text:
Talk:San Remo conference

Note
Note Article 25: "In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, ", which clearly implies that the eastern boundaries were not determined by this conference. Also, note the Ma'an and Aqaba border issues between Transjordan and Hejaz, not resolved until 1925. - Mustafaa 11:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, but that's from the 1921-22 text of the Mandate, not the 1920 resolution, to which I gave a couple of links. In view of your comment, I probably should have said (at least) five years, not four, but I want to do a bit more checking. AFAIK the major issues were resolved by 4 years later, many of them much earlier.--John Z 14:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article makes the following statement - "The decisions of the conference mainly just confirmed (e.g. concerning Palestine) those of the First Conference of London (February 1920)". However the page on the "Conference of London" that this is linked to indicates that that conference took place after the Sanremo conference. MarkMcLT 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Balfour's intention was for ALL of Palestine to become the Jewish National Home, not just the western 22%. This was confirmed by Balfour's grandson at a conference at Balfour House at which I was present. In 1939 the British Parliament debated the meaning of 'in Palestine' and decided in its infamous antisemitic White Paper to interpret this as some small part of Palestine. The UN failed to uphold its charter article 80 which maintains the rights obtained at San Remo. John UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.5 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanremo, not San Remo

 * The correct name of the town is San Remo. Since I am not a registered user I cannot move the article. --213.155.224.232 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Official name of Sanremo is... of course, Sanremo. Not San Remo (Italian for "Saint Remo", where no saint called Remo ever existed). So, it's absolutely impossible that the conference could be named "San Remo Conference". I know it is a common mispelling, but if we want to strive here for correctness (see for example the Britannica entry, you won't find cited as "San Remo"), please leave the page under this name. --Attilios 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Conference was known then and since as the "San Remo Conference" and was never referred to as anything else. The fact that the town is actually called "Sanremo" in Italian is not really relevant. For the sake of accuracy I recommend that we change the name of this article back to what it was. --Ian Pitchford 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ian. Never seen it as Sanremo conference, always with a space.  Does anyone really think nonexistence of a saint would stop the Italians or the English from calling things what they like? I doubt naming conventions were so set in stone back then.   Finally, the pizzeria near my high school was San Remo Pizza.  Maybe  the conference was named after it.  :-)

 * More seriously, I restored an external link I put in a couple years ago, to the original text of the San Remo Resolution, in English and in French, which was luckily still in the text of the article. A well meaning editor replaced it with " a more complete version" which however was not to the correct document, pointing instead to the text of the 1922 Mandate, which is erroneously called in the "more complete" link and several other places on the web and in print, the San Remo Mandate, with confusing and impossible dates.  A hint that something is awry is that while it says San Remo Conference, April 24, 1920 at the top, it is dated DONE AT LONDON the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two at the bottom.   I put in dates and a warning that should avoid a repetition.and changed another link to the superior one the well meaning editor gave.  Note that the August 1920 Treaty of Sevres speaks of the drafting of the mandate as something for the future.  This might be a slight help for the current confusion and warring in related articles, which I will try to do a little to clarify and pacify. John Z 09:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I'd noticed the incorrect link a while ago and had forgotten about it. Thanks again. BTW I have checked contemporary news sources and all refer to the event as the "San Remo Conference". --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed, the name of this event in English (99% of the time) is "San Remo conference". It is interesting but not relevant what the correct name of the Italian city is. Who will move it back? --Zerotalk 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Google search the faulty reference appears in 114 articles. I can use AWB to change them. --Ian Pitchford 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the opinion of only two people, and of Anglo-Saxon country, means "consensus". I think, this is an international encyclopedia. As the name of the conference is not official, but it's just that of the "Conference of " - Sanremo (meaning "The conference held at..."), not the "Conference of Sanremo", we should use the correct name of the city. Bye. --Attilios 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmhmhm... It seems that Britannica cites it as Conference of San Remo; however, it also wrongly cites Sanremo as San Remo. So, should we consider both of them wrong? Bye. --Attilios 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to address the issue on the page dealing with the name of the town, but almost all English language sources, including contemporary accounts in newspapers refer to the "San Remo conference". --Ian Pitchford 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * In the past week I've looked at 20+ books and academic papers regarding this conference and I have not seen any spelling other than "San Remo". --Zerotalk 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, This is indeed the conference held in a city. In italian, the city is named "Sanremo" but in French it is "San Remo". Alithien 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah…and the language of diplomacy was…. This looks like a plausible explanation of the issue! —Ian Spackman 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism and nomenclature
Not sure what the best name for the conference is: whatever good quality English language sources use. But this is a quote from santiebeati.it on ‘San Remo’, which seems to confirm that the saint did exist (a seventh-century bishop of Genoa), that he died in the the place now called Sanremo, and that the town can also be called ‘San Remo’ in Italian:
 * L'onomastico [Remo] viene festeggiato il 22 dicembre in ricordo di San Romolo, detto "Remo", vescovo di Genova nell'anno 641, vissuto e morto a Villa Matuzia, antico nome della città di San Remo che da lui cambiò poi nome. In alcuni luoghi è venerato il 13 ottobre.

—Ian Spackman 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very useful. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 14:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

subsequent (?)
There is an error in the last sentence in the article's lead section: "As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 subsequent to the acceptance of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." Either (a) the 24 July 1922 date is wrong, or (b) the word subsequent is wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know the facts needed to resolve this. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The Paris Peace Conference established the mandates system by January 1920, but did not confer the mandates on any state, because an Inter-Allied Commission was going to Ottoman Asia to find out what the wishes of the indigenous groups were on the subject.

 * The San Remo Conference awarded the mandates, but there was a disagreement between the parties, Italy, France, etc., over their own interests. Those had to be resolved before the Council of the League of Nations could ratify the terms of the Mandates. The Mandates took the form of LoN resolutions which could only be adopted on the basis of unanimity (each of the parties had a veto).

 * The Treaty of Sevres contained the Ottoman terms of cession, but it was never ratified because of the Turkish revolution. The Italians and French came to terms over Syria and the Council of the League approved the mandates in 1922, since the Allies were already governing the territories under the Armistice of Mudros. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne didn't contain any details about the mandates. It simply said that the territories, islands, and etc. had been detached from the Ottoman Empire by the present treaty - and that the details regarding their disposition would be arranged by the parties concerned. harlan (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire accepted the treaty of Sevres
The Ottoman empire accepted the treaty of Sevres in disposition of the Sanjak of Jerusalem and parts of the velayet of Beirut. Neither of these territories were ever claimed by the new state of Turkey. There are possibly valid political points for bending over so far backwards, but wikipedia doesn't need to get into that kind of thinking. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source and undue section
The book "Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel" is obviously a book written by an activist and not even close to being a reliable source. In case that isn't blindingly obvious, the book is self-published. The publisher is Creation House, which describes itself as a Christian self-publishing company, in other words a vanity press. Wallace also wrote another book, "Don't miss the Rapture" that also looks like a barrel of laughs. No thank you. Zerotalk 09:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I also tagged the section about the "celebrations" a few activists organised in San Remo on the 90th anniversary. The intro of the section says "the town of San Remo marked the 90th anniversary", which is not even supported by the source (it only says the mayor attended). The information is trivial and the pronouncements made are predictable and boring. Zerotalk 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree on both issues. The "anniversary celebrations" section would be more honestly titled "Israeli public diplomacy" - But the only sources we have are a couple of news reports documenting public diplomacy events its barely noteworthy as news outside Israel and this is not the news, we do not document every little event that has been reported in national news media. Dlv999 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you make it sound like this person is a creationist or something. However her background: "Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace received her PhD in international law from Cambridge University. Dr. Wallace’s international law career spans some thirty years, and she has held academic and senior diplomatic-level posts, including Deputy Executive Director, Investment Negotiation Program, International Law Institute, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC; Senior Fellow and Project Director, International Business and Economics Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC (“think tank”); and Senior Advisor to the Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva. With more than thirty publications, including six books, she is the recipient of the Grotius International Law Award for a law journal article selected jointly by the UN Association and the T.M.C. Asser Institute of The Hague. She is a US citizen and resides in Geneva, Switzerland." We do not assume that every Christian or Jew with pro-Israel views is 'obviously' an activist. By this thinking you couldn't use any information gleaned from anyone who is published by the Institute for Palestine Studies, as it is obviously activist. Ridingdog (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Founding Document of Eretz Israel/Palestine
{{collapse|

To whom it may concern:

hi, I have not been aware of the possibility to discuss changes of articles on Wikipedia, this is why I merely uploaded my addition after it was deleted.

I do not wish to delete any of the already existing parts of the article, but to add the findings of Howard Grief and Dr. Jacques Gauthier. Please note that: First, I clearly mark my addition as an opinion represented by these two men, which is a critique of mainstream views on this issue. However, as an avid Wikipedia user myself, I know that it is common practice in Wikipedia articles to include sections where awareness for different points of view is raised.

Secondly, in the "Anniversary Celebrations" section of the article, it is already mentioned that Dr. Jacques Gauthier stresses the fundamental importance of this Conference for the foundation of Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia. I merely wish to expand on this, as should be in the interest of any intelligent and open-minded person.

