Talk:British Antarctic Territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bias in antarctic articles?[edit]

In need some help by anyone who reads this. But it would seem to me that there is a bias between the Argentine Antarctica article and this one. This is a bias I have noted well in other encyclopedias as well. And I know this might be considered by some as 'splitting hairs', but I think it is a valid observation. This article states that:

"...British Antarctic Territory is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom, situated in Antarctica from the South Pole to 60° S latitude between longitudes 20° W and 80° W. The Territory was formed on March 3, 1962, although the UK first claimed this portion of the Antarctic in 1908. Prior to 1962, the Territory was part of the Falkland Islands Dependency. Territorial claims are generally not recognised by those countries not making their own claim..."

In the Argentine article it says:

"...Argentine Antarctica (Spanish: Antártida Argentina) is a sector of Antarctica which Argentina considers part of its National Territory. The Argentine Antarctic region, consisting of the Antarctic Peninsula and a triangular section extending to the South Pole, is delimited by the meridians 25° West and 74° West and the parallel 60° South latitude. Administratively, Argentine Antarctica is a department of the province of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands. The provincial authorities reside in Ushuaia and the Governor annually designates his delegate for the Antarctica region, which thus represents the civil power of the zone. There are overlapping claims on this territory by Chile and the UK, so the "civil power" of any of the administrators extends no further than that nation's own bases..."

This looks like these two segments are massaging a point of view. Massaging is the correct word, because while it is not an overt statement, it certainly can be construed as the following: In the British article, the sentence clearly says "IS AN OVERSEAS TERRITORY... of the United Kingdom"... Now to me, and more so probably to uninformed or casual subject readers, this sounds like a definite affirmative statement of posession and control. The UK has no more of an official control to this region than do Argentina, or Chile.

On the other hand, the Argentine article says "a sector of Antarctica which Argentina CONSIDERS... part of its National Territory". This sound like it questions the validity of the 'claim' of territorial claim in itself (not to confuse this with the 'official validity of posession'), whereas in the UK and Chilean articles the 'claim' itself by the countries is not disputed, but rather the international validity.

I submit that this issue should be adressed. Thank you very much for your time. TheDugout 13:48 19 Sep (2006)

ps- I'm new to this so I do not know how to post my user name and time of posting, as in the comments above.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentine_Antarctica"

Different writers working at different times, most likely. "is" is probably better than "considers" for both, because they're just basic statements of national legal status. After that you can add how the claims are viewed internationally. Feel free to make the fix! Stan 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The key difference I would say is that Argentina states that their Antarctic lands are part of Argentina proper, while the UK claims territory under the BAT. The BAT is an overseas territory of the UK- no doubt about that- and it administers its laws on the territory on the British base and their civilians. The BAT exists, although its right to the territory claimed to be the BAT is disputed. In contrast Argentina does not seperate the territory it claims, so there is no legal body, Argentine Antartcia or whatever. Astrotrain 11:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is highly inconsistant and should be remedied; most countries do not accept these claims, and that should be clearly pointed out in the first sentence of the introduction. Titanium Dragon 05:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to this also, so please excuse any mistakes. The article states that territorial claims in the antarctic go against the Antarctic treaty, yet the Wikipedia article on antarctic territorial claims says that it does no such thing. To quote:

"It is sometimes stated that the Antarctic Treaty defers or suspends these claims. However, Article IV of the treaty, which deals with the issue of territorial claims, merely specifies that previously asserted claims are not affected by the treaty.

It states that:

   * Contracting to the Treaty is not a renunciation of any previous territorial claim.
   * Does not affect the basis of claims made as a result of activities of the signatory nation within Antarctica.
   * Does not affect the rights of a State under customary international law to recognise (or refuse to recognise) any other territorial claim.

What the treaty does affect are new claims:

   * No activities occurring after 1961 can be the basis of a territorial claim.
   * No new claim can be made.
   * No claim can be enlarged."

