Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Is there a Bird Island in both South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? While talking about SG, the page claims that the Antarctic Survey have a post on Bird Island. It also states that the SSI are uninhabited. Fair enough. But then later on we're told that the SSI include a Bird Island. If it's the same Bird Island, then all three facts cannot be true.
- Bird Island is off the northwest end of South Georgia, I'll update the article to remove the confusion. Orourkek 16:27, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] How does an uninhabited area have a constitution?
Who ratified it and whom does it affect? Personnel serving at the scientific stations and summer tourists? Governance of an uninhabited territory would seem to be solely an executive function; it would hard to constitute a legislature or find a jury for a court (which would seem to be required as information states that it is a common law jurisdiction). Rlquall 02:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- South Georgia is essentially a dictatorship. It is ruled in its entirity by Howard Pearce, Governor of the Falkland Islands. This is, of course, not really a problem, since no-one except a few scientists live there. As for a 'constitution' - as far as I'm aware, the closest thing would be the "South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order", an Order-in-Council, in 1985.
-
- His Excellency the Commissioner is not elected, though he is answerable to his employers, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so would not be able to go far off the rails for long. If, for instance, he decided to declare war on anyone he would soon be brought into line.PatLurcock 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of a constitution. Great Britain still does not have one, not written anyway, as I understand things. Major decisions, particularly those involving the international political arena, are made with a lot of input from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who ensure that they fit in with UK policy. The nearest thing I know of to a constitution is the Environmental Management Plan, which is being PatLurcock 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Resident personnel are all transient by dint of their jobs, though some (including me) have been there for nearly 14 years. There is not, and never was, an indiginous population. There is no right of abode, as soon as we leave the jobs we leave the island (though if one could persuade the Government that one would be ecologically non-intrusive, medically and logistically self-sufficent etc. then the Government might give permission to stay). The functions of the jobs are more permanent so there is continuity of Government. See the Government website www.sgisland.org for lots more information on how the island is run.PatLurcock 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] lost people
10 years ago 40 people were in a ship, the ship sunk and they had to live 3 months before english realised. kinda control they have
[edit] Inhabited or not?
A question above presupposes that SGSSI is uninhabited, but the article doesn't make that clear. Is there a permanent population of South Georgia, as there is of the Falklands, or are there only research stations, as on Antarctica? Either way, the article should be clearer about the issue. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is generally accepted that a base, staffed by military, or science researchers, doesn't count as an inhabitation. That kind of temporary staff, don't count as inhabitants. That is the convention followed by the CIA fact book. -- Geo Swan 23:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, but unless I missed something, the article never explicitly says there is no permanent settlement. I came to this article curious as to whether anyone actually lives permanently on the island, and got no answer until I followed the link to the CIA fact book. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
There is a permanent settlement. The individuals come and go, but there is always someone there.PatLurcock 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV -> to consider all sides of a subject
In my opinion the article is POV as long as the Argentine claims are not considered as valid as the British claims. I am not an Argentinian and I think it is pretty stupid to battle for a couple of rocks in the Southern Atlantic. But the Argentine claim exists and it should be mentioned along the official Spanisch names. This would be NPOV. (We do it like this in the German Wikipedia). --ALE! 12:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- To me it makes no sense to have the islands in Category:Argentina. They are claimed by Argentina, and that gets a mention right in the first sentence of the article, which of course is indisputably necessary. But to categorise them in Argentina seems to me to express the POV that they belong to Argentina. Taiwan is not in Category:People's Republic of China, and Gibraltar is not in Category:Spain, but all are in Category:Disputed territories, which encompasses the situation in a suitably NPOV way. Worldtraveller 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spainish names/Co-ordinates
This is the English Wikipedia, therefore it is not necessary to state the Spainish names for the islands. Spainish names are not included on any other British overseas territory articles, including the Falkland Islands.
The use of the co-ordinates for every single location, and continously repeated creates a messy article, and is not very helpful to the reader. Astrotrain 11:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is not necessary, but it is not harmful either.
- Methink that you're doing a disservice to our readers, that might be interested on knowing how does the other claimant to the sovereignty of the islands calls them. Including this does not endorse the Argentine claim.
- And yes, Wikipedia, English or not, does bring several names for locations. Gdansk states its German, Latin and Kashubian designation.