Third, my contribution to the article does not solely focus on the issue of Eretz Israel/Palestine, it offers further information about the decision making of that era and its repercussions for the conflict in general. These issues are still widely underrepresented in Wikipedia.

I am aware of the fact that my contribution to the article is not yet perfectly cited and interlinked with other Wikipedia articles, but my personal experience in editing Wiki-articles (history section of Maccabi Tel Aviv Basketball Club) has taught me that Wikipedia consists of the work of thousands of people who complement each others work.

In this spirit, I ask you to allow me to add a base for this article, so that others might add to it, instead of just deleting it and thus keeping this information from others.

These are the additions I wish to make:

After 25 years of research, lawyers Howard Grief and Dr. Jacques Gauthier have come to the conclusion that the San Remo Conference in general and the San Remo Resolution in particular constitute the foundation documents of the modern State of Israel under international law.

April 24, 1920: The Balfour Declaration becomes a legal document
The San Remo Conference took place from April 18, to April 26, 1920. It's goal was to decide upon the future fate of all of Turkey’s ex-territorial possessions lying outside Anatolia, which, as a consequence of World War I, had ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, as laid out in the Treaty of Versailles.

The San Remo Conference constitutes the first acknowledgement and recognition under modern international law, of the legal title of the Jewish People to the mandated territory of Palestine, in all of its historical parts and dimensions. This decision was made by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers (France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan; USA as an observer). The Principal allied Powers gave their approval to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, thereby giving international legal effect to its provisions. This act constituted a conversion of the Balfour Declaration from a mere statement of British government policy, into a binding legal document. This is further evidenced by the significant change in the nature and wording of Britain’s pledge or promise to the Jewish People to establish in Palestine a national home for the Jewish People: (November 2, 1917: “their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of the object” April 24, 1920: “responsible for putting into effect” this declared object.)

Henceforth the Balfour Declaration was to constitute and become the legal and constitutional basis for administering Palestine, in conjunction with the general provisions of the newly-established Mandates System created by Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant.

Origin of the Name Palestine
The Christian and Zionist provenance of the name Palestine stems from the common denotation of the region as Palestine, the Holy Land and/or Judea to denote the Land where Jesus was born among Christians. At the First Zionist Congress in August 1897, the Zionists adopted the Basle Program themselves using the name Palestine, in order to appeal to the Christian world. On July 1917, the term Palestine was included in the Zionist formula of the Balfour Declaration. After April 1920 Palestine became the official name of the country where the Jewish National Home and Jewish State would be established. The British military and civil administration rendered this name in Hebrew in all legal documents and postage stamps as Palestina followed by the letters aleph, yod in brackets (for Eretz Yisrael, giving it an official status.

Synonymy of Eretz Israel and Palestine
The establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine simultaneously meant creating the state and country of Palestine. Palestine in its entirety was reserved exclusively for the self-determination of the Jewish People. The Foreign Secretary f the Great Britain, Lord Curzon stated: “Palestine was in the future to be the National Home of the Jews throughout the world." France based its objection to inserting the Balfour Declaration in the Peace Treaty with Turkey precisely on the ground that doing so meant the actual establishment of a Jewish State which it strongly opposed but which it implicitly conceded to be the case after it was agreed by the Supreme Council to insert an obligatory version of the Balfour Declaration into the Treaty of Sèvres.

Those two new entities in international law (Palestine and Eretz Israel/the Jewish National Home) were therefore synonymous since they were both created at the very same time for the very same purpose. The Jewish National Home was to be housed in Palestine and Palestine was to be the Jewish National Home, i.e., the Jewish State, otherwise Palestine would never have been legally created on April 25, 1920 as a separate country. France insisted on maintaining “existing traditional rights” of the French and Latin Catholic Community in Palestine while adding “civil” and/or “political” rights to the rights awarded to the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” of the Catholic religious community. Catholics in general and France in particular felt strong political and religious ties with Palestine because of the Crusades. It is important to understand that political rights meant individual electoral rights and not collective political rights. This ruled out any kind of national autonomy or self-determination for the Arabs living in Palestine.

Thus, in the Draft Resolution concerning Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria the title of sovereignty over Palestine was exclusively vested in the Jewish People.

April 25, 1920: Britain to be the Mandatory Power
A mandate was conferred upon Great Britain for reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Palestine for an ancient nation most of whose members lived outside Palestine and only for that specific objective.

The boundaries of Palestine were to be based on the biblical formula „from Dan to Beersheba“ based on the historical connection of the Jewish People with the entire Land of Israel, referring to the Promised Land that had been conquered, settled and ruled by the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants, in both the First and Second Temple periods. The eventual demarcation of the boundaries of both Syria and Palestine was delayed and finally taken care of at the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, as were the boundaries of Mesopotamia and Syria. The historical formula, “from Dant to Beersheba” was thrice agreed upon previously by Britain and France: the Lloyd George-Clemenceau agreement of December 1, 1918, the British aide-memoire dated September 13, 1919 (Anglo French negotiations at Deauville) and the London Conference on February 21, 1920

The San Remo Resolution
The Draft Resolution was approved on April 25, 1920 and adopted Final Resolution concerning Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria, constituting a document referred to as San Remo Resolution. This Resolution in regard to Palestine stands on its own merit as an act of basic international law which was the legal source of British power of government in Palestine under the Mandates System. The San Remo Resolution is referred to as the “Mandates Article” in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey (Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920). Furthermore, this very same name has been applied to Article 22 of the League of Nations.

By virtue of the San remo Resolution, the title of sovereignty over Palestine was exclusively vested in the Jewish People. In addition the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916 was officially replaced and terminated in addition with all other secret and illegal British Treaties from 1915-17: the Constantinople Agreement of March-April 1915 with France and Russia, the Treaty of London of April 26, 1915 with France and Italy, the McMahon Pledge made to the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein Ibn-Ali, on October 24, 1915, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of May 9 and 16, 1916 subsequently adhered to by Russia and the Agreement of Saint Jean de Maurienne of April 1917 with France and Italy.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was further repudiated by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919. Article 18 states the repudiation of secret diplomacy as confirmed by virtue of the United Nations Charter (Article 102). Furthermore, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 requires treaties to be transmitted to th Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication (Article 80).

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine named the Jewish People as the national beneficiary of the principle of self-determination in the Mandate Charter, for the purpose of applying the general provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The dual or joint application of the Balfour Declaration with Artcile 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations meant that Palestine was reserved for the Jewish People as a whole (estimated 14.000.000), not merely fot the approximately 60.000 Jews living in Palestine at the end of the Great War. Nor was Palestine reserved for the estimated half-million Arabs then living there, even though they compromised the great majority of the relatively small population of the country.

Thus the Jewish People were given a recognized international status by becoming the beneficiary of the right of national independence under Article 22 in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs were mentioned only once in the English version of the minutes (though not in the French version) by Lord Curzon in regard to safeguarding the rights of religious minorities under the first proviso of the Balfour Declaration that applied to the existing non Jewish communities in Palestine. It is thus clear that non-Jewish in this context centered on religious communities only and did not deal with national communities. Thus is may justly be assumed that Lord Curzon referred to Moslems, rather than Arabs.

Jewish De Jure Sovereignty over Palestine
As a direct result of naming the Jewish People as the national beneficiary of the mandate for Palestine and basing the future administration of the country upon both the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, de jure sovereignty or legal title over Palestine was implicitly transferred to the Jewish People by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who acted as the disposing agent under international law, by virtue of their military victory over the Central Powers. The Jewish People received this devolution of sovereignty or legal title from the very same source that the inhabitants from Syria and Mesopotamia also received it, by the considered decision of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. No valid complaint can therefore be seriously made by Arab spokesmen that the Supreme Council had no right to grant the Jewish people what it also granted to the new Arab states who were, in fact, the greatest recipients of Allied munificence.

Once international law in the form of the San Remo Resolution recognized that de jure sovereignty over all regions of historical Palestine and the Land of Israel had been vested in the Jewish People, neither the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, nor the Council of the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations could or can thereafter revoke or alter Jewish sovereignty by a new decision. Legal ownership or title to Palestine had been permanently transferred to the Jewish People and any right the Principal Allied Powers previously had in regard to this country had disappeared after its official creation. In the case of the League of Nations, it never had any right in its Covenant to deprive the Jewish People of its sovereignty over any part of Palestine, the designated Jewish State under Mandate. Nor does the United Nations possess this right in its Charter. If either of these bodies really had such a right in regard to Palestine and the Land of Israel, the sovereignty of every state in the world over its own territory would be put in jeopardy.

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the base document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed and to which it had to conform.

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the foundation document of the State of Israel, the legal existence of which is directly traceable from that document and not, as commonly believed, from the U.N. General Assembly Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.

The Aftermath
The Insertion of the San Remo Resolution in the Treaty of Sèvres took place on August 10, 1920 as agreed upon at the Conference of San Remo. This was followed up by the insertion of the San Remo Resolution in the Preamble of the Mandate Charter.

