Talk:Ross Dependency

Template (for those who supports New Zealand's juristiction over the territory)

This user supports New Zealand Sovereignty over Ross Dependency

I really question whether this template is appropriate for the talk page of an article. John Carter 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ross Dependency Has a Capital?

I am not aware that a capital has ever been designated for an Antarctic territory, yet according to this entry, Scott Base is the capital of Ross Dependency. If there are no objections, I will delete this factually unsupported entry. --Mike Beidler 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. I did it William M. Connolley 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for flag

This may be tricky. I don't know of any published reports of the flag, but a friend of mine who worked at Scott Base for a season did take a flag down to the Big Ice with him and said that he flew it. It certainly has no official status and AFAIK has never been officially flown there. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (James Dignan)

Govt?

This is like Queen Maud Land. Certainly the uk govt never "took possession" of the place. Nor is it governed, in any meaningful sense William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes meaningful government is debatable. New Zealand has legislation on its books claiming jurisdiction over the territory, with some exceptions for nationals of other treaty countries covering their activities under the treaty.[1] New Zealand issues permits for other visitors.[2]

I agree that the Ross Dependency is like Queen Maud Land and the other official Antarctic territorial claims, but you seem to draw a different conclusion from that than I do. These territorial claims are held in abeyance to some degree, but they still exist and should be covered thoroughly here. Why do you think that the fact that the Governor-General is the Dependency's Governor should not be mentioned in the infobox? I assume you are happy for it to remain in the article's text, since you haven't changed that. -- Avenue (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

*Claims* are one thing. The infobox bit I edited didn't talk abaout claim: it said the Govt was NZ. That bald statement is false William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand is certainly the de facto government, in that Ross Dependency comes under New Zealand jurisdiction for the purposes of the police and similar agencies (though this has not usually been enforced when matters dealing with the US base at McMurdo Sound are concerned. That base is regarded as US territory in the same manner as an embassy or - more accurately - one of the long-term lease US air bases in the UK). It is not the de jure government, as any claims are in abeyance. However, the New Zealand government's role in the administration of the region is a fact. Grutness...wha? 09:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The links I gave above show that New Zealand does take responsibility for administering the Dependency, except where it can expect other Antarctic Treaty signatories to take responsibility for their own nationals. (Here is a more relevant link about those exceptions: Antarctica Act 1960 Section 5.)

Perhaps the infobox should mention foreign personnel or the US bases as an exception to New Zealand's jurisdiction. But the current version, saying that there is no government at all, is just as bald a statement as the one it replaced, and I believe those links show it's not correct. -- Avenue (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm obviously not getting my point across. Yes, NZ "takes responsibility" in the sense that it claims to. No it doesn't in any meaningful sense - the place is empty, it has no govt William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Either you're still failing to get your point across, or your points just don't hold water. New Zealand does provide governance for the Dependency, in terms of planning, policy, and permits, as those links demonstrate. NZ does not just claim to do these things - it does them. (For instance, through tourism and research permits, fishing observers, and surveillance flights.) And being (mostly) empty doesn't preclude having a government. For example, much of Greenland and the Sahara would see less human activity than the Ross Dependency, as would New Zealand's sub-Antarctic islands, but governments have jurisdiction over those places too. -- Avenue (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Belongs to New Zealand"?

No piece of Antarctica belongs to any country. Like all the other Antarctic territorial claims, this entry should state in the introductory language that it is a claim. The language should be in line with the British Antarctic Territory or the Argentine Antarctica. Esquierman (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article should reflect reliable sources, not your personal point of view. However, I've reworded it to mention the effect of the Antarctic Treaty on NZ's claim. Our articles on various Antarctic territorial claims do not all treat this the same way, so arguing from example doesn't necessarily lead anywhere; see Adélie Land, for instance. --Avenue (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The new wording is better. I agree that "belongs to" was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem either from my perspective. Justin talk 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead says that NZ's claim on the Ross Dependency is "accepted by the other six countries with territorial claims in Antarctica." This seems to be at odds with Realm of New Zealand, which states that "New Zealand's claim to this part of Antarctica is recognised by only four other countries." Unless some distinction between "accept" and "recognise" is intended. Muzilon (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Flag of New Swabia.svg Nominated for Deletion

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) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)