text:
Talk:Natural History Museum, London

Title
"Natural History Museum" is a rather generic title. There are several notable museums of natural history with that title. The one in LA is fairly famous as well. Therefore this page should be a disambiguation page. But what should we name the British Natural History Museum? Is British Natural History Museum OK, or something more formal/specific? The one in LA would be either Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or Los Angeles Natural History Museum... --mav 05:36, 22 November 2003 (UTC)~
 * The London one is, I believe, the original Natural History Museum. As far as I know it's never been called by any other name. Calling it "The British Natural History Museum" might imply a connection with the British Museum that no longer exists. Lee M 01:46, 2 January 2004 (UTC)
 * The British Museum certainly does still exist. It's between Tottenham Court Road and Holborn and recently had a huge new glass roof put in. Clinkophonist 12:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahem, he didn't say that :-) Defuse (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Others should go on Natural History Museum (disambiguation), with a note to that effect at the head of this article. Andy Mabbett 18:19, 11 July 2004 (UTC)
 * I know this is an old discussion, but just to note the article Natural history museum for the concept of an NHM (note the capitalisation) - and Category:Natural history museums which lists others. As the list seems to show, no other NHM seems to just use NHM as its official title. (It's a bit like postage stamps - the UK invented them so they get the right to not have to specify the country. :) ) Loxlie 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Corridor
I believe the internal corridor linking the Science Museum and the Life Galleries may now be closed. Can anyone confirm? Lee M 04:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The Science Museum is now an entirely separate entity. A shame in some ways. The Science Museum NEVER had a corridor connecting it to the Life Galleries. You are thinking of the geological museum, also known as the "Earth Galleries", which is next door to the Science Museum, and is still connected. Clinkophonist 12:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There certainly was a link corridor to the Science Museum but it was closed a long time ago during one of the phases when charging for the museums was in place. On the NHM side the entrance was by the library and is still visible, I believe that on the Science Museum side there are now offices in the way (FTY). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Autochthony writes: I certainly can remember - in general - going from the NHM [once the British Museum (Natural History)], through a tunnel or corridor to the Science Museum. I can't remember when I first noticed that this link was now closed, but I think it was reached through the geological section[s]. Autochthony 2032z 31 July 2009.

The link between the NHM and the Science Museum was past the library, it closed as far as I can remember in the 1980s during the Thatcherite era of museum charges. As stated above there are now offices on the Science Museum side which makes reopening the link somewhat probelmatic. It is a shame though, I remember as a child being amazed by the possibility if going from one world to another. These institutions have sought massive funding to realise the Albertopolis vision of a single arts and science campus but are unwilling to spend the minimal amount necessary to recreate the linkage between the museums.Despondenttrilobite (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it unlikely that the NHM/Earth combo was ever linked directly to the Science Museum. Their institutional history was quite different. The NHM was 'owned' by the British Museum, and they guarded their 'property' with vigour! The Sci Mus was set up in Sth Ken first, as part of a quite different scheme. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sydenham
Anyone know about a collection at Sydenham (Crystal Palace) in the 1850s? I am struggling to make sense of this Dinosaur Cartoon in Punch? I thought the Great exhibition spun off part of the Nat Hist Museum?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.171.141 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

 * The dinosaur sculptures at Sydenham by Waterhouse Hawkins (depicted accurately in the Punch cartoon, although now known to be hugely anatomically incorrect) were never part of the collection that went to South Kensington. See The Crystal Palace. They survived the Crystal Palace fire of 1936 and survive to this day. They were even used in a Guinness commercial, in which Rutger Hauer stood next to one of them and muttered, "if it didn't exist you'd have to invent it" (referring either to the dinosaur or to the beer). Lee M 19:22, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

I have added two amazing pictures
I have added the picture of the hanging skeletons and the picture of the monkey face. It's a good way to illustrate a more enjoyable side of the museum. Onofre Bouvila 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pics. Love the monkey skeletons. The head pic needs a better caption I think - I've removed the old one. Could you add something more specific? I'd also like to add a pic or two (some behind-the-scenes ones), so we might have to think about space. Loxlie 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked through the Natural History Museum, London page. The picture of the monkey skeletons caught my eye, and I just wanted to comment that I really like that photo and hope to see them in person one day.(GlassLadyBug (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC))

New expansion
I've expanded the article considerably, added sections, and updated some of the old info. I've kept almost everything that was there, except trimming a few bits. More to do tomorrow, including spellcheck, some formatting, re-organising pics and adding a couple of my own, and referencing. Feel free to comment. Loxlie 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok second phase of expansion is complete, with lots new text, bit more restructuring, and spellcheck. I reordered the pics to slot into the sections, and to put the two headline pics - of the famous exterior and central hall - into the intro section. (I know the header section is a bit unusual in layout now, but seems to work fine at all window widths. Please discuss here before changing.) For the couple of pix I took out - I'm happy to insert a gallery at some point and put them back in there, unless there's objection. I've got plenty more myself, but ran out of space. What's missing IMO: Anything else? Loxlie 08:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sections on the library and picture archive (I'm happy to do that at some point)
 * description of research activities, past and present (including role in identification of many species, theories, and conservation work etc.)
 * current economic/political background
 * maybe some more mention of historical context, conflicts (eg. Owen vs Darwin), and other events.
 * the section on the Tring museum should have lots more and a pic or two - maybe even a page of its own.
 * Is it possible to append organization, especially how research activities are shown on the organization? In my understanding, collections are used for both of exhibitions and research, but how researches are organized, this is what is not sure to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.39.190.151 (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Category for employees
Please help to populate Category:Employees of the Natural History Museum. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandworth Site
Is it worth mentioning that the NHM has, besides the mentioned Tring site, a site in Wandsworth? There are as far as I know only the three sites, so it's not a stretch to note them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.140.9.207 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wandsworth site (well land) was sold off last year. The NHM rents the facility from the developer whom they sold it too. The site is largely a store for the zoological collection, but while DC2 is being built the entom collection and some of the staff has been re-located there. Mark t young (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thylacine Taxidermy
Does anyone have a picture of the thylacine taxidermy in there collection,or have a link to it? (Dirrtypittie (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Odd bit of POV/non-encyclopedic writing
In the 4th or 5th para of History and Architecture it notes: "With some justification, Bill Bryson..." Given that this justification isn't specifically mentioned or cited, isn't this a bit weaseley? The reader can draw their own conclusion of Owen's efforts and Bryson backs that up. I would normally be bold and delete it but am nervous as this is an otherwise excellent article and would like some opinion or consensus. Bigger digger (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed the wording to something more acceptable . Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Library
This edit introduced information on the NHM Library to the lead of the article. I think it's useful info but don't think it belongs in the introduction but I'm not sure where else to put it. Any help from anyone? Bigger digger (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

'Dippy'
Autochthony writes: I was told - on my first visit, in about 1962 - that the Diplodocus cast was 'Ploddy'; was I led up the garden path? And I think it is about 87 feet long, not over a hundred. Autochthony 2026z 31 July 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.194.33 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

NHM's funding?
I wanted to find out how the museum is funded, but this is a curious omission from the Wikipedia page.

The most recent NHM annual report, available from http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0708/hc09/0908/0908.asp, shows £45.4 million (54 per cent) of the museum's £83.4 million income came from the government ("grant in aid")

(apologies if this isn't all to protocol - first go. Y) Yaffle69 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