On December 23, 1920, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and Demarcation Agreement finally solidified the borders of Palestine and Syria.

The Mandate Charter was approved on June 1922 by 52 nations and by all additional nations that subsequently joined the League of Nations

In 1923, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which did not mention the San Remo Resolution specifically. Because it was an independent act of binding international law, the San Remo Resolution on Palestine was not diminished in any way by this fact. The San Remo Resolution remained as a binding legal document standing on its own merit, because it was encapsulated into the first three recitals of the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, and was reinforced by the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, which delineated the original borders in what was meant to be the Jewish State of Palestine. In this context, the San Remo Resoluton is an inter-Allied agreement between the four Principal Allied Powers that created the modern Middle East. Its status as an independent act of international law that was not merely one of the Articles of the Treaty of Sèvres is further evidenced by the fact that it contained two provisions not found in any other document: First, the naming of the Mandatory Powers for the three Middle Eastern Mandates concerning which the Treaty of Sèvres is silent. Second, the right accorded to Italy to refuse to approve the terms of those Mandates

The San Remo Resolution in Regard to Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria was executed in full. The tragedy of the Jewish People in the ensuing years after the Resolution’s adoption resulted from the fact that it was decapitated in practice, by successive Governments of Great Britain who distorted it beyond recognition and failed to properly carry out its true meaning in accordance with the international legal obligations they had undertaken.

Foreign Secretary of Great Britain Lord Curzon reiterated the importance of the San Remo Resolution when he stated publicly: "The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the Magna Charta of the Zionists."

Ultimate Deception
Lord Curzon subsequently turned down Chaim Weimanns request to insert a clause in the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine which would have explicitly recognized the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine, as he thought nothing more to be required.

Lord Curzon was not loyal to his own words, while Chaim Weizmann did not fully grasp the true meaning of the San Remo Resolution. The only Zionist leader at the time who properly understood the natural consequences of the legal recognition of the Balfour Declaration in the San Remo Resolution was U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Dembitz Brandeis. He realized that the political and legal battle to obtain the Charter of Freedom which was the central goal of Herzlian Zionism had been won and that practical measures could now be taken by the Zionist Movement to re-build the ancient Jewish State and Homeland, concentrating mainly on economic policy and promoting investments to make the Jews of Palestine self-reliant and self-supporting. He saw no further need for more political action in the international arena to secure over again what had just been so marvelously secured by the extraordinary efforts of Weizmann and many others, including Brandeis himself. He clashed with Weizman and his supporters who wanted the Zionist Movement to continue unabated its political work, as if the San Remo Resolution, the crowning achievement of pre-State Zionism, never existed. Brandeis thought that such work should be left principally in the hands of the Jewish community in Palestine. When Weizmann’s view gained the upper hand, Brandeis withdrew in 1921 from the ranks of leadership of both American and world Zionism. Thus the brilliant legal mind of Brandeis was subsequently absent in Zionist counsels when it was most needed to defeat ignoble British attempts to undermine Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over Palestine that began immediately after the San Remo Resolution was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, due to changes in government.

The minutes in English of the San Remo Peace Conference for the sessions hold on April 24 and 25, 1920 were not published until 1958, which left most historians in the dark about the true meaning and ultimate consequences of that meeting. In addition, the Treaty of Sèvres which incorporated the San Remo Resolution, never entered into legal force as a ratified treaty. By contrast, the Treaty of Lausanne which was subsequently ratified, did not mention the San Remo Resolution in particular, simply stating that "all previous agreements to these territories ought to be respected."

British refusal to implement the San Remo Resolution according to what it really meant in regard to Palestine led to its de facto erasure as an independent act of international law. However, this does not change the fact that the San Remo Resolution on Palestine constitutes the preeminent foundation document of the State of Israel under modern international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccabipage (talk • contribs) 10 June 2013

 * Reply. We don't fill Wikipedia articles with fringe theories, and we don't use Wikipedia for political promotion.  The above is not even close to acceptable, as it violates practically every key Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SOAPBOX, etc etc.  A simple illustration: the Treaty of Lausanne which was subsequently ratified, did not mention the San Remo Resolution in particular, simply stating that "all previous agreements to these territories ought to be respected." In fact no such words appear in the Lausanne treaty and it even says the opposite: "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned" (Art 16, my emphasis). In other words it allows the Western powers to do what they want with the former Turkish territories and does not seek to constrain them.   Incidentally we don't use article talk pages to promote fringe theories either and after allowing a little time for discussion I'm going to delete it. Putting it into the article will get you blocked almost surely.  Zerotalk 00:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

}}

SInce Maccabipage has been topic banned, its long nonsense posting and my reply are collapsed. Zerotalk 02:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

map
There needs to be a map that shows the division of the land, specifically the region of west Palestine.--Jane955 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which division? Do you refer to the geographical areas later assigned to the Mandates? What do you mean by "west Palestine"? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article says "The boundaries of the three territories were left unspecified". Most of the borders shown on your map did not exist at the time of the San Remo conference and were not defined by the conference. So the map is unacceptable. Zerotalk 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-jewish-national-home-determined-by-san-remo-conference-1920 Batsquatch (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP JVL is classed "generally unreliable".Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

JVL is not "generally unreliable", that article was inaccurate. Jordan has an established border and so did the Syria mandate and Egypt, meaning everywhere Israel bordered was established. Batsquatch (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what you just wrote is absolute nonsense. In just one sentence you have made so many mistakes I don't know where to begin. If you don't want to trust this article, try reading the underlying sources. They are scholarly sources of the highest quality. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a recent RFC on JVL (see the link I gave you) and as far as WP is concerned, JVL is unreliable.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite hypocritical of you to say that what I've just wrote is absolute nonsense, when you yourself have made that same mistake. It's explicitly in the Balfour declaration that they supported the creation of Israel in all of mandate Palestine, which Jordan was in. There are plenty of books written by actual historian's that you can read that back up what I've said. Batsquatch (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Balfour declaration says nothing about creating a state, nothing about "all of Palestine", nothing about boundaries, and nothing about the mandate system which didn't even exist yet. Zerotalk 07:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A bit messy
Over time this article seems to have become very messy and disjointed so I am going to tidy it up a bit. Anyone wants to join in, feel free.Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Better file
I created the "File:Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf" which is better than the actual djvu one. As I am not allowed to edit this page, do it if you please.Valp (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Let's have a looksee, [File:Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf]Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Looks OK, let me put it in.Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Comes out back to front, ah well, not to worry.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
This was recently added to the article, without any supporting sources: "Under Article 22 of the British government was charged with recognizing the Arabs of Palestine, like other "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized", and with rendering to these Arabs "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone" . The source at the end of these new additions does not mention Arabs, at all, but refers to Jews. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   16:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Let me look into that, I am pretty sure that Article 22 itself has nothing to do with either Jew or Arab but some of those phrases do ring a bell.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I edited out the obvious errors (ie that its only the Arabs) and reworked it a bit, I have proper sources and I will put them in tomorrow and finish tidying up the material. K?Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Think it's OK now?Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * :: The explicit word "Arabs" was not mentioned in Article 22. There was a reference to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" which were deemed to have "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized". So, who were these communities in Palestine? You can assume that they were everybody who lived in Palestine under Ottoman rule and who were there when General Allenby's Army arrived in 1917. These were a population of about 90% Arabs and 10% Jews. So, under Article 22, these 90% Arabs and 10% Jews were supposed to be provisionally recognized as an independent nation, and the British were supposed to render administrative help to this nation to get to the point where it could stand alone, at which point the British were supposed to declare that their task was achieved and happily depart. But according to the Balfour Declaration the British were also supposed to actively help the creation of the Jewish National Home, which meant that they were supposed to help and facilitate a great influx of Jews into the country who had not lived there under Ottoman rule and who were therefore not part of the "independent nation" which was provisionally recognized under article 22. How many additional Jews were supposed to come in? The Zionist Movement explicitly set the aim of making Jews the majority in the country. And also once the Jewish National Home was firmly established, the British were supposed to declare that their task was achieved and happily depart. So, the British Mandate was given the double task of: 1) Recognizing provisionally an independent nation composed of 90% Arabs and 10% Jews and help this nation achieve complete independence and 2) Actively facilitating and promoting a great influx of Jews into the country and helping these Jews create a Jewish National Home (possibly incorporating the Jews who were there under the Ottomans into the "Jewish National Home" and detaching them from the "Article 22 provisionally recognized independent nation"). Anyway, it should have been obvious to everyone, already then, that these two tasks entrusted to the British Mandate were mutually incompatible - and it is certainly obvious in retrospect. I think all this is clear common sense. Since there are so many books written about this subject, I am also sure I can find a respectable source saying it, but I admit at moment I don't have one at my fingertips, so the page had best remain as it is now. But at lease here in the talk page, I think it deserves to be written in this explicit way.Captain Sir Mansfield George Smith-Cumming, KCMG, CB (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * OR is allowed in talk pages :) But best avoid a soapbox accusation. This mashup of documents is a nice little tangle that the UN decided to avoid in favor of a political course of action.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2021
The line saying the "Conference was attended by the 4 principal allied powers France, Britain, Italy and Japan" should be changed to "4 Allied Powers attended the conference France, Britain, Italy, and Japan" because Japan is not a principal allied power in WW1 and olnly played a minor role. Grahammydoodle (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to Allies of World War I, Japan is listed as a principal in the infobox. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 * It's more complicated because the conference minutes refer to the conference as "Meeting of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers", which may not be the same as "Principal Allied Powers". Japan is included. Also the USA is listed as joining the Supreme Council during the meeting. I'll ping who knows about this stuff. Zerotalk 01:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, though its relevance here can be discussed, the Principal Allied Powers listed in the Treaty of Sèvres are "the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan". Zerotalk 01:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was all an outgrowth of the Paris Peace Conference, where the legal definition of Principal Allies came from. See the Treaty of Versailles: TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND GERMANY …THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY AND JAPAN, these Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY, these Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned above the Allied and Associated Powers.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closing request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:San Remo conference


text: Category:1374 births

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

title: Category:1374 births


text: Category:1374 deaths

title: Category:1374 deaths


text:
Baldwin Street

Baldwin Street, in Dunedin, New Zealand, is located in the residential suburb of North East Valley, 3.5 km northeast of Dunedin's central business district. Guinness World Records calls it the steepest street in the world, meaning no street gains more altitude in 10 horizontal metres (33 ft), measured along the street's centreline.

