Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bird Island

Is there a Bird Island in both South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? While talking about SG, the page claims that the Antarctic Survey have a post on Bird Island. It also states that the SSI are uninhabited. Fair enough. But then later on we're told that the SSI include a Bird Island. If it's the same Bird Island, then all three facts cannot be true.

Bird Island is off the northwest end of South Georgia, I'll update the article to remove the confusion. Orourkek 16:27, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How does an uninhabited area have a constitution?

Who ratified it and whom does it affect? Personnel serving at the scientific stations and summer tourists? Governance of an uninhabited territory would seem to be solely an executive function; it would hard to constitute a legislature or find a jury for a court (which would seem to be required as information states that it is a common law jurisdiction). Rlquall 02:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

South Georgia is essentially a dictatorship. It is ruled in its entirity by Howard Pearce, Governor of the Falkland Islands. This is, of course, not really a problem, since no-one except a few scientists live there. As for a 'constitution' - as far as I'm aware, the closest thing would be the "South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order", an Order-in-Council, in 1985.

His Excellency the Commissioner is not elected, though he is answerable to his employers, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so would not be able to go far off the rails for long. If, for instance, he decided to declare war on anyone he would soon be brought into line.PatLurcock 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of a constitution. Great Britain still does not have one, not written anyway, as I understand things. Major decisions, particularly those involving the international political arena, are made with a lot of input from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who ensure that they fit in with UK policy. The nearest thing I know of to a constitution is the Environmental Management Plan, which is being PatLurcock 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Resident personnel are all transient by dint of their jobs, though some (including me) have been there for nearly 14 years. There is not, and never was, an indiginous population. There is no right of abode, as soon as we leave the jobs we leave the island (though if one could persuade the Government that one would be ecologically non-intrusive, medically and logistically self-sufficent etc. then the Government might give permission to stay). The functions of the jobs are more permanent so there is continuity of Government. See the Government website www.sgisland.org for lots more information on how the island is run.PatLurcock 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

lost people

10 years ago 40 people were in a ship, the ship sunk and they had to live 3 months before english realised. kinda control they have

South Georgia is one of the world's largest and most remote islands, extremely mountainous and with a harsh challenging climate most of the year. It has nothing to do with Britain not having control of it. YourPTR! (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Inhabited or not?

A question above presupposes that SGSSI is uninhabited, but the article doesn't make that clear. Is there a permanent population of South Georgia, as there is of the Falklands, or are there only research stations, as on Antarctica? Either way, the article should be clearer about the issue. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is generally accepted that a base, staffed by military, or science researchers, doesn't count as an inhabitation. That kind of temporary staff, don't count as inhabitants. That is the convention followed by the CIA fact book. -- Geo Swan 23:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but unless I missed something, the article never explicitly says there is no permanent settlement. I came to this article curious as to whether anyone actually lives permanently on the island, and got no answer until I followed the link to the CIA fact book. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a permanent settlement. The individuals come and go, but there is always someone there.PatLurcock 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV -> to consider all sides of a subject

In my opinion the article is POV as long as the Argentine claims are not considered as valid as the British claims. I am not an Argentinian and I think it is pretty stupid to battle for a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic. But the Argentine claim exists and it should be mentioned along the official Spanisch names. This would be NPOV. (We do it like this in the German Wikipedia). --ALE! 12:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To me it makes no sense to have the islands in Category:Argentina. They are claimed by Argentina, and that gets a mention right in the first sentence of the article, which of course is indisputably necessary. But to categorise them in Argentina seems to me to express the POV that they belong to Argentina. Taiwan is not in Category:People's Republic of China, and Gibraltar is not in Category:Spain, but all are in Category:Disputed territories, which encompasses the situation in a suitably NPOV way. Worldtraveller 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Spainish names/Co-ordinates

This is the English Wikipedia, therefore it is not necessary to state the Spainish names for the islands. Spainish names are not included on any other British overseas territory articles, including the Falkland Islands.

The use of the co-ordinates for every single location, and continously repeated creates a messy article, and is not very helpful to the reader. Astrotrain 11:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessary, but it is not harmful either.

Methink that you're doing a disservice to our readers, that might be interested on knowing how does the other claimant to the sovereignty of the islands calls them. Including this does not endorse the Argentine claim.

And yes, Wikipedia, English or not, does bring several names for locations. Gdansk states its German, Latin and Kashubian designation.

Ejrrjs | What? 17:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Astro, I don't think it hurts to mention the spanish names... but I don't want them to have a major role either... we'll figure it out. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Geographical coordinates: It is true that the geographical coordinates create a messy impression and deteriorated the overall look of the article. Because of that, I am now considering creating a separate article, something like List of the islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where I would include exactly the list which was removed because it created a messy impression. Then, this new list/article could be mentioned with a Wikilink to it in this article here. -- Citylover 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Spanish names: I am against removing the Spanish names since this is not a British-only english-language encyclopedia, but a global english-language encyclopedia, used by people from all countries, nations, continents and languages, and the most common names for these islands (including the Spanish names) should be included. -- Citylover 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This business about the English version of the Wikipedia being British or global is specious and wrongheaded. The Wikipedia is incorporated as a non-profit organizated under the laws of the United States of America and American copyright laws also apply to it, as the Wikipedia's own documents state. As they also state, it is a digital encyclopedia maintened on Internet servers in the United States of America. Therefore, in all cases, the American names of people and places prevails, and the form of English that is used in the United States and Canada must take precedence. This also makes sense because the native English-speaking population of North America is greater than that of the rest of the world combined. Notice, that I am not considering people to whom English is a second or third language, and so, for example, a Frenchman or a Czech who speaks English does not count.98.67.109.241 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Names: Ignoring the politics: I live there and nobody (residents or visitors) ever uses the Spanish names to refer to places when travelling or otherwise identifying places. They are only used for political posturing.PatLurcock 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of the Spanish forms "Georgia del Sur" and "Islas Sandwich del Sur" of the English names "South Georgia" and "South Sandwich Islands" uglifies the 09:10, 13 September 2006 text beyond measure, more so that unlike "Falklands" - "Malvinas" those are not different names.

By the way, the Spanish name "Islas Malvinas" is misused in "Falkland Islands Dependencies (Islas Malvinas)", "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Dependencies Survey". Apcbg 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese threat during ww2

"During World War II (Autumn 1943 - Autumn 1944) the island housed a small (14 people) Norwegian military garrison to protect the island from any possible Japanese invasion"

Can someone confirm this? If so, please add a link directly after the sentence, as this is kind of hard to believe when you take the distance to the nearest japanese-occupied territory into consideration! Bjelleklang - talk 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Have found some sites where the same has been mentioned, but nothing worh citing as a source. Also asked around on no.wikipedia, but so far without results. Bjelleklang - talk 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The only ones I can see are Wikipedia mirrors. I doubt the event is true, at least the way it is currently described. Astrotrain 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there might have been Norwegians stationed there during the war, as I found a transcript of an old norwegian 'Bygdebok' (am not sure how to translate, but basically a book listing newly-borns and dead, as well as other major events). The book names a person called Anders Hansen, a blacksmith who died 24.10.43. But I don't know if he was stationed as a soldier, or as part of any whaling operations.

My Norwegian ain't perfect, but I would say that a reasonable, rough translation of Bygdebok would be "Parish Book/Record"; bygde meaning "hamlet/village", "settlement" or "community" (I think).--Mais oui! 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's about it, yes. Bjelleklang - talk 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, the threat was probably not posed by the japanese, but more likely by the germans. Bjelleklang - talk 18:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Norway was an occupied country during World War II. It would be very unusual for a country under occupation to send a garrison of troops to defend a British island in the middle of the South Atlantic. Of course Norway had whaling operations on the island. Since the Japanese Empire did not extent beyond the mid-Pacific, it is unlikely that the South Atlantic was under threat from Japanese invasion. Astrotrain 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is that unusual, as both France and Poland were occupied, but still had military units stationed in the UK.

The army consisted of approx. 1500 troops at its height during the war, and had a norwegian brigade stationed in Scotland tasked with invasion defence, as well as units stationed on Iceland, Jan Mayen and Svalbard.

