Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject British Overseas Territories (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Argentina (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South America / South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands work group.
 
WikiProject Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review 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.

"the only way to visit is by sea"[edit]

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[edit]

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 (TC) 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[edit]

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?"[edit]

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[edit]

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. WCMemail 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 [1]. WCMemail 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. WCMemail 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.[2][3]
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. WCMemail 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)