Description
A straight street slightly under 350 m long, Baldwin Street runs east from the valley of the Lindsay Creek up the side of Signal Hill towards Opoho, rising from 30 m above sea level at its junction with North Road to 100 m above sea level at the top, an average slope of slightly more than 1:5. The lower reaches are only moderately steep, and the surface is asphalt, but the upper reaches are steeper and surfaced in concrete (200 m long) for ease of maintenance (bitumen—in either chip seal or asphalt—would flow down the slope on a warm day) and for safety in Dunedin's frosty winters.

The 161.2 m top section climbs 47.2 m vertically, an average gradient of 1:3.41. At its maximum, about 70 m from the top, the slope of Baldwin Street is about 1:2.86 (19° or 35%); in 2.86 m travelled horizontally, the elevation changes by 1 m.

For cars it is a dead-end street, but Baldwin Street is linked across the top by Buchanan Street, a footpath following an otherwise unformed (i.e. unpaved) road linking it with Calder Avenue and Arnold Street, which are unformed in their upper reaches where Baldwin is steepest. The streets running parallel to Baldwin are all steep: Arnold Street (1:3.6 or 27.77%), Dalmeny Street (1:3.7 or 27%), and Calder Avenue (1:5.4 or 13%).

History
The street's steepness was unintentional. As with many other parts of early Dunedin, and indeed New Zealand at large, streets were laid out in a grid pattern with no consideration for the terrain, usually by planners in London. In the case of Baldwin Street (and much of the Dunedin street plan), the layout was surveyed by Charles Kettle in the mid-19th century. The street is named after William Baldwin, an Otago Provincial Councillor and newspaper founder, who subdivided the area.

In 1987, Baldwin Street was recognised as the world's steepest street by the Guinness Book of Records following a two-year campaign by the broadcaster Jim Mora. At the time, Baldwin Street topped two competing streets in San Francisco, which hitherto had held the title of being the steepest streets in the world.

On 16 July 2019, Baldwin Street lost its title of World's Steepest Street to Ffordd Pen Llech, with Baldwin Street being at a gradient of 35%, while Ffordd Pen Llech being classified at a gradient of 37.45%. Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull said that the Dunedin City Council could consider altering the signage wording from the world's steepest street to the southern hemisphere's steepest street.

On 8 April 2020, after an extensive review of an appeal to return the title to Baldwin Street filed by several Dunedin residents led by surveyor Toby Stoff, Guinness decided that the steepness of the street must be based on the central axis, which meant that Ffordd Pen Llech had a gradient of 28.6% compared to Baldwin Street's 34.8%. This meant that the title of Steepest Street was returned to Baldwin Street.

Resident reception
After recognition as the world's steepest street, especially with the rise of social media, tourism activity and events at Baldwin Street have greatly increased. The street is a popular destination on tourist buses and travel guides.

Residents have mixed reception to tourist activity on the street. Many residents reported issues with some tourists being disruptive by walking in residents' gardens, lying down on the street, and being unable to turn their vehicles. Other residents have more positive thoughts, enjoying the busy activity and excitement of living on the street.

On Ffordd Pen Llech temporarily being named the world's steepest street, and a predicted decline in tourists to Baldwin Street, Otago Chamber of Commerce chief executive Dougal McGowan remarked that "it might be a blessing in disguise for some residents fed up with crowds of visitors, trampled gardens and bad driving decisions on the street."

Associated events and vehicle stunts
Baldwin Street has attracted a lot of record hunters and daredevils attempting to either ascend or descend the street on different kinds of vehicles. Some of these attempts have been sanctioned, while others have not, including at least one fatality from misadventure. In March 2001, a 19-year-old University of Otago student was killed when she and another student attempted to travel down the street inside a wheelie bin. The bin collided with a parked trailer, killing her instantly, and causing serious head injuries for the other student.

Additionally, the street is the venue for an annual event in Dunedin, the Baldwin Street Gutbuster. Every summer since 1988, this exercise in fitness and balance involves athletes running from the base of the street to the top and back down again. The event attracts several hundred competitors annually, and the race record is 1 minute and 56 seconds, set in 1998.

Since 2002, a further charity event has been held annually in July, which involves the rolling of over 30,000 Jaffas (spherical confectionery-coated chocolate confectionery). Each Jaffa is sponsored by one person, with prizes to the winner and funds raised going to charity. This event follows a tradition started in 1998 when 2,000 tennis balls were released in a sponsored event raising money for Habitat for Humanity.

On 2 January 2010, Cardrona stuntman Ian Soanes rode down Baldwin Street on a motorcycle on one wheel. He then did a victory lap doing a wheelie up the hill one-handed while giving a thumbs-up gesture to the spectating crowd.

In April 2015, under controlled conditions, a trio of drift trike riders—Harley Jolly, 23; Tyson Barr, 18; and Nic Roy, 18—made headlines when they descended the street with speeds estimated to be up to 100 km/h (62 mph) to promote the sport. The estimated speed was approximately twice Baldwin Street's 50 km/h (31 mph) legal speed limit.

In 2017, Wyn Masters (also known as Wyn TV) performed a wheelie (in the form of a manual—that is, gravity power instead of pedalling) down the hill on a bicycle.

On 26 January 2018, 11-year-old Harry Willis raised over NZD$11,000 for the Ronald McDonald House in Christchurch by ascending the street on a pogo stick. The climb took around ten minutes. Willis's effort has since been commemorated with a plaque at the top of the street.

On 10 January 2019, a man rode a Lime scooter down Baldwin Street the same day that the scooters had been introduced to Dunedin and a week after Dunedin's mayor at the time, Dave Cull, had said he was relying "on people's common sense" not to take the scooters down the world's steepest street.

In August 2022, under controlled conditions, Australian downhill skater Zak Mills-Goodwin became the first person captured on video to hill bomb the street on a skateboard (i.e. not doing slides, which reduce speed).

After many years of ideation and attempts, an attempt at cycling up the street was made by American YouTuber and cyclist Mitch Boyer circa April 2023 after hearing about a New Zealand TV news report (which aired on the programme Seven Sharp) on his filmed ascent on the then-current street steepness world record holder of Ffordd Pen Llech. One of the show's co-hosts, Hilary Barry, said: "If you can cycle up it, it's not the world's steepest street". Upon learning that Boyer was making the 30-hour trip to attempt the challenge and playfully make Barry regret her words, she offered to help film the attempts for their show. After two failed attempts, Boyer managed to scale the street, sometimes deploying a zigzagging technique (a self-imposed restriction he later discarded after the second attempt due to difficulty). He used a chainring of 52–36 and a cassette of 11–34 to get a minimum gear ratio of 1.058, including optimising the tyres for weight.

title: Baldwin Street


text: Category:1386 births

title: Category:1386 births


text: Category:1386 deaths

title: Category:1386 deaths


text: Category:1380s deaths

title: Category:1380s deaths


text: Category:1380s births

title: Category:1380s births


text: Category:1424 births

title: Category:1424 births


text: Category:1424 deaths

title: Category:1424 deaths


text: Category:1427 births

title: Category:1427 births


text: Category:1427 deaths

title: Category:1427 deaths


text: Category:1435 births

title: Category:1435 births


text: Category:1435 deaths

title: Category:1435 deaths


text: Category:1430s deaths

title: Category:1430s deaths


text: Category:1440 births

title: Category:1440 births


text: Category:1440 deaths

title: Category:1440 deaths


text: Category:1440s deaths

title: Category:1440s deaths


text: Category:1440s births

title: Category:1440s births


text: Category:1479 births

title: Category:1479 births


text: Category:1479 deaths

title: Category:1479 deaths


text: Category:1470s births

title: Category:1470s births


text:
Brinsley MacNamara

John Weldon (6 September 1890 – 4 February 1963; alternatively "A. E. Weldon"), known by his pen- and stage-name Brinsley MacNamara, was an Irish writer, playwright, and the registrar of the National Gallery of Ireland. He is the author of several novels, the most well-known of which was his first, The Valley of the Squinting Windows (1918). His acting career with the Abbey Theatre began in September 1910 with a role in R. J. Ryan's The Casting-out of Martin Whelan.