But I think that the reference should be removed until the claim can be cited from another (independent) source! Bjelleklang - talk 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree Astrotrain 22:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bouvet Island

Garrisoning elements of the Free Norwegian Forces on Svalbard and Jan Mayen makes sense. They are Norwegian possessions -- just as Free French Forces garrisoned French Caribean possessions. I think it is possible that the unfortunate Anders Hansen was a whaler. Grytviken was a whaling station.

Is it possible that the Norwegian garrison was on Bouvet Island -- another Norwegian possession?

I agree that defense against the Germans makes more sense than defense against the Japanese. German commerce raiders did make it that far south. But 14 troops, without weapons couldn't do much to defend a huge Island like South Georgia. Even a U-boat could land a shore party larger than that.

Perhaps, if there really were Norwegians stationed that far south, they were manning a wearther station. No weather satellites back in those days. Remote weather stations were very important. -- Geo Swan 00:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Could not have been Bouvet Island as far as I know, as this is compleatly uninhabited; and would have been of no strategic value for the Wehrmacht, and the weather station wasn't erected until 1977. In regards as to what their purpose was, if they really was stationed on South Georgia, I'd assume that it is more likely that they filled the same role as the Norwegians stationed at Jan Mayen, who ran a weather station and a radio station, with some basic defensive capabilities (but not invasion defence). Bjelleklang - talk 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Falklands / Malvinas possession

Currently South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are considered an UK oversea territory.

Quoting the official governmental site from Argentina: [Geography and climate]

Extensión / Extension La superficie de sus tierras emergidas es de 3.761.274 Km² de los cuales 2.791.810 Km² corresponden al Continente Americano; 969.464 Km² al Continente Antártico (incluyendo las Islas Orcadas del Sur) y las islas australes (Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur). Por su extensión ocupa el cuarto lugar entre los paises americanos (despues de Canada, Estados Unidos de América y la República Federativa del Brasil). ...

I will now translate this to english: The surface of Argentina is of 3.761.274 Km² from which 2.791.810 Km² are within the South American Continent; 969.464 Km² belong to the Antartic and South Georgias Sur and South Sandwich.

Funny, ain't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrique Moreira (talk • contribs)

Why? Ejrrjs | What? 22:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, why these things are funny? Nkcs 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WWII

See History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands for further details of the WWII events on South Georgia; the reference source is Robert Headland's book 'The Island of South Georgia', a most reliable, well documented and comprehensive factbook on all aspects of the island. The former wording "... possible invasion by Japanese forces ... the cold was a worse enemy ..." seems inappropriate; the Japanese presence in the area used to be their pelagic whaling fleet promptly destroyed by the Allies (so the Japanese were the victims with no offensive capabilities in this particular case), and the defendants of South Georgia were local inhabitants perfectly well accustomed to the island's weather. Apcbg 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Husvik (from 1907 factory-ship, land-based station 1960 to 1960, out of operation 1930 to 1945)

The year I wrote in bold cannot be true. Is there someone who know the year when they started the land based station? Etienne 10/07/2006

Figures don't add up

From the article:

"The territory has revenues of less than $300,000"
"Fishing licenses bring in a handful of million pounds a year"

This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Matt 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

• I later found some revenue figures for 2002 which are slightly more consistent with the second statement, and have updated the article accordingly. Matt 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)~.

Discovery of Bellinghausen Island - contradiction

This South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article says: "The southern eight islands of the Sandwich Islands Group were discovered by James Cook in 1775; the northern three by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen in 1819". However, the Bellingshausen Island article says that Bellingshausen Island - which is one of the southern eight islands - was discovered by Bellingshausen. One of these has to be wrong but I don't know which. Matt 10:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Both are right in a way. Surveying the islands in poor visibility Cook failed to distinguish particular islands and named the entire group Sandwich Land. Bellingshausen described the island in question, and later the British named it in honour of the Russian explorer. Apcbg 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Beauchêne remark

The remark that “some contend that De la Roche in fact saw Beauchene Island [1]” refers to a website that does not itself contend that Roché saw Beauchêne Island but merely mentions – without any substantiation – that “some contend”.

Due to the short length of the article and present layout, I am removing that unsubstantiated remark.

In the case of such a remark being brought back together with an argumented source, then I would insert also reference to original historical sources demonstrating that:

(1) Roché discovered a mountainous island; Beauchêne Island is very small and has no mountains;

(2) Roché anchored near a cape stretching to the southeast; Beauchêne Island extends in southwest-northeast direction;

(3) Roché spent 14 days in one of the island’s bays; Beauchêne Island has no bays at all but only an anchorage unusable in bad weather like that suffered by Roché;

(4) From the newly discovered island Roché saw another land some 10 leagues (about 55 km) to the southeast; while Clerke Rocks lie at a similar distance to the southeast of South Georgia, there is no such land to the southeast of Beauchêne Island;

(5) The early maps following Roché’s discovery depicted ‘Roché Island’ at the latitude of South Georgia, and well south of the Falklands vicinity (where Beauchêne belongs); while the late 17 Century navigators still had problems with their longitude, the latitude has always been easy to measure fairly accurately.

Sources:

1. The narrative of Roché’s discovery:

"... being solicitous to pass by the said Le Maire Strait in April 1675, they could not, the Winds and Currents having carried them so far to the Eastward; and being unable to return towards the Land of the Strait of Magellan, nor to make Staten Land to sail into the No. Sea by Browser’s Strait, and seeing that it was far advanced in April and beginning of Winter in that Climate, it would be much if they escaped with Life, particularly as they had no Knowledge or Intimation of the Land which they now began to see toward the East which making and using all endeavours to get near it, they found a Bay, in which they anchored close to a Point or Cape which stretches out to the Southeast with 28. 30. and 40. fathoms Sand and Rock, in which situation they had sight of some Snow Mountains near the Coast, with much bad Weather; they continued there 14 days, at the end of which time having the Weather cleared up, they found that they were at the end of that Land, near which they had anchored, and looking to the SE and South, they saw another high land covered with snow, leaving which, and the Wind setting in gently at SW and sailed out in sight of the said coast of the Island which they left to the Westward, seeing the said Southern land in the said Quarters, it appearing that from one to the other was about 10 lea. little more or less, and that there was a great Current to the NE, to which Point sailing, and steering ENE they found themselves in the No. Sea ..."

(Capt. Francisco de Seixas y Lovera, Descripcion geographica, y derrotero de la region austral Magallanica. Que se dirige al Rey nuestro señor, gran monarca de España, y sus dominios en Europa, Emperador del Nuevo Mundo Americano, y Rey de los reynos de la Filipinas y Malucas, Madrid, Antonio de Zafra, 1690.)

2. Seventeenth-century map featuring Roché Island

3. Eighteenth-century map featuring Roché Island. Apcbg 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally doubt that it was Beauchene island, but it is probably worth mentioning, as this is apparently one of the pieces of evidence used for the Argentine claim.--MacRusgail 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Appatently"? Could you provide any sources demonstrating such actual usage? The quoted website provides no such sources. Unless the allegation of such usage is substantiated, I can hardly see that remark as appropriate. Apcbg 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Capital

The article and infobox seem to disagree between Grytviken and King Edward Point --Henrygb 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That confusion, or rather the usage of the name Grytviken in a wider sense including also the adjacent King Edward Point has always been the case; the distance between the two is but 800 m. King Edward Point is more of a technical term, and surely with the expansion of the Grytviken conurbation the two settlements will merge one day :-) Apcbg 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Argentine Flag

Acpbg: The quote that I added is:
"c" And the reference attached to it is:
La Infanteria de Marina en el conflicto del Atlantico Sur, Jorge Alberto Erecaborde. The original quote in Spanish is: La Compañia Argentina de Pesca SA, al amparo de las leyes argentinas y bajo su bandera, se instala en Grytviken.

It is not a childern story, but is clear enough: "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken [...] under its [Argentina] Flag."

If you want I can put "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken [...] under the Argentine Flag." and move it from the lead section to the main artile. --Argentini an 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I really see no use for that pompous general phrase, what is the reader supposed to get from it?

It should be a clear statement of concrete facts backed by sources.

If that is to mean simply that the company was Argentine, that was already mentioned in the company's name.