categories
Is there a reason why the Category:natural history museum is listed as a sub-category of category:British Museum? I understand that the two institutions were once the same thing, but this was also the case for the British Library and it is independently categorised now. Is there a particular reason why the British Museum is considered a parent category to the NHM? Couldn't they just be members of each other's categories rather than in a parent-child category relationship? Witty Lama 15:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an existing, or obviously nameable, supercat for both? If so, the fix would seem to be to make them (and the BL, VA, and NRM) into sibling children of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that i'm aware of, and IMO, it would be a pretty arbitrary category if we did that. For example, currently the whole "natural history museum" category is a sub-cat of "British Museum" but the British Library article isn't even in the "British museum" category - let alone as a subcategory! I would suggest moving them all out so they are all independent categories, but with each institution's article being potentially a member of the other's category. Witty Lama 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done this - removed the category:natural history museum from the category:british museum, but on the other hand I've put the article Natural history museum in the category:british museum. Witty Lama 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Earth Hall to Geological Museum
I've proposed that the Earth Hall article be merge with Geological Museum, please discuss here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Director of the Natural History Museum
I have made Director of the Natural History Museum unfortunately there are a couple of gaps, if you could help fill those gaps, that'd be great. thx. Flying Fische (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 * fish don't galup loop https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_History_Museum,_London 2603:8081:3F00:3415:797F:ACF7:8879:69D1 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate photograph caption
"A very young scientist at the London Natural History Museum" says the photograph with the little girl sketching a dinosaur (lower down on the right). This is an encyclopaedia. Not a platform for comedy. I'm changing the text. Rlinfinity (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Title revisited
Isn't (comma) "London" officially part of the name? I do believe there might be another "Natural History Museum" somewhere. If you go to just about any other major city in the world and ask "Where's the 'Natural History Museum'? - you are unlikely to get the answer: "London". ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC) - I added a bit to the lead [Brit: Lede] in hopes of clarifying possible ambiguity; I hope that's acceptable. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, is "comma London" officially part of the name? Their website doesn't appear to use it.
 * The London museum is hopefully the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, within context. I'm sure most locals would direct a tourist to a local museum if asked your question, but if the question was "if I open this encyclopaedia at the entry for 'the Natural History Museum', what would you expect to see?", would most people guess it was probably the original London one? --McGeddon (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you type "Natural History Museum" in 'Britannica Online Encyclopedia' (where "facts matter") you get a disambiguation "Results: 1-10 of 516 items" - and the link relating to this museum is 'Natural History Museum (museum, London, United Kingdom)'. If you try the same thing in WP search, you go straight to this page.  I don't think one could argue that 'Britannica Online Encyclopedia' is Amer-centric, or whatever. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC) - Btw, do they still make those collated and bound hard-copy text modules anymore? ;) ...Anyway, just my 2¢ worth. ≈[0.0155038]EUR - E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just how Britannica's interface works - type anything in the search box, however specific (even the unique name of a person), and it will give you a page of all possible search results rather than taking you directly to a particular article that might match your search. It will also put brackets with relevant keywords after every title, even if there is only one result. Apart from the order in which it returns those results, Britannica makes no judgment on which result the reader might have been expecting. (Although I'd note that London's NHM always appears at the top of the Britannica results, and this is seemly unaffected by which country I fake my IP as being from.)
 * Wikipedia's approach is laid out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - it's up to editors to decide whether something is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" and whether it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My point would be that "...and more likely than all the other topics combined ... substantially greater enduring notability ... than any other topic associated with that term" [emphasis mine] - supports my position; and the topic Natural History Museum is a rather generic term. But, I guess one can grant a little sympathetic Anglo-centrism every now and again. (Just joshing around a bit, don't take this too seriously.) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 * We should rename this to Natural History Museum (London) and switch the disambiguation page to this name. This is just too common of a name to use for a specific place, as is shown by how many listings there are on the disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with John Pack Lambert. I just accidentally came across this page when searching for NHMs in general. Unlike the FA or Rugby Football Union, the London NHM can't even claim seniority rights, and anyway (re:McGeddon's point), WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works against the current title, as several museums of the same (Vienna, LA) or very similar name (Paris, New York, Washington) are equally or more important.Malc82 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In 1989 when the British Museum (Natural History) re-branded itself as The Natural History Museum (note the capital on 'The') many of the staff asked the same questions regarding confusion with other natural history museums around the world. Being on the staff at the time, I recall the capital 'T' on The  was considered important by the management although many other staff felt it was a little presumptuous.  The Museums and Galleries Act 1992 fixed the name as Natural History Museum  with no 'The' or 'the' or 'London' as part of the official title. However, for the reasons made obvious here, everyone feels the need to add 'London' for clarity.  As an aside, the public 'corporate launch' of the new name (it was called that) in 1989 seemed to cause some confusion.  The name British Museum (Natural History) had tended to be used solely by museum professionals and naturalists; the British public had always called the museum 'the Natural History Museum'.  The announcement to the media that the Natural History Museum would henceforth be known as The Natural History Museum caused some puzzlement.  Some of the press cuttings from that period said that the museum had now changed its name to the 'National History Museum' (sic) (Pers. obs.) JordiYiman (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Natural History Museum, London. The numbers were rather close and bordered on "no consensus" with vote-counting alone, but the reasons to move seemed compelling enough. Key points come in Vegaswikian's rationale, particularly the first couple sentences. Indeed, it seems impossible to compare pageview statistics and insufficient to limit discussion of them to just the museum in London vs. Natural History Museum (disambiguation) (as done by one of the opposers) or vs. the museum in Oslo (which was pointed out as the only other museum that uses this title unqualified). The opposition seems to downplay the ambiguity suggested by the long list at Natural History Museum (disambiguation) (more than just London and Oslo) and the inclusion of List of natural history museums. The capitalization doesn't seem sufficient to thwart off the issues of genericism (see Talk:Science Museum, London from February 2012). --  tariq abjotu  05:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Natural History Museum → Natural History Museum (London) – Outside the UK, I would guess almost nobody refers to this building or institution by the unqualified name. Natural History Museum (disambiguation) should move to the unqualified name. See also previous informal suggestions on the Talk: page along these lines. -- jnestorius(talk) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also support Natural History Museum, London per WikiProject London/Naming conventions and below Necrothesp jnestorius(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose a move, but if moved, it should certainly be Natural History Museum, London per normal MOS naming conventions. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Strong Support UK bias -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – there are lots of places by this name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can only see one other place that calls itself the "Natural History Museum" without a qualifier, of those listed at Natural History Museum (disambiguation): Oslo. Washington's is the "National Museum of Natural History", Ireland's is a "Natural History" building at the National Museum of Ireland, the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks is actually called the "Wild Center", and the Tring, Los Angeles County, Las Vegas, San Diego and University of Kansas museums all prefix or suffix the name with their location. Non-English-speaking countries obviously name their museums in the local language, but only Oslo refers to itself the "Natural History Museum" on the English translation of its site. "Natural history museum" quite rightly redirects to List of natural history museums, but the fact that every other museum avoids calling itself the Natural History Museum suggests that the London one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, when capitalised. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Ireland's building is not part of a single campus and still called "the Natural History Museum" by Irish people generally. The rebranding "Natural History - National Museum of Ireland" is recent, as is the merger. jnestorius(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per the nominator. Given the sizable number of natural history museums in the world (many of which are named quite similarly), it seems unlikely that most readers would understand what this one particular unqualified title refers to.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per McGeddon and the almost identical precedent at National Gallery. A hatnote is enough. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean Talk:National Gallery jnestorius(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It used to be National Gallery (London), and is now just National Gallery. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose per McGeddon. Always referred to as simply the Natural History Museum. But if it is moved, then it should be to Natural History Museum, London per every other disambiguated building in London and common British practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Always"? Google scholar disagrees: "natural history museum london" jnestorius(talk) 21:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support UK bias.   Calidum Sistere   05:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per McGeddon, and also the page view statistics are rather telling. The article on the National History Museum in London has 87 times more pageviews than Natural History Museum (disambiguation), and the latter's pageview stats include a noticeable spike when this RM was started. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per McGeddon and Bobrayner. — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. No matter what the name, most if not all of the natural history museums are know as the Natural History Museum.  If you take the time to actually look at some of the articles that link here, they actually find it necessary to disambiguate what is intended in the running text.  Editors use phrases like London's Natural History Museum or Natural History Museum, London or something similar.  In the past I did some cleanup on the links to this article.  As I recall, there where a number of links that should have been for the generic article linked here.  Bottom line is that WP:COMMONNAME does not support this being here based on the evidence provided in this discussion.  While this may be the common name for this museum, that does not mean that it is the one that should be at the main name space.  The argument that is being quoted as the reason for support argues that the official name carries more weight over other policies.  WP:OFFICIAL clearly states the need for the title to be unambiguous.  Clearly even the oppose votes feel compelled to try and establish that the official names do not create ambiguity for this specific name.  But those arguments ignore WP:COMMONNAME.  Page view stats are of no value in determining this issue since all of the other museums sharing this common name are dabbed.  Maybe if someone whats to compare all of the museums that have this as a common name you would discover that this is not the most viewed of the articles.  I suspect that it would be well under 50% of the page views. As to the rename target, I'll let the closer decide between Natural History Museum (London) or Natural History Museum, London. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't overrule WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but is it "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" that a reader searching for "Natural History Museum" (with a deliberate lack of qualifiers) will be looking for the London museum rather than a museum in another city? This seems on a par New York's Museum of Modern Art, which also takes the primary topic; if somebody is talking about "the Museum of Modern Art" in a deliberate vacuum, most people will (I think) assume that the speaker is referring to the New York museum. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * This needs to be moved back to its correct title at Natural History Museum. The above move(?) didn't achieve consensus and the closing admin summary is somewhat bizarre. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Natural History Museum, London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119053417/http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Albertopolis/TheStoryOf/NaturalHistoryMuseum/Interior.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Albertopolis/TheStoryOf/NaturalHistoryMuseum/Interior.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119022407/http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Albertopolis/TheStoryOf/NaturalHistoryMuseum/NaturalHistoryMuseum.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Albertopolis/TheStoryOf/NaturalHistoryMuseum/NaturalHistoryMuseum.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect
"Natural History Museum" redirects here, rather than the "Natural history museum" article. The admin summary of a previous move request, which was granted, explicitly stated that capitalization alone was not sufficient to counter the more widespread generic use of the term.Recognize North (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Building information wrong
Hi. The information on the building states: ''Owen saw that the natural history departments needed more space, and that implied a separate building as the British Museum site was limited. Land in South Kensington was purchased, and in 1864 a competition was held to design the new museum. The winning entry was submitted by the civil engineer Captain Francis Fowke, who died shortly afterwards. The scheme was taken over by Alfred Waterhouse who substantially revised the agreed plans, and designed the façades in his own idiosyncratic Romanesque style which was inspired by his frequent visits to the Continent. The original plans included wings on either side of the main building, but these plans were soon abandoned for budgetary reasons. The space these would have occupied are now taken by the Earth Galleries and Darwin Centre.'' However as per the 1862 International Exhibition page and associated references, the building already existed! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 * As the article referred to says, Parliament refused to purchase the original exhibition building and it was dismantled and sold for use in the construction of Alexandra Palace. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Natural History Museum, London


text:
Sagarmatha National Park

Sagarmāthā National Park is a national park in the Himalayas of eastern Nepal that was established in 1976 and encompasses an area of 1148 km2 in the Solukhumbu District. It ranges in elevation from 2845 to 8848 m and includes Mount Everest. In the north, it shares the international border with Qomolangma National Nature Preserve in Tibet Autonomous Region. In the east, it is adjacent to Makalu Barun National Park, and in the south it extends to Dudh Kosi river. It is part of the Sacred Himalayan Landscape.