- Ejrrjs | What? 17:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Astro, I don't think it hurts to mention the spanish names... but I don't want them to have a major role either... we'll figure it out. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Geographical coordinates: It is true that the geographical coordinates create a messy impression and deteriorated the overall look of the article. Because of that, I am now considering creating a separate article, something like List of the islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, where I would include exactly the list which was removed because it created a messy impression. Then, this new list/article could be mentioned with a Wikilink to it in this article here. -- Citylover 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Spanish names: I am against removing the Spanish names since this is not a British-only english-language encyclopedia, but a global english-language encyclopedia, used by people from all countries, nations, continents and languages, and the most common names for these islands (including the Spanish names) should be included. -- Citylover 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Spanish Names: Ignoring the politics: I live there and nobody (residents or visitors) ever uses the Spanish names to refer to places when travelling or otherwise identifying places. They are only used for political posturing.PatLurcock 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The use of the Spanish forms "Georgia del Sur" and "Islas Sandwich del Sur" of the English names "South Georgia" and "South Sandwich Islands" uglifies the 09:10, 13 September 2006 text beyond measure, more so that unlike "Falklands" - "Malvinas" those are not different names.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By the way, the Spanish name "Islas Malvinas" is misused in "Falkland Islands Dependencies (Islas Malvinas)", "Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Dependencies Survey". Apcbg 14:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Japanese threat during ww2
"During World War II (Autumn 1943 - Autumn 1944) the island housed a small (14 people) Norwegian military garrison to protect the island from any possible Japanese invasion"
Can someone confirm this? If so, please add a link directly after the sentence, as this is kind of hard to believe when you take the distance to the nearest japanese-occupied territory into consideration! Bjelleklang - talk 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Have found some sites where the same has been mentioned, but nothing worh citing as a source. Also asked around on no.wikipedia, but so far without results. Bjelleklang - talk 23:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- The only ones I can see are Wikipedia mirrors. I doubt the event is true, at least the way it is currently described. Astrotrain 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think there might have been Norwegians stationed there during the war, as I found a transcript of an old norwegian 'Bygdebok' (am not sure how to translate, but basically a book listing newly-borns and dead, as well as other major events). The book names a person called Anders Hansen, a blacksmith who died 24.10.43. But I don't know if he was stationed as a soldier, or as part of any whaling operations.
-
-
- My Norwegian ain't perfect, but I would say that a reasonable, rough translation of Bygdebok would be "Parish Book/Record"; bygde meaning "hamlet/village", "settlement" or "community" (I think).--Mais oui! 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That's about it, yes. Bjelleklang - talk 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- And by the way, the threat was probably not posed by the japanese, but more likely by the germans. Bjelleklang - talk 18:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Norway was an occupied country during World War II. It would be very unusual for a country under occupation to send a garrison of troops to defend a British island in the middle of the South Atlantic. Of course Norway had whaling operations on the island. Since the Japanese Empire did not extent beyond the mid-Pacific, it is unlikely that the South Atlantic was under threat from Japanese invasion. Astrotrain 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it is that unusual, as both France and Poland were occupied, but still had military units stationed in the UK.
The army consisted of approx. 1500 troops at its height during the war, and had a norwegian brigade stationed in Scotland tasked with invasion defence, as well as units stationed on Iceland, Jan Mayen and Svalbard.
- But I think that the reference should be removed until the claim can be cited from another (independent) source! Bjelleklang - talk 21:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree Astrotrain 22:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Garrisoning elements of the Free Norwegian Forces on Svalbard and Jan Mayen makes sense. They are Norwegian possessions -- just as Free French Forces garrisoned French Caribean possessions. I think it is possible that the unfortunate Anders Hansen was a whaler. Grytviken was a whaling station.
Is it possible that the Norwegian garrison was on Bouvet Island -- another Norwegian possession?
I agree that defense against the Germans makes more sense than defense against the Japanese. German commerce raiders did make it that far south. But 14 troops, without weapons couldn't do much to defend a huge Island like South Georgia. Even a U-boat could land a shore party larger than that.
Perhaps, if there really were Norwegians stationed that far south, they were manning a wearther station. No weather satellites back in those days. Remote weather stations were very important. -- Geo Swan 00:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Could not have been Bouvet Island as far as I know, as this is compleatly uninhabited; and would have been of no strategic value for the Wehrmacht, and the weather station wasn't erected until 1977. In regards as to what their purpose was, if they really was stationed on South Georgia, I'd assume that it is more likely that they filled the same role as the Norwegians stationed at Jan Mayen, who ran a weather station and a radio station, with some basic defensive capabilities (but not invasion defence). Bjelleklang - talk 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Falklands / Malvinas possession
Currently South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are considered an UK oversea territory.
Quoting the official governmental site from Argentina: [Geography and climate]
Extensión / Extension La superficie de sus tierras emergidas es de 3.761.274 Km² de los cuales 2.791.810 Km² corresponden al Continente Americano; 969.464 Km² al Continente Antártico (incluyendo las Islas Orcadas del Sur) y las islas australes (Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur). Por su extensión ocupa el cuarto lugar entre los paises americanos (despues de Canada, Estados Unidos de América y la República Federativa del Brasil). ...
I will now translate this to english: The surface of Argentina is of 3.761.274 Km² from which 2.791.810 Km² are within the South American Continent; 969.464 Km² belong to the Antartic and South Georgias Sur and South Sandwich.
Funny, ain't? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrique Moreira (talk • contribs).