MacNamara is still best known for his first novel, The Valley of the Squinting Windows, set in a fictional village called Garradrimna, which caused a furore in his native Westmeath on its publication. He continued to write for many years after this controversial first work, and located most of his later fiction in Garradrimna, in the Irish Midlands. Among his plays are The Glorious Uncertainty (1923) and Look at the Heffernans! (1926). His work was part of the literature event in the art competition at the 1924 Summer Olympics.

MacNamara married Helena Degidon, a schoolteacher, in 1920. He died at his home on Gilford Drive in Sandymount, County Dublin in February 1963.

Partial list of works

 * The Valley of the Squinting Windows, novel (1918)
 * In Clay and in Bronze, novel (1919/1920), published as The Irishman: A Novel under another pseudonym, Oliver Blyth.
 * The Clanking of Chains: A Story of Sinn Fein, novel (1919)
 * The Mirror in the Dusk, novel (1921)
 * The Glorious Uncertainty, play (1923)
 * Look at the Heffernans!, play (1926)
 * The Various Lives of Marcus Igoe, novel (1929)
 * The Smiling Faces, and other stories, short stories (1929)
 * Return to Ebontheever, novel (1930), reissued as Othello's Daughter (1942)
 * Margaret Gillan, play (1933)
 * Marks and Mabel, play (1945)
 * Some Curious People, short stories (1945)
 * Michael Caravan, novel (1946)
 * The Whole Story of the X.Y.Z., novella (1951)

title: Brinsley MacNamara


text: Category:966 births

title: Category:966 births


text:
Yamnaya culture

The Yamnaya culture or the Yamna culture, also known as the Pit Grave culture or Ochre Grave culture, is a late Copper Age to early Bronze Age archaeological culture of the region between the Southern Bug, Dniester, and Ural rivers (the Pontic–Caspian steppe), dating to 3300–2600 BCE. It was discovered by Vasily Gorodtsov following his archaeological excavations near the Donets River in 1901–1903. Its name derives from its characteristic burial tradition: Я́мная (romanization: ) is a Russian adjective that means 'related to pits ', as these people used to bury their dead in tumuli (kurgans) containing simple pit chambers.

The Yamnaya economy was based upon animal husbandry, fishing, and foraging, and the manufacture of ceramics, tools, and weapons. The people of the Yamnaya culture lived primarily as nomads, with a chiefdom system and wheeled carts and wagons that allowed them to manage large herds. They are also closely connected to Final Neolithic cultures, which later spread throughout Europe and Central Asia, especially the Corded Ware people and the Bell Beaker culture, as well as the peoples of the Sintashta, Andronovo, and Srubnaya cultures. Back migration from Corded Ware also contributed to Sintashta and Andronovo. In these groups, several aspects of the Yamnaya culture are present. Yamnaya material culture was very similar to the Afanasevo culture of South Siberia, and the populations of the two cultures are genetically indistinguishable. This suggests that the Afanasevo culture may have originated from the migration of Yamnaya groups to the Altai region or, alternatively, that both cultures developed from an earlier shared cultural source.

Genetic studies have suggested that the people of the Yamnaya culture can be modelled as a genetic admixture between a population related to Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG) in roughly equal proportions, an ancestral component which is often named "Steppe ancestry", with additional admixture from Anatolian, Levantine, or Early European farmers. Genetic studies also indicate that populations associated with the Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Sintashta, and Andronovo cultures derived large parts of their ancestry from the Yamnaya or a closely related population.

According to the widely-accepted Kurgan hypothesis of Marija Gimbutas, the people that produced the Yamnaya culture spoke a stage of the Proto Indo-European language, which later spread eastwards and westwards as part of the Indo-European migrations.

Origins
The Yamnaya culture was defined by Vasily Gorodtsov in order to differentiate it from the Catacomb and Srubnaya cultures that existed in the area, but were considered to be of a later period. Due to the time interval to the Yamnaya culture, and the reliance on archaeological findings, debate as to its origin is ongoing. In 1996, Pavel Dolukhanov suggested that the emergence of the Pit-Grave culture represents a social development of various different local Bronze Age cultures, thus representing "an expression of social stratification and the emergence of chiefdom-type nomadic social structures" which in turn intensified inter-group contacts between essentially heterogeneous social groups.

The origin of the Yamnaya culture continues to be debated, with proposals for its origins pointing to both the Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures. The Khvalynsk culture (4700–3800 BCE) (middle Volga) and the Don-based Repin culture (c. 3950–3300 BCE) in the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe, and the closely related Sredny Stog culture (c. 4500–3500 BCE) in the western Pontic-Caspian steppe, preceded the Yamnaya culture (3300–2500 BCE).

Further efforts to pinpoint the location came from Anthony (2007), who suggested that the Yamnaya culture (3300–2600 BCE) originated in the Don–Volga area at c. 3400 BC, preceded by the middle Volga-based Khvalynsk culture and the Don-based Repin culture (c. 3950–3300 BCE), arguing that late pottery from these two cultures can barely be distinguished from early Yamnaya pottery. Earlier continuity from eneolithic but largely hunter-gatherer Samara culture and influences from the more agricultural Dnieper–Donets II are apparent.

He argues that the early Yamnaya horizon spread quickly across the Pontic–Caspian steppes between c. 3400 and 3200 BCE: "The spread of the Yamnaya horizon was the material expression of the spread of late Proto-Indo-European across the Pontic–Caspian steppes.

[...] The Yamnaya horizon is the visible archaeological expression of a social adjustment to high mobility – the invention of the political infrastructure to manage larger herds from mobile homes based in the steppes."

Alternatively, Parpola (2015) relates both the Corded ware culture and the Yamnaya culture to the late Trypillia (Tripolye) culture. He hypothesizes that "the Tripolye culture was taken over by PIE speakers by c. 4000 BCE," and that in its final phase the Trypillian culture expanded to the steppes, morphing into various regional cultures which fused with the late Sredny Stog (Serednii Stih) pastoralist cultures, which, he suggests, gave rise to the Yamnaya culture. Dmytro Telegin viewed Sredny Stog and Yamna as one cultural continuum and considered Sredny Stog to be the genetic foundation of the Yamna.

The Yamnaya culture was succeeded in its western range by the Catacomb culture (2800–2200 BCE); in the east, by the Poltavka culture (2700–2100 BCE) at the middle Volga. These two cultures were followed by the Srubnaya culture (18th–12th century BCE).

Characteristics

The Yamnaya culture was nomadic or semi-nomadic, with some agriculture practiced near rivers, and a few fortified sites, the largest of which is Mikhaylivka.

Characteristic of the culture are the burials in pit graves surmounted by kurgans (tumuli), often accompanied by animal offerings. Some graves contain large anthropomorphic stelae, with carved human heads, arms, hands, belts, and weapons. The bodies were placed in a supine position with bent knees and covered in ochre. Some kurgans contained "stratified sequences of graves". Kurgan burials may have been rare, and were perhaps reserved for special adults, who were predominantly, but not necessarily, male. Status and gender are marked by grave goods and position, and in some areas, elite individuals are buried with complete wooden wagons. Grave goods are more common in eastern Yamnaya burials, which are also characterized by a higher proportion of male burials and more male-centred rituals than western areas.

The Yamnaya culture had and used two-wheeled carts and four-wheeled wagons, which are thought to have been oxen-drawn at this time, and there is evidence that they rode horses. For instance, several Yamnaya skeletons exhibit specific characteristics in their bone morphology that may have been caused by long-term horseriding.

Metallurgists and other craftsmen are given a special status in Yamnaya society, and metal objects are sometimes found in large quantities in elite graves. New metalworking technologies and weapon designs are used.

Stable isotope ratios of Yamna individuals from the Dnipro Valley suggest the Yamnaya diet was terrestrial protein based with insignificant contribution from freshwater or aquatic resources. Anthony speculates that the Yamnaya ate meat, milk, yogurt, cheese, and soups made from seeds and wild vegetables, and probably consumed mead.

Mallory and Adams suggest that Yamnaya society may have had a tripartite structure of three differentiated social classes, although the evidence available does not demonstrate the existence of specific classes such as priests, warriors, and farmers.

Archaeogenetics

According to Jones et al. (2015) and Haak et al. (2015), autosomal tests indicate that the Yamnaya people were the result of a genetic admixture between two different hunter-gatherer populations: distinctive "Eastern Hunter-Gatherers" (EHG), from Eastern Europe, with high affinity to the Mal'ta–Buret' culture or other, closely related people from Siberia and a population of "Caucasus hunter-gatherers" (CHG) who probably arrived from the Caucasus or Iran. Each of those two populations contributed about half the Yamnaya DNA. This admixture is referred to in archaeogenetics as Western Steppe Herder (WSH) ancestry.