History
Sagarmatha National Park was established on July 19, 1976. In 1979, it became the country's first national park that was inscribed as a Natural World Heritage Site. In January 2002, a Buffer Zone comprising 275 km2 was added. Conservation of forests, wildlife, and cultural resources received top priority under the Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, followed by conservation of other natural resources and development of alternative energy. Tourism in the area began in the early 1960s. In 2003, about 19,000 tourists arrived. As of 2005, about 3,500 Sherpa people lived in villages and seasonal settlements situated along the main tourist trails.

Landscape
Sagarmatha National Park contains the upper catchment areas of the Dudh Kosi and Bhotekoshi rivers and the Gokyo Lakes. It ranges in elevation from 2845 m at Monjo to the top of Mount Everest at 8848 m. Other peaks above 6000 m are Lhotse, Cho Oyu, Thamserku, Nuptse, Amadablam and Pumori. Barren land above 5000 m comprises 69% of the park while 28% is grazing land and the remaining 3% is forested. Climatic zones span from temperate and subalpine above 3000 m to alpine above 4000 m, which is the upper limit of vegetation growth. The nival zone begins at 5000 m.

Flora
The forests in the subalpine belt consist of fir, Himalayan birch and rhododendron. Juniper and rhododendron prevail at elevations of 4000-5000 m. Mosses and lichens grow above 5000 m. More than 1,000 floral species were recorded in the national park.

Fauna
Sagarmatha National Park hosts 208 bird species including Impeyan pheasant, bearded vulture, snowcock and alpine chough. It has been designated as an Important Bird Area. Ungulates include Himalayan tahr, Himalayan serow and musk deer. The snow leopard inhabits elevations above 3500 m, and the Indian leopard roams forests in lower elevations.

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

title: Sagarmatha National Park


text:
Kabah (Maya site)

Kabah (also spelled Kabaah, Kabáh, Kahbah and Kaba) is a Maya archaeological site in the Puuc region of western Yucatan, south of Mérida.

Kabah is south of Uxmal, connected to that site by an 18 km long raised causeway 5 m wide with monumental arches at each end. Kabah is the second largest ruin of the Puuc region after Uxmal.

The site is on Fed. 261, approximately 140 km south from Mérida, Yucatán, towards Campeche, Campeche, and is a popular tourism destination. Ruins extend for a considerable distance on both sides of the highway; many of the more distant structures are little visited, and some are still overgrown with forest. , a program was ongoing to clear and restore more buildings, as well as archeological excavations under the direction of archeologist Ramón Carrasco.

Kabah was declared a Yucatán state park in 1993.

History
The name Kabah or Kabaah was first suggested by Estanislao Carrillo in 1846 and is usually taken to be archaic Maya language for "strong hand". This is a pre-Columbian name for the site, mentioned in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. An alternative name is Kabahaucan or "royal snake in the hand," suggested by Teoberto Maler.

The area was inhabited from the mid-3rd century BCE. Most of the architecture now visible was built between the 7th century and 11th centuries CE. J. E. S. Thompson used a sculpted doorjamb from Structure 2C6 to suggest the date of the ruin to be 879 CE, probably around the city's apex. Another inscribed date found at the site is one of the latest carved in the Maya Classic style, in 987 CE.

Architecture

The most famous structure at Kabah is the "Palace of the Masks", the façade decorated with hundreds of stone masks of the long-nosed rain god Chaac; it is also known as the Codz Poop, meaning "Rolled Matting", from the pattern of the stone mosaics. This massive repetition of a single set of elements is unusual in Maya art, and here is used to unique effect.

Masks of the rain god abound on other structures throughout the site. Copal incense has been discovered in some of the stone noses of the raingods. The emphasis placed on Chaac, the Protector of the Harvest, both here and at other neighboring Puuc sites, stemmed from the scarcity of water in the region. There are no cenotes in this dryer, northern part of the Yucatán, so the Maya here had to depend solely on rain.

The site also has a number of other palaces, low stone buildings, and step pyramid temples. While most are in the Puuc Maya style, some show Chenes elements. The site had a number of sculpted panels, lintels, and doorjambs, most of which have been removed to museums elsewhere. The sculptures mostly depict the site's rulers and scenes of warfare.

The first detailed account of the ruin was published by John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood in 1843.

Northwest Group
The Northwest group consists of structures 1A1 and 1A2, a hilltop group with several smaller ancillary structures resting on the crest of the ridge at the western edge of the site. The group looks over the city to the east and directly faces the principal pyramid temple (Structure 1B2).

West Group
The West Group consists of Structures 1A7 and 1A8 as well as the Court of Structures 2A1, consisting of Structures 2A1, 2A2, and 2A3.

East or Palace Group
The East Group consists of Structures 2B1-3, Structures 2C1, 4, and 5, and Structures 2C2, 2C3, 2C6, and 2C7. This is the largest and presumably most important group of structures at Kabah. These buildings are also the best preserved. The primary orientation of the assemblage is toward the west, looking over the central part of the city, and at the Northwest and West Groups on the western ridge with its main approach being from the west.

Various Other Groups
There are many other groups that exist outside of the central core area. These groups include Structures 1A3-6, Structures 1B2, 1B3, and 1C1-3, and lastly, Structure 3B1.

Miscellaneous Sculptures and Monuments
The miscellaneous sculptures include M1 through M7 which are various pieces of what were once statues that seem to depict people, possibly deities or rulers. M1 is perhaps the most noteworthy, being the sculpture often referenced by the archaeologists who named the site as it appears to be a clenched hand which led to the name “Kabah”. The site also has a number of altars, low stone buildings, and step pyramid temples. While most of the architecture and sculptures are in the Puuc Maya style, some show Chenes elements. The site had a number of sculpted panels, lintels, and doorjambs, most of which have been removed to museums elsewhere. Kabah boasts more large monumental structures than any other site in the Puuc region.

Research
In 1955, Karl Ruppert and A. Ledyard Smith lead a research expedition of sites within a 20-km radius of the ruins of Mayapan in order to compare the house types of those sites with those of Mayapan and to find the extent of the Mayapan type. Kabah was one of a few other sites surveyed in order to obtain data on their house types. All structures investigated in Kabah were either of the single-room type, with a doorway in one wall, or were a series of adjoining single rooms each with its separate doorway. Many well-cut reused stones were seen in the walls, which now stand about 40 cm high. Some houses were situated on terraces supporting a ceremonial group; others were apart from ceremonial buildings. They occurred in groups of two, three, and four, as well as singly, sometimes on raised areas. Two architectural groups were located close to chultuns.

Microbial biofilms have been found degrading stone buildings at Uxmal and Kabah. Phototrophs such as Xenococcus are found more often on interior walls. However stone degrading Gloeocapsa and Synechocystis were also present in large numbers.

title: Kabah (Maya site)


text:
Talk:Kabah (Maya site)

I decided to put the article at "Kabaah". While I realize that "Kabah" is a more common spelling, Kabah is a useful disambiguation page. -- Infrogmation 05:41, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The Corpus of Maya Heiroglyphic Inscriptions (IMO as good a standard reference as any to follow in the subject) has it as "Kabah", so I will move the article from "Kabaah" to "Kabah, Yucatán". -- Infrogmation 18:57, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kabah (Maya site). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220214435/http://www.sci.mus.mn.us/sln/ma/kabah.html to http://www.sci.mus.mn.us/sln/ma/kabah.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kabah (Maya site)


text:
Patriots' Day

Patriots' Day (Patriot's Day in Maine) is an annual event, formalized as a legal holiday or a special observance day in six U.S. states, commemorating the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy, the inaugural battles of the American Revolutionary War. The holiday occurs on the third Monday of April each year, with celebrations including battle reenactments and the Boston Marathon.