Would it be wise to soften this statement somewhat? [above comment is mine btw :-) 195.137.96.79 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)]

The British Antartic Territory is not more a british territory than an Argentine department or a Chilean province. In fact this two later countries have more efective presence than the u.k. and way more valid claims.

Thanks...

"Hiving"?[edit]

What does it mean that the UK "hived off" on its claims? Nyttend 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Prior to the formation of BAT- the UK's territory in this area was known as the Falkland Islands Dependancy and included the Antarctic claim, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. After the signing of the treaty, all territory below the limit was hived off into BAT- while SG and the SSIs remained in the FID. Astrotrain 13:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Opening line[edit]

There is a clear NPOV discrepance in the opening lines of the articles regarding the british claim and the argentine and chilean claims. I have edited it so that it no longer implies that Britain has actual sovereignty over the territory whereas Chileans and Argentinians only have "claims". --Burgas00 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, it's because different editors contribute to them, not anything deliberate. There is nothing POV about the opening sentence:
  • the British Antarctic Territory is a British overseas territory, in that the British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that Britain lists as BOTs
  • it is situated in Antarctica from the South Pole to 60° S latitude between longitudes 20° W and 80° W."

Those are facts. The fact that the claim is not recognised by other states, and that it overlaps with those of other states, is covered a few sentences later. So it is not POV. Furthermore, if you start changing this opener like you wish to, then every single slice of land with disputed sovereignty must carry the disclaimer "...that X considers part of its territory". Gibraltar is the pensinsula in the south of Spain that Britain considers part of its territory. Kosovo is a region of the Balkans that Serbia considers part of its territory. Tibet is the region of the Himalayas that China considers part of its territory. etc etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain has neither de facto control over the claimed territory nor does its claim enjoy international recognition. It remains simply a claim. Stating that it is an overseas territory of the UK implies that the territory is controlled by the UK and that its sovereignty enjoys an at least de facto (if not de jure) recognition. This is false and misleading. The British claim is equivalent to all the other claims over the territory. Domestic legislation regarding the territory is irrelevant. Britain, as a dualist legal system based on the sovereingty of parliament, could pass an act requiring all french nationals to lay down and die, and this, in theory, would still be enforceable by english courts.

As for Gibraltar, Spain recognises UK sovereignty over the territory. I thought you would know that. This is a quite simple issue. --Burgas00 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that you didn't address the other territories I mentioned, and instead came up with a ridiculous hypothetical argument about killing Frenchmen, which proves nothing. I'm not going to revert (for now, at least, because I've done so three times), but I would be interested to hear others' views. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for other territories. Chinese sovereignty over Tibet is recognised de facto and de jure by the international community. Serbia has no control over its province of Kosovo since the war but its sovereignty is still recognised pending a political solution of the dispute.... --Burgas00 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I know all of that, but does it mean you have to have all that stated in the opening sentence because otherwise it's "POV"? Of course not. As long as the subject is dealt with, it's not POV. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with the current version of the first line? It is more accurate and does not lead to the confusion previously mentioned (i.e. that Britain has effective control over the territory as opposed to a simple claim). Furthermore, that divergences between descriptions of the argentinian and british claims are "accidental" is no excuse for not making them equivalent so as not to "accidentally" imply a different status under international law. --Burgas00 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ok. I think this is probably quite easy to deal with. I dont think many people object to it being described as a British Overseas Territory, as it undoubtedly is. We must be careful to note that it is not recognised as "British" by all other countries although it is recognised by some. It shouldnt be too hard to do this to the satisfaction of both points of view. I think the version we have now is fine. It states that it is a part of antarctica claimed by the UK, and that it is a BOT. Lets get down to what the specific problem with statement is if we wish to change it. Comments? Regards to all 195.137.96.79 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Map discrepancy ?[edit]

Why does the map appear to show a gap between the UK and Norwegian claims ? The other article about the claimed territories in Antarctica shows otherwise.Eregli bob (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Look closer, the gap is between the overlapping Argentine Claim and the Norwegian Claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.37.223 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of New Swabia.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of New Swabia.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Antarctic Territory. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Antarctic Territory. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)