Talk:Edward Bransfield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Antarctica, which collaborates on articles related to Antarctica. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale. | |
[edit] Russian claims
Perhaps this belongs in the article of Antarctica and could be replaced with a brief mention that Russians claim that Brnasfield did not discover Antarctica? There is quite a bit of detail here that has nothing to do with the life of Bransfield. --Etimbo | Talk 23:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody claims that he didn't reach Antarctica, it is disputed between Russia, England and USA, who was first to discover Antarctica (see History of Antarctica article). I think that if you replace "discovered" by "reached" or "landed on" and mention, that "whether he was first to discover Antarctica is disputed by Russia and USA", it will be OK. By the way, I added only one sentence, I didn't know, that somebody will expand it and make a separate section. Cmapm 08:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Cmapm. I have removed the section and added your proposed sentence. I haven't replaced "discovered" because the first paragraph already reads "arguably the discoverer of" (my italics) which I think is neater. Cheers --Etimbo | Talk 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I personally approve, although the word discovery still may look odd for other people and if they change it, I'll not protest. For me it does not look odd considering that this is a biographical article. But if this word will once again appear in the common anniversary pages (like 1820 or January 30), I'll remove it myself, because this year on January 30 it caused the situation, when on the Main Page appeared inappropriate controversial and disputed statement: Edward Bransfield discovers Antarctica. Cmapm 21:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Cmapm. I have removed the section and added your proposed sentence. I haven't replaced "discovered" because the first paragraph already reads "arguably the discoverer of" (my italics) which I think is neater. Cheers --Etimbo | Talk 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again an Englishman “discovering” something after a Spaniard had discovered it a century before?
The south Shetland Islands were discovered by Gabriel de Castilla in March, 1603.
It is pretty funny, and a very usual “incident”.
It is the same with the Drake canal, which was “discovered” by Drake, after Francisco de Hoces discovered the Mar de Hoces (which is its real name) in 1525.
It is the same than the order received (probably by the very same Edward Bransfield) to hide the sighting of the rests of the Spanish warship “San Telmo” in the Livingston Island?
At least the first man circumnavigating the World was Juan Sebastian Elcano, despite Drake did it 70 years later. But in a couple of decades we will see in the Wikipedia “Francis Drake, first man circumnavigating the World”. No doubt.