History
In 1894, the Lexington Historical Society petitioned the Massachusetts General Court to proclaim April 19 as "Lexington Day". Concord countered with "Concord Day". However, the biggest battle fought on this day was in the town of Menotomy—now Arlington, Massachusetts—on the Concord Road between Lexington and Boston. So Governor Frederic T. Greenhalge opted for a compromise: Patriots' Day. Governor Greenhalge proclaimed Patriots' Day in Massachusetts in 1894, replacing Fast Day as a public holiday. It was established on April 19, commemorating the date of the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the larger Battle of Menotomy in 1775, and consolidating the longstanding municipal observances of Lexington Day and Concord Day. It also marked the first bloodshed of the American Civil War in the Baltimore riot of 1861. The dual commemoration, Greenhalge explained, celebrated "the anniversary of the birth of liberty and union". It is likely that the battles that took place in Menotomy are not as well known as the smaller battles in Lexington and Concord because the town has had several names since that day in 1775. In 1938, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill establishing the holiday "in commemoration of the opening events of the War of the Revolution".

Maine followed Massachusetts in 1907 and replaced its Fast Day with Patriot's Day. On June 10, 2017, Governor Dannel Malloy signed a bill establishing Patriots' Day as a statewide unpaid holiday in Connecticut, and Connecticut became the fifth state to recognize the holiday on April 16, 2018. On March 19, 2019, Governor Doug Burgum signed a bill recognizing Patriots' Day in the state of North Dakota.

Description
The holiday was originally celebrated on April 19, the actual anniversary of the battles (fought in 1775). Since 1969, it has been observed on the third Monday in April in Massachusetts and in Maine (which until the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was part of Massachusetts). The Monday holiday creates a three-day long weekend. It is also the first day of a vacation week for public schools in both states and a school holiday for many local colleges and universities, both public and private.

The day is a public school observance day in Wisconsin. Florida law also encourages people to celebrate it, though it is not treated as a legal holiday. Connecticut began observance in 2018 and North Dakota in 2019. Observances and re-enactments of the battles occur annually at Lexington Green in Lexington, Massachusetts (around 6:00 am) and the Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts (around 9:00 am) and in Arlington, Massachusetts on the Sunday before Patriot's Day. Tours are available of the Jason Russell House in Arlington, Massachusetts on Sunday and Monday. On Monday morning, mounted re-enactors with state police escorts retrace the Midnight Rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes, calling out warnings the whole way.

The most significant celebration of Patriots' Day is the Boston Marathon, which has been run every Patriots' Day since April 19, 1897 (except in 2020 and 2021) to mark the then-recently established holiday, with the race linking the Athenian and American struggles for liberty.

Sporting events
The Boston Marathon has been run on Patriots' Day every year since its inception in 1897, even during the World War years, except in 2020 and 2021. Therefore, sometimes the holiday is referred to as "Marathon Monday". However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Boston Marathon was canceled, while the 2021 Boston Marathon was rescheduled to October 11.

The Boston Red Sox have been scheduled to play at home in Fenway Park on Patriots' Day every year since 1959. The game was postponed due to weather in 1959, 1961, 1965, 1967, 1984, and 2018. It was canceled in 1995 due to the baseball strike, and again in 2020 due to COVID-19. The game was played in 2013 despite the Boston Marathon bombing because it had finished before the bombs went off. From 1968 to 2006 the games started early, in the morning, around 11:00 am. The early start to these games usually resulted in the games' ending just as the runners headed through Kenmore Square. However, since 2007 the marathon has started between 9:30 am and 10:00 am, causing the racers to pass through Kenmore closer to the middle of the Red Sox game.

title: Patriots' Day


text:
Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell

Frederick Edward Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell, (born 3 January 1938) is a retired British civil servant, now sitting in the House of Lords as a crossbencher.

Early life and family
Butler was born in Lytham St Annes, Lancashire, on 3 January 1938. He went to Orley Farm School and Harrow School (where he was Head Boy), then taught for a year at St Dunstan's School, Burnham-on-Sea, before attending University College, Oxford, where he took a double first in Mods and Greats and twice gained a Rugby Blue. He married Gillian Lois Galley in 1962. They have a daughter and two sons.

Civil service career
Butler had a high-profile career in the civil service from 1961 to 1998, serving as Private Secretary to five Prime Ministers. He was Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service from 1988 to 1998.

He joined HM Treasury in 1961, becoming Private Secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1964–66 and Secretary to the Budget Committee 1965–69.

Early in his career, he was occasionally confused with his namesake Rab Butler. Memos for Rab Butler, some highly sensitive, ended up on his desk, and some of his ended up on Rab's. It was agreed that all memos ambiguously addressed to "R Butler" should go to Rab's office first, and then Rab's office would send on any intended for the other R Butler. It is said that one day the young Butler, who was still playing first class rugby, received a letter that read: "You have been selected for the Richmond 1st XV on Saturday. Please be at Twickenham by 2 p.m.". Underneath, in Rab's distinctive handwriting, was the message: "Dear Robin, I am not free on Saturday. Please could you deputise for me? Rab"!

In 1969, he was seconded to the Bank of England and several City institutions. Later at HM Treasury as Assistant Secretary, General Expenditure Intelligence Division, he led the team which installed the UK Government's computerised financial information system 1975-77. He had been a founder member of the Central Policy Review Staff under Lord Rothschild 1971–2. After several senior appointments at the Treasury, he became second Permanent Secretary, Public Expenditure, 1985-87.

He was Private Secretary to Prime Ministers Edward Heath (1972–74) and Harold Wilson (1974–75), and Principal Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher (1982–85). Along with Thatcher, he was almost killed in the 1984 IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton. He was also Cabinet Secretary during the premierships of Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair.

Other activities
After retiring from the Civil Service, Butler was Master of University College, Oxford, 1998–2008. He was made a life peer in the 1998 New Year Honours and was raised to the peerage as Baron Butler of Brockwell, of Herne Hill in the London Borough of Lambeth.

He was a non-executive Director of HSBC Group from 1998 to 2008. He was also Chairman of the Corporate Sustainability Committee and the HSBC Global Education Trust. In 2011 he was elected Master of the Worshipful Company of Salters. He is a Trustee of the Royal Academy of Music.

In 2004, Lord Butler chaired the Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, widely known as the 'Butler Review', which reviewed the use of intelligence in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq War. The report concluded that some of the intelligence about Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction was seriously flawed. The report also concluded, with regards to the so-called Niger uranium forgeries, that the report Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa appeared 'well-founded'.

Honours

 * Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO), 1986 New Year Honours
 * Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB), 1988 New Year Honours
 * Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath (GCB), 1992 Birthday Honours
 * Life peerage, 12 February 1998
 * Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter (KG), 23 April 2003
 * Privy Counsellor (PC), 2004

title: Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell


text:
Talk:Sagarmatha National Park

Untitled
The entry fee of 1,000 NR is what my entrance permit states for my visit in 2002. The Park Regulations page given states it as 650 NR. RedWolf 05:56, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sagarmatha National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612005331/http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/index.php/sacred-himalayan-landscape to http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/index.php/sacred-himalayan-landscape

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sagarmatha National Park


text:
Operation Ivory Coast

Operation Ivory Coast was a mission conducted by United States Special Operations Forces and other American military elements to rescue U.S. prisoners of war during the Vietnam War. It was also the first joint military operation in United States history conducted under the direct control of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The specially selected raiders extensively trained and rehearsed the operation at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, while planning and intelligence gathering continued from 25 May to 20 November 1970.

On 21 November 1970, a joint United States Air Force and United States Army force commanded by Air Force Brigadier General LeRoy J. Manor and Army Colonel Arthur D. "Bull" Simons landed 56 U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers by helicopter at the Sơn Tây prisoner-of-war camp, which was located 23 mi west of Hanoi, North Vietnam. The objective of the operation was the recovery of 61 American prisoners of war thought to be held at the camp. It was found during the raid that the camp contained no prisoners as they had previously been moved to another camp.

Despite the absence of prisoners, the raid's execution was nearly flawless, with only two casualties and two aircraft losses (one of the aircraft losses was due to a planned crash landing during the assault on the prisoner compound). Criticism of the failure to detect the removal of the POWs prior to the raid, both public and within the administration of President Richard Nixon, led to a major reorganization of the United States intelligence community a year later.

Polar Circle
The concept of a rescue mission inside North Vietnam began on 9 May 1970. An Air Force intelligence unit concluded through analysis of aerial photography that a compound near Sơn Tây, suspected since late 1968 of being a prisoner of war camp, contained 55 American POWs and that at least six were in urgent need of rescue. 12,000 North Vietnamese troops were stationed within 5 mi of the camp. After validation of their findings, Brigadier general (BG) James R. Allen, the deputy director for plans and policy at Headquarters USAF, met in the Pentagon on 25 May with Army BG Donald Blackburn, Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities (SACSA). Blackburn reported directly to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and had also been the first commander of the covert Studies and Observation Group in Vietnam.