Admixture between EHGs and CHGs is believed to have occurred on the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe starting around 5,000 BCE, while admixture with Early European Farmers (EEF) happened in the southern parts of the Pontic-Caspian steppe sometime later. More recent genetic studies have found that the Yamnaya were a mixture of EHGs, CHGs, and to a lesser degree Anatolian farmers and Levantine farmers, but not EEFs from Europe due to lack of WHG DNA in the Yamnaya. This occurred in two distinct admixture events from West Asia into the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Haplogroup R1b, specifically the Z2103 subclade of R1b-L23, is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup found among the Yamnaya specimens. This haplogroup is rare in Western Europe and mainly exists in Southeastern Europe today. Additionally, a minority are found to belong to haplogroup I2. They are found to belong to a wider variety of West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups, including U, T, and haplogroups associated with Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers and Early European Farmers. A small but significant number of Yamnaya kurgan specimens from Northern Ukraine carried the East Asian mtDNA haplogroup C4.

People of the Yamnaya culture are believed to have had mostly brown eye colour, light to intermediate skin, and brown hair colour, with some variation.

Some Yamnaya individuals are believed to have carried a mutation to the KITLG gene associated with blond hair, as several individuals with Steppe ancestry are later found to carry this mutation. The Ancient North Eurasian Afontova Gora group, who contributed significant ancestry to Western Steppe Herders, are believed to be the source of this mutation. A study in 2015 found that Yamnaya had the highest ever calculated genetic selection for height of any of the ancient populations tested. It has been hypothesized that an allele associated with lactase persistence (conferring lactose tolerance into adulthood) was brought to Europe from the steppe by Yamnaya-related migrations.

A 2022 study by Lazaridis et al. found that the typical phenotype among the Yamnaya population was brown eyes, brown hair, and intermediate skin colour. None of their Yamnaya samples were predicted to have either blue eyes or blond hair, in contrast with later Steppe groups in Russia and Central Asia, as well as the Bell Beaker culture in Europe, who did carry these phenotypes in high proportions.

The geneticist David Reich has argued that the genetic data supports the likelihood that the people of the Yamnaya culture were a "single, genetically coherent group" who were responsible for spreading many Indo-European languages. Reich's group recently suggested that the source of Anatolian and Indo-European subfamilies of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language may have been in west Asia and the Yamna were responsible for the dissemination of the latter. Reich also argues that the genetic evidence shows that Yamnaya society was an oligarchy dominated by a small number of elite males.

The genetic evidence for the extent of the role of the Yamnaya culture in the spread of Indo-European languages has been questioned by Russian archaeologist Leo Klejn and Balanovsky et al., who note a lack of male haplogroup continuity between the people of the Yamnaya culture and the contemporary populations of Europe. Klejn has also suggested that the autosomal evidence does not support a Yamnaya migration, arguing that Western Steppe Herder ancestry in both contemporary and Bronze Age samples is lowest around the Danube in Hungary, near the western limits of the Yamnaya culture, and highest in Northern Europe, which Klejn argues is the opposite of what would be expected if the geneticists' hypothesis is correct.

Language

Marija Gimbutas identified the Yamnaya culture with the late Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE) in her Kurgan hypothesis. In the view of David Anthony, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the strongest candidate for the Urheimat (original homeland) of the Proto-Indo-European language, citing evidence from linguistics and genetics which suggests that the Yamnaya culture may be the homeland of the Indo-European languages, with the possible exception of the Anatolian languages. On the other hand, Colin Renfrew has argued for a Near Eastern origin of the earliest Indo-European speakers.

According to David W. Anthony, the genetic evidence suggests that the leading clans of the Yamnaya were of EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherer) and WHG (Western European hunter-gatherer) paternal origin and implies that the Indo-European languages were the result of "a dominant language spoken by EHGs that absorbed Caucasus-like elements in phonology, morphology, and lexicon." It has also been suggested that the PIE language evolved through trade interactions in the circum-Pontic area in the 4th millennium BCE, mediated by the Yamna predecessors in the North Pontic steppe.

Guus Kroonen et al. 2022 found that the "basal Indo-European stage", also known as Indo-Anatolian or Pre-Proto-Indo-European language, largely but not totally, lacked agricultural-related vocabulary, and only the later "core Indo-European languages" saw an increase in agriculture-associated words. According to them, this fits a homeland of early core Indo-European within the westernmost Yamnaya horizon, around and west of the Dnieper, while its basal stage, Indo-Anatolian, may have originated in the Sredny Stog culture, as opposed to the eastern Yamnaya horizon. The Corded Ware culture may have acted as major source for the spread of later Indo-European languages, including Indo-Iranian, while Tocharian languages may have been mediated via the Catacomb culture. They also argue that this new data contradicts a possible earlier origin of Pre-Proto-Indo-European among agricultural societies South of the Caucasus, rather "this may support a scenario of linguistic continuity of local non-mobile herders in the Lower Dnieper region and their genetic persistence after their integration into the successive and expansive Yamnaya horizon". Furthermore the authors mention that this scenario can explain the difference in paternal haplogroup frequency between the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures, while both sharing similar autosomal DNA ancestry.

Western Europe
Genetic studies have found that Yamnaya autosomal characteristics are very close to the Corded Ware culture people, with up to 75% Yamnaya-like ancestry in the DNA of Corded Ware skeletons from Central and Eastern Europe. Yamnaya–related ancestry is found in the DNA of modern Central, and Northern Europeans (c. 38.8–50.4 %), and is also found in lower levels in present-day Southern Europeans (c. 18.5–32.6 %), Sardinians (c. 2.4–7.1 %), and Sicilians (c. 5.9–11.6 %).

However, according to Heyd, et al. (2023), the specific paternal DNA haplogroup that is most commonly found in male Yamnaya specimens cannot be found in modern Western Europeans, or in males from the nearby Corded Ware culture. This makes it unlikely that the Corded Ware culture can be directly descended from the Yamnaya culture, at least along the paternal line.

Autosomal tests also indicate that the Yamnaya are the vector for "Ancient North Eurasian" admixture into Europe. "Ancient North Eurasian" is the name given in literature to a genetic component that represents descent from the people of the Mal'ta–Buret' culture or a population closely related to them. That genetic component is visible in tests of the Yamnaya people as well as modern-day Europeans.

Eastern Europe and Finland
In the Baltic, Jones et al. (2017) found that the Neolithic transition – the passage from a hunter-gatherer economy to a farming-based economy – coincided with the arrival en masse of individuals with Yamnaya-like ancestry. This is different from what happened in Western and Southern Europe, where the Neolithic transition was caused by a population that came from Anatolia, with Pontic steppe ancestry being detected from only the late Neolithic onward.

Per Haak et al. (2015), the Yamnaya contribution in the modern populations of Eastern Europe ranges from 46.8% among Russians to 42.8% in Ukrainians. Finland has the highest Yamnaya contributions in all of Europe (50.4%).

Central and South Asia

Studies also point to the strong presence of Yamnaya descent in the current nations of South Asia, especially in groups that are referred to as Indo-Aryans. According to Pathak et al. (2018), the "North-Western Indian & Pakistani" populations (PNWI) showed significant Middle-Late Bronze Age Steppe (Steppe_MLBA) ancestry along with Yamnaya Early-Middle Bronze Age (Steppe_EMBA) ancestry, but the Indo-Europeans of Gangetic Plains and Dravidian people only showed significant Yamnaya (Steppe_EMBA) ancestry and no Steppe_MLBA. The study also noted that ancient south Asian samples had significantly higher Steppe_MLBA than Steppe_EMBA (or Yamnaya). The study identified the Rors and Jats as the population in South Asia with the highest proportion of Steppe ancestry. Lazaridis et al. (2016) estimated (6.5–50.2 %) steppe-related admixture in South Asians, though the proportion of Steppe ancestry varies widely across ethnic groups. According to Narasimhan et al. (2019), the Yamnaya-related ancestry, termed Western_Steppe_EMBA, that reached central and south Asia was not the initial expansion from the steppe to the east, but a secondary expansion that involved a group possessing ~67% Western_Steppe_EMBA ancestry and ~33% ancestry from the European cline. This group included people similar to that of Corded Ware, Srubnaya, Petrovka, and Sintashta. Moving further east in the central steppe, it acquired ~9% ancestry from a group of people that possessed West Siberian Hunter Gatherer ancestry, thus forming the Central Steppe MLBA cluster, which is the primary source of steppe ancestry in South Asia, contributing up to 30% of the ancestry of the modern groups in the region.