If some concrete action/event is alleged, then state it clearly and backed it by sources. Apcbg 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done a net search for author and book and I'm getting nothing. Could you provide the ISBN, Argentini an? Narson 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong spelling, it appears as La Infantería de Marina de la Armada Argentina en el Conflicto del Atlántico Sur 1982 - Cronología de Jorge A. Errecaborde (Argentina, 2001 - ISBN 987-433-641-2). Apcbg 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My fault. The front cover does not say "de la Armada Argentina" but in the 3rd page the book's name is as you write it, Apcbg. --Argentini an 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Getting all the hits now :) Pity they don't offer an English translated version, would be nice to read something from the ARgentinian point of view thats relativly up to date and written by an ARgentinian about their view rather than by a Brit about their view. Narson 11:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Is it ok to add the "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken under the Argentine Flag" sentence? Or would you prefer a litteral translation "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken protected by the Argentine laws and under its Flag"?

Was there ever a consensus to put this in this text? I notice its now in there? Justin A Kuntz 10:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion was not in favour, I'll repeat it once again:

"I really see no use for that pompous general phrase, what is the reader supposed to get from it? It should be a clear statement of concrete facts backed by sources. If that is to mean simply that the company was Argentine, that was already mentioned in the company's name. If some concrete action/event is alleged, then state it clearly and backed it by sources."

Well, the present wording refers to no such concrete action or event so it's rather out of place I reckon. Apcbg 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So there is no consensus? Is it backed up by the source and does it conform to WP:RS? Justin A Kuntz 12:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, after reading one source the Argentine Government official history, it only states that the Argentines however reluctantly accepted British sovereignty. The other source, the text is so vague as to support any interpretation. I've removed the contentious piece for now. Justin A Kuntz 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Puzzling sentence

I'm puzzling over this sentence:

"It was not until 1948 that an interpretation was conceived to allege that the original 1908 Letters Patent might have encompassed parts of the South American mainland as well as the Falklands, making the latter dependencies of themselves."

If this problematic interpretation wasn't conceived until 1948, then why had the 1908 declaration already been modified in 1917 to eliminate it? What party is supposed to have first conceived of this interpretation in 1948, and what was their motivation for doing so, given that it had been fixed thirty years earlier? Matt 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

"If this problematic interpretation wasn't conceived until 1948, then why had the 1908 declaration already been modified in 1917 to eliminate it?" That the 1917 Letters Patent would ‘eliminate’ a future 1948 interpretation could not have been the reason for those Letters Patent in the first place, could it?

Don't really understand... the "it" in "eliminate it" refers to the problematic interpretation, not the fact of its being conceived in 1948... Matt 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

As the comparison between the relevant texts of 1908 and 1917 Letters Patent quoted in the article demonstrates, the 1917 document expanded the territory of the Falkland Islands Dependencies to include also the sizable continental territory south of Graham Land, down to the Pole itself; that territory was not included in the 1908 document which listed several islands groups and the Graham Land only, with unclear southern border (Graham Land was at that time the British name for what we now call Antarctic Peninsula). The 1948 interpretation was made by Argentina (sources given in the article), probably to somehow portray the 1908 Letters Patent as deficient or invalid. Back in 1908 Argentina had no such ideas (no claim either), indeed the British Letters Patent was transmitted to Buenos Aires, and that was formally acknowledged by the Argentine Foreign Ministry on 18 March 1909 without objections. Apcbg 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my comment wasn't very clear. What I'm saying is that, from the quotes given in the article, the obvious conclusion is that the 1917 modification, insofar as it affected the areas outside the Antarctic continent, was made precisely to exclude the Falkland Islands and parts of the South American continent. It then seems odd to state that this interpretation wasn't "conceived" until 1948. Perhaps it would help to state in the article that the 1948 interpretation refers to the Argentinian position (I read it at first as referring to the British position). Matt 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

I just found a reference at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140419/british_antarctic_territory/, which says "Britain registered the first claim to Antarctic Territory by Letters Patent in 1908, a claim which had to be adjusted in 1917 as it included part of Argentina and Chilean Patagonia." This seems to support my theory. Matt 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

What exactly is your theory?

If your theory is that the 1908 Letters Patent included "the Falkland Islands and parts of the South American continent", then please substantiate that by precise quotes.

If your theory is that that same interpretation was made before 1948 then you have to proviide a pre-1948 source which your reference is not. Apcbg 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the 1908 wording made specific reference to the Falkland Islands or South American continent. What I am saying is that the wording is ambiguous in that "situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude" could be construed as applying generally and not just to Graham Land, in which case it would include the Falklands and parts of South America. I am suggesting that one objective of the 1917 change was to exclude this area, in which case the interpretation supposedly first conceived in 1948 was actually noticed at least 30 years earlier. The reference that I quoted supports this theory as far as South America is concerned. The fact that it was written after 1948 is immaterial - it's explaining what happened in 1917. Matt 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

If you consider a fragment like “situated in Europe” that is ambiguous indeed. It says, situated where but not situated what. If you take the full text “Italy is situated in Europe” however, there is no such ambiguity.

That’s precisely what you have done with your quote from the 1908 Letters Patent — you consider just the fragment "situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude" taken out of its context. That’s the where. Why have you skipped the what part? The full text reads: "Whereas the groups of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham's Land, situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude". It must be a great stretch of imagination to have that “construed as applying generally” to include also the Falklands and South American mainland territory – maybe as part of South Georgia? Or part of the South Orkneys? Or the South Shetlands? Or the Sandwich Islands? Or part of the Graham's Land?

The year 1948 is material in that it took 40 years for Argentina to start speculating that Britain might have claimed South American mainland territory back in 1908, and that that was allegedly corrected in 1917. Both you and your reference merely repeat that 1948 speculation, the existence of which is already reported in the article. Apcbg 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly... the reference I gave doesn't mention any 1948 speculation. It says that the claim "had to be adjusted in 1917 as it included part of Argentina and Chilean Patagonia". In other words, the potential problems with the wording were recognised in 1917. Another reference, at http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic17-1-15.pdf, says that "clarifying" letters patent were issued in 1917 "since it had been observed that a literal interpretation of the original claim would have taken in a part of the South American mainland and Tierra del Fuego". Again, this shows that the issue was apparent in 1917. Regardless of what you or I personally feel about the ambiguity or otherwise of the wording you quoted, here are two sources that say it was felt to be problematic in 1917. What is the exact text of the source that says this issue was first raised in 1948? Perhaps there are two versions of events that will both have to be acknowledged in the article. Matt 13:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

And also, from a document published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1944 (before the supposed 1948 speculation): "Incidentally the British Letters Patent 'consolidated' into the unit much of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, an 'error' not corrected until 1917 by Revised Letters Patent" (see here). Matt 14:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC).

The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

The Letters Patent of 1843 were, as circumstances required, modified in 1876, 1892, 1908, and 1917. The Dependencies of the Falkland Islands were first specifically defined in 1908 as 'South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham's Land, situated in the South Atlantic to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and 80th degrees of west longitude' and this was published in the Falkland Islands Gazette at the direction of the Governor. A copy of the Gazette was transmitted to the Argentine Foreign Ministry by the British Minister in Buenos Aires on 20 February 1909, this was acknowledged on 18 March and no protest or other action resulted at the time. In 1948 however, Argentina conceived an argument that the 1908 Letters Patent had no validity as they claimed parts of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego in addition to the places specified in them. (The reasoning which gave rise to this fatuity would have made the Falkland Islands part of the Dependencies.) The 1917 Letters Patent redefined the Dependencies to incorporate parts of the Antarctic continent (Coats Land and polar parts of the sector) and the revised sector then delimited included only the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands and so stated. (Robert K. Headland, The Island of South Georgia, Cambridge University Press, 1984, 293 pp. ISBN 0 521 25274 1.)

Could you provide some context to your quote, it's unclear who says that in relation to what. Apcbg 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(undo indent) Hello again! I see I have just replied to you also at Template talk:Outlying territories of European countries Well, fancy that! Apologies for the delay in replying here; I completely forgot about this debate. It's hard to piece together large chunks from Google's snippet view, but the full paragraph reads:

"If the British Letters Patent of 1908 were 'a consolidation into a single administrative unit of numerous earlier specific British claims', a similar interpretation can be placed on the Chilean decree of 1940. Incidentally the British Letters Patent 'consolidated' into the unit much of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, an 'error' not corrected until 1917 by Revised Letters Patent, which is a fitting commentary on its specific nature."