Blackburn immediately met with General Earle G. Wheeler, the outgoing JCS Chairman, to recommend a rescue of all the POWs at Son Tây. To study the feasibility of a raid, Wheeler authorized a 15-member planning group under the codename Polar Circle that convened on June 10. One of its members was an officer who would actually participate in the raid as a rescue helicopter pilot. The study group, after a review of all available intelligence, concluded that Sơn Tây contained 61 POWs.

When Blackburn's recommendation that he lead the mission himself was turned down, he asked Colonel Arthur D. Simons on 13 July to command the Army's personnel. Eglin Air Force Base was selected as the joint training site for the prospective force. Personnel selection proceeded over the objections of the Marine Corps, which was excluded from participation, but selection and planning was performed by Special Operations "operators", not by the JCS, to avoid service parochialism, resulting in a force chosen for mission needs, highlighting combat experience in Southeast Asia and operational specialty skills, and not rank or branch of service.

Ivory Coast
The second phase, Operation Ivory Coast, began on 8 August 1970, when Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, the new JCS Chairman, designated Manor as commander and Simons as deputy commander of the mission task force. Ivory Coast was the organization, planning, training, and deployment phase of the operation. Manor set up an Air Force training facility at Eglin's Duke Field and brought together a 27-member planning staff that included 11 from the prior feasibility study.

Simons recruited 103 personnel from interviews of 500 volunteers, most were Special Forces personnel of the 6th and 7th Special Forces Groups at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. USAF planners selected key Air Force commanders, who then picked personnel for their crews. Helicopter and A-1 Skyraider crews were put together from instructors at Eglin and personnel returned from Southeast Asia. Two crews for C-130E(I) Combat Talons were assembled from squadrons in West Germany and North Carolina. All were then asked to volunteer for a temporary duty assignment without additional pay and without being told the nature of the mission. 103 Army and 116 USAF personnel were selected for the project, including ground force members, aircrewmen, support members and planners. The 219-man task force planned, trained, and operated under the title of the "Joint Contingency Task Group" (JCTG).

The planning staff set up parameters for a nighttime raid, the key points of which were clear weather and a quarter moon at 35 degrees above the horizon for optimum visibility during low-level flight. From these parameters, two mission "windows" were identified, 18–25 October and 18–25 November. Training proceeded on Range C-2 at Eglin using an exact but crudely made replica of the prison compound for rehearsals and a $60,000 five-foot-by-five-foot scale table model (codenamed "Barbara") for familiarization.

Air Force crews flew 1,054 hours in southern Alabama, Georgia, and Florida conducting "dissimilar (aircraft) formation" training with both UH-1H and HH-3E helicopters at night and at low-level (a flight profile for which procedures had to be innovated by the two selected crews), and gaining expertise in navigation training using forward looking infrared (FLIR), which, until Ivory Coast, had not been part of the Combat Talon's electronics suite. A vee formation in which the slower helicopters drafted in echelon slightly above and behind each wing of the Combat Talon escort aircraft was chosen and refined for the mission to give the helicopters the speed necessary to keep pace with the Talons flying just above their stall speeds.

Special Forces training began on 9 September, advancing to night training on 17 September and joint training with air crews on 28 September that included six rehearsals a day, three of them under night conditions. By 6 October, 170 practice sessions of all or partial phases of the mission were performed on the mockup by the Special Forces troopers, many with live fire. On that date, the first full-scale dress rehearsal, using a UH-1H as the assault helicopter, was conducted at night and included a 5.5-hour, 687 mi flight of all aircraft, replicating the timing, speeds, altitudes and turns in the mission plan. The rehearsal spelled the end of the option to use the UH-1 when its small passenger compartment resulted in leg cramps to the Special Forces troopers that completely disrupted the timing of their assault, more than offsetting the UH-1's only advantage (smaller rotor radius) over the larger HH-3. Two further full night rehearsals and a total of 31 practice landings by the HH-3E in the mockup's courtyard confirmed the choice.

On 24 September, Manor recommended approval of the October window to US Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, with 21 October as the primary execution date. However, at a White House briefing on 8 October with National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and General Alexander M. Haig, Kissinger delayed the mission to the November window because President Nixon was not in Washington and could not be briefed in time for approval of the October window. This delay, while posing a risk of compromising the secrecy of the mission, had the benefits of additional training, acquisition of night-vision equipment and further reconnaissance of the prison.

Manor and Simons met with the commander of Task Force 77, Vice Admiral Frederic A. Bardshar, aboard his flagship USS America (CVA-66) on 5 November to arrange for a diversionary mission to be flown by naval aircraft. Because of policy restrictions of the bombing halt then in place, the naval aircraft would not carry ordnance except for a few planes tasked for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR).

Between 10 and 18 November, the JCTG moved to its staging base at Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand. The Combat Talons, using the call signs Daw 43 and Thumb 66 in the guise of being a part of Project Heavy Chain, left Eglin on 10 November, flew to Norton Air Force Base, California, and then routed through Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii and Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, arriving in Takhli on 14 November. The next day, four C-141 Starlifters departed one per day (to avoid the appearance of a major operation in progress), carrying the Army contingent of the JCTG, its equipment and the UH-1 helicopter from Eglin to Thailand. The Special Forces personnel arrived in Thailand at 03:00 local time 18 November and later that date President Nixon approved execution of the mission, setting in motion the final phase, Operation Kingpin.

After overcoming in-theater friction with the 1st Weather Group at Tan Son Nhut Air Base, South Vietnam, planners began watching the weather during the week before the projected target date. On 18 November, Typhoon Patsy struck the Philippines and headed west towards Hanoi. Weather forecasts indicated that Patsy would cause bad weather over the Gulf of Tonkin on 21 November, preventing carrier support operations, and converging with a cold front coming out of southern China, would cause poor conditions over North Vietnam for the remainder of the window. The presence of the cold front, however, indicated that conditions in the objective area on 20 November would be good and possibly acceptable over Laos for navigation of the low-level penetration flights. A reconnaissance flight on the afternoon of 20 November by an RF-4C Phantom carrying a weather specialist confirmed the forecast. Manor decided to advance the mission date by 24 hours rather than delay it by five days.

Manor issued the formal launch order at 15:56 local time 20 November, while the raiding force was in the final stages of crew rest, and brought together the entire ground contingent for a short briefing regarding the objective and launch times. Following the briefing, Manor and his staff flew by T-39 Sabreliner to Da Nang Air Base, where they would monitor the mission from the USAF Tactical Air Control Center, North Sector (TACC/NS) at Monkey Mountain Facility. Three theater lift C-130s previously staged at U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield arrived at Takhli to transport the Army contingent and helicopter crews to Udorn RTAFB and the A-1 pilots to Nakhon Phanom.

Special Forces
The fifty-six Special Forces troopers selected to conduct the raid were flown from Takhli to their helicopter staging base at Udorn RTAFB by C-130 on the evening of 20 November. The Special Forces were organized into three platoons: a 14-man assault group, codenamed Blueboy, which would crash-land within the prison compound; a 22-man support group, Greenleaf, which would provide immediate support for the assault team and a 20-man security group, Redwine, to protect the prison area from People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) reaction forces and provide backup support if needed for either of the other two groups. Simons (using the call sign Axle) accompanied the Greenleaf group, while the ground force commander, LTC Elliott P. "Bud" Sydnor Jr. (Wildroot), was with the Redwine group.

The 56 raiders were heavily armed, carrying a total of 51 personal sidearms, 48 CAR-15 carbines, two M16 rifles, four M79 grenade launchers, two shotguns and four M60 machine guns. They carried 15 Claymore mines, 11 demolition charges and 213 hand grenades and were equipped with a plethora of wire cutters, bolt cutters, axes, chainsaws, crowbars, ropes, bullhorns, lights and other equipment (much of it acquired from commercial retail sources) to execute the mission. The ground force was also equipped for voice communications with 58 UHF-AM and 34 VHF-FM radios, including a survival radio for each individual soldier.

Aviation support

116 aircraft (59 Navy and 57 USAF) participated in the operation, with 28 aircraft (crewed by 92 airmen) assigned direct roles in the target area. Two C-130E(I) Combat Talons, modified with the temporary addition of FLIR sets, were assigned to navigate the mission. One was to lead the helicopter "assault formation" (Cherry 01) and the second to escort the A-1 "strike formation" (Cherry 02). Because of the variances in cruising speeds between the helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, the forces flew separate routes, with the faster strike formation trailing the helicopter formation by several minutes and zig-zagging across its route. Each Combat Talon crew cross-trained to assume the role of the other, but the assault formation was required to have a navigation leader with four fully functioning engines all the way to the objective.

The 28 aircraft with direct roles were:

Penetration into North Vietnam
Beginning at 22:00 20 November 1970, aircraft began leaving five bases in Thailand and one in South Vietnam. Cherry 02, the Combat Talon escort for the A-1 strike formation, took off from Takhli at 22:25. Cherry 01, scheduled to take off a half hour later, had difficulty starting an engine and took off 23 minutes late at 23:18. Cherry 01 adjusted its flight plan and made up the time lost at engine start. At 23:07, two HC-130P aerial refuelers (call signs Lime 01 and Lime 02) took off from Udorn, followed by the helicopters ten minutes later. Shortly after midnight, the A-1 Skyraiders lifted off four minutes early from Nakhon Phanom RTAFB under blacked-out conditions. The helicopters encountered thick clouds over northern Laos at their refueling altitude and climbed to 7000 ft AGL (Above Ground Level) to refuel from Lime 01 on the flight plan's fourth leg. Lime 01 then led them to the next checkpoint for hand-off to Cherry 01 at 01:16.