- Why? Ejrrjs | What? 22:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, why these things are funny? Nkcs 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WWII
See History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands for further details of the WWII events on South Georgia; the reference source is Robert Headland's book 'The Island of South Georgia', a most reliable, well documented and comprehensive factbook on all aspects of the island. The former wording "... possible invasion by Japanese forces ... the cold was a worse enemy ..." seems inappropriate; the Japanese presence in the area used to be their pelagic whaling fleet promptly destroyed by the Allies (so the Japanese were the victims with no offensive capabilities in this particular case), and the defendants of South Georgia were local inhabitants perfectly well accustomed to the island's weather. Apcbg 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Husvik (from 1907 factory-ship, land-based station 1960 to 1960, out of operation 1930 to 1945)
The year I wrote in bold cannot be true. Is there someone who know the year when they started the land based station? Etienne 10/07/2006
[edit] Figures don't add up
From the article:
"The territory has revenues of less than $300,000"
"Fishing licenses bring in a handful of million pounds a year"
This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Matt 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
- I later found some revenue figures for 2002 which are slightly more consistent with the second statement, and have updated the article accordingly. Matt 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)~.
[edit] Discovery of Bellinghausen Island - contradiction
This South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article says: "The southern eight islands of the Sandwich Islands Group were discovered by James Cook in 1775; the northern three by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen in 1819". However, the Bellingshausen Island article says that Bellingshausen Island - which is one of the southern eight islands - was discovered by Bellingshausen. One of these has to be wrong but I don't know which. Matt 10:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
- Both are right in a way. Surveying the islands in poor visibility Cook failed to distinguish particular islands and named the entire group Sandwich Land. Bellingshausen described the island in question, and later the British named it in honour of the Russian explorer. Apcbg 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beauchêne remark
The remark that “some contend that De la Roche in fact saw Beauchene Island [1]” refers to a website that does not itself contend that Roché saw Beauchêne Island but merely mentions – without any substantiation – that “some contend”.
Due to the short length of the article and present layout, I am removing that unsubstantiated remark.
In the case of such a remark being brought back together with an argumented source, then I would insert also reference to original historical sources demonstrating that:
(1) Roché discovered a mountainous island; Beauchêne Island is very small and has no mountains;
(2) Roché anchored near a cape stretching to the southeast; Beauchêne Island extends in southwest-northeast direction;
(3) Roché spent 14 days in one of the island’s bays; Beauchêne Island has no bays at all but only an anchorage unusable in bad weather like that suffered by Roché;
(4) From the newly discovered island Roché saw another land some 10 leagues (about 55 km) to the southeast; while Clerke Rocks lie at a similar distance to the southeast of South Georgia, there is no such land to the southeast of Beauchêne Island;
(5) The early maps following Roché’s discovery depicted ‘Roché Island’ at the latitude of South Georgia, and well south of the Falklands vicinity (where Beauchêne belongs); while the late 17 Century navigators still had problems with their longitude, the latitude has always been easy to measure fairly accurately.
Sources:
1. The narrative of Roché’s discovery:
"... being solicitous to pass by the said Le Maire Strait in April 1675, they could not, the Winds and Currents having carried them so far to the Eastward; and being unable to return towards the Land of the Strait of Magellan, nor to make Staten Land to sail into the No. Sea by Browser’s Strait, and seeing that it was far advanced in April and beginning of Winter in that Climate, it would be much if they escaped with Life, particularly as they had no Knowledge or Intimation of the Land which they now began to see toward the East which making and using all endeavours to get near it, they found a Bay, in which they anchored close to a Point or Cape which stretches out to the Southeast with 28. 30. and 40. fathoms Sand and Rock, in which situation they had sight of some Snow Mountains near the Coast, with much bad Weather; they continued there 14 days, at the end of which time having the Weather cleared up, they found that they were at the end of that Land, near which they had anchored, and looking to the SE and South, they saw another high land covered with snow, leaving which, and the Wind setting in gently at SW and sailed out in sight of the said coast of the Island which they left to the Westward, seeing the said Southern land in the said Quarters, it appearing that from one to the other was about 10 lea. little more or less, and that there was a great Current to the NE, to which Point sailing, and steering ENE they found themselves in the No. Sea ..."
(Capt. Francisco de Seixas y Lovera, Descripcion geographica, y derrotero de la region austral Magallanica. Que se dirige al Rey nuestro señor, gran monarca de España, y sus dominios en Europa, Emperador del Nuevo Mundo Americano, y Rey de los reynos de la Filipinas y Malucas, Madrid, Antonio de Zafra, 1690.)
2. Seventeenth-century map featuring Roché Island
3. Eighteenth-century map featuring Roché Island. Apcbg 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I personally doubt that it was Beauchene island, but it is probably worth mentioning, as this is apparently one of the pieces of evidence used for the Argentine claim.--MacRusgail 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Capital
The article and infobox seem to disagree between Grytviken and King Edward Point --Henrygb 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- That confusion, or rather the usage of the name Grytviken in a wider sense including also the adjacent King Edward Point has always been the case; the distance between the two is but 800 m. King Edward Point is more of a technical term, and surely with the expansion of the Grytviken conurbation the two settlements will merge one day :-) Apcbg 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