So, to summarise, two sources say that the potential problem with the 1908 wording was recognised by 1917, and that this at least partly helped to motivate the revised Letters Patent of that date, and a third source published in 1944 (four years prior to 1948) also mentions the alleged "error". On the other hand, your reference says that "In 1948 however, Argentina conceived an argument that the 1908 Letters Patent had no validity as they claimed parts of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego in addition to the places specified in them."

I wonder if the problem might be that somehow that last statement got interpreted as "It was not until 1948 that an interpretation was conceived...". The text arguably doesn't actually say this. It doesn't definitely say that there was no prior conception of such a problem, just that Argentina conceived an argument that the 1908 Letters Patent had no validity because of such a potential interpretation. Therefore I wonder if the article ahould just remain neutral on this point, and say something like "In 1948, Argentina..." rather than "It was not until 1948 that..." Matt 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

I do not object to the suggested wording "In 1948, Argentina ...". As for the couple of references to alternative opinion of the motivation behind the 1917 Letters Patent, such references are unnecessary in this SGSSI article as there is no doubt that both the 1908 and 1917 Letters Patent covered SGSSI, while the alleged motivation does not concern the islands at all. Apcbg 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of this part to remove the words "not until" and also to make it clear that it was Argentina that conceived the argument mentioned, having originally not protested. Matt 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Number of Islands

For the Falkland Islands article it says there are 778 islands in that particular archipelago, just out of interest, does anyone know how many islands make up South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? YourPTR! 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to my database, 805 in the South Georgia group. That's pretty much everything bigger than about 20m across. However, this sort of figure should be taken with a grain of salt; what do you mean by an island? Coastlines are notoriously fractal, with a spectrum of objects from the major islands down to a grain of sand that happens (at this moment!) to be just above the water-level. This means that the larger the scale of data collection, the larger the number of islands will be.

Mapping of the South Sandwich Islands is not good enough to give a definitive figure. --APRCooper (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina

I've filed a requested move of the article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province (the province that, according to Argentina, SGSSI belong to) and thought people here might be interested in taking part. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Unit conversion

Just to note, an IP is currently in the process of removing metric conversions of imperial units on this article. In some cases they are taking the metric version and calling it imperial (so, 10 sq km becomes 10 sq mi). Per MOS:CONVERSIONS conversions between units should generally be provided since we are an international encyclopaedia and not all of us can work in imperial units (and, for that matter, not all of us can work in metric). I'm getting close to 3RR, so can people look for this (or if they disagree, argue their point here). Thanks, Pfainuk talk 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems obvious vandalism to me, reverted similar changes. Justin talk 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I try to err on the side of caution, but it was rather disruptive even if unintentionally. Seems to have stopped now though. Pfainuk talk 23:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So is there also a North Georgia somewhere?

See title. The name seems kind of odd. -- Milo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.9.38 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is this one, which is definatly up north. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to new resource

I have added a reference to a major new resource for the islands in the section on Geography. The South Georgia GIS was publicly launched last week, and is a compendium of environmental and topographic data for the islands. I declare an interest - I managed the project to create it! But it is a free resource, and will be linked throug the main sgisland.gs web-site. --APRCooper (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

why

chin strap penguin are called that becuase they have a stap on ther chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.235.88 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not worth the discovery

The article said that Cook dismissed South Georgia as "not worth the discovery", before surveying it anyway. He was actually talking about the hypothetical southern continent, not the island, and he said it after he was done with the surveying:

"It can hardly be doubted that a great deal of ice is formed here in the water, which in the spring is broken off, and dispersed over the sea; but this island cannot produce the ten-thousandth part of what we saw; so that either there must be more land, or the ice is formed without it. These reflections led me to think that the land we had seen the preceding day might belong to an extensive track, and I still had hopes of discovering a continent. I must confess the disappointment I now met with did not affect me much; for, to judge of the bulk by the sample, it would not be worth the discovery."

Obviously he didn't like South Georgia an awful lot, but it was definitely a misquote. I've removed it. -- Tim Starling (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction required regarding the Argentine occupation

In the second-last paragraph of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands#South_Georgia)it states that a group of argentinians, "posing as scrap metal merchants", occupied the island and that Alfredo Astiz was amongst them. They were scrap metal merchants at that time and Astiz didn't arrive on the island until after the action led by "Fairly Famous Mills" at King Edward Point on April 2.

The scrap metal merchant was a man named "Davidoff".

This point has been agreed to by both sides and requires correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.36.108 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No you're wrong Atiz and Marine commandos were transferred from Corbeta Uruguay in March. Justin talk 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article split

The British Overseas territory includes SG & SSI, still they are to be considered as two different geographical bodies. Sanction the split into three articles, which of course are inter-linked. --Eivindgh (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No the British Overseas Territory is South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, hence the article name, and you would usually add this at the bottom of the talk page. Justin talk 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it to the bottom. Pfainuk talk 23:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We do certainly need to retain an article at South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (for the BOT), but I have wondered before whether we would be better off with separate articles for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands individually as well, if only because many sections of this article - and others - turn first to South Georgia and then to the South Sandwich Islands. We don't have an individual article on South Georgia, which is quite unusual in this sort of case. We have a Great Britain for example, which is purely geographical, and that's the sort of article I would be imagining for South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (though clearly SSI would deal with that entire archepelago - maybe Hebrides is a better analogy for them), leaving South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, by analogy, equivalent to United Kingdom.

If we were to split, I would expect this article to retain all of the information on the political side, leaving the other articles to deal primarily with history and geography - though this article would continue to deal with bits that the islands have in common. There would be a fair bit of duplication (particularly surrounding the 1908 Letters Patent), but that's no biggy.

Now, I'm happy to go along with a consensus against - but I think we should consider new articles South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, in addition to the SGSSI article. Pfainuk talk 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it has always been my view that South Georgia deserves a full developed article of its own, and so do the South Sandwich Islands too (although I never proposed that). This does not apply to the History article, for while the two groups of islands are clearly distinct geographically, they came to share a common development historically. I wouldn't say 'article split' because we surely need an SGSSI article too, possibly the present one with maybe some content moved to the individual articles, and yes with some amount of duplication as well. Apcbg (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• split per Pfainuk's middle paragraph.  rdunnPLIB  15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dimensions of South Georgia

It is one thing to insist on giving priority to non-metric measures, but removing sourced information about the dimensions of South Georgia is clearly going too far. Now whichever measure comes first, it is surely more accurate to describe South Georgia as being 2 to 40 km wide as the coastline is highly indented and the island tapers to the north. See [2]. Also, no excuse was offered for removing the link. I suggest the following format:

It is a remote and inhospitable collection of islands, consisting of South Georgia—about W widgets (A gizmos) long and X to Y widgets (B to C gizmos) wide [3] and is by far the largest island in the territory—and a chain of smaller islands known as the South Sandwich Islands lying Z widgets (D Gizmos) to the south-east.

Even if we don't agree on whether miles or kilometres should come first, can we at least agree on the above format? Michael Glass (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial measures first as per MOS. As per WP:RS personal websites are not considered authoritative sources. You would do better to WP:AGF before leacturing. Justin talk 23:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• The policy you refer to clearly says that either Metric or Imperial can be used, as long as they are consistent. Why do you consistently misrepresent the policy?
• Where is your evidence that the site I quoted is a personal website?
• Where is your evidence that I have not assumed good faith? Haven't you noticed that the proposal above could be used with both metric first or Imperial first?

I don't understand your hostile reaction. Please calm down. The obvious typo in your comment above suggests that you are too emotionally involved to type straight. How about we have a break for a day or so and then perhaps we will be able to look at the issues more calmly. Michael Glass (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a personal website, does not conform to the guidelines of WP:RS, I suggest you familiarise yourself with policies. If you change things on my watchlist and they don't conform to policy I will simply revert them. There is nothing hostile or confrontational about it, the purpose of a recent changes patrolling is to try and keep up the quality of articles. Your changes are not appropriate that is all. WP:AGF, you're assuming I'm doing it for hostile reasons, 3 other editors have already pointed out you're wrong. Justin talk 09:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck out the comments on the website, I was in fact referring to the btinternet website link quoted above. Justin talk 09:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I propose the following revised wording.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands ('SGSSI) is a British overseas territory in the southern Atlantic Ocean. It is a remote and inhospitable collection of islands, consisting of South Georgia—about 170 kilometres (110 mi) long and 2 to 40 km (1.2 to 25 miles) wide . It is by far the largest island in the territory. A chain of smaller islands, the South Sandwich Islands lie about 640 kilometres (400 mi) to the south-east.

