|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject British Overseas Territories|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7||(Rated C-class)|
The Royal Marines, SAS and SBS retook the settlement three weeks later without a shot being fired.
The Operation Paraquet article says:
The revised plan involved two Royal Navy vessels subjecting the Argentine garrison at Grytviken to an artillery bombardment. The garrison surrendered after fifteen minutes.
Regarding the removed statement about the first wedding in history having taken place in February 2006 — certainly not so; there had been several marriages before, the first one being registered on 24 February 1932, between A.G.N. Jones and Vera Riches. (Cf. R.K. Headland's book). Apcbg 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
How brief was the battle?
Did anyone get shot in the Falkland War? Did they shot at each other and miss? leave bullet holes in the buildings? was it even a battle?
Grytviken or King Edward Point?
Normal usage is that Grytviken is the whaling station at the head of the cove and King Edward Point is the low promontory at the mouth. I have moved the link to the Argentine met station to the KEP page. Also removed a paragraph about the GSGSSI/BAS research station, which is also at KEP not Grytviken.PatLurcock 17:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"Without a shot being fired"???? An Argentine submarine, the Santa Fe, was attacked by British helicopters and ran aground in the harbour. A British destroyer shelled the Argentine positions. Then they surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit or Chrome?
I'm using the Chrome browser at the moment, and in the 'Falklands War' sub-section between the paragraph ending "remaining under British control." and "On April 25, the Royal Navy damaged and captured the Argentine submarine" I have three 'edit' points. One for this section and one each for the two preceding sections. I can't see anything wrong with the code but then I'm not that good at it. Is it Chrome that's interpreting it wrongly or is there something wrong with the coding of this entry? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, it seems to be the presence of pictures that push these edit links out of the way. Probably some of those pictures could be moved to the bottom or something. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You have broken my patience a long time ago. Why don't you listen to what people tell you, and this whole thing could have been avoided? Or even better, you could have looked at the diff when you did the edit, seen that you reverted more than you intended, and fixed it. In that case I wouldn't have reverted anything, but instead I would have tried to convince you to fix the -link problem without breaking the layout for you. But you reverted three different things, but only mentioning one. And when I pointed this out you did it again. And again. Yes, pig headed is the right word for that. How about listening to explanations next time? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article says Grytviken is Swedish. I'm pretty sure it's Norwegian, though. Linguistically, it could be both (Norwegian: gryte; Swedish: gryta), and I can't find any sources, but the place was founded by a Norwegian, primarily used by Norwegian whalers, and the church came from Norway, so I think one should have a strong case to claim it's Swedish. Does anybody know more? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not about claims, it's about facts. The settlement was established by Norwegians in 1904, taking its name from the cove 'Grytviken' which had been named two years before that by Swedes. (The place had been inhabited by English sealers in the 19th century who left artifacts but no name.) See the relevant paragraph in the article History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Apcbg (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The pot bay
I'm somewhat unconvinced this translation of the Swedish is accurate. Generally Swedish toponymy tends to be descriptive, and as I recall the logic to Gryta, as in pot/cauldron would be due to rendering vessels remaining from whale processing doesn't tally with a Swedish initial naming, followed by Norwegian settlement as a whaling station. Though perhaps the situation of the bay, surrounded by mountains is like a pot? I think it may well be equally likely that the name derives from Gryt, with the meaning in older swedish of pile of stones, or more modern burrow, cognate with English grit.Lacunae (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC) compare with the OS of Grut Ness in Scotland.Lacunae (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC) And so, I think the name Grytviken actually was named as Gravel Bay, which makes more sense given the scree, rather than pot bay, given the Norwegian whale rendering pots came later.Lacunae (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry but your personal speculation is not grounds for tagging cited content. I've added more cites and the last cite I added explained where it comes from (Swedish gryt = pot, vik = cove). I trust that is the end of it? email 22:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, given that the citation given (and further ones you've added) are not available to view, they could all be based on the original citation. That I tagged it, to open it for further discussion, should not be an issue as Wikipedia policy is to give due weight to opposing or minority views, and discuss them on the talk page. Whether you think it is my personal speculation is up to you, but I have provided sources to back what I've said as much as possible, not to mention the "Pot Bay" name does not tally with the chronological settlement history. Also, you'll note that the alternative translation, "pile of stones" is also listed on the translation page for Gryt you linked