Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Volcanoes

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article.
Article policies
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography.

If you would like to participate, you can improve South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
South America This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

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)

Contents

[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

South Georgia is one of the world's largest and most remote islands, extremely mountainous and with a harsh challenging climate most of the year. It has nothing to do with Britain not having control of it. YourPTR! (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)
Bouvet Island
Bouvet Island

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
"Appatently"? Could you provide any sources demonstrating such actual usage? The quoted website provides no such sources. Unless the allegation of such usage is substantiated, I can hardly see that remark as appropriate. Apcbg 21:57, 10 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)

[edit] Argentine Flag

Acpbg: The quote that I added is:
"c" And the reference attached to it is:
La Infanteria de Marina en el conflicto del Atlantico Sur, Jorge Alberto Erecaborde. The original quote in Spanish is: La Compañia Argentina de Pesca SA, al amparo de las leyes argentinas y bajo su bandera, se instala en Grytviken.

It is not a childern story, but is clear enough: "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken [...] under its [Argentina] Flag."

If you want I can put "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken [...] under the Argentine Flag." and move it from the lead section to the main artile. --Argentini an 22:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I really see no use for that pompous general phrase, what is the reader supposed to get from it?
It should be a clear statement of concrete facts backed by sources.
If that is to mean simply that the company was Argentine, that was already mentioned in the company's name.
If some concrete action/event is alleged, then state it clearly and backed it by sources. Apcbg 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done a net search for author and book and I'm getting nothing. Could you provide the ISBN, Argentini an? Narson 00:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong spelling, it appears as La Infantería de Marina de la Armada Argentina en el Conflicto del Atlántico Sur 1982 - Cronología de Jorge A. Errecaborde (Argentina, 2001 - ISBN 987-433-641-2). Apcbg 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My fault. The front cover does not say "de la Armada Argentina" but in the 3rd page the book's name is as you write it, Apcbg. --Argentini an 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Getting all the hits now :) Pity they don't offer an English translated version, would be nice to read something from the ARgentinian point of view thats relativly up to date and written by an ARgentinian about their view rather than by a Brit about their view. Narson 11:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Is it ok to add the "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken under the Argentine Flag" sentence? Or would you prefer a litteral translation "the Argentine Fishing Company settled in Grytviken protected by the Argentine laws and under its Flag"?

Was there ever a consensus to put this in this text? I notice its now in there? Justin A Kuntz 10:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion was not in favour, I'll repeat it once again:
"I really see no use for that pompous general phrase, what is the reader supposed to get from it? It should be a clear statement of concrete facts backed by sources. If that is to mean simply that the company was Argentine, that was already mentioned in the company's name. If some concrete action/event is alleged, then state it clearly and backed it by sources."
Well, the present wording refers to no such concrete action or event so it's rather out of place I reckon. Apcbg 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So there is no consensus? Is it backed up by the source and does it conform to WP:RS? Justin A Kuntz 12:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, after reading one source the Argentine Government official history, it only states that the Argentines however reluctantly accepted British sovereignty. The other source, the text is so vague as to support any interpretation. I've removed the contentious piece for now. Justin A Kuntz 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzling sentence

I'm puzzling over this sentence:

"It was not until 1948 that an interpretation was conceived to allege that the original 1908 Letters Patent might have encompassed parts of the South American mainland as well as the Falklands, making the latter dependencies of themselves."