I believe that this wording is better. If there is any way in which this can be improved, please advise. Michael Glass (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You made a stack of edits to a whole series of pages on my watchlist, I haven't reverted the vast majority of them. I don't have a problem with that proposal at all. Why do you have to assume it was personal? Justin talk 13:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have inserted the passage into the article. Of course I noticed that my edits were not challenged, though, of course, I welcome any improvements and corrections that others can make. I now feel we can work together more harmoniously.Michael Glass (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The edits discussed above have garbled the sense of the opening paragraph (as well as left a glaring wikisyntax error that has trashed the formatting, though to be fair that in itself would have been trivial to fix). To be honest, I can't really understand how anyone could read it and not notice that it made no sense. I have restored to the last good version. Whatever you decide about units, please make sure that you leave the paragraph in a coherent state. Thanks! 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.43.87 (talk)

Dialing Code

I checked before reverting see [4]. Justin talk 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I have a bit of difficulty believing it. The idea of giving one of the few two-digit international dialling codes available to a territory that's basically uninhabited seems to me to be rather improbable - as does putting SGSSI on the same numbering plan as a country on the other side of the world that it has little connection to. That site, FWIW, also assigns +66 to Thailand, which is, I think, rather more plausible and is backed up by other sites (such as [5] and [6]) and our List of country calling codes. If it was +44 or +500 I would be less inclined to question it, but sharing with Thailand just doesn't seem logical. Pfainuk talk 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be amused to know that the scientific stations operated by British Antarctic Survey are all (via VOIP) on the BAS internal telephone network, and can be reached using a Cambridge (UK) dialling code. No, I am not going to disseminate numbers! --APRCooper (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the articles

I've wondered in the past about whether this article should be split (I am not the proposer; i.e. not the person who added the "proposal to split" banners to the article). Problem is, there's some information that pertains to the territory, not to one or other of the island groups, so some sort of "territory" article would also seem to be necessary, and I wonder if it might end up as a duplication-fest. If you can find a neat way to resolve this then I'd support the split. If it means that all the "territory" information ends up, say, at "South Georgia", or results in a lot of repetition across articles, then I don't think I would. 86.134.43.87 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

The article currently seems to be split into two groups anyway, with the text intermingled. I would think the topics are large enough to be split even if, as stated just above, a further topic on the territory is needed. --87.114.12.205 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - I agree with this proposal.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - Still disagree. Justin talk 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My position is as before. I would support the creation of new geographical article dealing with South Georgia and dealing with the South Sandwich Islands archipelago - including information taken from this article - provided we retain this article as the principle article. I would suggest that the relationship between South Georgia and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands would be similar to the relationship between East Falkland and Falkland Islands, or between Spitsbergen and Svalbard. Pfainuk talk 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for splitting (if anyone is still pursuing this). The combined name is a bureacratic convenience that could be kept for the political stuff relating to both, but SG and the SSI are separate geographic entities and need to be treated as such. What a mess. Maias (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No to splitting, yes to developing separate articles for South Georgia Island and the South Sandwich Islands while keeping the present SCSSI article. I already explained that above. Many countries appeared by way of 'bureaucratic convenience', so what? SGSSI is a political, legal and economic reality of a highest possible rank (a country, not part of any other country; even if not independent, having permanent settlements but no permanent settlers etc.). Every country of the world merits a Wiki article, no reason why SGSSI should be an exception. Apcbg (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maias (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re South Georgia --is there a section for trivia, cultural references, etc.?

Just FYI: There exists a Gaelic song, "'s Truagh Nach d'Fhuirich Mi Tioram Air Tir," which includes a reference to South Georgia. The Gaelic and English words can be found here: http://www.celticlyricscorner.net/cormack/struagh.htm, and there is a decent rendition of it on YouTube as well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhqpPCKDBEA). I do not know who the author of the song was. Anyway, thought someone should know about it. --RKHageman 72.244.63.211 (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Difference between claiming the islands and exercising sovereignty over them

Britain does not claim these islands. It occupies them and exercises sovereignty over them. Only Argentina claims the islands as it does not occupy them and so doesn't exercise sovereignty over them. There is a difference between claiming sovereignty and exercising it. All territory in the world except Antarctica is occupied by a particular country with that country exercising sovereignty over it. Other countries may claim territory occupied by another. Britain does not claim the right to occupy the islands and exercise sovereignty over the islands because it already does. Bambuway (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a message on your talk page, please don't revert again. Regards, Justin talk 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not care what may have said on this talk page previously. Britain exercises sovereignty over these islands while Argentina claims them. Please know the difference between the two. There can be no distorting of the facts for the sake of pleasing others. Bambuway (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue has now been resolved under the current wording. Bambuway (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bambuway's version does seem to be consistent with three things:

1. Britain claims sovereignty
2. Britain exercises sovereignty, as it occupies the islands
3. Argentina claims sovereignty as well.

These statements can all be true at the same time, and the present wording sounds OK to me. There is one more bit of information that could be added. See this item in the CIA World Factbook: "Argentina, which claims the islands in its constitution and briefly occupied them by force in 1982, agreed in 1995 to no longer seek settlement by force." EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens to be wrong on a number of points, British sovereignty over the South Sandwich Islands dates from the 1820s. They were not annexed in 1908, in 1908 the British Government issued a letters patent to establish a legislative framework as the islands had their first permanent population. Both South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were under Falkland Islands administration since the 1840s. Justin talk 11:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The diplomatic situation is told in more detail over at Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands#Origins of the British claim. Justin, can you look at the other article and see if you think it is correct? If the two articles disagree, and the other one is more detailed, perhaps the wording of this one regarding sovereignty could be tweaked to match the other article. The details of the Letters Patent are also noted up above at #Puzzling sentence. I notice that a recent edit of yours did not want to use the term 'sovereignty' for the British occupation in the 19th century. (I don't fully understand your position). Perhaps a minor rewording could fix whatever problem you see in the 19th century. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no "British occupation in the 19th century" in any meaningful sense. I believe that a sense of historical perspective has been lost here. Remember that for most of the nineteenth century SGSSI were a set of barren islands in the middle of nowhere, very difficult and expensive to colonise, without significant economic incentive to do so. For the rest of the nineteenth century there were no troops on the islands, indeed no people living there of any sort, for more than a couple of months at the time. Those will have been passing ships of any nationality who needed land to make repairs or - in the case of whaling and sealing operations - to act as a temporary base.

After Grytviken was founded (in 1904), and after Norway asked the British about sovereignty, Britain clarified its position (in 1908) - this was about the time at which it became clearer that whaling, sealing and fishing in the area were feasible and economical with the technology available at the time.

The British made their claim in 1843, but until 1908 the borders of the claim were not well defined. The British clarified their position in 1908 (and then again in 1917), defining the borders of their claimed area with respect to lines of longitude and latitude and establishing a proper legislative framework to govern the new permanent settlement at Grytviken.

During the period 1843-1908, it will have seemed fair to call these islands British territory - after all, the British claimed them and no-one else did - but at the same time it's not meaningful in practice to suggest that the UK "exercised sovereignty" prior to 1908. The penguins and seals didn't care. Pfainuk talk 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The new wording doesn't mention when Britain began exercising sovereignty over the islands. It simply states when Britain claimed the islands and when it annexed them. The rest is left to this history section. The previous wording made no mention of Britain annexing the islands, therefore confusing readers into believing no one annexed the islands and that Britain has only ever claimed them. Bambuway (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with the assertion that “it's not meaningful in practice to suggest that the UK "exercised sovereignty" prior to 1908”, for the UK did exercize acts of sovereignty during the 19th century and the early 20th century prior to 1908 such as administrative arrangements, conservation measures (you bet the seals did care!) and issuing sealing and whaling licenses. From the History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands:

During the nineteenth century the effective, continuous and unchallenged British possession and government for South Georgia was provided for by the British Letters Patent of 1843, revised in 1876, 1892, 1908 and 1917, with the island appearing in the Colonial Office Yearbook since 1887. From 1881 on Britain regulated the economic activities and conservation by administrative acts such as the Sealing Ordinances of 1881 and 1899. South Georgia was governed by Britain as a Falkland Islands Dependency, a distinct entity administered through the Falkland Islands but not part of them in political or financial respect. (...) Following a 1900 advertisement by the Falklands Government the entire island was leased to a Punta Arenas company, and a subsequent conflict of interests with the Compañía Argentina de Pesca which had started whaling at Grytviken since December 1904 was settled by the British authorities with the company applying for and being granted British whaling lease. (All that happened prior to 1908; source for the quoted historical facts: Robert K. Headlands’s book). Apcbg (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Apcbg is correct, as always, the other article is a reaonable summary. My only concern is to keep the article neutral. Justin talk 21:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My point was more in response to EdJohnston's assertion of an "occupation", which is not accurate. I apparently took the point a little far - no biggy. Pfainuk talk 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Geographical articles for South Georgia and for South Sandwich Islands

This has been discussed before above, but not for a little while. Is anybody going to object if we split off separate geographical articles for South Georgia and for the South Sandwich Islands? I'd like to start writing something in my user space but if it's going to get controversial it might be better not to start.