to. Lastly, I'd advise you to re-read WP policy regarding WP:Assume good faith, WP:Civility and WP:Be bold.Lacunae (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments are based on your own personal interpretation of linguistics and not any source suggesting that the content is incorrect. You didn't provide sources in the way wikipedians are supposed to use then, you were conducting speculation and synthesis ie WP:OR and WP:SYN. Further, I have provided you with links to Google books and, although I personally detest use of snippets, you can see enough to verify the claim made eg . I am somewhat bemused why a straight forward reply would provoke any editor to lecture another about WP:AGF and WP:Civility but allow me to point out that your personal inability to view a cite is not a valid reason for questioning the integrity of another editor, as that is tantamount to an accusation of citation fraud. If you would like to take your concerns about my ability to assume good faith and be civil in this exchange, please by all means raise your concerns at WP:ANI. email 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- And it is for these very reasons, the only edit I made to the page was to add a dubious tag. "Add [dubious ] after a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. Most commonly, this involves uncertainty regarding the veracity or accuracy of the given source, or of an editor's interpretation of that source. This template's wording is milder than that of [disputed ], which indicates that the material in question is being directly challenged as being incorrect." Which I didn't see as anything beyond the pale. I agree, the material I have is not strong enough to use as a challenge on the main article, hence this talk. Also, I wish to point out that I am not challenging your integrity, merely pointing out that the other citations are likely based on the account by Andersson, rather than being independent analyses of the name derivation.Lacunae (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
"their daughter Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen was the first child ever born in the Antarctic, on October 8, 1913." At a latitude of 54 degrees South, the island is not in the Antarctic. Dmgerrard (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The antarctic is not simply defied by latitude. South Georgia and hence Grytviken, is generally seen as located in the Antarctic as it is south of the Antarctic Convergence. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Rubbish. It is defined by the Antarctic Circle at 66° 33′ 44″ (or 66.5622°) south of the Equator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circle or at the very most by the Antarctic Treaty from 60 degrees South. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System Dmgerrard (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no need to respond in such a manner to a perfectly reasonable reply. Secondly, the material is sourced per WP:RS and WP:V, this is how wikipedia works, WP:VERIFIABILITY not WP:TRUTH. Finally, your own personal opinion, which is what you're expressing, is not suitable as the basis for editing as this is WP:OR. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No it isnt. The Antarctic Circle is the only fixed boundary which is irrefutable. The article should be changed but I will leave it to those who hide behind silly names. Dmgerrard (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong answer. That measures no borders. You'll notice that by the complete absence of the word "border" in the whole article. And before you start arguing more on this path, show me how you measure the border between, say, Norway and Sweden, by measuring Ecliptics. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you are wittering about now but you seem to have strayed from the point. The obliquity of the ecliptic defines the Poles, the Equator, the Tropics and the Arctic & Antarctic. The Circle gives us a far more reliable definiton than a convergence zone between ocean currents which by its definition must be fluid. I speak as a navigator who has actually been to Grytviken and knew full well where I was and more importantly where I was not. That may not suffice as Wikievidence but its good enough for me and I suspect most people who live in the real world. Dmgerrard (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- No it does not. What comprises the Antarctic is defined by people, not by astronomy. It is good of you anyway to admit, which you now do, that your standpoint is your personal opinion. Which is what we said above. It seems we now agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does. People can disagree about definitions that other people have invented. We have no control over the heavens where matters are defined by a higher authority and are absolute. My opinion is no more personal than yours. Are you equally flexible about what is meant by the Tropics? Dmgerrard (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, last try to make the penny drop:
- "People can disagree about definitions that other people have invented." - Exactly. And the Antarctic is a concept invented by...? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Comment(s)||Press [show] to view -->|
|In this part:
I'm not sure if these two are the only permanent inhabitants of the island, I red a book that says there are an old couple living in a yacht called "Curlew" next to Petrel, they're called Tim and Pauline Carr. I did search in the web and I found some information that confirms that, take a look at the links below..
--Rmanola 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)The Carrs ran the museum and lived on their yacht Curlew. They retired and left in 2006. There are no permanent inhabitants.PatLurcock 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Last edited at 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)