According to Unterländer et al. (2017), all Iron Age Scythian Steppe nomads can best be described as a mixture of Yamnaya-related ancestry and an East Asian-related component, which most closely corresponds to the modern North Siberian Nganasan people of the lower Yenisey River, to varying degrees, but generally higher among Eastern Scythians.

title: Yamnaya culture


text: Category:966 deaths

title: Category:966 deaths


text: Category:960s deaths

title: Category:960s deaths


text:
John Weldon

John Weldon may refer to:

 * John Weldon (animator) (born 1945), Canadian animator
 * John Weldon (musician) (1676–1736), British musician
 * John Wesley Weldon (died 1885), lawyer, judge and political figure in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada

title: John Weldon


text: Category:960s births

title: Category:960s births


text: Template:Kannada language

title: Template:Kannada language


text:
User:Rvalles

Projects:
 * WikiProject Anime and Manga
 * WikiProject Computing
 * WikiProject Computer and Video Games

(from there on is mostly for my personal use)

Links to stuff

 * Statistics

title: User:Rvalles


text: Category:Cayuga County, New York

title: Category:Cayuga County, New York


text: Category:967 births

title: Category:967 births


text: Category:967 deaths

title: Category:967 deaths


text:
Indian People's Front

The Indian People's Front (IPF) was a mass front organisation founded in Delhi between 24–26 April 1982. It was conceptualised by Vinod Mishra and it was operated as the open mass front of the CPIML Liberation between 1982–1994. The front primarily worked for the social and economic upliftment of Adivasis, Dalits and impoverished sections of society and mobilised them through the means of unions, rallies and conventions.

It had a significant presence in the state of Bihar (including present day Jharkhand) and also operated in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab and West Bengal attempting to project itself as a national party. It was disbanded when the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation began contesting elections on its own, inheriting its organisation.

The leadership of the front included Nagbhushan Patnaik and Dipankar Bhattacharya. The chairperson of the Autonomous State Demand Committee, Jayanta Rongpi was also a member of the central committee. The central committee also included Rameshwar Prasad and Ganauri Azad Harijan, among others.

Foundation
In 1979, the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation held a conference which sanctioned the formation of an open mass organisation. The idea was conceptualized by the general secretary Vinod Mishra to enable the party to organise with other democratic forces on the lines of a "popular, democratic and patriotic programme" and participate in electoral politics. The party had been underground since the imposition of the Emergency in India. The Indian People's Front was launched in a conference organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation which was held in Delhi between 24–26 April 1982. The conference was attended by the splinter factions of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) led by Nagbhushan Patnaik and Chandra Pulla Reddy. It was intended to project itself as a "national alternative" to the Indira Gandhi led Indian National Congress. In the beginning, the front was projected as a united front of different revolutionary groups but most other factions dropped out during its formation and it effectively became a mass organisation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation. Satyanarayan Singh publicly denounced and ridiculed the notion of the front becoming a "national alternative". On 15 October 1982, the front organised a mass rally against the Bihar Press Bill which witnessed a participation of 100,000 people according to mainstream media sources.

Second conference
The Indian People's Front (IPF) held its second conference in Kolkata between 4–6 November 1984, in midst of the turmoil following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. It contested 49 seats in the 1985 Bihar Legislative Assembly election but failed to win a single seat. On 19 April 1986, the police opened fire on a protest gathering of landless farmers (primarily dalits) which resulted in the deaths of 23 people in Arwal, Bihar. Civil rights activists described the massacre as part of a systematic eradication of the moblisation of impoverished people by branding them as "Naxalite" and killing them in police encounters in collaboration with private armies and militias of rich zamindars (landlords) such as the Ranvir Sena. In August, the IPF organised an armed gherao (picketing) of the Bihar Legislative Assembly in protest of the massacre. The protest is claimed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation, to mark a new phase in the assertiveness of revolutionary democratic forces. In the same year, the front organised a "national convention of women" in Kolkata which saw a participation of around 1000 women. The convention took the initiative of giving attention to women's issues while attempting to foster cooperation and synthesis between communist women's organisations and autonomous women's groups. In an address to the convention, the president of the women's cell of the front stated that feminism and Marxism were complementary ideologies. The front also organised an "all India worker's convention" in Ambernath, near Mumbai in November 1987, with trade union leader Datta Samant as the convener.

Mandal commission & Economic liberalisation
In the 1989 Indian general election, the Indian People's Front (IPF) was able to win the Arrah constituency in Bihar with Rameshwar Prasad as the candidate. It was also able to win 7 seats and secure the second highest vote share in 14 constituencies in the 1990 Bihar Legislative Assembly election. Over the years, the front had acquired a large share of the Scheduled Caste voters from the Indian National Congress in Bihar. It took the position of supporting reservations solely on the basis of social and educational backwardness and supported the implementation of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. In the 1990 election, the IPF had contested 82 seats and received a vote share of 10.56% on the contested seats. During the economic liberalisation in India, it launched campaigns against price hikes and for the right to work, adopting a traditional leftist discourse. On 8 October 1990, a national rally with the slogan of dam bandho kaam do (check prices and give jobs) was organised in Delhi by the front. In the same month, it organised a mass rally in Patna which was noted to be the largest rally in the recorded history of the city.

In the 1991 Indian general election, the IPF lost the seat of Arrah constituency but was able to send a member to the parliament (Jayanta Rongpi ) through the Autonomous State Demand Committee in the Karbi Anglong constituency. In the same year, four of its members in the Bihar Legislative Assembly defected to the Janata Dal under the leadership of Lalu Prasad Yadav at the height of polarisation on the Mandal issue. In Uttar Pradesh, the party publication Liberation accused the Samajwadi Party of targeting the cadre and lower caste support base of the Indian People's Front with state violence and then providing them with protection if they defected preventing it from successfully organising the way it had in Bihar. On 14 February 1992, in the wake of rising Hindu nationalism in India, the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (farmer's union affiliated to the Bharatiya Janata Party) killed 14 Scheduled caste landless labourers for supporting the Indian People's Front in Tikshora village near Patna. At the same time, the front was able to expand its footprint in Punjab when its candidate Surjan Singh Joga won the Joga constituency in the 1992 Punjab Legislative Assembly election.

Disbandment
In December 1992, the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation held its fifth congress in Kolkata. Following which the party came out of the underground and eventually disbanded the Indian People's Front in 1994. The Samajik Parivartan Rally (Social Change Rally) on 18 March 1994, was the last rally called by the front. The rally was reported to been a gathering of tens of thousands of bare-footed and starving workers who had marched to Patna from all over Bihar; some having traveled over 100 km on foot to reach the venue. At the time, political observers described the front to be the fastest growing leftist movement in India. From 1995 onward the party began contesting elections on its own, substituting the role of the former front.

Affiliated organisations
The Indian People's Front (IPF) had a number of unorganised sector unions in Bihar.

 * Rickshaw-Thela Chalak Mazdoor Sangha (RTCMS): an union of rickshaw and handcart drivers. Ganauri Azad Harijan was the president of the union and a member of the national executive of the Indian People's Front.
 * Bihar Jhuggi-Jhopri Bashi Sangha (BJJBS): an organisation of slum dwellers in Patna. Dinesh Singh was a fish seller and the president of the BJJBS.
 * Uttarakhand Popular Anti-Liquor Movement: The movement for the restriction and regulation of liquor sales in Uttarakhand was also affiliated to the IPF from the founding conference.

title: Indian People's Front


text: Category:1274 deaths

title: Category:1274 deaths


text: Category:1274 births

title: Category:1274 births


text: Category:1270s births

title: Category:1270s births


text: Category:1270s deaths

title: Category:1270s deaths


text:
Talk:IrelandOffline

Untitled
I don't think that third paragraph belongs here. AGMs and EGMs are part of the internal business of the organization, not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia.

Having said that, what I'd like to see following the second paragraph is some information with dates about IOFFL's achievements.

 * 1. The introduction of flat-rate dialup
 * 2. The introduction of broadband services from other carriers which the flat-rate enabled
 * 3. The lobbying for the Group Data Scheme which led to both the Government's Group Broadband Scheme and the setting up of the Group Data Scheme Society

I don't have the dates for the FRIACO though. Evertype 11:38, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

 * I really included that as a starter for the history of the organisation. Since the information is already in the public domain, I don't see any problem with having it in the Wiki. The achievements bit is something I would have liked to included, but decided not to (at this point), because I can't guarantee I'd either be neutral or accurate when writing it. --Seamustheseagull 11:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't use the word "achievements", as unfortunately nothing can be directly attributed to IrelandOffline. I'd suggest something like "It is widely believed that IrelandOffline has had a major impact on the marketplace, with many new products and services coming to fruition after strong lobbying by the organisation." Dahamsta 11:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "that because of increasing ignorance of the organisation" - I don't know what this means: apathy to? hostility to? rroddy

 * Changed that. Makes the sentence a bit long-winded, but it makes proper sense now. Seamustheseagull 15:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That second paragraph is really internal politics, whether or not in the public domain. It's not relevant at this stage in this article, because the achievements aren't there, so it lacks relevance. I'm going to delete it for now. I'll take Dahamsta's suggestion as a basis for an achievements section. Don't be afraid, Seamustheseagull, of writing: if things aren't neutral or accurate enough, people will fix them. Evertype 20:12, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Nae Bother Seamustheseagull 21:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:IrelandOffline


text:
Chaldean language

Chaldean language may refer to:

 * Ancient Chaldean language, language of Ancient Chaldeans
 * Chaldean language (misnomer), former misnomer for Biblical Aramaic language
 * Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, a name for the Suret language as used by the Chaldean Catholic Church

title: Chaldean language


text: Category:1280 deaths

title: Category:1280 deaths


text: Category:1280 births

title: Category:1280 births


text: Category:1280s births

title: Category:1280s births


text: Category:1280s deaths

title: Category:1280s deaths


text: Category:1308 deaths

title: Category:1308 deaths


text: Category:1308 births

title: Category:1308 births


text:
Underhill

Underhill may refer to:

Places

 * Underhill, a community within the rural community of Miramichi River Valley, Canada
 * Underhill, Dorset, England
 * Underhill Stadium, Barnet, England, the former home ground of Barnet F.C.
 * Underhill, Vermont, United States
 * Underhill, Wisconsin, United States
 * Underhill (community), Wisconsin. an unincorporated community, United States
 * Underhill, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, first house in the world to be lit by Electric light
 * Underhill, Wolverhampton, a housing estate in North-east Wolverhampton also known as the Scotlands Estate.