Obviously, this article would remain in place for the BOT, but I think something like Spitsbergen or Mainland, Shetland would be worth having. Pfainuk talk 17:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a preference for keeping the articles according to their geographic name, what do you propose exactly. Justin talk 19:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My thought was to keep three articles:

• South Georgia
• South Sandwich Islands (if needed)
• This article

This article to primarily deal with the BOT and the history of the territory, including all of our information on politics and the economy. The South Georgia article would deal primarily with the geography, flora and fauna of that particular island, with a potted history of the island but avoiding most of the modern politics. Obviously the political situation would need a mention but that's all it would get. If needed, the South Sandwich Islands archipelago would do the same job for the SSI.

It just strikes me that South Georgia must be one of the largest islands in the world without an article dedicated to it. It's a bit of an anomaly, and I think that it would be a useful addition. Pfainuk talk 19:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I guess my preference reflects a convenient political grouping rather than a geographic one. I have no problem with that suggestion. Justin talk 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There surely is a place, indeed a necessity, for three articles; see my comment in 'Splitting the articles' discussion above. Apcbg (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal box Argentina?

I doubt if that portal box (inserted recently in the 'See also' section) is appropriate here. This is an article on the British overseas territory which is not dealt with in that portal. The latter might, if at all, be relevant to the 'South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute' article instead. Apcbg (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Didn't change it as my contributions are still monitored by certain parties looking to make mountains out of molehills. Justin talk 10:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Apcbg (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, what are the reasons? Since there is a territory reclaimed by Argentina and there are islands very near to that country... Can't be a article of interest for the argentinians? If the soberany is disputed there is because more than one country are interested on the territory, and it's the case of Argentina so I found fine that tag in the discussion, agur. --190.132.17.32 (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

confused, help

i am confused, how is georgia near russia but south geogia is near the falklands???? GMS1 (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're not trolling, South Georgia was named after King George by Captain Cook, South Georgia to avoid confusion with the American Province of Georgia. Nothing to do with the state of Georgia. Justin talk 10:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Permanent Residents

To deal with the apparent contradiction between the fact of no permanent residents and the population of 30 given by the infobox:

The human inhabitants of SGSSI are all scientists belonging to the British Antarctic Survey. These operate on a rotation: I believe the standard length of a spell as a scientist on the islands is 18 months (so that each individual spends two summers and one winter on the islands). The entire population is therefore transient.

There were, for a few years, two people who could arguably be described as permanent residents. The museum curators, a husband-and-wife team, lived and worked on the islands without any particular plan to move on. But some might argue that the islands still did not have a permanent population on the basis that there was no sense of a settlement, where people are born, live their lives and die, in the way that one normally expects a permanent settlement to work. In any case, the point is moot as the museum curators decided to move away. I believe that the museum is now staffed seasonally. Pfainuk talk 10:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For all I know, the UN defines "an international migrant as a person who resides outside his of her country of birth or citizenship for one year or more.", while "a temporary migrant ... resides in another country for three to twelve months." The national legislation in my country (and possibly other countries) regards foreigners staying for over one year as 'permanent residents' and those staying for three to twelve months as 'temporary residents'. Therefore — unless South Georgian Law says otherwise :-) — BAS personnel on 18-month contracts would qualify as permanent residents, I believe. Apcbg (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No they wouldn't, the law on BOT is quite specific that the contracts are temporary. This is to avoid the legal consequences of a permanent residence. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? 'Residence' and 'contract' are different kettle of fish. Permanent residents may well be on temporary contracts, the definition of 'permanent resident' disregards (intentionally) the reason for or length of stay — provided the latter is one year or more, which it apparently does in our case. Apcbg (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether there are permanent residents (and thus a permanent population) is one of those things that makes perfect sense as a black-and-white distinction, provided you don't look to closely. When you do look closely, a whole host of shades of grey emerge, which have the potential to make things very complicated.

Rightly or wrongly, when I think of a place having a population of permanent inhabitants, I tend to take the term in a more practical sense. I think of communities who intend to live there without (as a community) any particular intention of moving elsewhere - that are set up to have families and suchlike there. One might describe Grytviken whaling port in the early twentieth century as an example. That's not to say that the legalistic sense of the term is not illogical or unreasonable - as I say, it's a bit of a grey area. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the population is transient, they have no permanent right to remain. Ergo they cannot be permanent. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that sourced defined notions had priority over personal opinion here (however natural and reasonable the latter might seem). Apcbg (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

[7] From the official website:

“ Population

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) (further to the south-east) are a UK overseas territory. Continuous UK administration has been in place since 1908. At the height of the whaling period some 2,000 people lived on the island. Now there are no permanent residents - but there are two British Antarctic Research Stations (Bird Island and King Edward Point), Government Officers and museum curators during the summer months.

”

[8] FCO website - No indigenous population

Apcbg you know I respect you and your contributions but quoting a UN reference that has no legal relevance is not a relevant source on this occasion. Quoting your own nations legal position is also not a source. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The FCO says 'indigenous' not 'permanent'; the sgisland.gs site is fine but still no SGSSI legal definition of 'permanent resident'; moreover not all SGSSI residents are BAS personnel e.g. the Government Officers and families are not; BAS contracts may be 18-month ones but who says consecutive contracts are ruled out etc. etc. However, I sort of have that 'Gibraltar talk page' feeling that further discussion on this topic might prove more time and effort consuming than productive, so I'd rather leave it at this. Best, Apcbg (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate, thanks for that low blow. Merry Christmas. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all SGSSI/FI/GI aficionados! Apcbg (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what just transpired. Outback the koala (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"the only way to visit is by sea"

Couldn't they fly a plane there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.160.22 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Planes do fly to South Georgia for various purposes (air sovereignty patrolling, mail dropping etc.) but do not land as the island has no airstrip yet. Apcbg (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Overseas territory of the EU

I've removed this phrase. SGSSI is one of 21 listed overseas countries and territories of EU members and its status is that of "overseas country or territory" (not "overseas territory of the EU"). That means it is outside EU jurisdiction, rather than that it is a South Atlantic outpost of the EU. The territory is not part of the EU, having something closer to associate member status. As such, the EU is of extremely limited relevance, certainly not something for the opening sentence. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I support such a move, it doesn't belong in the lede. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unlike France and Spain and Portugal who joined along with empire lands overseas, The British Empire did not join in 1974 only the small part called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" this only has Northern Ireland, Scotland, Berwick-upon-Tweed, the principality of Wales and England, it includes of course the islands of these independately defined Juristictions (Main Acts of Parliment define applicability in these terms): but doesn't include both crown colonies and oversees teritories (nee dependant) including the Isle of Man and the Channel islands.

- Things are always open to change and now citiazans of the Empire have been given the right of a full British passport and withit the right of abode in the UK runing Dualy with any other Nationality they already have access to. Also more important to this thread some voters in teritories close to Europe were given the right to vote in European Elections by a complex mechinism to count teritories like Gibraltar as a newly linked part of the EU region of "South West" which lies inside the state of UK. It was a move to help with the soverignty issue with spain and the resentment that UK Expats in Southern Spain could vote but the Gibraltians couldn't. The Gibraltians want to be associated with the State of UK rather than the state of ES.

