Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article.|
|This article is written in British English (colour, realise, travelled), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class)|
|This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 19, 2006, March 19, 2007, March 19, 2008, and March 19, 2009.|
"the only way to visit is by sea"
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)