The formations flew roughly parallel tracks that crossed Laos to the west of the Plain of Jars before turning northeastward. Both formations flew twelve planned legs. The flight path was a corridor 6 mi wide, the width required for safe terrain clearance in the event of formation breakup or the loss of drafting position by a helicopter. The Combat Talon navigators had the task of keeping the formations on the center line of the corridor. Pilots of both formations required a flight path of descending legs, maintaining an altitude of 1000 ft above ground level in the mountain valleys, because the HH-3E had difficulties in climbing while in formation. The Combat Talon C-130s experienced sluggish flight controls at the required airspeeds and the A-1s were hampered by their heavy ordnance loads.

The slow speeds necessary for the formations, 105 kn for the helicopters and 145 kn for the A-1s, degraded nearly all modes of the Combat Talon's AN/APQ-115 TF/TA navigational radars. The Terrain Following mode computed changes in altitude only to a programmed minimum airspeed of 160 kn, well outside the parameters of the mission. The Terrain Avoidance mode (adapted from the AN/APQ-99 terrain avoidance radar of the RF-4C photo reconnaissance aircraft) was distorted by the nose-high attitude dictated by the slow speeds and would no longer display hazardous terrain directly in front of or below the Combat Talon's flight path. The Doppler radar (used to calculate wind drift and ground speed) often had to use information in its computer's memory because of processing lapses. While the ground-mapping radar (correlating landmarks shown on maps to radar returns) was not affected, the jungle terrain did not provide easily identifiable points. All of these handicaps were overcome with the external pod installation of FLIR, which readily identified the rivers and lakes used as turning points.

The assault formation approached from the southwest using the clutter returns of the mountains to mask them from radar detection, while U.S. Navy aircraft launched at 01:00 21 November from the aircraft carriers USS Oriskany (CV-34) and Ranger in the largest carrier night operation of the Vietnam War. Starting at 01:52, 20 A-7 Corsairs and A-6 Intruders, flying in pairs at stepped-up altitudes to deconflict their flight paths, entered North Vietnamese airspace on three tracks, dropping flares to simulate an attack. The last track also dropped chaff to mimic the mining of Haiphong harbor. Over the Gulf of Tonkin, 24 other aircraft in 13 orbits provided support and protection. The operation prompted a frantic air defense reaction at 02:17 that provided a highly effective diversion for the raiders and completely saturated the North Vietnamese air defense system.

Both USAF formations, over a period of thirteen minutes, were unavoidably but separately exposed for several minutes each to an early warning radar located at Na San, North Vietnam, 30 mi to the north, because the flight tracks had to be routed around uncharted mountains. Neither formation was detected, possibly because of the diversion. The rescue forces entered the Red River valley at 500 ft AGL to find conditions clear and visibility excellent. The helicopter formation reached its Initial Point (20 kilometers—12 minutes flying time—from Son Tây) with the A-1 strike formation two minutes behind, as planned. The HH-3E assault team helicopter had flown formation just behind and above the left wingtip of Cherry 01, drafting on the leader to gain the additional airspeed needed to bring its cruise airspeed safely above the stalling speed of the Combat Talon. Cherry 01 and the two HH-53s designated for prisoner pickup accelerated to climb to 1500 ft AGL, while the four assault helicopters broke formation and descended to 200 ft in single file, timed to land forty-five seconds apart.

Combat assault
At 02:18 Cherry 01 transmitted the execute command "Alpha, Alpha, Alpha" to all aircraft as it overflew the prison and deployed four illumination flares, then performed a hard-turning descent to 500 ft to drop two battle simulators south and southeast of Sơn Tây. After Apple 03 made its strafing pass with side-firing miniguns on the prison's guard towers, Cherry 01 successfully dropped one of two planned napalm ground markers as a point of reference for the A-1s, then departed the objective area to a holding point over Laos where it would provide UHF direction-finding steers for the departing aircraft.

The assault helicopters in single file encountered winds that caused them to break formation 150 yd to the right of their intended track. The pilots of Apple 03, the gunship helicopter preceding the others, observed a compound nearly identical to the prison camp in size and layout (previously labeled a "secondary school" by intelligence sources) and steered toward it, followed by the assault lift force. However, they recognized their error when they saw the river next to the actual location and corrected their flight path. Banana, the HH-3E carrying the Blueboy assault team, descended on the wrong location and observed that the expected courtyard was much smaller than required and that the expected treeline enclosed the compound rather than crossing through it. By that time, Blueboy (as previously rehearsed) was firing its weapons from all openings in the helicopter. Banana's pilots also recognized the error, applied power and quickly veered north to the actual target.

Despite the error and trees taller than briefed that forced a steeper descent than rehearsed, the assault team crash-landed into the courtyard of Sơn Tây prison at 02:19 with all weapons firing. Although one raider, acting as a door gunner, was thrown from the aircraft, the only casualty was the helicopter's flight engineer, whose ankle was fractured by a dislodged fire extinguisher. Army Captain Richard J. Meadows used a bullhorn to announce their presence to the expected POWs, while the team dispersed in four elements on a rapid and violent assault of the prison, killing guards and methodically searching the five prisoner blocks cell by cell.

Also at 02:19, Apple 01 (after its pilots saw Banana fire on the first location) landed the Greenleaf support group outside the south side of the secondary school, thinking it to be the target prison compound. Unaware that it was 400 meters from the objective, it lifted off to relocate to its holding area. The "secondary school" was actually a barracks for troops that, alerted by Banana's aborted assault, opened fire on Greenleaf as two of its elements assaulted the compound. The support group attacked the location with small arms and hand grenades in an eight-minute firefight, after which Simons estimated that 100 to 200 hostile soldiers had been killed. Two A-1s supported Greenleaf with an air strike using white phosphorus bombs on a wooden footbridge east of the area. Apple 01 returned at 02:23, and by 02:28, the support group had disengaged under fire and reboarded the helicopter for the short movement to the correct landing area.

The pilot of Apple 02 observed the errors in navigation by the helicopters in front of him and made a hard turn towards the prison. He also observed Apple 01 unload at the secondary school and initiated Plan Green, the contingency plan for the loss or absence of Greenleaf. The Redwine security group, including ground force commander Sydnor, landed at 02:20 outside Sơn Tây prison and immediately executed the previously rehearsed contingency plan. In the meantime, Cherry 02 arrived with the A-1 force, dropped two more napalm ground markers, and created other diversions to disguise the target area by dropping MK-6 log flares and battle simulators at road intersections that North Vietnamese reaction forces might be expected to use. Cherry 02 then orbited in the area just west of the Black River acting as on-call support for the ground teams, jamming North Vietnamese radio communications, and providing a secure radio link to the mission command post in Da Nang.

After a thorough search that included a second sweep ordered by Meadows, Blueboy's three teams found that the prison held no POWs. Meadows transmitted the code phrase "Negative Items" to the command group. Pathfinders clearing the extraction landing zone blew up an electrical tower that blacked out the entire west side of Sơn Tây including the prison area. At 02:29, Sydnor ordered the A-1s to attack the vehicle bridge over the Song Con leading into the area and, three minutes later, called for extraction by the HH-53s idling on the ground in a holding area a mile away. Before the first helicopter arrived, a truck convoy approached the prison from the south, but was stopped by two Redwine security teams that each fired an M72 light antitank weapon into the lead vehicle.

At 02:28, Cherry 02's electronic warfare operator noted that Fan Song fire control radars for North Vietnamese SA-2 SAM sites had gone active. SAM launches at the F-105 Wild Weasel force began at 02:35, with at least 36 missiles fired at the rescue forces. One F-105 was briefly enveloped in burning fuel by a near-miss at 02:40 and returned to base. Its replacement was severely damaged six minutes later by another SAM. Twenty other SAMs fired at Navy aircraft all missed. Two MiG-21 interceptors on alert duty at Phúc Yên Air Base were never given permission to launch, despite several requests to do so.

Extraction of the raiders
The HH-53s returned singly to the extraction landing zone amidst the SAM barrage, flying well below the minimum effective level of the missiles, and Apple 01 landed first at 02:37. It lifted off with its passengers at 02:40, followed a minute later by the landing of Apple 02, which departed at 02:45. Apple 03, the last aircraft out, was cleared to leave its holding area at 02:48. The raid had been executed in only 27 minutes, well within the planned 30-minute optimum time. Although at first it was feared one raider had been left behind, all the troopers were accounted for. One Redwine trooper had been wounded in the leg and was the only casualty to hostile fire on the raid.