Very Wrong Phrase

In the article we can read: "From 1905, the Argentine Meteorological Office cooperated in maintaining a meteorological observatory at Grytviken under the British lease requirements of the whaling station until these changed in 1949"

Cooperated??? The papers of the British Admiralty and the Colonial Office shows that it was not a partnership, was a cession of territory forever. In december 1903, the british minister, William Haggard start the negotiations with the argentine Foreign Relationships minister, José Terry. The presidential decree of January 2, 1904, officially accepted the transfer.

So there was a reverse situation to that of the Falklands, Argentina was who had the islands and Britain claimed their rights over them. The Colonial Office had argued that allowed the transfer because he had not been aware of who was the discoverer of the islands.in that line, argue that don't mean that the islands had ceased to be British but Argentina could use them for scientific purposes.

The British charge d'affaires in Buenos Aires respond to the Colonial Office, that this ministry: "seemed unaware that the Argentine government had been officially invited, through the mission of His Majesty, to take the control".

Colonial Office's response? Incredibly the answer given to the British charge d'affaires in Buenos Aires has been removed from the records of the Foreign Office!!!

I hope the British censorship lifted and let us know the subsequent development of a discussion that the British themselves realized the reason for Argentina's position.

Just as yet, trying to see papers in person in London, documents of the treasure of the city of Buenos Aires, taken in the British invasions of 1806 and 1807, the answer is that can't access to those documents because my argentine nationality, although I doubt that the access be granted to any other historian to any nationality.

I am a historian, and denial of access to certain papers, as this may jeopardize certain position on a particular issue (I mean in general, not this particular issue), has told me that when everything is hidden too that reason is precisely the opposite.

I hope some British can access this information and transmit it to the rest.

We will not change the history, nor the possession of a territory, but more importantly... we can know the truth186.62.144.66 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You might probably be confusing two different historical developments — one that took place at Orcadas Base on the South Orkney Islands in 1903-04, and another one at Grytviken, South Georgia in 2005. Apcbg (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"South Georgia?"

Every map & globe I grew up with invariably referenced this island as New South Georgia, not merely "South Georgia." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Frank Worsley's book from 1931 calls it South Georgia, so that's not a new variant. This 1802 map File:Pendleton-1802.PNG also has South Georgia. In fact, I've never seen it as "New South Georgia". The only example of "New South X" that I can come up with is New South Wales. --Amble (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Situation is not the same as with the FI

Kahastok would you expand on this? Thank you. --Langus (t) 16:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopædia. There is no particular reason to include random Spanish in it. The guidance at WP:NCGN says to include a foreign language name only if it's "relevant", and defines what it means by "relevant". "Isla San Pedro y Sandwich del Sur" does not qualify by this definition.

The Spanish name is on the FI also does not qualify, but the Spanish-language name in that case is a significant part of the dispute. This is a significant and unusual use of WP:IAR. It does not apply here. Kahastok talk 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a very specific naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Falkland_Islands that provides the following guidance:

Geographical articles include both the English and Spanish names of the locality in the lead, but continue with the English name only. Articles on individual islands also note the Spanish name in the infobox.

This is a standard that Kahastok helped to build (see this diff, comment 1 and comment 2 on talk pages, and discussion at work group.)

Editor is now proposing to break apart from this standard, pointing to more broad guidelines. --Langus (t) 20:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed, but South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are not actually part of the Falkland Islands. In fact, they're quite a long way away from the Falkland Islands. It is difficult to see why we should feel the need to follow rules for Falklands-related articles even on articles that have no relation to the Falkland Islands. Kahastok talk 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Really Kahastok? SGSSI were part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies; that should be a hint. Also, the Falklands war escalated from an incident at Leith Harbour, South Georgia. Do we really need a RfC asking for something so trivial as whether or not the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are to be considered FI-related articles? --Langus (t) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So it was convenient to administer an uninhabited territory from their nearest inhabited territory? No, SGSSI are not Falklands-related. They are SGSSI-related. I agree we don't need an RFC. We just need a map.

Your argument is effectively the same as declaring that Argentina is in Europe because it used to be ruled from Spain. Kahastok talk 22:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. For example, Falklands war is a FI-related article, and it isn't even a place. Margaret Thatcher is a FI-related article, and she's not on a map. The convention above, established by community consensus, declares that Spanish names of the islands are "encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim". This stands true for the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, directly involved in the dispute. --Langus (t) 01:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you also say that Ascension Island is an FI-related article? It played a pretty major role in the Falklands War. What about Portsmouth, where the fleet sailed from? Should we feel the need to give the Spanish name on London on the basis that it is vaguely related to the Falkland Islands? That's basically your argument.

I note with interest that you have taken your quote completely out of context. What it actually says is "the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim." So it is, given the role that naming plays in that dispute. But SGSSI are not called "Malvinas" by anyone. Never have been. And naming does not play a similar role in the dispute over SGSSI as it does in the FI case.

There is no basis to casually assume that SGSSI are part of, or automatically related to, the Falkland Islands, or that our style rules for the Falkland Islands automatically apply to SGSSI - except insofar as they should both generally follow the wider rules for UK-related articles. Kahastok talk 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that SCSSI are directly involved in the sovereignty dispute, which is the spirit of that guideline. You can tell because the guideline also recommends: Articles on individual islands also note the Spanish name in the infobox. So, it not only aims at the Falklands/Malvinas argument as you seem to imply, but encompasses the naming of every disputed island. It follows that those names are also encyclopedic information, of particular importance with respect to the disputed Argentine territorial claim.

I won't answer to your examples because they out the scope of this debate. Beware of not falling into a slippery slope type of argument. --Langus (t) 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Individual islands in the Falkland Islands, you mean. SGSSI are not, by any stretch of the imagination, in the Falkland Islands. Does it encompass every disputed island? That's far wider than "Falkland Islands", and it's difficult to see any evidence in the guideline that it was ever intended to mean that. And as one of the people who wrote it, I can assure you that it was not intended to mean that. Kahastok talk 21:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In the 8 years the policy has existed, no one saw a need to extend it to South Georgia. Of itself that is no reason but it does demonstrate that the name is not contentious and that the Spanish name is not relevant to the sovereignty dispute. In reference to a slippery slope type of argument, turning the focus of every article on territories to the sovereignty dispute and trying to extend the guideline wider than intended is very much in that category. As someone who originally went to great lengths to ensure that the guideline was applied properly to Falklands related articles, I see no reason to extend it here. WCM_email 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it was an oversight that Langus forgot to mention it but this was raised at 3rd opinion [9]. WCM_email 23:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't: when you ask for a third opinion you have to hide your identity by not signing the request; see Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Instructions. That allows for an unbiased approach. If I were to announce a 3O request at talk page... what would be the point of not signing the request?

I stand by my interpretation of the guideline. That SGSSI weren't on your mind when it was agreed doesn't imply that no one else considered them under its scope, or that it shouldn't be. The necessity for that normalization steamed from the dispute that exists over some islands at the South Atlantic Ocean, between an English-speaking country and a Spanish-speaking one. We're still under that situation here, and IP editor is signaling just that. --Langus (t) 03:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, are you WP:HOUNDING my contributions? --Langus (t) 03:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying you were talking for me at WP:3O, not just without my consent but without even my knowledge, and certainly not giving me a say in what you are trying to sign me up to. Unbiased approach? Quite the opposite. Your approach allows one editor to decide how to frame the dispute in whatever biased way they like and claim the other editor's endorsement for it without even telling them that you went to 3O in the first place. Even the WP:3O guidelines say "[i]t is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the post here."

