell Him"
Creedence Clearwater Revival – "Bad Moon Rising"
Percy Sledge – "When a Man Loves a Woman"
The Young Rascals – "In the Midnight Hour"
The Spencer Davis Group – "Gimme Some Lovin'"
The Band – "The Weight"
The Beach Boys – "Wouldn't It Be Nice"
Bert Kaempfert – "Strangers in the Night"
The Rolling Stones – "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (Church version)
"J. T. Lancer Theme"

text:
Four Tops – "It's the Same Old Song"
Martha & The Vandellas – "Dancing in the Street"
Marvin Gaye – "What's Going On"
The Marvelettes – "Too Many Fish in the Sea"
Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell – "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing"
Jimmy Ruffin – "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted"
Jr. Walker & The All Stars – "Shotgun"
Isley Brothers – "Take Me in Your Arms (Rock Me a Little While)"
The Supremes – "Ask Any Girl"
Lesley Gore – "You Don't Own Me"
Spanky & Our Gang – "Like to Get to Know You"
The Mamas and The Papas – "Monday, Monday"
Moody Blues – "Nights in White Satin (The Night)"
Joe Cocker – "Feeling Alright"
Wayne Fontana & The Mindbenders – "Game of Love"
James Brown – "I Got You (I Feel Good)"
Blues Magoos – "(We Ain't Got) Nothin' Yet"
The Zombies – "Time of the Season"
Howard Tate – "Get It While You Can"