Shortly after its departure, Apple 03 mistook a support fighter for a MiG and called a warning, and although one of the Combat Apple KC-135s supporting the mission issued information that no MiGs had taken off, the entire force descended to treetop altitude. Apple 04 reported that an air-to-air missile had been launched at it and missed, but this was later found to have been aerial rockets fired into a hillside by one of the A-1 escorts, jettisoning ordnance to increase maneuverability as a result of the erroneous MiG call.

The assault formation was out of North Vietnam by 03:15 and landed back at Udorn at 04:28, five hours after launch. The crew of the damaged F-105 was compelled to eject over northern Laos, thirty minutes after being hit and within sight of its tanker, when its engine flamed out from lack of fuel. Alleycat, the C-130E Airborne Control and Command (ABCCC) aircraft in orbit at the time over northern Laos, coordinated with several USAF entities, including Brigham Control in Thailand and ground resources in Laos, to cover the downed crewmen with supporting aircraft until a search and rescue effort could be mounted. Lime 01, refueling at Udorn, took off again using the call sign King 21 to coordinate the recovery, while Lime 02 refueled Apple 04 and Apple 05 to extend their flight time. Supported by the C-123 Candlestick flare aircraft diverted from its station on another mission by Alleycat, a SAR force was launched, and when its A-1s arrived from Nakhon Phanom to cover the pickups, Apple 04 and Apple 05 each recovered one of the downed airmen at first light after three hours on the ground.

Intelligence controversy

While the mission was deemed a "tactical success" because of its execution and the message it conveyed, critics proclaimed it an "intelligence failure". The 65 prisoners at Sơn Tây had been moved on 14 July because its wells had become unusable possibly due to contamination by flooding, to a camp 15 mi closer to Hanoi that the POWs dubbed "Camp Faith". The existence of "Camp Faith" (Dong Hoi) was only revealed to US intelligence on Thursday November 19th, 1970, in a coded message from Nguyen Van Hoang, an intelligence source in North Vietnam. Although relatively near Sơn Tây, the risk of disastrous consequences from lack of reconnaissance, planning and rehearsing precluded a switch of targets at the last minute. A mission with Camp Faith as the objective required a lengthy delay for a new window of acceptable conditions, which increased the chance of security compromise and further withheld personnel and equipment from their parent commands. New reports of increasing numbers of deaths among POWs argued strongly against such a delay. The raid went as planned in the event that the renewed activity at Sơn Tây noted in aerial reconnaissance photos taken 13 November involved POWs.

Despite the mission's intelligence shortcomings, the gathering of accurate intelligence for the operation, in both quality and quantity, was remarkably successful. The shortcomings lay in "compartmentalization" of the information and isolation of the JTCG from "the normal intelligence flow". As early as the Polar Circle feasibility group, which conducted its capability assessment at the Defense Intelligence Agency's Arlington Hall facility rather than the Pentagon, members of the rescue operation were isolated from contact with outside organizations and closely monitored to prevent accidental leaks to the curious that might irreparably harm security. In his history of the operation, John Gargus, a planner and participant, has no evidence that anyone in the intelligence community knew the POWs had been removed from the Son Tay Camp. However he conceded the possibility of the existence of compartmented scraps of intelligence of such a nature: "We concede that the raid was allowed to take place because those who had the correct intelligence information were not aware that someone was contemplating a POW rescue."

By the time the only intelligence implying the lack of prisoners at Son Tay was received (the coded message in a pack of cigarettes which listed POW camps and the number of POWs in each—with no mention of Son Tay), prompting the Defense Intelligence Agency to do an intensive overnight re-analysis of all of its data, it was the day before the raid would launch. The finished overnight report was presented to the commanders (including Admiral Moorer) the day of the operation. The operation had been advanced 24 hours due to Typhoon Patsy and there was a 12-hour time difference with Southeast Asia. When a final meeting with Defense Secretary Laird took place at 05:00 (Washington, D.C., time) to determine if the mission should proceed, its launch was less than five hours away. There was no consensus on the reliability of the data and Blackburn was strongly predisposed to go ahead. One military analyst theorized that as a result, the highest-level decision makers succumbed to the phenomenon of "groupthink".

The Defense Department conducted an investigation into a possible breach of security as the reason behind the movement of the prisoners and concluded that none occurred. The intensity of the criticism, and leaks of information including reports of the operation, caused the Nixon Administration to reorganize both the military communications network and the government's intelligence apparatus.

Recognition of participants
For their actions, members of the task force received six Distinguished Service Crosses, five Air Force Crosses, and at least 85 Silver Stars, including all members of the ground force who did not receive the DSC. Manor received the Distinguished Service Medal. A total of 49 soldiers were awarded the Silver Star for heroism. The successful demonstrations of joint operating capability in Ivory Coast and Kingpin were, in part, a model for the creation of a joint United States Special Operations Command in 1987.

Impact of the raid
Criticism of the raid, particularly in the news media and by political opponents of the Vietnam War and the Nixon Administration, was widespread and of long duration. Not only was the mission denounced as the result of poor or outdated intelligence, but charges were made that the operation caused increased mistreatment of the prisoners.

However, as a result of the raid, the North Vietnamese consolidated their POW camps to central prison complexes. An area of the Hanoi Hilton formerly housing civilian and South Vietnamese prisoners became "Camp Unity", a block of large communal areas housing 50 POWs each. After their repatriation, many POWs said that being in close contact with other Americans lifted their morale, as did knowledge of the rescue attempt. Some POWs said that food, medical care and even seemingly basic things like mail delivery vastly improved after the raid.

title: Operation Ivory Coast


text:
Talk:1600 in music

Untitled
Whom does "we" refer to? RedWolf 06:23, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

If anyone monitors this...why are madrigals and ayres considered publications while oratorios are classical music? That's diminuphobic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinnis (talk • contribs) 03:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:1600 in music


text:
Condominium (international law)

A condominium (plural either condominia, as in Latin, or condominiums) in international law is a political territory (state or border area) in or over which multiple sovereign powers formally agree to share equal dominium (in the sense of sovereignty) and exercise their rights jointly, without dividing it into "national" zones.

Although a condominium has always been recognized as a theoretical possibility, condominia have been rare in practice. A major problem, and the reason so few have existed, is the difficulty of ensuring co-operation between the sovereign powers; once the understanding fails, the status is likely to become untenable.

The word is recorded in English since 1718, from Modern Latin, apparently coined in Germany c. 1700 from Latin con- 'together' + dominium 'right of ownership' (compare domain). A condominium of three sovereign powers is sometimes called a tripartite condominium or tridominium.

Co-principality
Under French law, Andorra was once considered to be a French–Spanish condominium, although it is more commonly classed as a co-principality, since it is itself a sovereign state, not a possession of one or more foreign powers. However, the position of head of state is shared ex officio by two foreigners, one of whom is the President of France, currently Emmanuel Macron, and the other the Bishop of Urgell in Spain, currently Joan Enric Vives i Sicília.