Fiction

 * Underhill, the name of the first settlement on Mars in the novel Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson
 * Underhill, fictional character in the short story The Rule of Names by Ursula K. Le Guin
 * Underhill, an alternate reality inhabited by any multitude of fantasy creatures in Mercedes Lackey's urban fantasy novels
 * Sherkaner Underhill, fictional non-human character in the novel A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge
 * Underhill, Ted, fictional character in the movie Fletch
 * Underhill, Mr., the name Gandalf gave Frodo Baggins to travel under when he left Hobbiton in The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien

Other

 * Underhill (surname), notable people named Underhill
 * USS Underhill (DE-682), a ship of the U.S. Navy

title: Underhill


text: Category:1300s births

title: Category:1300s births


text:
Larnach Castle

Larnach Castle (also referred to as "Larnach's Castle") is a mock castle on the ridge of the Otago Peninsula within the limits of the city of Dunedin, New Zealand, close to the small settlement of Pukehiki. It is one of a few houses of this scale in New Zealand. The house was built by the prominent entrepreneur and politician, William Larnach. Since 1967, the castle has been privately owned by the Barker family, and opened as a tourist attraction, as "New Zealand's only castle".

The castle and grounds are open daily to members of the public. The Larnach Castle gardens are one of only five gardens nationwide to have been given the rating of "Garden of International Significance" by the New Zealand Gardens Trust. These were the first gardens in the South Island to receive the title. In 2018, Larnach Castle was designated a New Zealand Landmark by Heritage New Zealand.

Construction and style
Larnach Castle was built as the private residence of William James Mudie Larnach. Land for the construction of Larnach Castle was purchased in 1870, and prominent Dunedin architect R.A. Lawson was selected to design the Gothic Revival mansion. The site was clear-felled and levelled, allowing construction to begin in 1871. To level the construction site, workers jammed pegs into the layers of volcanic rock before pouring cold salt water to split the surface. Approximately 200 workmen were used to complete the main structure, using imported materials from around the world. Much of the stone used for the Castle came from a basalt quarry nearby. Other materials included yellow brick, Glasgow brick, Oamaru stone, Port Chalmers basalt, Cornwall blackstone, Italian marble, Marseilles cobbles, Catlins timber, North Island Kauri and local Caversham sandstone for the ballroom. The Godfrey family carved many of the building's intricate ceilings; a single ceiling in the main foyer took six and half years to complete. In 1875, twenty tonne of glass was imported from Venice, in an effort to enclose exposed verandahs unsuitable for Dunedin winters. The addition of the 3000 square foot ballroom was completed in 1887 as a 21st birthday present for Larnach's eldest daughter Kate. The resulting complex eventually contained 43 rooms and required a staff of 46 servants. The complex included 35 acres reserved for grounds, including a vinery, and a home farm of 300 acres with its own farmstead including a cow byre for 300 cows, stables, and quarters for farm workers.

Home of the Larnach family
The building, which Larnach himself simply called "The Camp", was coined a "castle" by local press on 8 December 1874, a few days after William and wife Eliza moved in. After a series of personal and financial setbacks he died by suicide in New Zealand's Parliament Buildings in October 1898. Following bitter legal battles over Larnach's will, the Larnach family sold the house in 1906.

Reputation as haunted house
Larnach Castle has a reputation as one of New Zealand's most haunted buildings, with accounts of sightings of the ghost of a bearded Victorian gentleman (presumably Larnach himself), unexplained smells of cigar smoke and port in unoccupied rooms, and visitors and workers at the castle feeling as if they have been suddenly pushed in the back. These tales have drawn paranormal investigators from both New Zealand and overseas, with the location appearing on various "ghost hunter" television programmes from both New Zealand and the United States.

Restoration
Throughout the twentieth century Larnach Castle went through constant changes of ownership and usage. The building fell into disrepair, and in 1967 was bought by Barry and Margaret Barker. Norcombe Barker became Larnach Castle Executive Director in 1990. Significant restoration work has since been carried out by the Barker family, along with retrieval of original furniture to refurnish the house. The gardens were not an original feature of William Larnach's home, and have been awarded "Garden of International Significance" status by the New Zealand Gardens Trust. Funded by its tourism operation, upkeep of the building is a continuous operation—in 2015 the music room underwent a $100,000 refurbishment.

In 2013, a direct descendant of William Larnach proposed to her spouse at the Castle.

Tourism
Larnach Castle operates as a significant tourist attraction in Dunedin, receiving approximately 120,000 guests per annum. The castle is open to the public 365 days a year; offering guided and self-guided tours, events and accommodation. The Castle regularly hosts in-house events; notably their annual Winter Ball. Larnach Castle Ltd operates three accommodation types; Larnach Castle Stables, Larnach Castle Lodge and the nearby luxury accommodation Camp Estate. Guests staying in accommodation are offered the opportunity to dine inside the Castle.

Appearances
In 1985 it was used as a location for the filming of the TVNZ Dunedin production Hanlon. The same year, it was used in the introductory scenes in the US-New Zealand film co-production, Shaker Run.

In 1994, a play about the Larnach family tragedies, titled Castle of Lies, was performed by Dunedin's Fortune Theatre before 100 invited guests in the castle ballroom.

Larnach Castle and the Camp Estate were used as locations for the 2022 Netflix film, The Royal Treatment. They represented the residence of the royal family of the fictional country Lavania.

The building has been visited by paranormal investigators and featured on local New Zealand television shows such as Ghost Hunt and Spookers as well as international television shows such as the American Ghost Hunters International.

title: Larnach Castle


text: Category:1300s deaths

title: Category:1300s deaths


text: Category:1314 deaths

title: Category:1314 deaths


text: Category:1314 births

title: Category:1314 births


text:
Milburn, New Zealand

Milburn is a small settlement about three kilometres north of Milton, New Zealand.

Milburn has since 2007 been home to the Otago Corrections Facility. This low to high-medium security men's prison, at the northern end of Milburn, is the largest in the Otago region, housing up to 485 inmates and employing 201 staff.

History
Milburn is also locally famous for its limeworks. Many thousands of tonnes of crushed limestone are trucked out of the hills separating the Tokomairaro Plain and Lake Waihola annually to be used in fertilizers.

A large whale fossil can be found in a display at a lookout over the limeworks, Tokomairaro Plains and Lake Waihola.

Milburn was named after Morris Milburn, who came to New Zealand from Sunderland, North East of England in The United Kingdom in 1858. He arrived at Lyttelton harbour aboard The Zealandia. "He journeyed overland to Dunedin doing the greater part of the trip by foot. In Otago he followed the goldfields with varying fortune incidental to a miners life. Working successfully at Gabriel's Gully at Molyneux and at Milburn, the last mentioned place being named after him" (Excerpt from Morris Milburn's Obituary from The Lyttelton Times December 1906, accessed from Papers Past).

title: Milburn, New Zealand


text: Category:1310s births

title: Category:1310s births


text: Category:1310s deaths

title: Category:1310s deaths


text: Category:1414 deaths

title: Category:1414 deaths


text: Category:1414 births

title: Category:1414 births


text: Category:1410s births

title: Category:1410s births


text: Category:1410s deaths

title: Category:1410s deaths


text: Talk:List of literary magazines

title: Talk:List of literary magazines


text: Category:1437 deaths

title: Category:1437 deaths


text: Category:1437 births

title: Category:1437 births


text:
John Sloan (disambiguation)

John Sloan (1871–1951) was an American painter and etcher.

John Sloan may also refer to:

 * John Sloan (businessman) (c. 1904–1988), American businessman
 * John Sloan Jr. (c. 1936–1991), American banking executive
 * John R. Sloan (1912–2001), British film producer
 * John Peter Sloan (1969–2020), English-born Italian actor, comedian and writer
 * John Sloan (medium) (fl. 1920s), Scottish spiritualist
 * Kee Sloan (John McKee Sloan, born 1955), American bishop
 * John Sloan, early settler at Sloan Lake, U.S.

title: John Sloan (disambiguation)


text: Category:Chautauqua County, New York

title: Category:Chautauqua County, New York


text: Category:198 deaths

title: Category:198 deaths


text: Category:190s births

title: Category:190s births


text: Category:190s deaths

title: Category:190s deaths


text: Category:810s deaths

title: Category:810s deaths