Fact remains that in the years since that guideline was added, and the far longer period since the standard was adopted on Falklands articles, no-one has ever tried to extend it beyond the Falklands before this discussion. That's just fact. So, no, I think the guideline is perfectly clear. When it says "Falkland Islands", it means "Falkland Islands". And, as I've pointed out from the start of this, the circumstances that lead to the guideline in the Falklands explicitly include the well-known dispute over the name of the Falkland Islands, a dispute that does not exist in the case of SGSSI. Note: corrected error by adding a "not" in the previous sentence Kahastok talk 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally, there is a difference between looking at an editor's contributions and harassing them. This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the latter. Kahastok talk 07:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If they were part of the part of the Falkland Islands, there would be no need to provide the Spanish name. But it is a different territory, the UK claimed it at a different time, and Argentina provided a claim at different times from the claim over the Falklands. Also, it has a separate administration, even if at times they may share a governor or other officials. So I would include the Spanish name just as we mention the territorial dispute between the Uk and Argentina. TFD (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is not currently a translation per most recent consensus, and the basic reading of WP:NCGN does not require one as no name other than "South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" meets the criteria outlined there. And note that it is difficult to see that this has anything to do with the dispute as the Spanish-language name that Langus and the IP want to include is not used by either disputant. Kahastok talk 18:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor and, strangely, the editor arguing for the inclusion of the Spanish name are in fact ignorant of what the name is in Argentine Spanish. In Spanish it would be Georgias del Sur for South Georgia and Islas Sandwich del Sur for the South Sandwich Islands, leading to the translation being Islas Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur. Both are literal translations of the English language name, indicating despite the sovereignty claim, there is no controversy or politicisation of the name. The current guidance for inclusion of the Spanish name on the Falklands is precisely because it is politicised. Current guidelines would suggest there is no need for a Spanish translation in this case. WCM_email 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So why do we provide both French and Dutch names for the island of Saint Martin? Both Saint-Martin and Sint Maarten are "literal translations" of the English name. In fact we do that for every country. The only reason reason I can see to omit it is that it might legitimize the Argentinian claim. But then we are supposed to be neutral. TFD (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

On Saint Martin, both options meet the general guidelines set out at WP:NCGN as they are the local names. The local name in this case is in English. You could (though I personally wouldn't) make a case for a non-English language based on WP:NCGN - which does allow for historical local use. But that language would be Norwegian. Kahastok talk 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Local name" seems bizarre when discussing uninhabited islands that have no belongers. Probably the closest guide would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Falkland Islands. Like the SGSSI, there is an Argentinian claim on a British Overseas Territory and "Articles on individual islands also note the Spanish name in the infobox." Other than the fact the SGSSI is not part of the Falklands, is there any reason to treat it differently? TFD (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

First, we're not talking about the infobox. Second, on Falklands articles there is generally an entirely different Spanish toponymy that has nothing to do with the English toponymy. "Malvinas" is part of the dispute, but so are "Isla Soledad" and "Gran Malvina" - very different from "East Falkland" and "West Falkland". The significance of "South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" in Spanish to the political dispute is very much lower. Kahastok talk 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually WCM, I believed that Isla San Pedro was the Spanish name used elsewhere, because in Argentina they are always called Georgias del Sur. But there's no point in discussing that if there's no intention of including any Spanish name in the infobox or lede, is it?

Tragicomic fact is that current article presents the Spanish names at section South Sandwich Islands, at the opening paragraph and in the table of individual islands (Islas Sandwich del Sur, Candelaria, Vindicación, Tule del Sur, etc). And it's been like that since 2005.[10][11]

It's evident that this article could've been benefited from WP:NCGN#Falkland_Islands. --Langus (t) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Isla San Pedro is in fact a small island in Chile. We have a guideline WP:NCGN, which applied here suggests there is no need to add the Spanish name. We have a different guideline at WP:NCGN#Falkland_Islands, because the name Malvinas is encyclopedic information. The literal translation of the English name into Spanish, demonstrates that, unlike with the Falkland Islands, the Spanish name is not significant in relation to the territorial dispute. There is nothing to suggest a comparable reason exists here and the emotive posturing and hyperbole isn't helpful. WCM_email 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130501235939/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2008ngak.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2008ngak.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Roads

Dear Wee, there is some sort of road on South Georgia I believe, running from King Edward Point to Grytviken and further on to Gull Lake. It is clearly visible on Google Earth, extending some 3.4 km. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516101800/http://www.hvalfangstmuseet.no/default.aspx?Cat=73&Id=231 to http://www.hvalfangstmuseet.no/default.aspx?Cat=73&Id=231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212150931/http://www.sght.org/whaling.htm to http://www.sght.org/whaling.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916004205/http://neic.usgs.gov/ to http://neic.usgs.gov/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907122010/http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/documents/bas_bulletins/bulletin15_08.pdf to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/documents/bas_bulletins/bulletin15_08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516123304/http://www.sgisland.gs/download/Management%20of%20introduced%20reindeer%20on%20South%20Georgia.pdf to http://www.sgisland.gs/download/Management%20of%20introduced%20reindeer%20on%20South%20Georgia.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506022242/http://www.sgisland.gs/download/legislation/SGGSI%20Gazette%20No%201%20dated%2029%20February%202012.pdf to http://www.sgisland.gs/download/legislation/SGGSI%20Gazette%20No%201%20dated%2029%20February%202012.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120803062409/http://www.goodplanet.info/eng/Zones/Etat-du-monde/Pays2/Danemark2 to http://www.goodplanet.info/eng/Zones/Etat-du-monde/Pays2/Danemark2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150803043220/http://www.sgisland.gs/index.php/(e)Eradication_Of_Rodents?useskin=env to http://www.sgisland.gs/index.php/%28e%29Eradication_Of_Rodents?useskin=env
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708074958/http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//bas_research/science/climate/overview.php to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/overview.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512172540/http://www.argentina.gob.ar/advf/documentos/4e5d320f6b465.pdf to http://www.argentina.gob.ar/advf/documentos/4e5d320f6b465.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014125543/http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html to http://britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mysterious object

On this island there is a mysterious object (look at Google maps):

54° 39’44.6” S 36° 11’42.5” W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.168.155.159 (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's the result of a landslide: https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2018/03/05/landslide-weirdness-ufo/ ck (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Behnam Nazemi islands?

Maybe I'm being dyslexic, but I saw a small group of three islands on mapping apps, off the SW coast. The apps label this small group Behnam Nazemi. I can find no Internet data for such islands so named in the Southern Ocean. If anyone knows if the correct name for these islands, adding a footnote why Internet mapping services use the Behnam Nazemi convention might help researchers uding one, or the other name, especially if it is true that maps show a name that no Internet verification seems to be out there.

Else, if I'm making a dumb mistake, feel free to tease me. Tesseract501 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I just see your note after years! But to clarify for others who see this I should notice that that was a spam on Google Maps and at that time we reported it and Google removed that spam name. We have no real island with such name. نیکات (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@نیکات: I can now see the Behnam Nazemi islands appearing again, at least as of today, e.g. on Google Maps screenshot Google Maps link Kidburla (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kidburla: I saw your new message too late, but I reported this to Google and they fixed the name. Thanks for your notice. نیکات (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello I just saw the message today. It was strange for me too and I tried to search But I could not find anything on the internet map. Instead, I was able to find a printed book in some old maps, but it was only with the name of Nazimi Island

Now I don't know if this article is important or not? 77.42.117.157 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Not covered by the Antarctic Treaty System"

@Roger 8 Roger: The reason for adding my comment was to clarify that, unlike the neighboring South Orkney Islands and South Shetland Islands, the British have not suspended their claim to these islands through the Antarctic Treaty System. Since these islands are all near each other, were formerly all part of the same territorial claim, and the latitude 60S is not visible on the maps, most readers won't have an intuitive grasp of which islands are international territory. Because Chile or Argentina also claim all of these islands, I think we should clarify the situation so that readers like me don't need to hunt through this article for this quite basic information. Yes, 'they are not many other things too', as you put it, but most of the things they're not are not relevant to an understanding of the topic. This is. Maybe not in the lead, but somewhere accessible, such as the government sections. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The British have not in any way suspended or frozen or renounced any part of any claim as part of the Antarctic Treaty. And nor has any of the other contracting parties. What they suspended was the principle of international law that requires that countries maintain and enforce their sovereignty claims against encroachment (potentially using military means). Also, Chile does not claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Nor, for that matter, the South Orkney Islands. Never has.

I also note that the South Orkney Islands and South Shetland Islands are only neighbours to SGSSI in a relative sense - they're hundreds of miles away.

I find it distinctly unlikely that readers will necessarily associate SGSSI with the British Antarctic Territory, or with the South Orkney or South Shetland Islands at this stage, given that the by this point in the article none of these places have yet been mentioned. Kahastok talk 20:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, The article is about the BOT, formed in 1985. I agree that the Antarctic Treaty has a connection with the BOT but only loosely. There might be a case for mentioning something in the history section but IMO that is about it. Your addition came across to me as putting something in the lead that you think is notable enough to warrant a mention, which is personal opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Every judgement of what is notable is personal opinion. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)