If this problematic interpretation wasn't conceived until 1948, then why had the 1908 declaration already been modified in 1917 to eliminate it? What party is supposed to have first conceived of this interpretation in 1948, and what was their motivation for doing so, given that it had been fixed thirty years earlier? Matt 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

"If this problematic interpretation wasn't conceived until 1948, then why had the 1908 declaration already been modified in 1917 to eliminate it?" That the 1917 Letters Patent would ‘eliminate’ a future 1948 interpretation could not have been the reason for those Letters Patent in the first place, could it?
Don't really understand... the "it" in "eliminate it" refers to the problematic interpretation, not the fact of its being conceived in 1948... Matt 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
As the comparison between the relevant texts of 1908 and 1917 Letters Patent quoted in the article demonstrates, the 1917 document expanded the territory of the Falkland Islands Dependencies to include also the sizable continental territory south of Graham Land, down to the Pole itself; that territory was not included in the 1908 document which listed several islands groups and the Graham Land only, with unclear southern border (Graham Land was at that time the British name for what we now call Antarctic Peninsula). The 1948 interpretation was made by Argentina (sources given in the article), probably to somehow portray the 1908 Letters Patent as deficient or invalid. Back in 1908 Argentina had no such ideas (no claim either), indeed the British Letters Patent was transmitted to Buenos Aires, and that was formally acknowledged by the Argentine Foreign Ministry on 18 March 1909 without objections. Apcbg 13:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe my comment wasn't very clear. What I'm saying is that, from the quotes given in the article, the obvious conclusion is that the 1917 modification, insofar as it affected the areas outside the Antarctic continent, was made precisely to exclude the Falkland Islands and parts of the South American continent. It then seems odd to state that this interpretation wasn't "conceived" until 1948. Perhaps it would help to state in the article that the 1948 interpretation refers to the Argentinian position (I read it at first as referring to the British position). Matt 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
I just found a reference at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140419/british_antarctic_territory/, which says "Britain registered the first claim to Antarctic Territory by Letters Patent in 1908, a claim which had to be adjusted in 1917 as it included part of Argentina and Chilean Patagonia." This seems to support my theory. Matt 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
What exactly is your theory?
If your theory is that the 1908 Letters Patent included "the Falkland Islands and parts of the South American continent", then please substantiate that by precise quotes.
If your theory is that that same interpretation was made before 1948 then you have to proviide a pre-1948 source which your reference is not. Apcbg 21:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the 1908 wording made specific reference to the Falkland Islands or South American continent. What I am saying is that the wording is ambiguous in that "situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude" could be construed as applying generally and not just to Graham Land, in which case it would include the Falklands and parts of South America. I am suggesting that one objective of the 1917 change was to exclude this area, in which case the interpretation supposedly first conceived in 1948 was actually noticed at least 30 years earlier. The reference that I quoted supports this theory as far as South America is concerned. The fact that it was written after 1948 is immaterial - it's explaining what happened in 1917. Matt 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
If you consider a fragment like “situated in Europe” that is ambiguous indeed. It says, situated where but not situated what. If you take the full text “Italy is situated in Europe” however, there is no such ambiguity.
That’s precisely what you have done with your quote from the 1908 Letters Patent — you consider just the fragment "situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude" taken out of its context. That’s the where. Why have you skipped the what part? The full text reads: "Whereas the groups of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham's Land, situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and the 80th degrees of west longitude". It must be a great stretch of imagination to have that “construed as applying generally” to include also the Falklands and South American mainland territory – maybe as part of South Georgia? Or part of the South Orkneys? Or the South Shetlands? Or the Sandwich Islands? Or part of the Graham's Land?
The year 1948 is material in that it took 40 years for Argentina to start speculating that Britain might have claimed South American mainland territory back in 1908, and that that was allegedly corrected in 1917. Both you and your reference merely repeat that 1948 speculation, the existence of which is already reported in the article. Apcbg 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hardly... the reference I gave doesn't mention any 1948 speculation. It says that the claim "had to be adjusted in 1917 as it included part of Argentina and Chilean Patagonia". In other words, the potential problems with the wording were recognised in 1917. Another reference, at http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic17-1-15.pdf, says that "clarifying" letters patent were issued in 1917 "since it had been observed that a literal interpretation of the original claim would have taken in a part of the South American mainland and Tierra del Fuego". Again, this shows that the issue was apparent in 1917. Regardless of what you or I personally feel about the ambiguity or otherwise of the wording you quoted, here are two sources that say it was felt to be problematic in 1917. What is the exact text of the source that says this issue was first raised in 1948? Perhaps there are two versions of events that will both have to be acknowledged in the article. Matt 13:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
And also, from a document published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1944 (before the supposed 1948 speculation): "Incidentally the British Letters Patent 'consolidated' into the unit much of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, an 'error' not corrected until 1917 by Revised Letters Patent" (see here). Matt 14:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC).
The relevant paragraph reads as follows:
The Letters Patent of 1843 were, as circumstances required, modified in 1876, 1892, 1908, and 1917. The Dependencies of the Falkland Islands were first specifically defined in 1908 as 'South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham's Land, situated in the South Atlantic to the south of the 50th parallel of south latitude, and lying between the 20th and 80th degrees of west longitude' and this was published in the Falkland Islands Gazette at the direction of the Governor. A copy of the Gazette was transmitted to the Argentine Foreign Ministry by the British Minister in Buenos Aires on 20 February 1909, this was acknowledged on 18 March and no protest or other action resulted at the time. In 1948 however, Argentina conceived an argument that the 1908 Letters Patent had no validity as they claimed parts of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego in addition to the places specified in them. (The reasoning which gave rise to this fatuity would have made the Falkland Islands part of the Dependencies.) The 1917 Letters Patent redefined the Dependencies to incorporate parts of the Antarctic continent (Coats Land and polar parts of the sector) and the revised sector then delimited included only the Dependencies of the Falkland Islands and so stated. (Robert K. Headland, The Island of South Georgia, Cambridge University Press, 1984, 293 pp. ISBN 0 521 25274 1.)
Could you provide some context to your quote, it's unclear who says that in relation to what. Apcbg 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(undo indent) Hello again! I see I have just replied to you also at Template talk:Outlying territories of European countries Well, fancy that! Apologies for the delay in replying here; I completely forgot about this debate. It's hard to piece together large chunks from Google's snippet view, but the full paragraph reads:

"If the British Letters Patent of 1908 were 'a consolidation into a single administrative unit of numerous earlier specific British claims', a similar interpretation can be placed on the Chilean decree of 1940. Incidentally the British Letters Patent 'consolidated' into the unit much of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, an 'error' not corrected until 1917 by Revised Letters Patent, which is a fitting commentary on its specific nature."

So, to summarise, two sources say that the potential problem with the 1908 wording was recognised by 1917, and that this at least partly helped to motivate the revised Letters Patent of that date, and a third source published in 1944 (four years prior to 1948) also mentions the alleged "error". On the other hand, your reference says that "In 1948 however, Argentina conceived an argument that the 1908 Letters Patent had no validity as they claimed parts of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego in addition to the places specified in them."

I wonder if the problem might be that somehow that last statement got interpreted as "It was not until 1948 that an interpretation was conceived...". The text arguably doesn't actually say this. It doesn't definitely say that there was no prior conception of such a problem, just that Argentina conceived an argument that the 1908 Letters Patent had no validity because of such a potential interpretation. Therefore I wonder if the article ahould just remain neutral on this point, and say something like "In 1948, Argentina..." rather than "It was not until 1948 that..." Matt 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

I do not object to the suggested wording "In 1948, Argentina ...". As for the couple of references to alternative opinion of the motivation behind the 1917 Letters Patent, such references are unnecessary in this SGSSI article as there is no doubt that both the 1908 and 1917 Letters Patent covered SGSSI, while the alleged motivation does not concern the islands at all. Apcbg 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the wording of this part to remove the words "not until" and also to make it clear that it was Argentina that conceived the argument mentioned, having originally not protested. Matt 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Number of Islands

For the Falkland Islands article it says there are 778 islands in that particular archipelago, just out of interest, does anyone know how many islands make up South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? YourPTR! 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina

I've filed a requested move of the article Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province (the province that, according to Argentina, SGSSI belong to) and thought people here might be interested in taking part. Thanks. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)