Talk:South Orkney Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Antarctica / Argentine Antarctica / British Antarctic Territory  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Argentine Antarctica work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by British Antarctic Territory work group.
 
WikiProject Islands  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

POV[edit]

This entry should be cleared of POV and improve the consistency of the language. Two options:

Either we say: "The islands are part of the British Antarctic Territory..." and "The islands are part of the province of Tierra del Fuego...";

Or we say: "The islands are claimed by the United Kingdom as part of their British Antarctic Territory..." and "The islands are claimed by Argentina as part of the province of Tierra del Fuego..."

The language as it is now clearly shows POV favoring the United Kingdom's position. Esquierman (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, the Argentine claim is dealt with fairly giving it due weight per WP:NPOV. The South Orkney islands were formally annexed by Britain long before Argentina subsequently made a retrospective claim. What you're proposing is giving additional weight to the Argentine claim by elevating its significance; a moot point anyway given the Antarctic Treaty. I don't propose to answer you on every page, so please do take this as a response across the board for all of the POV changes you made. Regards, Justin talk 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This issue is still outstanding. There is no supporting reference to the statement that the British claim is somehow stronger or more important than the Argentine. Your justifying it by saying that "The South Orkney islands were formally annexed by Britain long before Argentina subsequently made a retrospective claim" is clearly WP:NOR unless you find a reference to support it. In your above response you mention other "POV changes" I made. It should be noted that *all* of these changes that I made (and you reverted) have been eventually supported by other editors and made permanent. All of them. Esquierman (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no outstanding issue, no one is asserting either position is stronger, nor is the language in the article implying it. This is the spin put upon them by your own interpretation, though you clearly seek to elevate Argentine claims. I am thus not particularly swayed by allegations of bias. Neither is there any WP:OR in my comments, since the dates are a matter of historical record. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)