Former condominia

 * Allied-occupied Germany and subsequently East Germany, West Germany, and West Berlin were under the control of the Allied Control Council, which consisted of representatives from France, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom from 1945 until 1990.
 * In 688 the Byzantine Emperor Justinian II and the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan reached an unprecedented agreement to establish a condominium (the concept did not yet exist) over Cyprus, with the collected taxes from the island being equally divided between the two parties. The arrangement lasted for some 300 years, even though in the same time there was nearly constant warfare between the two parties on the mainland.
 * Fellesdistrikt (Fellesdistrikt, Общий район) was a Russo-Norwegian condominium comprising Sør-Varanger Municipality and the Pechengsky District from 1684 until 1826.
 * Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was legally an Egyptian-British condominium from 1899 until 1956, although in reality Egypt played no role in its government other than providing some administrators in the country: all political decisions were made by the United Kingdom and all Governors-General of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan were British. The system was resented by Egyptian and Sudanese nationalists, and would later be disavowed by the Egyptian Government, although it persisted due to the United Kingdom's effective control over Egypt itself, which began from 1882 and continued until at least 1936.
 * The Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina was jointly ruled by Cisleithanian Austria and Transleithanian Hungary between 1908 and 1918, while both countries were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
 * An islet in the border river Brömsebäck was considered to belong to neither (or both) Denmark and Sweden.
 * The Duchy of Courland was a condominium of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crown of Poland from 1726 until 1795.
 * The Independent State of Croatia during World War II from 1941 to 1943 was a military condominium of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy until 1943, when Italy split between the Allied-leaning Kingdom of Italy under King Victor Emmanuel III and Axis-leaning Italian Social Republic under Benito Mussolini.
 * Canton and Enderbury Islands were a British–American condominium from 1939 until 1979 when they became part of Kiribati.
 * Couto Misto was shared until 1864 between Spain and Portugal, even though in its final decades of existence it was de facto independent.
 * Egypt from 1876 to 1882 was under France and the United Kingdom.
 * A small area (Hadf and surroundings) on the Arabian Peninsula, a part of Oman, at one time was jointly ruled with the Emirati member state of Ajman. The agreement defining the Hadf zone was signed in Salalah on 26 April 1960 by Sultan Said bin Taimur and in Ajman on 30 April 1960 by Shaikh Rashid bin Humaid Al Nuaimi III, ruler of Ajman. This provided for some joint supervision in the zone by the ruler of Ajman and the shaikhs under the rule of Muscat. It allowed the Ajman ruler to continue collecting zakat (Islamic tax). The ruler of Ajman was, however, not to interfere in the affairs of the local people, the Bani Ka'ab (a branch of the Banu Kaab), which were the sole responsibility of shaikhs who were under Muscat rule.  The agreement was later terminated.
 * The Holy Roman Empire hosted numerous condominia within its boundaries. Many princes and especially Imperial knights and counts mortgaged partial ownership or rights within their lands to the Emperor, sometimes in perpetuity. Most of these were located in the Swabian Circle, close to the Emperor's personal domains in Further Austria. Some condominia were shared by lesser princes, especially in cases of inheritances held in common by branches of a princely line. Disputes over condominium contracts were submitted to the Imperial court at Wetzlar, or petitioned to the Emperor himself. Some cases within the Holy Roman Empire included the following:
 * The City of Bergedorf was a condominium of the Imperial cities of Hamburg and Lübeck, and the terms were extended beyond the Holy Roman Empire's dissolution until 1868, when Lübeck sold its rights in Bergedorf to Hamburg.
 * The City of Erfurt from 12th century until the Thirty Years' War was shared between the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Counts of Gleichen, the latter replaced by the city council in 1289 (Concordata Gebhardi), the Landgrave of Thuringia in 1327 and the House of Wettin in 1483 (Treaty of Weimar).
 * The County of Friesland (West Frisia) was from 1165 to 1493 a joint condominium of the County of Holland and the Prince-Bishopric of Utrecht, then again until 25 October 1555 under Imperial administration.
 * The Imperial village of Holzhausen was a partial condominium, two thirds of which was immediate to the Emperor and the remaining third subject to various landlords.
 * The City of Maastricht was a condominium for five centuries until 1794. It was shared between the Prince-Bishopric of Liège and the Duchy of Brabant, the latter replaced by the Dutch Republic in 1632.
 * The village of Nennig was a condominium of the Trier bishopric, Lorraine (the Kingdom of France from 1766) and Duchy of Luxembourg until its annexation by Revolutionary France in 1794.
 * The County of Sponheim was ruled since the 15th century by the Margraves of Baden, the Counts Palatine of the Rhine and the Counts of Veldenz, later Palatinate-Simmern, Palatine Zweibrücken and Palatinate-Birkenfeld as heirs of Veldenz.
 * The Free City of Kraków was a protectorate of Prussia, Austria and Russia from 1815 until 1846, when it was annexed by Austria.
 * Neutral Moresnet was shared from 1816 until 1919 between the Netherlands (later Belgium) and Prussia.Flag of New Hebrides.svg]]
 * Nauru was a tripartite condominium mandate territory administered by Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom from 1923 to 1942 and again in 1947 as a UN trust territory until independence in 1968.
 * New Hebrides formed a French–British condominium in 1906 until independence in 1980 as a republic, now called Vanuatu.
 * Northern Dobruja was shared by the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria) during World War I.
 * The Oregon Country was an Anglo-American condominium from 1818 until 1846. It would later become the Pacific Northwest of the United States and British Columbia in Canada.
 * Samoan Islands from 1889 to 1899 were a rare tripartite condominium under joint protectorate of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. It would later become Samoa and American Samoa.
 * Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg were an Austrian-Prussian condominium. The two German powers acceded it following the 1864 Second Schleswig War. According to the Gastein Convention in the next year, Lauenburg left the condominium (to Prussia), Austria governed Holstein and Prussia controlled Schleswig. In 1866, after the Austro-Prussian War, Austria passed over its remaining rights to Prussia. Prussia later created the Province of Schleswig-Holstein, which would become divided between Germany and Denmark after the Treaty of Versailles.
 * The Spanish Netherlands became an Anglo-Dutch condominium in 1706 during the War of the Spanish Succession, until the peace treaties of Utrecht and Rastatt in 1713/14 ending the war.
 * Togoland, formerly a German protectorate, was an Anglo-French condominium, from when the United Kingdom and France occupied it on 26 August 1914 until its partition on 27 December 1916 into French and British zones. The divided Togoland became two separate League of Nations mandates on 20 July 1922: British Togoland, which joined Gold Coast (present-day Ghana) in 1956, and French Togoland, which is now the nation of Togo.
 * Zaporozhian Sich, a brief condominium between Russia and Poland-Lithuania, was established in 1667 by the Treaty of Andrusovo.
 * Tangier International Zone, an international zone nominally under Moroccan sovereignty but jointly administered by several European powers in 1924. It was returned to full Moroccan sovereignty in 1956.
 * The term is sometimes even applied to a similar arrangement between members of a Monarch's countries in (personal or formal) union, as was the case for the district of Fiume (what is today Rijeka, Republic of Croatia), shared between Hungary and Croatia within the Habsburg Empire since 1868.
 * Between 1913 and 1920 Spitsbergen was a neutral condominium. The Spitsbergen Treaty of 9 February 1920 recognises the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over all the arctic archipelago of Svalbard. The exercise of sovereignty is, however, subject to certain stipulations, and not all Norwegian law applies. Originally limited to nine signatory nations, over 40 are now signatories of the treaty. Citizens of any of the signatory countries may settle in the archipelago. Currently, only Norway and Russia make use of this right.
 * In 1992, South Africa and Namibia established a Joint Administrative Authority in the enclave of Walvis Bay, prior to its cession to Namibia in 1994.
 * The Saudi Arabian–Kuwaiti neutral zone was established in 1922 by the Uqair Convention. It was a 2,000 square mile area designed to accommodate the Bedouin people, a nomadic group who regularly crossed through the Saudi and Kuwaiti border. The area was partitioned in 1970 after a 1938 discovery of oil near the zone brought speculation that there may be oil in the condominium.

Proposed condominia

 * In a 2019 essay, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd suggested that Australia should consider a "formal constitutional condominium" with Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu as a solution to the impacts of climate change. Rudd outlined that the people of these countries would be offered Australian citizenship and relocation to Australian territory in exchange for Australian ownership of their territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and fisheries.
 * In 2001, the British government held discussions with Spain with a view to putting a proposal for joint sovereignty to the people of Gibraltar. This initiative was pre-emptively rejected by Gibraltarians in the 2002 referendum.
 * In 2012, the Canadian and Danish governments were close to an agreement to declare Hans Island a condominium, after decades in dispute. On 11 June 2022, the Danish, Greenlandic, Canadian, and Nunavut governments compromised to divide Hans Island in half after 17 years of negotiations. On 14 June 2022, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, Danish foreign affairs minister Jeppe Kofod, and prime minister of Greenland Múte Bourup Egede signed a treaty to divide the island. By this, Canada and the Danish Realm, via Greenland, have an international land border of 1,280 m (4,200 ft), which follows a rift in the surface of the island that runs from north to south near the center of the island, forming a semi-circle with the westernmost part. After ratification, the island contained the third shortest land border between countries and created a second land neighbour for Canada and the Danish Realm, each of which previously only had one, with the United States and Germany respectively. It also created the northernmost international land border in the world, as well as the second land border between European and American countries, the previous one being between French Guiana (department of France) and the South American countries Brazil and Suriname.
 * Some proposed two-state solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict involve a State of Israel and State of Palestine sharing sovereignty over part or all of Jerusalem.
 * In the talks between the UK and the People's Republic of China in 1983–84 over the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, one of the British proposals was to transfer the sovereignty of Hong Kong and its dependencies to the People's Republic of China while the UK would retain the rights of administration of the territory. The proposal was rejected and negotiations ended with the UK agreeing to relinquish all rights over Hong Kong to China in 1997.
 * In one proposed case of the Partition of Belgium, Brussels would become a condominium of Flanders and Wallonia.
 * In 1984, the New Ireland Forum suggested a proposal for joint UK/Irish authority in Northern Ireland to try to bring an end to the Troubles conflict. This idea was dismissed by the British government. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 led to the establishment of a devolved power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive led jointly by the First and Deputy First Minister, positions nominated separately by the largest parties in each of the two largest community designations in the assembly. The proposal of joint authority by the UK and Irish governments over Northern Ireland was raised again in 2017 after the Irish backstop issue during the negotiations for the Brexit withdrawal agreement and the collapse of the power-sharing executive during the Renewable Heat Incentive scandal.
 * During the Croatian War of Independence speculative ideas on the peaceful settlement of the conflict included condominium proposals. In 1991 Serbian lawyer Smilja Avramov presented to Croatian negotiators her condominium proposal for the Serb controlled areas. In the later stages of war, in 1994 and 1995, United Kingdom diplomats circulated their territory swap proposals which included the idea on the creation of condominium between Croatia and FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) over the self-proclaimed Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. Croatian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mate Granić subsequently claimed that the idea was rejected by him in 1994.

title: Condominium (international law)